ATTENTION:

BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!

INFORMATION:

YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420

WHATSAPP US ON  08137701720

THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION IN OSUN STATE

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Background of the study

Fourth Republic has elevated corruption, impunity and meddlesomeness to political creeds that have robbed governance the much needed responsive and caring human face. This is double jeopardy: bad politics and poor economic

management characterised by collapsing institutions, disoriented political elites and a abused, violated, disillusioned and disenfranchised populace, has led to governance that has failed to deliver the much promised and political

dividends of democracy (The Nation 2009: 15).

The project, therefore, in its attempt to explain this ugly phenomenon of failed, uncaring and unresponsive governance, will link it up to the perennial problem of the nation’s inability and even unwillingness on the part of the political

class to put in place a credible, lawful and democratic electoral process. Thus, the main objective of this research endeavour is to establish a nexus between poor governance and inability and unwillingness of the managers of the Nigerian polity to evolve a democratic electoral regime. The crux of the argument is that

the failure of governance to meet fundamental needs and aspirations of majority of Nigerians is largely a product of the crisis of electoral administration

in Nigeria. Basically, these two issues have come to dominate the discourse on

the travails of democracy in contemporary Nigeria.

Election is the most foundational element of modern day representative democracy. In fact, according to Alapiki (2004: 130), election is:

…the barometer to measure the political maturity, health, legitimacy and stability of a democratic governance. It is generally held to be the single most important indicator of the presence or absence of democratic governance.

Thus, how a state arranges and conducts its elections tells a lot about the level of political development of that particular state (Paki and Inokoba 2006: 181). What is an election? In its most inclusive form, election is defined as: a form of procedure, recognised by the rules of an organisation, whereby all or some of the

members of the organisation choose a smaller member of persons or one person to hold office or authority in the organisation (International Encyclopaedia of Social Science 1972: 1). In a rather restricted sense, Okolie (2005:

436) defines election as, “the process of selecting the officers or representatives of an organization or group by vote of its qualified members”. And as a political phenomenon, elections are institutionalised procedures for choosing

political office holders by the electorate of a country. In other words, it is a means through which the electorate choose their representatives into the different organs (positions) of the government (Paki and Inokoba 2006: 181).

However, a more encompassing definition was posited by Bain (1964: 162). He conceives election as: …the formal process by which the electorate selects officials and determines the issues submitted to it. It is therefore a procedure for choosing officials or making binding decisions concerning policy by the vote of those formally qualified to participate.

The above position is also in line with the definition offered by the Encyclopaedia Americana (Vol. 10, 1996), which conceives election as “a procedure for choosing concerning policy by the vote of those formally qualified to participate”.

In a nutshell, from the foregoing, election is a formal procedure recognised by law as well as a decision taken by the electorate to decide those who occupy public offices and as well as policy direction of a policy. It is in line with this position that conceived election as a social contract between the people and their governors. As such he sees it as “the process by which a person is linked to an office with due provision for the participation of the people meant to come under the officer’s authority”. This perception of election as a framework for forming a government based on popular consent is what makes the product of transparent and credible elections, a responsible, responsive and accountable government.

However, for elections to tamper positively on the output of governance the electoral system

must be just, fair and provides a level

playing ground for political actors. It is for this

reason that the project categorised elections into

two broad types: Democratic and undemocratic

elections. Democratic elections in line with the

views of Lindberg (2001), Tyani and Shastry

(2007) and Animashaun (2008), are elections

conducted according to the provisions of the

electoral law and constitution with transparency,

fairness, justice and equity without the

interference of the incumbent leadership. A

major distinction of a democratic election is

the unfettered participation of high proportion

of the electorate and all existing political

parties- this enhances the democratic quality

of elections. In a democratic election, there is

an absence of electoral violence and other forms

of intimidation because the contestants and

supporters understand virtues of diversity and

different viewpoints. This is quite instructive

because a decent level of competition is central

for democratic qualities like accountability

and responsiveness of the elected officials.

In addition, it is also opined that democratic

elections create a special kind of state (Hadenius

2001: 131). There is a general consensus that

they create an inclusive, interactive and responsive

state, open to intercourse in regulated

ways with its citizens. Under this environment,

governance becomes as approximation of the

yearnings, needs and generality of the citizenry.

In contrast, however, undemocratic elections

are pervasion and negation of all known

democratic tenets. They are characterised by

electoral fraud compassing all forms of electoral

malpractices, irregularities and rigging, which

have underlying criminal intents and purposes.

