Govt business cannot be left to charlatans – Igini

In this interview with MUDIAGA AFFE, the Resident Electoral Commissioner of the Independent National Electoral Commission in Cross River State, Mr. Mike Igini, speaks on ways to improve the electoral system ahead of 2015.

With the experiences during the just-concluded general elections, what areas, in your view can the INEC improve in order to have better elections in 2015?

If we are to be taken seriously as a people and as a nation by the rest of the world on matters of election and democracy and to avoid these perennial self -imposed excuses of lack of adequate time for preparation for elections, we must commence preparations for 2015 elections now. On areas of electoral improvement, there are quite a number of areas to focus on in order to strengthen our democracy. Primarily, we must again improve on the voter register and commence the process of continuous registration as soon as possible. We should stop this idea of shutting down the entire economy through enforced idleness because of elections. Once the voter roll is right and content known to all stakeholders by a simple authentification process of biometrics of a voter accompanied with issuance of a slip from the authentification machine; like the Automated Teller Machine after cash withdrawal as evidence, a voter could vote immediately and return back home or to his or her place of business. This is to obviate this whole idea of somebody standing and waiting for accreditation from 8 am to 12noon and even till 1pm for commencement, which means that we could be through with voting processes by or before 2pm. The concern here is not really how early we could be through with the election but on how we can streamline the process to secure more time that would encourage the electorate and thus increase participation on election day. We can use the remaining governorship elections that are coming up soon as pilot scheme to re-examine genuine complaints about what happens between polling units and ward collation centres after results have been announced publicly at polling unit. On the need for early preparation for 2015, recall that before the election, we had very little time to prepare and the schedule was so constrained that changes in any shape or form, necessitated that INEC had to approach the legislature on several occasions to adjust the enabling laws; to accommodate the emergent issues. But INEC under the leadership of Prof. Jega pressed on, knowing the national challenges which the country faced at that critical point. Given the benefit of hindsight, however, there are structural and process changes that we must undertake before 2015. Keep in mind though, that in the last election, almost all of us, namely, INEC, the government, the political class, the media, security officials and the voting public, were all prisoners of time and guinea pigs in the laboratory of electoral reform, we knew what we wanted, we knew the tools required and where we wanted to go, but we were all feeling our way through such things as the adaptation of new technology to registration, and the best ways to get there as well as how to react to the emergent issues within the precincts of the enabling electoral laws, some of which were changed midstream. Knowing the principles which guided our resolve for change, we believed that there had to be change in the electoral process, not just change for its sake, but real change which the Nigerian voting public could practically relate to. On the part of INEC, one thing that was not in doubt was the fact that INEC under Professor Jega, was determined to distance itself, from the legacy of our ugly electoral past which it was bequeathed, by the preceding events in the commission. From the events of the just concluded election, it is now becoming clearer to INEC what works well and what needs to be strengthened regarding electoral reforms, if the commission was performing at 20 per cent effectiveness prior to the elections, it is now acquainted with what it takes to perform at 60 per cent and how to go beyond that.

How can INEC be made more accountable?

To be more accountable, the processes which lead to electoral outcomes that are acceptable by the voting public will have to be strengthened and those which belie that goal will have to change. To attain this goal, we have to foster objectives that empower marginalised and disenfranchised population groups; assist in raising public awareness, citizen education and mobilisation; at the moment, poverty and illiteracy remain threats to our democracy, we have seen how salt, rice and other basic food items determined the decision of those in these vulnerable groups. We should encourage persons with integrity who are concerned with public causes, to participate as candidates; support and cooperate with other concerned state agencies in the quality of information shared; ensure a sustained process of communication and engagement with citizens and electorate in between elections on issue-based political and developmental education; promote a culture of internal democracy amongst political parties; and above all foster transparency, accountability, credibility and public trust in the governance of electoral processes and the management of the electoral commission.

How should corrupt INEC officials be treated and how can the commission’s staff be insulated from corruption?

Corruption is a very broad concept, and electoral corruption is one aspect. Having a holistic approach to control corruption has to be addressed at different levels. First, at the primary unit of society, the family unit, we have to re-enforce values which discourage the notion that success is only acceptable when it is defined in materials terms, because all the research done on happiness, also known as the science of salutogenesis has shown that money or material things alone do not guarantee satisfaction and happiness. Secondly, on the individual level, we have to encourage a situation around our citizens, where the basics of life cannot come only when people are forced to acquire wealth in quantum sum from corrupt practices. To understand this notion more succinctly, we have to ask ourselves, when people acquire wealth what do they do with it? Because nobody seeks money for its own sake, except you have a psychopathic affinity for collection of paper or coins, people acquire wealth for the “good life” –a car for the family, access to healthcare when you require it, shelter which dignifies the individual, affordable food which guarantees life, education- and so on- The more difficult it is to acquire such basics, the higher the tendency for individual’s susceptibility to corruption. Public institutions as l have seen so far encourage corruption.

Understand me clearly, this is not saying that if society has provided ways to access these things, without necessarily getting hold of large sums of money all at once, there will not be corrupt people. There will be such people, who the law has provisions to address their aberrant ways, but I am saying that, if we work towards a society which guarantees the individual greater access to the “good-life”, we will first reduce the susceptibility of corrupt people working for INEC.

INEC will always recruit its staff from our society. For this reason, we strongly advocate that due to the task which INEC workers have to carry out, where the policy-makers of society are determined, and the stakes are high, the risks are also high, therefore, the people who work everyday at INEC, should have a remuneration package that is outside our normal civil service structure. And on this, the good news is that the current leadership of the commission is already looking into this in order to insulate its staff from corrupt influences. Unfortunately, all the huge billions that you hear about have nothing to do with the staff in terms of salaries and other perquisite. On an institutional level, the best way to encourage good behaviour is to punish bad behaviour, because a rewarded action will be repeated, therefore, any proven misdemeanour, graft, malfeasance, etc. on the part of an INEC official once proven, no matter what level such an officer is placed, must be dealt with to the full extent of the law.

How can the commission raise the bar on electoral contest to discourage the unfit/charlatans from contesting?

Regarding this issue, I have already said that, God forbid that INEC should be interested in the candidates who emerge as the contestants under any party, but the process from which such a contestant emerges is what should be of interest to the electorate in order to give meaning and purpose to democracy. It should be an enduring rather than an evanescent process. We should raise the bar of electoral contest by instituting policy issues and implementation based debate among contestants from councillorship, local government chairmanship, state legislators, governorship as was done in some states in the just concluded election up to Presidency in order to discourage the unfit and the intellectually challenged ones who rely on money alone and not ideas to win elections.

We must create an enabling environment that will encourage the best amongst us to lead and not the worst or school dropouts with lots of money. The business of governance is too serious to be left in the hands of mediocre and charlatans. We must examine and take seriously our political entry recruitment process.

If motor park boys and refrigerator repairers are the ones we are recruiting as councillors, some of whom will aspire to higher political office, what future do you expect? If contestants do not know and do not understand the issues of common interest to the ordinary people, the very reason for the existence of government; by what means do you expect them to proffer solution? That is why you see some of these clueless jokers that you call leaders around always reading from prepared handouts even to mention names of ministries and key sectors. Does a responsible family man with a wife and four children need a prepared handout to state the number of his children and their needs?

Given our recent experience, I believe it is in the interest of all stakeholders, to address the deficiencies observed during the last party nominations.