Inec and Challenges of Monitoring Political Party Campaign Financing in Nigeria
ABSTRACT
The role of money is germane to the survival of political parties and the conduct of their campaigns during electioneering periods. In fact, electoral processes in liberal democracies cannot end successfully bereft of requisite finances.
However, this does not warrant the excessive deployment and vile use of money in the electoral process thus, contravening acceptable ethical standards. This is why in all democratic climes, there exist rules that guide against illicit acquisition and utilization of funds by political parties in financing their activities.
The Nigerian democratic scenario is not different from this general norm as there are electoral laws that parties should observe in their quest to obtain finances to execute their programmes.
These laws also specify penalties the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) can use in punishing erring political parties.
In the build-up to the 2015 general elections in Nigeria, did the political parties adhere to existing laws while generating funds? Did the INEC adequately monitor how the political parties expend money during their campaigns?
This research work examines and attempts to answer these questions by qualitatively analyzing the conduct of political parties with regards to their campaign funds before the 2015 polls.
It assesses INEC’s efforts at monitoring their finances and the obstacles hampering the process in Nigeria and proffers solutions to the hydra-headed problem of monitoring the finances of political parties in the country.
INTRODUCTION
Democracy is a system in which the government is controlled by the people, and in which people are considered equals in the exercise of that control.
However, unequal access to political finance contributes to an uneven political playing field. Campaign financing has been a major concern in Nigeria.
Significant and unregulated campaign financing often create an uneven playing field in election contest. Large sums of money give certain parties and/or candidates undue advantage over others.
Very often the candidates with the most money always win the election or party nomination process. Wide discrepancies in levels of funding between parties and candidates constrains opportunities for political competition and tend to disenfranchise challengers.
Most often, the uneven playing field results from the fact that the ruling party or the incumbent candidate control political apparatus and uses it to its own advantage and to the disadvantages of challengers.
The financial requirements for entry to electoral competition appear to be getting higher and higher, resulting in political exclusion of those who cannot afford the cost.
Another concern has been that elected officials are becoming more accountable to those who finance their campaigns than to their constituents.
Large corporate or single donor funding for parties and candidates dominates political decisions and political corruption is a national problem, posing a threat to the Nigerian economic growth, democracy, and the stability of the country.
Nearly all major financial and corruption scandals in recent times have been linked to campaign and political financing. The rapid growth of campaign expenditure in many countries has exacerbated this problem.
The huge amounts of money involved in some election campaigns makes it impossible for those without access to large private funds to compete on the same level as those who are well funded. There is no doubt that political parties need access to funds in order to play their part in the political process.
At the same time, the role of money in politics is arguably the biggest threat to democracy worldwide today. This threat is clear across all continents—from huge corporate campaign donations in the United States and drug money seeping into politics in Latin America, to corruption scandals throughout Africa and Europe.
Evidence shows that large portions of the electorate around the world are left with the perception that their politicians are more concerned about money than about representing citizens’ interests.
REFERENCES
Article 19(1999), The Public’s Right to Know: Principles on Freedom of Information Legislation, London: Article 19 available at http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/righttoknow.pdf
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, (1981), adopted 27 June 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force 21October 1986, available at http://www.achpr.org/english/_info/charter_en.html.
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, (2002) adopted by Resolution of the Commission at the 32nd Ordinary Session, 2002, available at http://www.achpr.org/english/_doc_target/documentation.html?../declarations/declaration_ freedom_exp_en.html.
Ayoade, J.A.A. (2006) “Money, Politics and Elections in Nigeria”, in INEC’s Proceedings and Communiqué of the INEC National Forum on Nigeria’s 2007 General Elections: The Critical Challenges Ahead. Abuja: Government printers.
Beyme, K.V. (1985) Political Parties in Western Democracies. Gower: Aldershot.
Centre for Multiparty Democracy – Kenya (2011), Response to Campaign Finance Bill (2011), Nariobi: Centre for Multiparty Democracy – Kenya
Elekwa N.N. (2008), The State, and F. Elections and the Future of Nigeria. Nsukka: Great AP Express Publishers
Eme, O.I. and Okeke,M.I. (2011). “Nigerian Political Parties, Electoral Reforms and Political Finance: Agenda for Reform”, The Constitution, Vol. 11, No 2 (June) Pp 87-115
Eme, O.I (2009), “Political Finance and the Future of Nigeria Political Parties: Agenda for Reform”, Nigerian Journal of Administrative Science (NJAS), vol. 8 No 1 and 2 July, pp 142-162.
Eme, O.I. and Ede, H. (2007), “E – Registration and Democratic Process in Nigeria: Challenges in Post – 2007 Nigeria” Unpublished Essay
Be the first to comment