Do Direct Primaries Make for Internal Democracy?

Applaud the Senate? What For?

I found it rather bizarre, and wondered what kind of Senate Nigeria has, when the media and members of the public were more or less praising and hailing them last week for succumbing to the will of the people, and amending Section 52(3) of the Electoral Act 2010 (EA)! Pray, tell, what is the function of the Senate, if not to reflect the will of the people in their lawmaking?! The resultant effect of their amendment, is to allow INEC (Independent National Electoral Commission) to transmit election results (and total number of accredited voters – Section 63 of the EA) in a manner prescribed by INEC, which could be electronically or by any means determined by INEC, without the interference of the National Assembly (NASS) and Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC). Why should the Senate be applauded, for making an effort (for once) to do their job properly, after their initial slip up? As if they are doing Nigerians a favour! Part of what the Senate had passed into law previously as the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2020 (or is it 2021), was clearly, unconstitutional; and, I am glad that the type of public outcry and condemnation against the Senate’s shenanigans, yielded the desired results in this regard.

It seems that we have all forgotten, including the Senate themselves, that Nigerians were the ones who ‘voted’ them in, and it is for the purpose of making laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation. It is obvious that transmitting results electronically is for the good government of Nigeria, since it will reduce the incidence of rampant, incessant election fraud and malpractice (See Section 4(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution)).

With the electronic transmission of accredited voters and results, INEC’s intention to retire the smart card reader (which has been used for two electoral cycles), and INEC’s new multifunctional and multidimensional ‘Z Pad’ device which can be used for different functions within the electoral process, we expect more seamless, credible elections going forward, and a reduced number of election petitions.

Disappointment

I was however, disappointed that the Senate did not consider Section 31(1) of the EA which prohibits INEC from rejecting or disqualifying candidates for any reason whatsoever. I have shouted myself hoarse as far as this issue is concerned, maintaining that this provision should have come with a proviso allowing INEC to reject candidates who clearly do not meet laid down constitutionally provided thresholds for elective positions, for example, age requirements. An amendment in this regard would have complemented the other modifications, to make our electoral process more credible and less litigious, as well as unclogging the judicial system at the same time. The present situation that subsists, where 34 year old candidates have to be dragged to court for the court to declare that they are not qualified to run for Gubernatorial elections, when Section 177(b) of the Constitution unequivocally provides thus, makes no sense at all. See the ANDP Bayelsa Gubernatorial Election Case which went all the way to the Supreme Court – such a waste of time and energy. If anything, such matters are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process.

Direct v Indirect Primaries

Indirect

The Senate also amended Section 87 of the EA, deleting the use of indirect primaries, and only providing for direct primaries to nominate candidates for elections. Some feel that that this move will improve internal democracy, within the political parties. I wonder! One thing I’m however, sure about, is that there is nothing particularly altruistic about the Senate making this new alteration – it is mostly self-serving. This time, it is Legislators against Governors (moneybags or whoever). The Legislators probably want to be able to return to their positions time and time again unhindered, without ‘wahala’, whether they perform creditably or not, without any Governor or whoever hijacking the delegates with money and determining the outcome of the primaries, replacing them with their own favourites.

Though proponents of direct primaries argue that it is a more democratic system, the truth of the matter is that both systems, that is, direct and indirect primaries, have their pros and cons; and in Nigeria, either one can be manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. APC obviously did not master the art of indirect primaries, and maybe that’s one of the reasons why their Legislators have moved to remove it from the EA completely. I recall how APC Rivers State particularly entertained Nigerians in 2018, even more than a captivating Nollywood drama, with the issue of their State Congress, choosing delegates and indirect primaries. Their Zamfara State counterparts, did more or less the same. At the end of the day, INEC didn’t recognise the APC primaries in both States, and they ended up with no candidates for the various 2019 elections.

The indirect system is one in which the political parties had their ways of picking the delegates, who would then vote for the those aspiring for the ticket of the political party for one elective position or the other. For instance, Article 20 of the APC Constitution provides for both direct and indirect primaries, and is rather flexible on how delegates should be chosen to vote for candidates at the primaries. If there is no consensus candidate, apart from the position of Councillor which must be secured by means of direct primaries (Article 20 (ii)(a)APC Constitution), all other positions could be secured by direct or indirect primaries.

