Electoral Fraud in Nigeria: A Philosophical Evaluation of the Framework of Electoral Violence

doi:10.4236/ojps.2013.34023

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Open Journal of Political Science

2013. Vol.3, No.4, 167-174

Published Online October 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojps) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2013.34023

Electoral Fraud in Nigeria: A Philosophical Evaluation of the

Framework of Electoral Violence

Ani Casimir, Emma Omeh, Chinedu Ike

Department of Philo sophy/Institute of African Studies/Political Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria

Email: cepperngo@yahoo.com, drommema@yahoo.com, chinedu-ike@hotmail.com

Received June 6th, 2013; revised August 4th, 2013; accepted August 21st, 2013

tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

In the 2011 general elections in Nigeria, the Independent National Election Commission (INEC), the

electoral management body (EMB) that organized the elections pulled what may pass as an electoral feat

in achieving one of the most open, credible, peaceful and transparent elections within Nigeria’s recent

memory. Before the 2011 elections, Nigeria had the 1999, 2003 and the 2007 elections considered by both

national and international election observers, the Common Wealth Election Monitoring groups and the

civil society, to be the most disorganized and fraudulent election during which people’s votes were bla-

tantly stolen, rigged and the mandate of the people hijacked by political elites belonging variously to dif-

ferent political parties. Nigeria’s democracy, no doubt, is still nascent, evolving and could be classified as

a new democracy. This paper takes a critical look at a disturbing national and international question: why

is there so much electoral fraud in new and emerging democracies like Nigeria. The article seeks to estab-

lish the reasons and causes of electoral manipulation, its dynamics and corrupt tendencies, especially

those electoral outcomes that are disputed as a result of electoral misconduct known as “electoral fraud”.

The article will evaluate the concept of electoral fraud, explore the challenges of electoral fraud, its con-

sequent crisis for new democracies and suggests ways of curtailing the phenomenon in its varied mani-

festations.

Keywords: Philosophy of Good Governance; Electoral Fraud; Political Elites; Election Management Body

and Nigeria; Democratic Governance for Development Project; Pillars of Democracy

Introduction

An electoral fraud is seen as an illegal interference with the

process of election that interferes with the mandate of the peo-

ple. Other features of this political elite fraud include:

1) Using vote counts to change an election result;

2) Increasing the number of votes for the favored candidate;

3) Reducing the vote share of the opposing candidates or

parties.

In Nigeria’s chequered political and democratic history, spe-

cial dimensions were assumed by the country’s electoral fraud

experience to include:

4) Under age voting;

5) Mass voting by unregistered citizens (neither qualified to

6) Snatching of ballot boxes to be stuffed with thumb-

printed votes for party candidates;

7) Switching of results before or after collation to favor rul-

ing party candidates;

8) Intimidation at the polls using private militant gangs or

even state security;

9) Scaring away of genuine registered voters from exercis-

ing their votes in polling booths located in an opposition fa-

vored constituency;

10) Deliberate, one-sided and improper counting of votes;

11) Media manipulation to announce or publish the wrong

results and the wrong candidates as winners before the proper

collation of results by the Electoral Commission.

Since this study focuses on electoral fraud in Nigeria, as a

fundamental cause and framework under which electoral vio-

lence is unleashed that threatens the political order and peace in

Nigeria, it will be a vital and relevant good step to give a sum-

mary background of recent Nigeria’s relevant political and

democratic history.

Background History of Recent Democractic

Experience in Nigeria

Nigeria is a country with diverse and multifarious culture

with overlapping regional, religious, and ethnic boundaries.

