For presidential candidates, the ceiling is N5 billion; gubernatorial candidates, N1 billion; Senatorial aspirants, N250 million.
The recently passed Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2010 may likely go down as one of the most debated piece of legislation in the nation’s political history. Several attempts to amend the electoral law had suffered reverses with President Muhammadu Buhari declining assent on three occasions. Now that the Bill is before the President for his assent, it is expected that he will oblige.
Our optimism derives from the fact that the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly had factored in the concerns of the president and corrected the observed lapses in the previous amendments.
However, a major outcome of the Amendment Bill is the pegging of campaign expenses for both political parties and candidates. For presidential candidates, the ceiling is N5 billion; gubernatorial candidates, N1 billion; Senatorial aspirants, N250 million. There are provisions for the House of Representatives candidates, the State House of Assembly and others. The amount an individual or entity can donate to a candidate or political party was also pegged. According to the new amendment, no individual or other entity could donate more than N10 million to a candidate or political party.
Nigerians are, no doubt, sharply divided over the approved campaign expenses. While some commentators see the significant increase in the amount allowed as campaign expenses for various electoral contests as over-monetisation of the electoral process, others see it as a true reflection of the present reality. The latter based their argument on the fact that the American model of democracy, which we are practising, is intrinsically very expensive. Therefore, Nigeria’s model will not be an exception. The American presidential system involves intense campaigns before candidates emerge from the parties. And after the primaries, the processes are replicated on a larger scale before the candidates are elected into office. This requires logistics which cost a lot of money. There is also the need for money for posters, rallies and maintenance of party structures. The huge campaign expenses may be the reason some stakeholders are calling for a return to the parliamentary system of government of the 60s.
But there are genuine concerns about huge campaign expenses. And how can the candidates spend so much money on campaign without expecting to recoup them? There is also the argument that anyone who genuinely seeks to serve his people should not spend so much on campaigns.
The over-monetisation of the electoral process which the recent amendment may have indirectly endorsed, may have the negative effect of making candidates desperate to do anything to win an election. What happens to those that may lose the election after spending hugely during the campaigns? The fear of losing an election may be the reason our elections are seen as a ‘do or die affair.’ Therefore, it is not a surprise that many of our elections often end up at the tribunals.
There is the need to reduce our election expenses as they are undesirable and unsustainable. Over-monetisation of the electoral process is unhealthy for the development of a durable democratic culture, especially in a challenged economy like ours. Except we want to make politics and the participation in the electoral process the exclusive preserve of the rich, there is no way the country can continue on this trajectory. For our democracy to thrive, all participants in the political process must be given a level playing field. The right to vote and be voted for is an irreducible minimum which should be guaranteed to all the participants.
Anything short of this could compromise the integrity of the electoral process. We have had some examples of flawed electoral processes. As we move towards the forthcoming election, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must improve on its performance in the conduct of the 2015 general election and ensure that the votes of the electorate count.
