Despite the universal condemnation of the conduct of the election by foreign observers sent to monitor these elections, and despite the absence of ballots left behind in South Africa; the printing of ballots without serial numbers or references; the non-opening of polling places; the theft and manipulation of the ballots by the police, army and hired thugs; and premature tallies of  votes (sometimes giving totals greater than the number of electors), the Court found that the allegations of violations of the Electoral Law were effectively trivial. As promised, the two petitioners have vowed to go to the Supreme Court for redress.

As a consultant to several governments and companies on Nigerian politics this has been a busy forty-eight hours. What might be of interest to Nigerians are the questions these foreigners have raised, as they are very different questions than those circulating within Nigeria. They might provide a guide as to how Nigeria is viewed in Western countries and in other African states.

The first question was “Will they get away with it?” Does it seem likely that the pressure and rewards offered to the judges will be sufficient? The answer is ’Yes, of course’. Once the Attorney-General sat down with a cozy group of political leaders in Abuja at 2100 hours the day before the judgment and read them the verdict he had drafted for the Court it became clear that all was arranged successfully. The verdict would be read by the Court the following day and the President could leave the country on his China trip. The promises of promotions and a massive transfer of cash from major Northern political centres proved more than sufficient.

The second part of the answer relates to why this was possible. The fundamental reason why all this effort was expended to continue “Baba-Go-Slow” in power rather than to rerun the election which Yar’Adua might easily have won was that the Presidency viewed its enemy as Obasanjo and his cronies, not Atiku Abubakar and Buhari. Obasanjo is widely thought to have chosen Yar’Adua to succeed him because he was convinced that the campaign would kill Yar’Adua and Obasanjo would get his Third Term by default. When Yar’Adua survived and began to supplant Obasanjo’s policies with his own and to distance himself from Obasanjo, the reaction was swift and intense. Obasanjo fought for control of the Board of the PDP party and will be in charge in the congress coming up soon. Yar’Adua could not be assured of winning the nomination for the PDP and would have to severely compromise with Obasanjo in order to survive. He couldn’t afford to wait for a free and fair election.

Along these lines it has become clear that with this ruling by the Court the review by the Supreme Court is becoming less and less attractive to both Buhari and Atiku. They dislike each other and, more importantly, dislike Obasanjo more than they dislike Yar’Adua. Their review by the Supreme Court is likely to succeed on its merits but, having succeeded; it places power back in the hands of their joint enemy Obasanjo. There is a lot of carrot and stick diplomacy going on between the Yar’Adua camps and both Buhari and Atiku on how far to press the appeal to the Supreme Court. Neither wishes to reward Obasanjo.

The next question these foreigners asked is “Who else is there if Yar’Adua goes?” There has been a lot of discussion of who might be available to step in as a compromise candidate. The most obvious ones are Babagana Kingibe and Aliyu Mohammed Gusau, both of whom have been actively campaigning for the job. The trouble is that, despite what Nigerians think of these gentlemen, they are viewed in a less favourable light overseas. There are several stories in circulation relating to why Kingibe suddenly was moved out of his foreign ministry job, several years ago, and the track record of Gusau in his National Security role has rubbed several foreign countries the wrong way. Neither of the two would be an obvious replacement. What the foreign groups want is someone who will create and maintain stability. He most certainly will not be a reformer, a challenger of the status quo. The view is that Nigeria cannot tolerate a lot of reform. Reform and the precipitate move towards democracy and the rule of law are considered too dangerous.

The logic is that, for the most part, Nigeria is a very poor country with millions of very poor people. Their time horizons do not extend far into the future. They must struggle on a daily or weekly basis for survival, often in terrible conditions. Their ability to survive relies primarily on a network of corruption, dash or deals which sustain them. Remove this burden from their backs and they will starve. The remuneration from gainful employment and social services is not sufficient to sustain them, nor is the network of social services developed to a level in which the state can intervene.

The best foreign example was the election of Mayor John Lindsay in New York. He was elected as a reformer; a man with clean hands. He removed layer upon layer of corruption in New York and soon had riots on his hand from poor people who were unable to survive in a free and unfettered economy. There wasn’t enough work available and the budgets and rules of the system did not allow social services to pay their rent or provide them food or medicines. A compromise with corruption allowed the city to get back in business.

The structure of Nigerian state and local politics is not one which welcomes reformers. Therefore there has been little movement of reformers up the political chain to national prominence. The reformers and democrats are essentially educated urban Nigerians; often with experience of life in other countries. They write passionately about the failures of the current system and are very accurate in their descriptions. They know what should be done but they are hard pressed to find a political figure who will embrace these ideals on the national level and put them into practice.

The question asked most often is “Will this be another Kenya?” Are the Nigerians sufficiently upset by the rigged election to take to the streets and riot? The answer is ‘No’. Nigeria has had its bitter experience with a civil war and no one wants another. The rioting and hostage-taking in the Delta is not about seeking democracy and reform. It is about seeking a proper share of the oil revenues for the local inhabitants and a repair of the damages done to their environment by the oil companies. There is enough disorder with religious battles in places like Plateau and elsewhere to make such rioting a thing to be avoided.

No one really expected that, after the end of Third Term, and Obasanjo’s “do or die” pronouncement that this election would be anything else but rigged. It took a fool and a charlatan like Maurice Iwu of INEC to turn it into a complete farce. The election was almost a year ago and several of the most egregious offenders have already been turfed out of office by the Courts to make it seem as if some type of law and order is at work. A Kenya solution is not really a possibility. If there were such a move towards violence the Army would be back in charge of the country in two days and all the politicians would be languishing in Kiri-Kiri, Kaduna and Yola. They know this well.

So, as far as the rest of the world goes it’s business as usual in Nigeria. The tragedy is that no one expects better from the country or its politicians (or soldiers). The term ’Nigerian’ is generally used as a term of opprobrium; a shorthand for the breakdown of a nation under the weight of a corrupt system. The view is that if Nigerians are not willing to insist on change and improvements no one else can make it happen for them. As long as the country continues to produce fine crude oil and natural gas they can have any kind of government they want and, in truth, not many people care much beyond this. Their money is welcome; their banks and stock exchange are valuable contributions to the African and the world’s economies. Their political governance unfortunately is theirs alone.