Vote buying and commoditisation of secret ballot in Nigeria, By Mike Omilusi

One of the fundamental reasons why politicians are not accountable and responsive to their constituencies in many countries could be adduced to vote-buying. Elections must be free and fair for them to express the will of the electorate. However, several factors continually militate against such in Nigeria, particularly since the return to civilian rule in 1999. Of essential interest is the vote buying phenomenon which has become a dominant factor in the country’s electioneering process. It is an extremely expensive enterprise. Unlike election promises that involve the prospects of benefits for large groups identified through general descriptive criteria, vote buying is a contractual relation between the candidate and the voter which involves personal financial or material gains.

Historically, vote buying was facilitated by the absence of the secret ballot and by suffrage restrictions that created small electorates. Today, all democratic societies have embraced secret ballot and universal suffrage and it is contended that secret ballot makes it difficult to authenticate whether a voter whose vote is bought actually votes as agreed. The validity of this submission in Nigeria where money has become a determinant variable, calls for academic interrogation. Over time, elections in the country have been perverted into instruments of entrenching visionless and corruption-infested leadership, owing to the gross lack of electoral integrity.

While vote buying can increase political participation in many poverty-stricken African countries, the phenomenon can endanger government accountability and democracy, not only because it is an unlawful activity under a well-specified electoral regulation; but also because it has metamorphosed from secrecy to open market dealings across all categories of voters particularly on election day. This creates a norm that contradicts the core voter/swing voter dichotomy in literature. As a matter of fact, the age-long puzzle of why parties attempt to buy votes when the ballot is secret as people could simply accept campaign handouts and then vote as they wished has been resolved in Nigeria by the efficacy of “see and buy” method.

In most developing countries, elected representatives rarely champion the interests of the poor who form the majority of their constituents. The clientelist hypothesis provides a possible explanation for this behaviour. Clientelism amounts to the buying of votes and, hence, power, by the political elite (patrons) in return for the delivery of direct benefits to the non-elite (clients) whose support is essential for the maintenance of power.  To be an effective electoral strategy, Emily Skarbek argues that vote buying requires weak democratic institutions, poorly monitored elections, and an electorate willing to “sell” their votes. 

Vote buying is so prevalent in the country that it has developed its own vocabulary among the various ethnic groups – So onye m riri nke ya, ka m ga atunyere akwukwo ( Igbo for: I will only vote for the person I ate/benefited from); Bani gishiri inbaka manda (Hausa for: Give me salt, I give you sauce); and Dibo ko se’be (Yoruba for: Vote and cook soup), among others. In fact, candidates’ wealth becomes more important in voters’ deliberations than ethnicity or religion, let alone competency, integrity or vision. Interestingly, despite the magnitude of vote-buying – even in “non-election” forums such as nominating caucuses and conventions -practical details have not been sufficiently explored, that is, from campaign rallies to polling booths.

Since political office in Nigeria has become an enterprise investment with the highest investor making the most gains, politicians sell their properties and close down their businesses to fund elections. It is not unusual therefore, that desperation among the contenders features prominently across the election circle, precipitating cash-for-vote syndrome.

The dynamics of contemporary campaign finance gives prominence to narrow-based interest groups and individuals who are entrenched in patronage networks that stretch all the way from the local to the national levels of politics. It is not unusual for businessmen and contractors with vested interests to deploy their war-chest to support candidates during elections. Candidates for public office are often proud of the endorsements they receive from many of these moneybags and various interest groups. 

Much of the spending by these business groups/private individuals is often unreported as there is no mechanism to monitor it. But more significant than the aggregate amount spent in any election is where all this money comes from. Because they also have unrestricted access to government largesse, it is not uncommon for these individuals to donate money to two or three candidates with the most prospects of winning in a single election. Hence, enough cash is always available to dispense before and during elections.

During off-cycle gubernatorial elections in Ekiti (July 2018) Osun (September 2018) Kogi and Bayelsa (November 2019) states, Nigerian election stakeholders revealed that “poverty, disillusionment with the performance of elected representatives, low civic awareness among voters, and lack of accountability contributed to the expansion of vote buying”. Thus, there are growing fears that the rising cases of vote buying where dominant candidates have more opportunities for capturing power may not only undermine the electorate’s right of choice, but ultimately imperil Nigeria’s democracy.