Nigerian’s present population is estimated to be around 150

million. With the emergence of democratic politics in 1999

after over thirty (30) years of military rule, elections took place

in Nigeria with candidates contesting on different political plat-

forms for the presidency, the national Assembly, State Houses

of Assembly, and governorship in the 36 states. The hope

raised by the enthusiasm with which the country embraced

democratic process in 1999 was a false indicator an emerging

stable democracy in Nigeria. The hope was misplaced as recent

indicators will prove According to the report written on 2011

elections by the International Foundations for Election Systems

(IFES) (Aniekwe & Kushie, 2011) the hope raised by democ-

A. CASIMIR ET AL.

ractic politics was dashed and the expectations continued to fall

with bleak prospects:

Since the 1999 to the 2007 elections, the Nigeria electoral

and political landscape has fallen from par to below par and has

moved from violence to greater violence. The level and magni-

tude of electoral and political violence has risen and the politi-

cal elites have often converted poverty ridden unemployed

Nigerian youths into readymade machinery for the perpetration

of electoral violence. This is linked to the political system and

institution that in theory has failed to political participation and

in practice has seen the political elites forming bulk of the

sponsors and perpetrators of electoral violence. An examination

of the political antecedents reveals evidence of political and

electoral violence in Nigeria before 1999. There were repeated

scales of violence and political and/or religious rift between the

Christian and Muslim on the one side and North and South on

the other side. The pattern of violence in the former is such that

cut across political, sectarian and electoral, while in the latter,

the activities of the militant (so called freedom fighters) tran-

scends just the struggle for the control of the resources to in-

clude both covert and overt participation in perpetrating elec-

toral violence1.

The configuration of the Nigeria political system falls along

six geopolitical zones namely: the North viz: the North-West

comprising Kaduna, Katsina, Jigawa, Sokoto, Kebbi, Kano, and

Zamfara; the North-East comprising Bauchi, Gombe, Borno,

Taraba, Adamawa and Yobe; the North Central comprising

Plateau, Nassarawa, Niger, Kwara, Kogi and Benue. In the

South, the geopolitical configurations are the South-West com-

prising Lagos, Osun, Ogun, Oyo, Ekiti and Ondo; the South-

East comprising Enugu, Anambra, Imo, Abia and Ebonyi and

the South-South comprising Rivers, Cross River, Akwa Ibom,

Delta Edo and Bayelsa. None of these zones is spared from

possibility of electoral violence nonetheless; the trigger, ma-

chinery and strategy employed might differ and the remote

cause may as well vary across zones and states.

Electoral Fraud and Violence—A Dialectical Link

Electoral violence in Nigeria is caused by electoral fraud and

manipulation of figures and data to deny the rightful winners

their popular mandates given to them and certified by the elec-

toral process. It is an attempt to willfully compromise the integ-

rity of the electoral process or system to achieve unmerited

individual win for a political party candidate through the falsi-

fication of the electoral figures, numbers, data or process.

Electoral fraud is the organized strategy or programs of indi-

viduals and or political parties to get desired results of an elec-

toral process either by hook (or) crook. It is the number one

cause of electoral violence before, during or after elections.

Electoral Violence

Researches on electoral violence is scare and often times fo-

cuses broadly with a mixture of political and electoral vio-

lence. However some scholars have made attempt to conceptu-

alise electoral violence (Aniekwe & Kushie, 2011). As quoted

by Aniekwe and Kushie, Fischer defined electoral violence

(conflict) as “any random or organized act that seeks to deter-

mine, delay, or otherwise influence an electoral process through

threat, verbal intimidation, hate speech, disinformation, physi-

cal assault, forced ‘protection’, blackmail, destruction of prop-

erty, or assassination”2. On his part Otigbe Igbuzor (2010)

views it as:

“any act of violence perpetuated in the course of political ac-

tivities, including pre, during and post election periods, and

may include any of the following acts: thuggery, use of force to

disrupt political meetings or voting at polling stations, or the

use of dangerous weapons to intimidate voters and other elec-

toral process or to cause bodily harm or injury to any person

connected with electoral processes”3.

The work of Fischer, according to Anikwe & Kushie (2011)

“culminated into a comprehensive research by the International

Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) on electoral violence,

which later set the state for the Electoral Violence Education

and Resolution (EVER) project that has been implemented in

countries across continents including Ghana, Kyrgyzstan,

Guyana, Iraq, East-Timo and Nigeria. The EVER project is

currently being implemented in Nigeria and it presents a com-

prehensive and robust understanding of the context and concept

of electoral violence”. Within the EVER framework therefore

election-related violence refers to

“any violence (harm) or threat of violence (harm) that is

aimed at any person or property involved in the election proc-

ess, or at disrupting any part of the electoral or political proc-

ess during the election period”4.

