Rice, votes and violence: Democracy in Nigeria

If the 2015 elections were a simultaneous equation, how many unknown variables are there and what method would best solve the equation: substitution or elimination? Probably both, replied a friend. We’ve seen two governors eliminated and substituted respectively already. Another friend talked about how voting systems are flawed and gave me How Mathematics Explains the World, a book I recommend for people who are scared of numbers but curious.

So, what is the best voting method for determining the outcome of an election? Trying to figure out the best voting method resulted in The Impossibility theorem of Kenneth Arrow, mathematician turned economist. Arrow, 91, won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1972. James Stein, author of How Mathematics Explains the World, loosely defines Arrow’s theorem and cleverly applies it to show the flaws of different voting systems. 

Thanks to Arrow we know that there is no single voting method that is reasonably and rationally satisfying. Arrow found that there were some conditions that a voting system could not simultaneously satisfy. That is, no voting system could at once meet all these conditions: one man one i.e. no voter with dictatorial powers, unanimity i.e. if the majority of voters prefer candidate X to candidate Y, then the voting system must prefer candidate X and the death of a loser can’t change the outcome of the election. 

If you remove one of Arrow’s “state of the art” theorem i.e. allow for a voter with dictatorial powers the voting system will work perfectly. Sani Abacha contrived such a system in the late 1990s – five parties had campaigned and unanimously elected him in preference to their own candidates. But in this case the winner died. 

Death aside, electoral systems can be influenced by a dictatorial incumbent, which takes us back to the elimination and substitution methods of the 2015 equation. Some would argue that the power of incumbency was disproved in Ekiti State. But did incumbent lose because he didn’t give more rice? 

“The carrots of vote buying or the sticks of political violence”

The stakes, adjusted for inflation, increasing population and poverty, and voters’ expectation, are higher. Rice may be the new currency. In the 2003 and 2007 electoral campaigns cash was the common currency with a median price of 1,750 to 2,250 naira, because the price per vote rose to over 10,000 naira over time. 

Buying votes and violence are “important if epiphenomenal dimensions in Nigerian election campaigns” according to Michael Bratton in a 2008 survey for Afrobarometer. Epiphenomenal is a big word. It means an event that occurs alongside or parallel to another event. In medicine, it is a symptom, a side-effect, which isn’t necessarily the cause of an illness. In 2007 poor uneducated people residing in rural areas were most willing to sell their votes and excuse their behaviour. 

A survey conducted before the 2007 elections showed that more Nigerians are exposed to vote buying (20 percent) than violence (10 percent). Though 60 percent said vote buying was “wrong and punishable”, 30 percent considered it “wrong but understandable, 35 percent willingly excused the practice and 10 percent said it was “not wrong at all”. 

Do Nigerians expect to be induced because the political elite must share the spoils? Others observe that vote buying is a beauty contest where contenders display their wealth and ability to win an election based on how much largesse they can give voters. Voters, it is argued, want to be associated with wealthy and capable politicians.  

Who will buy my vote? 

Vote buying is effective and popular based on research of elections in West Africa. Pedro Vicente and Leonard Wantchekon, in two separate studies of elections in Sao Tome and Benin Republic respectively, find that politicians differ in their strategies and tactics depending on whether they are the incumbent or the contender. Incumbents can afford to promise more jobs for the boys if re-elected. Promising favours such as public sector jobs and contracts in exchange of votes appeals most to poor, less informed, uneducated men living in the village. “Votes-for-cash” campaign has won elections for contenders.

During the 2007 and 2012 elections incumbents were more likely to buy votes while a weak opposition resorted to violence. Where the ruling party is weak violence is the preferred option. According to the 2007 survey, 79 percent Nigerians found political violence unacceptable.

A competent and impartial Inec together with savvy civic campaigns to engage and educate voters can force political parties to change their strategy and tactics. Under Attahiru Jega, the Independent National Electoral Commission (Inec) has proved to be a fair and impartial, so far. Anti-vote buying campaigns, by the electoral commission, can reduce the frequency of vote buying and more effectively influence voting choices.

The heavy presence of security forces in Ekiti, which could intimidated voters actually discouraged violence and encouraged a large turnout. Vote buying energises voter turnout. Intimidating voters is a useless campaign tactic except, as was the case in 2012, it is used to counteract a possible loss. 

The 2007 Afrobarometer survey showed that 8 percent would comply i.e. “take the money and vote” for the politician, 42 percent said they would defect i.e. “take the money and vote for the candidate of your choice” while 41 percent said they would refuse i.e. “refuse the money and vote for the candidate of your choice”. 

Voters who are poor, illiterate, lack information and live in rural areas are more likely to sell their votes. Agreeing to sell votes is done collectively so too is the decision to defect. Collective acceptance of such practices has a corrosive effect on democracy. 

Making good policies bad politics, just because the electorate prefer to sell their votes rather than have functioning hospitals and good schools, is a disincentive for good governance.

Tayo Fagbule