Introduction
Between December 1998 and February 1999, over 10,000 local government councillors and chairmen, over 500 state assemblymen, 36 state governors, 360 National House of Representatives members, 109 National Senators and 1 National President/VP ticket were elected nationwide into offices in Nigeria. They were all sworn in between May 29 and June 4, 1999.
Here is the clincher: except for the local government councillors, whose terms might be up in the Year 2002, - notice the word "might", used advisedly because there are still court battles going on over this particular issue - all these elected representatives have four-year terms,
which means that they will ALL be up for re-nomination by the end of the Year 2002 and due for re-election in the Year 2003.
For any country, that situation is a tall political order, and an administrative nightmare to have so many elected officials engaged actively in political campaigns all at the same time. Governance will virtually be at a stand-still as all of them go from one campaign site to
another, and as their opponents try to take their jobs from them.
Furthermore, theoretically, all the representatives can lose their seats in one fell swoop - with the way and manner in which they have behaved so far, some would feel that they all deserve to lose their seats - leading to a new "learning process" excuse all over again!
Why and how did it come to this? One can only imagine that those who devised the election laws in our country under which these officials contested were not forwarding-looking enough to discern this imminent danger, while the "onlookers" were too keen to "release" the military back
into their barracks and hence wished to go on with the elections. In any case, since no one saw the military-imposed 1999 Constitution until two weeks before the May 29 hand-over to civilians - that is after the last set of elections (for the presidency) of February 27, some of us
"onlookers" could be forgiven.
On the whole, the 1998/1999 election process engineered by General Abdusalami Abubakar was a monumentally rushed job, and its effects may yet bite us if we don't make many mid-stream corrections. The same is to be said for the 1999 Constitution itself - another essay by itself.
The Suggected New Sequencing
Now that the milk has been spilt, though, what do we do? How has this issue been tackled elsewhere?
In the United States which runs a similar presidential and representative system such as ours, it has been resolved through a method of differences in terms of office of the President (4 years; two-term limit) and Senate (6 years; no term limit) and the House (4 years; no term limit), as well as STAGGERING within the Senate (one-third re-elected every two years.)
The argument for a longer term in the US Senate (and older-age entry level than the House of Representatives) made in the Federalist Papers No. 62 was that its members represented larger constituencies and required a longer time to master such constituencies and legislations, and that it made for a more stable and sober senate compared with the more rapidly changing House.
There is great wisdom in this American system, written into its Constitution RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING by its Founding Fathers. It should be commended - with appropriate modifications - to the Nigerian system just for that: its wisdom.
The question though is that how can this now be done - FAIRLY if at all - given that nothing like this was done back in 1999? Obviously, whatever we do now requires constitutional and electoral law reforms - but let us ignore those minor technical details of MECHANISM for now and discuss the REFORMS needed themselves.
- The first is to change the Presidential term RIGHT NOW to 6 years, beginning with the incumbent president Obasanjo, and specify that he serve one term only and leave us peacefully in the Year 2005. While I have reason to believe that this particular proposal is already in the offing for different political reasons other than this danger of large-scale simultaneous changes in office - I don't believe that president Obasanjo is looking happily forward to a re- election bid - I am in support of a one-term, six-year presidency in Nigeria (with a possibility of a maximum of non-successive two terms) to defuse this issue of hogging an office.
The one-term limit increases the speed with which different persons from different political zones in Nigeria can vie for the presidency. Mind you, one is opposed to any kind of MECHANICAL ROTATION of the office of the president, but there is something to be said for opening up the field without concerns about an unfair use of the power of incumbency.
- The term of National House of Representatives should be left at its present four years, but only half of the incumbents should be up for re-election in the Year 2003, while the other half should be automatically extended till the Year 2005 when they will come up for re-election for four more years.
- The term of the National Senate should be extended from the present 4 years to 6 years. However, one-third of the incumbents should contest in the Year 2003, another third should be
automatically extended and be up for re-election in the Year 2005 while the rest should have an automatic extension till the year 2007. All would be re-electable for six more years afterwards.
- In the states, the governors should have maximum of a 5-year term (thus, present governors should be extended for one more year), while the state assemblies should also begin their four-year terms staggered in a manner similar to that prescribed above for the National House of
Representatives.
- The local governments should have a three-year term, beginning immediately, with the next election in the Year 2002. This will enable local governments to have elections mainly in off-years, but sometimes along with the other officers that are up for re-election.
Deciding who contests, who is deferred
How do we decide TODAY those presently elected officials who will be extended by zero, two or four years? First, we must note that ALL the officials would have served the four years for which they originally signed up for in the Year 1999, so no howls of unfairness can come as a result of these preferential choices for extension. Secondly, to complete the fairness, it will be necessary to balance these preferential choices first BY geographical location and THEN by PARTY.
- For the National House of Representatives, for those who will be extended for a further two years, we choose half of the constituencies from each political zone, in congruence (as much as possible) with that half being of the elected officials from each party, PROVIDED those
extended in a given political zone are not more than half from any one party.
- For the Senate, for those who will be extended for a further two years, we choose third of the constituencies from each political zone, in congruence (as much as possible) with that one-third being of the elected officials from each party, PROVIDED those extended in a given political zone are not more than third from any one party. Since there are six senators per state, it should not be too difficult to choose two who should run in 2003, two in 2005 and two for 2007.
- The same kind of considerations should be done in the State assemblies and local government councils.
- As a concession to the leadership, the constitutencies of the incumbent leadership of the Houses and Senate (Speakers and Deputy-Speakers, Senate President and Deputy President) should be extended for two more years.
- After all extensions have been fulfilled, no geographical or party considerations are made: the constituencies have re-election contests conducted based on when their time comes up.
The important thing to note here is that the process be done TRANSPARENTLY. I would recommend an open lottery be done within the restrictions outlined above, so that EVERYONE understands that no discriminatory TARGETTING of particular officials are being carried out. For example, where party numbers cannot be split, those seats should be left alone and extended for no more than two years.
Term Limits
I have already written above in favor of a one-term, six-year presidency. For the other offices, I believe that it would be fair to require a two or three-term limit for them for similar reasons to that of the presidency. However, the issue of term limits must be separated from the sequencing outlined above.
Adjusting the election cycle
The 1999 hand-over anniversary is May 29, a mid-year event. This is a peculiar situation for the following reason:
Year 1: May 29, 1999 - May 28, 2000 - first ("green") year in office
Year 2: May 29, 2000 - May 28, 2001 - second ("settling-down") year
Year 3: May 29, 2001 - May 28, 2002 - third (nomination) year
Year 4: May 28, 2002 - May 29, 2003 - fourth (election) year
Thus we see that in fact the nomination and election ("electioneering") years span through three years - 2001, 2002 and 2003 - out of a 4-year term, while the entire process spans through five years: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003! We can see some of those posturings already occurring in Nigeria, with many governors declaring their readiness for re-election, and questions being asked of the president as to his pleasure for re-election. This mid-year change-over also affects the budget cycle, with the possibility of a new executive and legislature having to tamper with a budget in mid-year.
I propose that ALL elections be held between October 1 and December 10 of any given year, and nominations and primaries over six months (February to July) within the same year and campaigns for five months, thereby shortening the election process tremendously. The new executives can
therefore have full budget cycles beginning in the first January of their first year of election.
Conclusion
The above should be tasks that should be considered in the ongoing electoral reform process. It remains to be seen whether enough support for it can be mustered to pass some or all of these suggestions in time for the next round of elections.
Guides