Apart from election days, many of the prospective voters had also benefitted from the politicians’ handouts across different communities, professional and tribal groups, landlords’ associations, youth and women groups among other sundry established and emergency associations. The inducements came in form of donations of cash, food and other gifts such as livestock on campaign tours. For instance, in its fourth pre-election report released in January 2019, YIAGA Africa’s observers witnessed the distribution of money or gift items in at least one LGA in each of Nigeria’s 36 states and Abuja. The usual targets were the more vulnerable groups such as women and jobless youths.

In a research carried out in 2019 by the writer, many of the respondents did not see democracy as delivering development, and had strong views on how politicians failed to fulfil electoral promises. Since almost all politicians are seen to be corrupt, voters usually go for the benevolent cash-giving politician during election. “Aa ki i gbo kiku ojo, k’a d’omi inu agbada nu” (that is, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush) became the guiding philosophy for many of them as they scrambled for handouts across different parties. Because political power is perceived as a sure means to gaining state resources for personal enrichment, politicians are so desperate to bribe voters while the traumatised citizens anticipate election period as their era of electoral-financial boom.

Prior to the election day, scholarships, purchase of free JAMB forms, grading of communities and farm roads, job forms and infrastructure projects (usually tagged poverty alleviation programme) in exchange for votes are often offered by ruling parties across the states and opposition candidates.  Distribution of “empowerment” items like hair dryers, washing machines, power-generating machines to different individuals and groups become a common practice among candidates with a view to securing support/votes on election day. The majority of the respondents in my study strongly opined that such pre-election largesse may actually be the only benefits from the politicians because such politicians usually fail to carry out their basic responsibilities after election.

Given that vote-buying is a product of deep-seated socio-economic factors, reversing the ugly trend and the monetisation of electoral processes in Nigeria is a herculean task that will require strategic remediation of its underlying causes.  In many corrupt jurisdictions, the introduction of the secret ballot has put an end to vote buying, since confidentiality necessarily prevents the “buyers” from verifying that the “sellers” (that is, voters) in fact voted for the “buyer” (that is, candidate). This good intention has, unfortunately, been perverted in developing countries like Nigeria. In a “see and buy” method of vote purchase, at polling booths, more fundamental reforms are required in the country’s electoral system to validate the secrecy of the balloting.

Let me emphasise it here that e-voting is often seen as a tool for advancing democracy, building trust in electoral management, adding credibility to election results and increasing the overall efficiency of the electoral process. The question now is: how does e-voting militate against vote buying? It is obvious, from my interactions with stakeholders, that giving handouts to prospective voters before election does not guarantee compliance unless monitored at voting point. This has necessitated the “see and buy” strategy on election day. It, therefore, implies that if full electronic voting is implemented like in advanced democracies, vote buying in its present format and patterns in Nigeria today, will be drastically reduced. Since the successful deployment of technology is contingent on a minimum of administrative and logistical capacity, the Nigerian government should build upon the existing pre-voting biometric and entrench full e-voting system.

A long-term remedy is the engagement of the civil society organisations in civic education across board, emphasising how inappropriate and costly vote buying can be, since it would undermine the accountability of elected officials and future delivery of public goods to the community. It should be established that some NGOs election watchdog groups, public-minded corporations, religious bodies, government election bodies, and other civic educators in the country have, in the last few years, commenced a specific public awareness campaign on this issue in collaboration with international development partners. This engagement should be encouraged by all and sundry.

Lastly, the enabling legal/judicial system should ensure that justice is served all the time particularly with regards to the penalty for vote buying as contained in the Electoral Act. For sure, vote buying is a punishable offence under the Nigerian law. The penalty is a maximum fine of N500,000 or imprisonment for 12 months or both. Thus, law must apply to culprits, irrespective of political affiliation, social status or ethnic/religious bearing. Such measures require the cooperation of all stakeholders, including the government, the electoral commission, the political parties, the candidates, the electorate, the civil society and even the press.

Dr. Omilusi is a Democracy Monitor and Political Science Lecturer at Ekiti State University, Nigeria