A STUDY OF ELECTION VIOLENCE IN NIGERIA, 1983-2011
CHAPTER ONE: THE 1983 ELECTION: THE ONDO DEBACLE
Introduction 1
The Ondo Debacle: Politics and Election in Ondo State5
ENDNOTES12
CHAPTER TWO: THE JUNE 12 ELECTION: THE MILITARY AND THE NIGERIAN SOCIETY
Background to June 12 Election of 199314
The Emergence of Chief M.K.O Abiola and Alhaji Bashir Tofa17
Election, Election Result and Annulment of June 12 1993 Election21
Post-Election Violence 28
ENDNOTES39
CHAPTER THREE: THE 2011 ELECTION: PREJUDICE MASQUERADING AS ELECTORAL PROJECT
Introduction 41
Previewing the 2011 Election44
C.Pre-Election Violence47
D.Post-Election Violence49 ENDNOTE 63
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION68
Bibliography72
CHAPTER ONEÂ THE 1983 ELECTION: THE ONDO DEBACLE
Introduction
The electoral process in Nigerian has been characterized by violence. However, recent manifestations of electoral violence have assumed an unprecedented magnitude and changing form and character, with negative implications for democratic stability and consolidation. Examples include disputed and violent elections in Nigeria where the attendant search for redress through official and unofficial responses has, altogether, been largely trapped in deepening contradictions 1
As a concept, electoral violence basically has to do with all forms of organized acts or threats, physical, psychological and structural aimed at intimidating, harming, blackmailing a political stakeholder before, during and after an election with a view to determining, delaying, or otherwise influencing an electoral process.2 The import of this is that electoral violence is multidimensional, having physical, psychological and structural dimensions. The physical elements include assassination of political opponents, arson, looting, shooting, kidnapping and hostage taking, forceful disruption of campaign rallies, armed raids on voting and collating centres, including snatching of ballot papers and boxes at gun point. The psychological dimension relates to official and unofficial actions that create fear in the people, which may be a product of physical violence. These include threats to opposition forces by security agents or through phone calls or text messages. This structural dimension of electoral violence seems much more pronounced, being a product of structural imbalance, including coercion of citizens by government to register or vote, unequal opportunities for political parties and candidates, abuse of power of incumbency, falsification of election result, as well as the politicization of security and electoral officials 3
It is also evident that electoral violence, like an election itself, is not restricted to Election day alone. It can happen before, during and after the elections. Pre-election violence any include acts threats against electoral stakeholders during voter’s registration or electioneering campaigns. Election day violence includes the snatching of ballot papers or boxes, assaults on opposition parties or agents, and harassment or intimidation by security agents. In the aftermath of an election, electoral violence may take the form of violent protests against electoral rigging, whether real or imagined, and of the state’s deploying its apparatus of force in response to the protest, thereby further fuelling the violence. In addition, electoral violence is a form, perhaps the most deadly form of electoral fraud which has been defined as “clandestine efforts to shape election results.4 This can be perpetrated both by the incumbent power holder to avoid defeat and by power opposition elements seeking to wrest political power form the governing party. In most cases, electoral information such as registration data, vote results, ballots; campaign materials, for example, vehicles and public address systems, electoral facilities such as polling and counting stations, and electoral events including campaigns ralies.
