Politicians usually assume, and wrongly so, that they know what is best for the society. That, of course, is what arrogance of power is all about. Such assumption is the basis on which politicians and political office occupants often appropriate patriotism and, by extension, easily dub any other contrary view to theirs as unpatriotic.
Actually, the notion of the politician, the ultimate epitome of self-centredness and unbridled pursuit of self-interest, being a personification of the common good ought to be a joke. By orientation and by inclination, the politician is not the best example of altruism and so cannot truly personify the interest of the larger society. Alas, that is what democracy, with all its good intentions, ordained.
Any individual thrown up by an election in a representative democracy automatically is the face and voice of his constituency, the representation of the people’s interest, until proven otherwise. That is what democracy lays down. Consequently, therefore, you cannot logically begrudge an individual duly elected, one way or another, the bragging rights of speaking for and of his people, as in “my people, my people.”
Even when there is ample reason to suspect that such possessive reference is loaded with sarcasm and teasing mischief, there is still a weighty stamp of legitimacy to it, as long as it comes from a duly elected, no matter how crookedly engineered.
It is to the credit of democracy though that it provides a mechanism for periodic assessment, a time of reckoning in a political cycle, when the electorate pauses to decide who should be its representative. As it has turned out, however, this provision of a season for the people to momentarily wield power, maybe quadrennially, has become neither here nor there. Politicians and their spinmeisters have steadily worked hard to weaken the people’s capacity to wield power, even momentarily. The process of ascertaining the true preference of the people has become more complicated too.
Once in a while, however, the people, the real people, find an opportunity to speak up to express their interest. Such was the case at a public event at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, a fortnight ago. The event was the presentation of certificates of return to chairmen and councillors elected in the February 12, 2022, council election in the FCT.
The election, though largely successful, had experienced technical glitches in the relatively new voter accreditation and authentication equipment deployed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the exercise. The Bimodal Voter Authentication System (BVAS), as the device is called, was introduced by the election management body mid-2021. It replaced the hitherto used Smart Card Reader (SCR) and promises far better functional capabilities.
Following a pattern of incremental upping of technology use in the electoral process, which has been the policy of INEC from its inception, the commission introduced BVAS in response to critical challenges in the areas of verification of the voter’s card and authentication of rightful owners of the cards. The capacity of the BVAS to carry out confirmation of fingerprints and or facial authentication of every voter who comes along to vote during election, makes it a remarkably promising device to address lingering problems of rigging during elections. The device also serves to upload election results from the polling unit, sending it straight to INEC’s Result Viewing (IRev) portal.
The tremendous promise, which BVAS holds out for enhanced integrity of elections should ordinarily win it substantial plaudits among election observers, critics and the electorate at large, even with its early outings recording some shortcomings. But then, politicians look at things differently. For many in their fold, the more chaotic a process, the better. The teething problems of the BVAS, therefore, presented an opportunity not to look forward, but to point the way backward. It was not surprising that it was convenient for some to point out with glee that at the very first outing of the BVAS technology during the Anambra State governorship election in November 2021, the device recorded glitches, leading to the re-scheduling of the election in a whole local government area. The point is loudly made that in spite of the fact that the leadership of INEC promised after the Anambra governorship election that the BVAS glitches would be fixed, the same problems re-surfaced at the FCT council elections True to an extent. So, what is to be done?
Enter the politician, Minister of State for the FCT, Hajia Ramatu Tijjani Aliyu. As a guest at the presentation of certificates of return to the elected FCT council officers, the minister pointed out that there were unfortunate delays during the election, caused by BVAS technical problems. True. Prompted, obviously by a combination of an analogue spirit in her and the proclivity of the politician to exploit systemic weaknesses for advantage, the minister homed in on a troubling recommendation, which did her no good. What was her recommendation as the solution to the teething problems of the BVAS? That INEC should consider reverting to manual accreditation and authentication of voters when next the BVAS experiences glitches during election.
That recommendation was the last line of the minister’s remark at the ceremony. The audience at the event revolted. Reportedly speaking as one, in Hausa language, the crowd reportedly responded to the minister, “It is a lie, we don’t want.”
The rejection of Hajia Ramatu Tijjani Aliyu’s retrogressive suggestion was so intense that the people did not want to hear any more from her. Her attempt to go on was rejected with boos, so she left, leaving behind an uncomplimentary image of a political office holder who believes that the best solution to a less than perfect progressive initiative is not to strive to improve it but to return to the past.
It is possible that the BVAS revolt against the FCT Minister of State had political undertones. No matter. The certificate presentation held while people were campaigning, fasting and praying for President Muhammadu Buhari not to succumb to the whims of the forces bent on truncating the advent of a new Electoral Act with provisions for robust application of technology in the conduct of elections. That, surely, was not the best platform for a politician to canvass a return to manual accreditation of voters. The minister was clearly insensitive in suggesting a return by the electorate to the proverbial Egypt. It was good she got the appropriate reaction. The people know what is best for them.
The eventual signing of the 2022 Electoral Act by President Buhari finally put paid to the intense manoeuvres by elements mortally scared of deploying technology in elections. The motive behind the stance of this group cannot be noble.
For Hajia Ramatu Tijjani and all others who are manifestly uncomfortable with BVAS, electronic transmission of election results and other progressive provisions in the Electoral Law, the game is up now. The need to strengthen the electoral process in Nigeria is urgent and imperative.
The ball is now substantially in the court of INEC. It just cannot afford to let down all the forces that fought as one, to strengthen its hands in the delivery of credible elections. The commission has a duty to ensure that the promises of the new electronic regime in the conduct of elections, which many stomped and tenaciously strove for, are not subverted down the line, for one unprincipled reason or another.
The promise of the leadership of the election management body in the wake of the FCT election, to review and improve the functionality of the BVAS for optimum performance in future elections is at once reassuring and a pledge to which the commission will be held to subsequently.