Nigeria’s Defining Moment: 2007 Presidential Elections

Nigerians go to the polls on 21 April, to elect both a new president and national assembly, in an election which is widely perceived as the most significant test for democracy in Africa’s most populous state and also its leading oil exporter. The elections would mark the first time, in the turbulent history of West Africa’s pivotal state, where one incumbent elected will be democratically succeeded by another through the power of the ballot box. Indeed, it is arguably the most crucial democratic vote to date as it tests Nigeria’s resolve to consolidate democracy in this enormous ethnically and religiously divided state.

For far too long, the language that has defined this country’s political landscape for the past four decades was played out in terms of ethnoregional domination. This was manifested on two interlinking levels. The first was through control of economic power and resources, particularly oil; and the second through control of political power and its instruments, predominantly the judiciary and the armed forces.

Since independence, military despotic rulers from the predominantly Muslim north ruled Nigeria with an iron fist. The country’s oil-reliant economy, in which both rents and royalties were paid into state coffers, has only contributed to the public mismanagement of state resources while, at the same time, enriching and entrenching the Nigerian political elites’ grip on power. This has also perpetuated the identity consciousness of the country’s 250 tribes that had led to deepening hostility and distrust between the north and the south, in recent years.

Hopes of reconciliation and nation building marked the inauguration of Nigeria’s first democratically elected leader, President Olusegun Obasanjo, in 1999. There were great expectations at the time that a newly elected civilian administration, led by a Christian from the south, would help both to reunify and reunite, while ushering in a new era of good governance, economic reform and democracy, following on from 16 years of consecutive dictatorial military rule. From the start, President Obasanjo had his work cut out for him. He faced the daunting task of rebuilding a crumbling economy, dysfunctional bureaucracy, fragile democratic institutions, and a collapsing infrastructure. This was further compounded by the long-standing unrest in Nigeria’s oil producing, yet still impoverished, Niger Delta region in the east of the country.

He promptly embarked on a bold economic reform and stabilization program supported by an International Monetary Fund (IMF) stand-by agreement and a $1 billion credit and debt-restructuring deal from the Paris Club (PC). The administration showed remarkable political will in implementing market-oriented reforms that included the curbing of inflation, along with the blockage of excessive wage demands, privatization of the state-owned oil refineries, and the modernization of the banking system.

Ambitious macroeconomic reforms won Nigeria many plaudits from both the IMF and the PC. In November 2005, the government received a debt-relief deal package worth $30 billion from the PC. Despite these strides to put the economy on a more stable footing, Nigeria’s 140 million people have yet to experience the benefits of economic liberalization. With more than 60 percent of the population living on less than $1 a day and GDP per capita income of $675, Nigeria continues to be one of the world’s poorest states. Deep-seated corruption in states institutions continues to be blamed for the apparent lack of growth in income levels among Nigerians.

On the political front, President Obasanjo’s attempts in bridging the ethnic and religious divides between the country’s confrontational groups have been but a dismal disappointment. The introduction of Sharia law, in 2000, in northern states has only served to fuel tensions between rival Muslim and Christian groups, while also contributing to the surge of violence and the deaths of thousands on both sides. Meanwhile, in the tumultuous Niger Delta region, insurgency has spread and the conflict has reached unprecedented proportions. Youth militias have emerged throughout the zone, over the past seven years, calling for increased control over oil revenues, greater political autonomy from the central government in Abuja, and a halt of environmental degradation of the region by foreign oil companies. In the past year, more than 60 foreign oil workers have been kidnapped, mostly at oil installations. The vandalism of oil pipelines by militias groups has resulted in the loss of $4 billion over the past year.

Nevertheless, these pressing problems have not dampened the election euphoria among Nigerian voters as they prepare to declare their overwhelming support for civilian democratic rule. Although there are more than 50 political parties vying for power in April’s elections, there are only three serious contenders for the nation’s top political office. These include: the incumbent of the ruling People’s Democratic party (PDP), the current governor of Katsina State and former polytechnic teacher, Umaru Musa, and the two main opposition parties, former military ruler Muhammadu Bujari of the All Nigerian Peoples Party (ANPP), and Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of the Action Congress (AC).

Although analysts warn of potential violence in the days and weeks leading up to the elections and in the week following the announcement of election results, as with past elections, the true measure for success of the April polls rests on three critical factors. These include: the impartiality of the electoral body, the Independent Nigerian Electoral Commission (IEC); attempts by the ruling party to influence the choice of an elected successor; and the willingness of the elite to allow democratic institutions and the electoral process, that serves the will of all Nigerians.

By all accounts, the 2007 presidential elections are arguably the most important test of the country’s fragile democratic structures and institutions, and perhaps even its nationhood. As West Africa’s heavyweight and a leading global exporter of oil, the outcome of the April elections weighs heavily on the minds of regional leaders and global energy experts. A peaceful transition of power, to a democratically elected regime, stratifies the rule of law and also democracy’s hold in the region while, at the same time, securing global energy requirements. For the average Nigerian on the street, however, the most important election issue is whether the country’s democratic process will ultimately lead to economic prosperity for all, regardless of political, ethnic or religious affiliations. •

Hany Besada is a Senior Researcher working on fragile states at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo, Canada.