Before America Votes …What Nigeria Should Learn

Come November 6, this year, voters in the United States of
America (USA) will file out to elect a President to run the affairs of state in
the next four years. But in an electoral process uniquely American, voting has
since started in some states of the union, without the familiar fear of a
likely bandwagon effect on the eventual outcome.

This year, the battle line is drawn between incumbent
President Barack Obama, of the Democratic Party, who is seeking re-election for
another four years and his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts governor
and wealthy American, Mitt Romney. Both have, for most part of last year, up to
now, been traversing the length and breadth of the union, seeking support for
majority votes.

In all these efforts, what is key, is not where each
candidate comes from or his religion. The process is also not subject to any
form of zoning. What are, are issues Americans consider very vital to their
well-being and future, among them, the economy, health care reforms, taxes, job
creation, foreign policy, global leadership, homeland security and most
importantly who better to address the disturbing state of job losses and
joblessness.

The interesting thing is that the entire process is defined
not by sentiments but real issues and a proper assessment of the pedigree,
capability and indeed preparedness of each of the candidates to address the
problems of the union, as defined by the moment. There, there is no single
party that can pride itself as the largest, hence, sure of victory until the
vote. The issue of incumbency, key to election victories in Africa, is as
weightless as the candidates’ places of birth. What counts, is each candidate’s
ability to convince the American voters that each is better suited and more
prepared to tackle national problems.

In furtherance of that, incumbent President Barack Obama has
pursued a campaign theme carved around the modest achievements made during his
first tenure. ‘We have gone very far, to go back’, in veiled reference to the
economic melt-down, he inherited from his Republican predecessor, former
President George Bush and job creation efforts gradually yielding positive
results. On the other hand, his challenger, Republican candidate Mitt, Romney
has repeatedly staked his renowned business success as manager and employer of
men and materials as a suiting credential to insist that he could do a better
job managing the economy and creating more jobs.

But beyond the self praise and countless advertisements
covering a wide-range of issues, both candidates must inter-face thrice, in
well-planned Presidential debates to properly articulate their vision and
method of actualising their plans. The first of such debates held last week
Wednesday in Denver, with the Republican challenger putting up a much better
performance than President Obama, with all the latter’s well-acknowledged
oratorical prowess and charisma.

The lesson there, among others, is that the handlers of the
debate were not only thorough and well-grounded in the burning needs of
Americans and indeed the defining issues, they demonstrated amazing
non-partisanship or impartiality. They did not, as would most African handlers,
favour the incumbent with leading questions or treat him as first among equals.

Of course, prior to the debate, virtually all polls favoured
President Obama in virtually all aspects of the defining issues and was also
considered more favourable to win than his challenger. That was partly because
of Obama’s amazing campaign rhetoric, drive and style as against Romney’s
inability to link-up properly with ordinary voters. Another, was Romney’s
comments about 47 per cent of Americans being so dependent on government, they
naturally, would vote for President Obama, a comment that inadvertently,
presented Romney as one not only out of touch with reality and the American
poor, but indeed one who cannot be relied upon to defend the middle class, and
therefore, could not be depended upon to address their needs.

That mis-speak was so over-exaggerated by the Democratic
fray that it seemed the elections had already been lost and won. What was
required therefore was to inject some measure of fresh air into the Romney
campaign, using the opportunity offered by the debates to explain, in what
context, he coughed that 47 per cent, dependents’ message.

Happily, the first of three Presidential debates provided
that much needed platform and Romney emerged therefrom with improved rating.
From an abysmal 36 per cent, which the polls had showed, that 48 per cent
American voters later understood the context in which Romney made the 47 per
cent message, was instructive.

Another lesson here, among all others, is that the voters
needed to know the measure of empathy a candidate could muster in times
challenges and needs and not just remain on a high-horse, far away, out of
touch with the people.

Knowing that to be so, a candidate risks electoral failure
should he delude himself with over-confidence, simply because he belongs to a
so called largest political party, as they often say, in Nigeria. In fact, some
politicians were known to have boasted at campaigns that a goat, dressed in a
particular political party’s garb would win elections and often did. What’s
more, didn’t one win elections, while in prison?

But the American process requires even more than special
attention to the worries of the average voter and how a candidate hopes to
address such worries, hence the debates and inter-face by the vote seekers. In
all, the voter is the king.

Although, Mitt Romney’s wonderful showing improved his
chances, and made the contest more interesting it however, did not completely
right-off Obama as a more likeable candidate and thus, with more favourable
rating. According to a Reuters/IPSOS survey released Saturday, Mitt Romney’s
strong debate performance did little to convince more voters (that) he
understands them or is a “good person”, although he has narrowed President
Barack Obama’s overall polls lead.

Just a month before the November 6 election, the Reuters
account said, the Democratic President is ahead of his Republican challenger on
character attributes that can win over undecided voters who have not been
swayed on policy points.

‘Romney gained in a few areas, but not at Obama’s expense
despite the incumbent’s lackluster performance in the first Presidential debate
of Wednesday.

‘On the broad question of who they will vote for, in
November, Obama kept his slim 2 percentage point lead over Romney among likely
voters-47-to 45 per cent according to the on-line survey.

‘The gap was unchanged from Friday, when Obama led by 46 to
44 per cent in the tracking poll. His lead was six percentage points before the
two men first went head-to-head in the Denver Presidential debate.

Obama even gained ground in some voters’ assessment of
character since before the debate, though a majority 55 to 23 per cent felt
Romney did a better job during the encounter in Denver, the survey showed.
IPSOS Pollster Julia Clark explained: “We haven’t; seen additional gains from
Romney. This suggests to me that this is more of a bounce than a permanent
shift”.

Bottomline: Obama had struck a better and enduring chord of
empathy with more American voters, than his challenger, and to such high
extents that flops at debates were not enough reason to wash away his
popularity.

Last Friday, Obama also recorded yet another boost with the
release of the monthly job report, signalling a drop in the U.S. jobless rate
in September to the lowest level since he took office. A decline in
unemployment to 7.8 per cent last month, down from well-above 8.1 per cent,
announced just more than four weeks before Election Day, gave an unexpected
shine to the most vulnerable part of Obama’s record  his economic stewardship  and offered the incumbent a chance to re-set
his re-election bid.

The lesson here is that Obama can be remembered for some
other positive achievements and that even in his most vulnerable area, the
economy, challenger Romney does not seem to be a better replacement.
Bottomline, pedigree and performance also count, poor oratoral skills,
notwithstanding.

So, when will Nigeria get there? When will character,
performance and pedigree count? When will rotation or zoning stop to make
little or no meaning? When indeed will religion and tribe cease to be defining
issues in Nigerian elections?

My Agony is that many influential Nigerians are not only
following the US electoral process, some even partook in the various party
conventions as observers but might have learnt nothing as the next elections
would show.

Methinks, if Nigeria is adopting the US Federal system, so
be it and not pick and choose what to adopt and what not to. Federalism is
federalism, nothing like true federalism. If we are in, lets be in, if we are
not, then lets opt out.

This is what the National Assembly owes Nigeria and
Nigerians as they seek to review the 1999 Constitution.

Soye Wilson Jamabo