It is imperative that Nigerians understand the presidential system of democracy under which they are governed and position themselves to make informed inputs to the democratisation process. In no area is the need more felt than in the campaign finance field. With the proceedings in campaign finance and the use of administrative resources, especially at the presidential level, in the 2015 elections, it is clear that governance in the next tenure is coming with a lot of baggage and Nigerians seem not to know or appreciate the fact. Whether it is the PDP or the APC that wins the presidential election, it will have a lot of un-appropriated debts to pay. Yes, debts to pay because it is the nature of campaign financiers and big-time donors to demand to be repaid, and not just ordinarily, but repaid with incredible interest. Unfortunately, the legislature did not approve the borrowing in the first instance in accordance with the law.
In recognition of the undue influence of money in politics, the Electoral Act restricted individual’s or association’s donation to a candidate to not more than N1 million. But developments in the race to the 2015 elections show that the law is obeyed in the breach. The N1 million limitation will be almost exhausted by two full-page print media advertisements. Pray, who is paying for the minute-by-minute advertisements in the electronic media, including the hate messages? Who is paying for the overwhelming advertisements in the print media even when they pretend to be “do-good” third parties? Who is bringing the money in the tens of millions for campaigns and rallies, hire of stadiums, event venues, aircrafts and jets, T-shirts, other branded paraphernalia and logistics of campaigns and rallies? When the list of the donors on both sides is unveiled, you will not just shudder, but discover the reasons and foundations for Nigeria’s underdevelopment. The coincidence of the huge fuel subsidy bill in 2011 and the presidential elections in the same year should not be lost on Nigerians. The scandalous bill could have been used to settle campaign financiers.
Those paying for these expenses are mainly businessmen and women who trade for profit and they see their support to a candidate as an investment to be recouped, if possible, a thousand-fold. How will a government pay back these campaign debts? Historical experience shows that they can hardly be paid back through a legal means. And no one draws out money from the treasury without a reason. Therefore, there must be contract inflation, abandonment of contracts whilst the authorities look the other way, low quality jobs delivered against the high quality paid for at the public expense, etc. This will reinforce the cycle of poverty and underdevelopment leading to poor infrastructure, stunted economic growth and pervasive rent-seeking. When pervasive rent-seeking becomes the norm among the money and political elite, the appetite for investment in the real sector, especially long gestation investments that will grow the economy, will wane and everyone now focuses on the short-term rents to be collected at the public expense. No country develops or grows with this approach.
Ultimately, good practices in campaign finance facilitates good governance after election because the candidate who is now in a position of authority will not be beholden to any shady interest other than the public good. Public officials will not be under any unwritten but illegal obligation to favour certain vested interests simply because they contributed to campaign expenses. For the candidate who wins election and gets into office, he is the one the electorate will hold responsible by evaluating his performance. The people do not know and may not know the financiers who bear no electoral reputation or risk and do not stand to be voted for. When a candidate’s reputation is destroyed, they simply move on to the next candidate who may help them get access to state resources through their investment in the campaign. Candidates should therefore deal with these political investors with caution.
For the poor in towns and rural areas who are quick to collect rice, salt, sugar, fertilizers, etc, the warning is that it is not free. By collecting the peanuts and being influenced by it, you are selling your vote and endorsing a future of continued deprivation and poverty. For every thousand-naira worth of commodity you are given, the giver will replenish beyond your contemplation. If you must sell your vote, how much is it worth? Definitely, your vote has no material value; it is your human dignity. It cannot be quantified in monetary terms as it cannot be commoditised. Essentially, the vote is an expression of your personhood and should not be trivialised by filthy lucre.
Eze Onyekpere
