Corrupt Elections in Oil Rich Nigeria
by Aisha Gawad
As we open up our morning newspapers, flipping through the pages and skimming the headlines, it might be easy to skip right over the news of Nigeria's recently-held presidential elections. Most newspapers probably keep such articles buried in the back pages, and most Americans probably gloss right over them. Why stop to read about Nigeria when it has nothing to do with us? But when we cringe at the sight of the newly-raised gas prices, we might want to reconsider. Nigeria, in the throes of a political crisis after holding a highly suspect election in April, is one of the world's largest oil producers. And the resulting political violence contributed to oil exports dropping by one-third in mid-May according to a Bloomberg report. So while it may seem easy at first to ignore Nigeria’s corrupt elections, Americans feel its effects everyday at the gas pump.
Human rights defenders and democracy proponents worldwide watched Nigeria as it geared up for its presidential elections in April. Many pinned their hopes for a future democratic Nigeria, and even a future democratic Africa, on the country's ability to hold legitimate and free elections. These hopes were dashed, however, as the elections were marred with corruption, intimidation and violence.
Nigeria, a former British colony, became an independent nation in 1960 after a bitter civil war. It is still struggling to regain stability after three decades of authoritarian military rule ending in 1999, when it returned to civilian rule. More than 11,000 people have been killed in recent years due to factional rivalries, religious conflicts, and violence roused by the volatile oil industry. The vast majority of Nigerians are extremely poor and lack basic health and education services, despite the fact that Nigeria is the second-wealthiest country in Africa. Although government-imposed repression has eased slightly since the end of military rule, the civilian rulers have yet to hold a single free election.
The 1999 elections that brought current president Olusegun Obasanjo to power were widely acknowledged to be flawed, but much of the international community accepted them as a positive alternative to military rule. In Nigeria's 2003 elections, more than 100 people died in violent political clashes. Political parties used thugs and gangs to intimidate voters and attack rival groups. Polling places were shut down and ballot boxes are stuffed. The police, meanwhile, remained largely inactive or corrupted by political alliances. In these most recent 2007 elections, international elections observers reported much of the same conditions with at least 300 related deaths. The Transition Monitoring Group, Nigeria's largest observer organization, said the elections were so badly flawed that they should be re-done. The European Union said that the election "cannot be considered to have been credible." And the US National Democratic Institute said the whole process "failed the Nigerian people."
The ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP) won a landslide victory over all its opponents, making Katsina state governor, Umaru Yar’adua the president-elect. Current president Obasanjo maintains that the results are legitimate despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Many opposition parties are going to court, and although the federal judiciary has recently emphasized its independence from the government, it is unlikely that opposition candidates could win back the presidency, according to Chris Albin-Lackey and Ben Rawlence in an article published in The Guardian.
Eyes now turn to Nigeria's Western and African allies for a response. The U.S. has already declared itself "deeply troubled," and Britain similarly says it is "deeply concerned," but will these sentiments amount to more than just words? After the news of fraud and corruption in the 2003 elections, Western governments demanded significant improvements from the Nigerians in the next elections. Now the elections have come and gone, and the Nigerians have perhaps even taken a step backwards. Can Nigeria's allies in the West and in Africa actually exert any real pressure on their oil rich friend? As Albin-Lackey and Rawlence point out in The Guardian, they have an opportunity to do so at the upcoming G8 conference in June. "G8 leaders meeting in Germany next month must recognize how Nigerian authorities have manifestly failed to deliver on the Millennium Development Goals, designed to improve the basic rights of people to health and education, and instead have shared the proceeds of record oil revenues among cronies and supporters," they write.
As a powerful force in Africa, it is important to set the standard for democratic growth in Nigeria so it can serve as an example to its neighbors. Western powers say they demand improvement, so let them live up to their posturing. And until then, Americans can be reminded of their government's failure to act in the case of Nigeria every time they shell out exorbitant sums at the gas station.
Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1064557.stm
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/nigeria0407/index.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/24/nigeri15763.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/7007/05/09/nigeri15887.htm
