Ruth Onoshiorena Obozeghie, anipr

OSUN AND THE NEED TO SET NEW BOUNDARIES FOR POLITICAL CONDUCT IN OFF-CYCLE ELECTIONS The outcome of the recent governorship election in Osun State demonstrates that, despite the challenges confronting our democracy, we possess the capacity to conduct elections in a manner that strengthens public confidence in our democratic institutions. I therefore commend the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the security agencies, political parties and, most importantly, the people of Osun State for the peaceful conduct of the recent governorship election. While we commend the electoral process itself, there are developments surrounding the election and, more importantly, an emerging trend in political conduct during off-cycle elections that raises concerns. The growing practice whereby serving governors, senior political office holders, party leaders and other influential government functionaries, accompanied by large numbers of aides and heavy security details from outside a state, converge on states where elections are being conducted raises an issue that demands national attention. The conduct witnessed around the recent elections in Osun, Ekiti and Ondo States was, in my view, unusual. It is not a practice that should become normal in a democratic society. I recall that, as President, similar situations arose during the 2013 Anambra and 2014 Ekiti governorship elections. On those occasions, senior political leaders mobilised and descended upon the states. Upon being briefed, I ordered party leaders and senior government officials to leave the states immediately. This trend is unwholesome. If left unchecked, it could threaten our fragile democracy and have serious long-term implications for democratic stability. Political parties are entitled to campaign, mobilise their supporters and deploy their legitimate party structures. That is an essential part of democracy. However, there is a point at which political mobilisation, particularly when it involves the overwhelming presence of serving governors, senior public officials and powerful political actors from across the country on election day, can create an atmosphere of apprehension, intimidation, bullying and undue pressure. We must ask ourselves whether the increasing deployment of political power and large-scale mobilisation by senior office holders on election day in states holding elections is consistent with the spirit of free, fair and peaceful democratic competition. This hardly happens in other democratic countries. We must not allow political competition to become a contest in which victory is perceived as something that must be achieved at all costs. There is also the question of precedent. If the current trend becomes established, what happens when governors from opposing political parties begin to descend on every state holding a competitive election? What happens when each party seeks to match political power with political power, governmental influence with governmental influence, and mobilisation with counter-mobilisation? Such a development would not strengthen our democracy. It would deepen political tensions and could make elections increasingly resemble battles for political survival rather than peaceful contests for the mandate of the people. I therefore believe that this matter should not be treated as a partisan dispute concerning the Osun election. It is a broader national issue concerning the future of our electoral democracy. Those of us who have occupied public office must recognise that our conduct carries a greater responsibility. The power and influence attached to public office should be used to strengthen democratic institutions, not to create apprehension among political opponents or citizens.