The PDP Constitution in Chapter 8 provides for the nomination of candidates for election into public offices, and Section 50(1) gives PDP’s NEC the power to formulate guidelines for elections at all levels, subject to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the EA and the PDP Constitution. Like the APC, by virtue of Section 50(3) of the PDP Constitution, only the Congress for the elections of candidates for Councillor (and Ward Officers) was mandated to be by direct primaries.
It looks to me as if, for the less important elections, political parties were happy to use direct primaries and let the chips fall where they may, especially as the lower level primaries are not near as expensive to run as the higher level ones, and the stakes are not as high.

For the Houses of Assembly, NASS, Gubernatorial and Presidential primaries, the indirect elections (delegate system) were used; with the delegate system, it is obviously easier and cheaper to bribe less number of people; that is, it may be easier to corrupt the process to achieve a desired end. And, this is what happened from one electoral cycle to the next – tales of delegates taking bribes from the various aspirants, and selling out to the highest bidder in exchange for their votes.

Direct

With the introduction of the direct primaries for all elections of candidates into public offices, all eligible party members will be able to vote in the various primaries. It is obviously more expensive to have to bribe all eligible party members, in order to secure candidateship. But, with political parties who are already fond of vote-buying in general elections, what would be the big deal in replicating the same style for direct primaries? Those antagonists of indirect primaries, maintain that it is an easier way to impose candidates by compromising delegates, thereby thwarting any idea of internal democracy; and that, furthermore, usually, at the point that the actual primaries take place, those who show up as delegates are not the ones elected or chosen to be so – that an ‘abracadabra’ would have occurred overnight, to replace the real delegates with fake ones who are there to do the bidding of those who have hijacked the primaries process. Again, I remember the APC primaries in Delta State during the last election cycle, where one of the aspirants complained on live television that he did not know where the venue for the primaries was, and accused his fellow party members of being evil!

But, direct primaries also come with its own drawbacks. For one, if the party membership registers are not cleaned up well in advance of the primaries, it is also easy to fiddle with them and bring in fake members for the purposes of the primaries, to vote for favoured aspirants. In fact, there are even people who are members of more than one political party, and will partake in the primaries of more than one political party!

All is not lost for election riggers – direct primaries can be done through secret ballot or Option A4. The Option A4 is where voters are made to line up according to their candidates, and vote for them by being head counted openly. To all intents and purposes, the process looks transparent and ‘above board’. You will recall that in 2018, it was the Option A4 system that was used to oust Governor Ambode from the race against Governor Sanwo-Olu. This was done through intimidation of the delegates who voted in the primaries, by the APC Lagos State party leaders through their foot soldiers. Many videos made the rounds at the time, with voting members being commanded to vote for Governor Sanwo-Olu, as dissent would not be tolerated. Since the delegates lined up for either ‘Sanwo’ or ‘Ambo’, it would have been easy to identify those who disobeyed the directive from above to vote for Sanwo; most party members were not bold enough to defy their leaders.

Conclusion

So, which system of primaries is the best? Direct or indirect primaries? Is the issue of primaries an intra-party matter which political parties should have been left to decide themselves? Last weekend, quite a few party Congresses took place in different parts of the country, and one thing seems certain to me – whatever system is adopted, be it direct or indirect, grabbing the party machinery at State level is crucial, as this also goes a long way to achieve desired outcomes. “Sorry, Legislators”, those in charge – the money bags – the Governors or whoever the political godfathers may be, still seem to be in charge of the party machinery which they can use to their advantage to get the outcomes they desire at the primaries. For quite a few who tried to seize party positions from the godfathers, we simply kept hearing ‘consensus’ candidates across the Congresses; and ‘Presto’! the consensus candidates were none other than those belonging to the camps of the ‘godfathers’ whose candidates the direct primaries system hopes to oust. I truly wonder, whether the insistence on direct primaries, will have much impact on fostering internal democracy or enabling a better electoral process. Nigerian politicians are adept at manipulating and corrupting most circumstances they find themselves in! What do you think, my dear Readers?