Whether the voters’
registration exercise has ended or not is not the issue many Nigerians
are talking about these days. The concerns about that exercise are
largely about the huge sums spent on its execution compared to the
number of voters actually registered.
The electoral
commission informed us that about 60 million Nigerians have been
registered to vote in the April 2010 elections. That is not too bad
considering that they had a target of about 70 million. What may sour
the statistics would be if the cases of multiple registrations were
identified, weeded out, and the total number is big enough to reduce
the overall number of voters substantially.
Some analysts claim
that the electoral commission spent N1, 500 per voter if they
registered 60 million. If this number gets whittled down, it would mean
that the cost of registering one voter might actually be higher than
this estimate.
Some preliminary
questions that come to mind are with regard to the actual value of a
voter’s card. Is it worth N1, 500 or more? Can the value be enhanced by
certain factors or is it plain crazy trying to price the card at all?
If voting is a right, can you price your right?
The second layers
of questions are to do with the reasons why some people engaged in
multiple registrations with one person getting caught with as many as
four cards! One can only imagine how many times they had their finger
prints captured and how they must have laughed at the high tech system
that was not networked and thus could be fooled at will. The electoral
commission says they will weed out multiple registrations when all
captured data are downloaded into their central system. We shall see.
What will happen to
those who are still in possession of multiple cards and are far from
getting caught? When will they know that they have been weeded out? It
is possible that some may even get through to the voting period without
being caught at any time. If that happens, what will be the value of
their stock of cards? Will they choose to sell the cards or would they
vote for all candidates and so stand a chance of claiming that they
voted for whosoever won?
It is not likely
that a voter who risked all to obtain multiple cards would want to use
them for fun. It is reasonable to assume that the intention is to make
merchandise of the cards and sell to the highest bidder, who would
probably not pay the owner to carry out the multiple voting but would
simply purchase the cards and find some ways of using them in more
reliable ways that would eliminate the treachery that could occur in
the voting booth away from watchful eyes.
Although vote
buying may be entrenched in Nigeria, it is not a peculiarly Nigerian
phenomenon or invention. When one looks back into history, there are
several cases where vote buying was entrenched and was openly
advertised. Such cases can be found in the history of the United States
of America and in several other places.
In 1812 Britain, a
certain noble man, George Venables-Vernon, left his son-in-law, “one
sum not exceeding £5,000 towards the purchase of a seat in Parliament.”
Office purchases and related practices were eventually halted through a
1883 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act.
In the
nineteen-century USA, the price of votes were often quoted, even in
newspapers. One paper, The Elizabethtown Post, reportedly quoted the
price of a vote in Ulster County as being $25.
Whereas vote
selling and buying has transformed into other phenomena in the Western
world, such as campaign donations and lobbying, it is still possible to
see it in many countries in Africa. In fact, in some African countries,
where vote buying does not suffice, an incumbent loser can simply
refuse to vacate office. After much haggling, they may decide to share
offices with presumed winners and carry on as if nothing happened. Or
you may end up with two presidents.
Analysts have seen
that the price of a vote could vary even within the same country and
the office for which the politician is seeking. For example, where the
national legislature is more powerful in terms of determining the
direction of the state and the office of the president is merely
ceremonial, then the vote for a legislator becomes more costly.
The average cost of
a vote for those seeking election to the national assembly in Sao Tome
and Principe in their 2006 election was said to be about $7.10,
although in the capital this was five times more costly. The price of a
vote for the presidency was slightly more than half of that for the
national assembly because the president wields power mainly on issues
of foreign affairs and defence. With oil revenue’s floodgates opening
up, those who have more influence over the economy pay more to garner
the needed votes to sit over the pie.
In Nigeria, the
votes can easily be arranged in a hierarchy of prices starting from the
vote for a local government councillor to that for the president. What
may be a bit tricky to rank would be the price differential between the
vote for a senator and that for a governor. The confusion comes from
the fact that many former governors forget that they had governed whole
states and often angle to represent a third of their states as senators.
However, in terms
of which office is more lucrative (via corruption), that of the
governor takes the cake, no matter how much salaries and perks the
senators legislate for themselves. If people got elected to provide
selfless service, vote buying, ballot box snatching (a form of
wholesale purchase of votes), and electoral violence would not be the
norm.
What is the price of your vote?
