Recently, the Edo Governorship Election Tribunal delivered judgement on the petition of the PDP Governorship candidate on the 2024 Edo State Governorship Election which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared the APC candidate as the winner. The PDP had complained that the APC did not win the highest number of valid votes and that the election was marred by substantial irregularity because of non-compliance with the strict requirements of the law. Shorn of legal jargon, the petition simply alleged that INEC rigged the election for the APC, that the APC candidate was not duly elected.

The judgement of the tribunal is now a matter of public discourse because it is not just a judicial determination. It goes beyond that. It is a metaphor for what has become the fate of democracy in Nigeria. The problem with judicial involvement in election disputes in Nigeria is not because it is leading to the judicialisation of politics.

The problem is the gradual but determined destruction, through judicial decisions, of credible incentives for free and fair elections in Nigeria. If there is no strong incentive for the electoral management body to ensure free and fair elections, then the electoral system is not competitive. Without competitive elections, that is, elections where powerful incumbent could easily lose, it will be difficult to sustain democracy in Nigeria.

To understand what damage is being done to democracy in the sort of judgement delivered by the Edo State Governorship Election Tribunal, it is important to restate the fundamentals of democracy. At a time when the leading democracies in the world are drifting towards autocracy or fascism in their politics, simply restating the fundamentals of democracy becomes a revolutionary act. In a time when transitional democracies like Nigeria and some of the African countries are shifting towards electoral autocracy, it is important to remind ourselves the meaning of democracy.

There are three fundamentals features of democracy. The most fundamental is political equality. Democracy starts from the premise that citizens in a polity are equal. This equality finds expression in the simple fact that they jointly make laws that regulate their affairs and govern themselves. In the classical Greek City-state, Athens, the mythical home of democracy, political equality meant that all male citizens met at the Agora daily to deliberate and make laws and take turns periodically to sit in the magisterium to decide disputes.

In the larger and complex modern society, political equality means that every adult citizen has a right to elect those who will sit in the modern Agora (parliament) and presidential villas to make laws and execute them. So, the first and foremost mark of a democracy is that the people choose their leaders as political equals. The concept of political equality has great implications for how the electoral system is designed and the management of the larger political institutions.

The second fundamental of democracy is the guarantee of freedom and liberty of the people. If the people are politically equal, it means that no one should violate the dignity of anyone. It means that the essence of government is that no one’s life is more valued in a fundamental sense than that of another. This is why Robert A. Dahl argued that “Democracy is not only a process of governing. Because rights are necessary elements of democratic political institutions, democracy is inherently also a system of rights. Rights are among the essential building blocks of democratic process of government”.

The third fundamental of democracy is that the regime in power can easily be removed by the people whenever they are dissatisfied of its performance. This is what Robert Dahl calls ‘responsiveness’. The beauty of democracy is that those who occupy public offices know that if they do not satisfy the expectations of the people, they could lose their positions of power.

This reality of losing elections and accepting the outcome is what Joseph Schumpeter identified as the essence of democracy and what makes democracy superior as an engine of economic and social development. The feasibility of removing non-performing public officials is the inherent feature of democracy that makes it a more reliable driver of economic growth than any other model of governance.

The device through which democracy achieves its purposes is elections. Modern democracy has been reduced to representative democracy. This is so because the only way we can achieve self-determination in a large and complex society is by having a few people representing the rest of us. These representatives are chosen through periodic elections. There are no more popular democracies. We have only representative democracies. The heart of representative democracy is elections. The most important work that citizen of democracies do is to elect representatives who thereafter act on their behalf on issues of public interest.

There are elements of good electoral system that leads to democracy. These elements are grouped together as elements of ‘free and fair’ elections. Free and fair elections have three elements that ensure that they can produce a democratic governance. The first element is that every adult citizen can register to vote. In many countries, 18 year olds are old enough to vote. Making good provisions for every adult citizen to register to vote is the most important element of free and fair elections.

The second element is that voting must be voluntary and uncoerced. This is the notion of freeness. Political freedom requires that citizens make a choice of who governs in the atmosphere of freedom. This is also an aspect of competitiveness. Except there is freedom to freely associate politically and to vote whoever we like, there is no competitive elections.

And this leads to the third element of a democratic electoral system, namely, that votes are accurately counted and announced. The integrity and credibility of the electoral system are hinged on the pillar of accurate counting of votes and announcement of results. We can attest that Stalin got it right when he noted that those who count the votes are more important than those who cast votes.

To be continued tomorrow.

Dr Amadi is the director of Abuja School of Social and Political Thought.