ATTENTION:
BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
WHATSAPP US ON 08137701720
THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 Background of the study
Fourth Republic has elevated corruption, impunity and meddlesomeness to political creeds that have robbed governance the much needed responsive and caring human face. This is double jeopardy: bad politics and poor economic
management characterised by collapsing institutions, disoriented political elites and a abused, violated, disillusioned and disenfranchised populace, has led to governance that has failed to deliver the much promised and political
dividends of democracy (The Nation 2009: 15).
The project, therefore, in its attempt to explain this ugly phenomenon of failed, uncaring and unresponsive governance, will link it up to the perennial problem of the nation’s inability and even unwillingness on the part of the political
class to put in place a credible, lawful and democratic electoral process. Thus, the main objective of this research endeavour is to establish a nexus between poor governance and inability and unwillingness of the managers of the Nigerian polity to evolve a democratic electoral regime. The crux of the argument is that
the failure of governance to meet fundamental needs and aspirations of majority of Nigerians is largely a product of the crisis of electoral administration
in Nigeria. Basically, these two issues have come to dominate the discourse on
the travails of democracy in contemporary Nigeria.
Election is the most foundational element of modern day representative democracy. In fact, according to Alapiki (2004: 130), election is:
…the barometer to measure the political maturity, health, legitimacy and stability of a democratic governance. It is generally held to be the single most important indicator of the presence or absence of democratic governance.
Thus, how a state arranges and conducts its elections tells a lot about the level of political development of that particular state (Paki and Inokoba 2006: 181). What is an election? In its most inclusive form, election is defined as: a form of procedure, recognised by the rules of an organisation, whereby all or some of the
members of the organisation choose a smaller member of persons or one person to hold office or authority in the organisation (International Encyclopaedia of Social Science 1972: 1). In a rather restricted sense, Okolie (2005:
436) defines election as, “the process of selecting the officers or representatives of an organization or group by vote of its qualified members”. And as a political phenomenon, elections are institutionalised procedures for choosing
political office holders by the electorate of a country. In other words, it is a means through which the electorate choose their representatives into the different organs (positions) of the government (Paki and Inokoba 2006: 181).
However, a more encompassing definition was posited by Bain (1964: 162). He conceives election as: …the formal process by which the electorate selects officials and determines the issues submitted to it. It is therefore a procedure for choosing officials or making binding decisions concerning policy by the vote of those formally qualified to participate.
The above position is also in line with the definition offered by the Encyclopaedia Americana (Vol. 10, 1996), which conceives election as “a procedure for choosing concerning policy by the vote of those formally qualified to participate”.
In a nutshell, from the foregoing, election is a formal procedure recognised by law as well as a decision taken by the electorate to decide those who occupy public offices and as well as policy direction of a policy. It is in line with this position that conceived election as a social contract between the people and their governors. As such he sees it as “the process by which a person is linked to an office with due provision for the participation of the people meant to come under the officer’s authority”. This perception of election as a framework for forming a government based on popular consent is what makes the product of transparent and credible elections, a responsible, responsive and accountable government.
However, for elections to tamper positively on the output of governance the electoral system
must be just, fair and provides a level
playing ground for political actors. It is for this
reason that the project categorised elections into
two broad types: Democratic and undemocratic
elections. Democratic elections in line with the
views of Lindberg (2001), Tyani and Shastry
(2007) and Animashaun (2008), are elections
conducted according to the provisions of the
electoral law and constitution with transparency,
fairness, justice and equity without the
interference of the incumbent leadership. A
major distinction of a democratic election is
the unfettered participation of high proportion
of the electorate and all existing political
parties- this enhances the democratic quality
of elections. In a democratic election, there is
an absence of electoral violence and other forms
of intimidation because the contestants and
supporters understand virtues of diversity and
different viewpoints. This is quite instructive
because a decent level of competition is central
for democratic qualities like accountability
and responsiveness of the elected officials.
In addition, it is also opined that democratic
elections create a special kind of state (Hadenius
2001: 131). There is a general consensus that
they create an inclusive, interactive and responsive
state, open to intercourse in regulated
ways with its citizens. Under this environment,
governance becomes as approximation of the
yearnings, needs and generality of the citizenry.
In contrast, however, undemocratic elections
are pervasion and negation of all known
democratic tenets. They are characterised by
electoral fraud compassing all forms of electoral
malpractices, irregularities and rigging, which
have underlying criminal intents and purposes.