They connote criminal and illegal electoral

acts, which unduly sway electoral victory to

the desired and unpopular direction. Electoral

fraud could take the form of stuffing ballot

boxes with ballot projects well ahead of actual

voting; seizure of or hoarding of electoral materials;

manipulation and fabrication of electoral

results; use of law enforcement agencies to

intimidate, maim and disenfranchised eligible

voters; murder of political opponents, etc. (Okolie

2005: 437). However, it is pertinent we make

a distinction between electoral fraud and electoral

irregularities. While electoral fraud is

characterised by actions that are designed to

undermine democratic principles and popular

will, electoral irregularity is occasioned by unconscious

shortcomings emanating from the

electoral system. And the reason why the Nigerian

electoral crisis has endured for so long is

because it is deliberately created and is beneficial

to a fraction of the political class that is

bent on maintaining the present status quo. And

the products- that is, the government of undemocratic

elections are distinctively exclusive, dictatorial,

corrupt, predatory and unresponsive to

the needs and yearnings of the populace. Since

it is a non-participatory political set-up, the ultimate

outcome is the output of governance

that falls short of the expectations and needs

of majority of the citizenry.

This takes us to the next concept- how do

we conceptualise governance?

1.2 Statement of the problem

Conducting free and fair election has been a

weighty albatross in Nigeria’s repeated attempts

at sustained democratic governance is a fact

widely acknowledged. According to the International

Institute for Democracy and Electoral

Assistance (IDEA) that the electoral process in

the country faces many administrative, attitudinal

and political problems that have consistently

challenge meaningful, open and democratic

elections in Nigeria (Nwanuforo 2009).

From the fallout of previous electoral exercises,

elections in Nigeria are either undemocratically

guided or organised to fail or the process

and the project privatised by sections of

the political class.

Since the colonial period, Nigeria has

organised about 19 elections. Apart from the

inconclusive June 12 elections of 1993, they

were all congenitally marred by electoral fraud.

These elections were characterised by serious

and blatant cases of electoral fraud such as

stuffing of ballot boxes, over bloated voting registers,

special treatment of voters and election

officials, disappearance or destruction of ballot

boxes, distortion of results, grand standing

of political sponsors (or god-fathers), intimidation

of voters and political opponents by law

enforcement agents and thugs as well as election

related violence, arson and killings.

And examining the electoral history of

Nigeria, there is a general consensus that the

integrity of election has been on the decline

since 1959 with the 2007 general elections

widely assessed by both local and international

observers as the worse in the country’s history.

Commenting on this, Dr Chukwuemeka Ezeife,

former governor of Anambra State opined that:

…democracy is associated with elections.

How have the elections gone since 1999 till

date? The 1999 elections were disputed but it

was vastly better than the 2003 elections.

People shouted foul about the 2003 election

but that was infinitely better than the nonelection

of 2007. Each election has been worse,

more flawed than the one before it. We cannot

be getting a democracy by running further away

from it (cited by Adeyemo 2009: 22).

The United States based Human Rights

Watch also agrees with the above view by stating

in its world survey that the greatest form of

human rights abuse going on in Nigeria is that

Nigerian have been denied the right to choose

their leaders through a free-and-fair election.

Rather most of the so-called political leaders

are selected and imposed on the people; from

the local government to the national level, by

Political god-fathers with the consequence that

those in power are not considered true representatives

of their people (Agbo 2009: 54).

The 2007 general election was designed from

the onset to be flawed. In fact, it was built on

corruption, pervasion, exclusionary politics,

blackmail, intimidation and coercion. Indeed,

several months before the April 14 polls, former

President Olusegun Obasanjo had declared that

winning the elections was a do-or-die affair. And

it turned out to be so.

1.3 Objectives of the study

1. To understand the history of electoral process in osun state

2. To understand the relevance of electoral process in democratic consolidation

3. To know the impact of election violence on democratic consolidation

1.4 Research Questions

1. What is the history of electoral process in osun state?

2. What is the relevance of electoral process in democratic consolidation

3. What is the impact of election violence on democratic consolidation

1.5 Research Hypothesis

H0: There is no relevance of electoral process in democratic consolidation

H1: Electoral process is relevant in democratic consolidation

H0: There is a significant impact of election violence on democratic consolidation

H1: There is no significant impact of election violence on democratic consolidation

1.6 Limitations of the study

There was limited time and finance during the course of the research

HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)

After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to

08068231953 or 08168759420

(1)    Your project topics

(2)     Email Address

(3)     Payment Name

(4)    Teller Number

We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert

BANK ACCOUNTS

Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI

Account Number: 0046579864

Bank: GTBank.

OR

Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI

Account Number: 3139283609

Bank: FIRST BANK

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:

08068231953 or 08168759420

AFFILIATE LINKS:

myeasyproject.com.ng

easyprojectmaterials.com

easyprojectmaterials.net.ng

easyprojectsmaterials.net.ng

easyprojectsmaterial.net.ng

easyprojectmaterial.net.ng

projectmaterials.com.ng

googleprojectsng.blogspot.com

myprojectsng.blogspot.com.ng

https://projectmaterialsng.blogspot.com.ng/
https://foreasyprojectmaterials.blogspot.com.ng/
https://mypostumes.blogspot.com.ng/
https://myeasymaterials.blogspot.com.ng/
https://eazyprojectsmaterial.blogspot.com.ng/
https://easzprojectmaterial.blogspot.com.ng/

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *