The recently concluded General Election in Ghana, by its widely acclaimed success, provides a strong reason to query the justification of attributing status of a giant to Nigeria in the comity of African nations.  In its prelude, process, and outcome, the election in Ghana has shown that big brother Nigeria has something to learn from Ghana.  But if we continue with our arrogance, we will remain in our ignorance.

Ghana does not have as many ethnic communities as Nigeria. But her politicians could have played the ethnic card, and her electorate too.  Ghanaians chose to rise above ethnic differences.  Citizens of diverse religious communities live within her boundaries.  But they did not play the religious card either.  The game of playing ethnic and religious cards is one of the factors that influence elections in Nigeria.  Our ethnic communities usually vote in blocks, such that it would be patently false to accuse one ethnic community of bigotry.  Bigotry is not absent from any ethnic or religious community in Nigeria.  All have sinned, and all continue to sin.

       In Nigeria, the greatest threat to the electoral process are politicians and their parties.  With an eye on Nigeria’s immense wealth, with prospects on capturing the wealth and sharing it with political associates, the morality of means no longer matters.  Where our politicians are not deploying divide and rule tactics, they are buying votes.  Where they are not buying votes, they are snatching ballot boxes.  Where they are not snatching ballot boxes, they are using other means to intimidate voters.  Votes are counted but the votes do not seem to count. 

Utterly bereft of transparency is our electoral process largely driven by vote buying and violence, and the two—vote buying and violence—begin at party primaries where the highest bidder in financial terms emerges as party candidate.  Nigerian political parties are not distinguished by clearly articulated philosophies.  It has even been said that the difference between one party and another is the difference between six and half-a-dozen.  In Nigeria politics, there is no need for philosophy if you have a huge sum of money in your electoral arsenal.  And if you are able to recruit thugs, so be it.

Ghanaians went to the polls without shutting down their country.  Here in Nigeria, an election is a military exercise.  Our cities are locked down.  We are forbidden from moving around.  We see gun-toting policemen and soldiers supposedly protecting the process.  But the process and its outcome still turn out raising questions, often end up in the courts, with the outcome of court proceedings leaving Nigerians with more questions than they asked when the process began.

In 2015, President Goodluck Jonathan could have used instruments of State to his own advantage.  To the pleasant surprise of Nigerians, he did not deploy the power of incumbency.  He did not stifle the voice of the people.  When he saw that Nigerians preferred candidate of the opposition party, Muhammadu Buhari, he picked up his phone and called him to congratulate him.  That unprecedentedly exemplary gesture of Jonathan was emulated by Mahamudu Bawumia, candidate of Ghana’s ruling party, when he congratulated John Mahama, candidate of the opposition party, even before the Electoral Commission announced all the results.  It was his recognition of transparency of the process.  The people had spoken, and he heard them loud and clear.  In a country where the ruling party in each state wins all the seats in local government elections, can we in Nigeria say the proclaimed outcome of an election in our land is in symphony with the voice of the people? 

Nigerians have lessons to learn from Ghana.  First, conduct of a credible election is not merely a matter of capacity but a matter of capacity and volition.  It is not beyond our capacity to conduct a free and transparent election.  But actualization of that capacity largely depends on the political class and the citizens.  More specifically, it depends on the willingness of Nigerian politicians to undergo profound attitudinal changes. 

In Nigeria, we put all the blame on the electoral commission, on security agencies and on the judiciary.  It is clear that Nigerians have lost confidence in these institutions.   Conduct of elections by the electoral commission has become an issue to be discussed.  The police is accused of not doing enough to protect the process, seemingly helpless in the face of vote buying, snatching of ballot boxes and violent conduct of party representatives.  There are too many Nigerians who do not believe in the neutrality of the judiciary when it is called upon to adjudicate in disputes related to conduct of elections.   However, let us not forget that officials of these agencies are appointees of politicians.   And that has far-reaching implications.  We can understand that better when we consider the fact that the referee cannot be an appointee of competing teams.

A second lesson we can learn from Ghana:  If Ghana was not locked down on election day we need not lock down Nigeria on election day.  Again, learning this lesson is relative to the willingness of our political actors to be of good behavior.  It is not the people who sow seeds of violence and division.  It is our politicians, with the cooperation of a gullible populace driven by ethnocentric energy.  Under the pretext of preventing violence, security agencies, whose neutrality is not evident, enforce a lockdown that has not succeeded in keeping violence away on election day.

And a third lesson borders on the use and abuse of ethnic and religious affiliation.  Ghana may not be as vast and diverse as Nigeria.  Yet, Ghanaians are teaching us that an election can be conducted without resorting to the crudity of ethnic and religious bigotry.  Who does not know that Nigerians have shown themselves to be more bigoted since the 2023 elections?  On social and other media, abusive words are traded across boundaries of ethnic communities.  Rather than trade ideas, we trade insults, and, in the process of trading insults, many speak as if there would be no tomorrow even if Nigeria would break up. 

The electoral process in Nigeria, unlike what has just been witnessed in Ghana, is not subject to the will of the people, and that is undemocratic.  But it is not in the interest of Nigeria to continue to pretend to be a democracy when, despite our pretence, we have repeatedly failed the litmus test of democracy.  Yes, no election is perfect.  No one is even saying the recent election in Ghana was perfect.  However, election in Nigeria is empirically more distant from perfection than election in Ghana.  When an election is transparently free and fair, no one loses, all are winners.  A candidate may have been chosen by voters.  That does not necessarily mean the other candidate has lost.  We are all winners in a truly democratic polity.

The time has come to begin to implement recommendations of the Justice Uwais panel.  Let us clean our acts before the next elections.