They connote criminal and illegal electoral
acts, which unduly sway electoral victory to
the desired and unpopular direction. Electoral
fraud could take the form of stuffing ballot
boxes with ballot projects well ahead of actual
voting; seizure of or hoarding of electoral materials;
manipulation and fabrication of electoral
results; use of law enforcement agencies to
intimidate, maim and disenfranchised eligible
voters; murder of political opponents, etc. (Okolie
2005: 437). However, it is pertinent we make
a distinction between electoral fraud and electoral
irregularities. While electoral fraud is
characterised by actions that are designed to
undermine democratic principles and popular
will, electoral irregularity is occasioned by unconscious
shortcomings emanating from the
electoral system. And the reason why the Nigerian
electoral crisis has endured for so long is
because it is deliberately created and is beneficial
to a fraction of the political class that is
bent on maintaining the present status quo. And
the products- that is, the government of undemocratic
elections are distinctively exclusive, dictatorial,
corrupt, predatory and unresponsive to
the needs and yearnings of the populace. Since
it is a non-participatory political set-up, the ultimate
outcome is the output of governance
that falls short of the expectations and needs
of majority of the citizenry.
This takes us to the next concept- how do
we conceptualise governance?
1.2 Statement of the problem
Conducting free and fair election has been a
weighty albatross in Nigeria’s repeated attempts
at sustained democratic governance is a fact
widely acknowledged. According to the International
Institute for Democracy and Electoral
Assistance (IDEA) that the electoral process in
the country faces many administrative, attitudinal
and political problems that have consistently
challenge meaningful, open and democratic
elections in Nigeria (Nwanuforo 2009).
From the fallout of previous electoral exercises,
elections in Nigeria are either undemocratically
guided or organised to fail or the process
and the project privatised by sections of
the political class.
Since the colonial period, Nigeria has
organised about 19 elections. Apart from the
inconclusive June 12 elections of 1993, they
were all congenitally marred by electoral fraud.
These elections were characterised by serious
and blatant cases of electoral fraud such as
stuffing of ballot boxes, over bloated voting registers,
special treatment of voters and election
officials, disappearance or destruction of ballot
boxes, distortion of results, grand standing
of political sponsors (or god-fathers), intimidation
of voters and political opponents by law
enforcement agents and thugs as well as election
related violence, arson and killings.
And examining the electoral history of
Nigeria, there is a general consensus that the
integrity of election has been on the decline
since 1959 with the 2007 general elections
widely assessed by both local and international
observers as the worse in the country’s history.
Commenting on this, Dr Chukwuemeka Ezeife,
former governor of Anambra State opined that:
…democracy is associated with elections.
How have the elections gone since 1999 till
date? The 1999 elections were disputed but it
was vastly better than the 2003 elections.
People shouted foul about the 2003 election
but that was infinitely better than the nonelection
of 2007. Each election has been worse,
more flawed than the one before it. We cannot
be getting a democracy by running further away
from it (cited by Adeyemo 2009: 22).
The United States based Human Rights
Watch also agrees with the above view by stating
in its world survey that the greatest form of
human rights abuse going on in Nigeria is that
Nigerian have been denied the right to choose
their leaders through a free-and-fair election.
Rather most of the so-called political leaders
are selected and imposed on the people; from
the local government to the national level, by
Political god-fathers with the consequence that
those in power are not considered true representatives
of their people (Agbo 2009: 54).
The 2007 general election was designed from
the onset to be flawed. In fact, it was built on
corruption, pervasion, exclusionary politics,
blackmail, intimidation and coercion. Indeed,
several months before the April 14 polls, former
President Olusegun Obasanjo had declared that
winning the elections was a do-or-die affair. And
it turned out to be so.
1.3 Objectives of the study
1. To understand the history of electoral process in osun state
2. To understand the relevance of electoral process in democratic consolidation
3. To know the impact of election violence on democratic consolidation
1.4 Research Questions
1. What is the history of electoral process in osun state?
2. What is the relevance of electoral process in democratic consolidation
3. What is the impact of election violence on democratic consolidation
1.5 Research Hypothesis
H0: There is no relevance of electoral process in democratic consolidation
H1: Electoral process is relevant in democratic consolidation
H0: There is a significant impact of election violence on democratic consolidation
H1: There is no significant impact of election violence on democratic consolidation
1.6 Limitations of the study
There was limited time and finance during the course of the research
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project topics
(2) Email Address
(3) Payment Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 3139283609
Bank: FIRST BANK
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420