The three definitions, closely related, capture the stages of

electoral violence as well as the actors constitute electoral vio-

lence. It is this morphology and deeper nature of electoral vio-

lence with its causes that Anikwe and Kushie again analysed

with interconnections to electoral fraud:

The crucial thing is that the definitions reveal the deeper na-

ture of electoral violence in a way that readers would under-

stand that electoral violence is much more than Election Day

violence or overt manifestation of violence during election

period. It transcends that to capture the election stages and can

be a harm or threat to harm to the electoral process. Election

violence generally involves political parties, their supporters,

journalists, agents of the government, election administrators

and the general population, and includes threats, assault, mur-

der, destruction of property, and physical or psychological

harm5.

This dialectical observation is closely related to the concep-

tualization of political and electoral related violence in a cross

country study of post World War II political violence, in which

Hibbs (1973) took a broader approach to capture the entire

periods of election process. By these definitions, it becomes

clear why our understanding of electoral violence must involve

specific victim(s), perpetrator(s) and occurs within a time frame

and location. These perpetrators come with their fraudulent

motives and the victims of electoral violence are people, places,

things or data which are often manipulated, distorted or de-

stroyed. This presupposes that electoral violence cuts across

different stages of election starting from the registration period

to post election period. Fischer (2002) highlighted four descrip-

tive categories of conflict and violence that emerge, suggesting

a variety of motives, perpetrators, and victims which includes

the following:

2Fisher, Electoral Violence culled from Aniekwe & Kushie (2011).

3Otigbe Igbuzor culled from Kushie (2011:18).

4Electoral Violence (EVER Project; International Foundation for Elections

System Paper, 2011).

5Fisher (200 2 ) International Foundation for Elections system Report.

1Chika Charl es Aniekwe & J oshua Kushie (201 1): Electoral Violence S itu-

ational Analysis: Identifying Hot-Spots in the 2011 General Elections in

igeria, Joint Association For Peaceful Elections in Nigeria and IFES p. 1.

168

A. CASIMIR ET AL.

1) Disgruntled voters against the state arising from perceived

unfairness in the election process;

2) The state in conflict with voters who challenges election

result or hegemony of the state;

3) Political rivals in conflict with each other in the quest to

attain power and;

4) A combination of two or more of the above categories”6.

From the above we can see that it is a given that electoral

fraud is at the heart of electoral violence because people, as

electorates and stakeholders in a countrry’s democracy, are not

happy when their electoral and democratic rights had been sto-

len either before, during or after elections had taken place. Vio-

lence is one of the reactions to electoral victory denial, real or

perceived. Electoral fraud when properly documented by elec-

tion monitors confirms the fact that a particular election or

electoral process has not been transparent, fair or credible to

make the peoples’ votes to count or to genuinely reflect their

democratic mandate.

No matter the cultural shape of electoral fraud or whatever

the violent reactionary dimension it has assumed in Nigeria (Or

anywhere else), what has become fixed in the conceptual

framework of electoral best practices is that electoral miscon-

duct and corruption differs from country to country, under dif-

ferent laws, that define what it is, its national and local tenor.

Many electoral laws define what constitutes violation of good

conduct before, during, and after elections. But as in Nigeria

(until 2011) the good electoral laws made by its National As-

sembly turn a blind eye to massive rigging and violence with

impunity because of weak institutions that are easily manipu-

lated by politicians. Although technically the term “electoral

fraud” covers only those acts which are illegal, the term is

sometimes used to describe acts which although legal, are con-

sidered to be morally unacceptable, outside the spirit of elec-

toral laws or in violation of the principles of democracy7.

In the context of political theory it is accurate to state that

electoral fraud violates both the spirit and laws of democracies.

According to John Locke, considered rightly as the theoretical

architect of democracy as it exists in the world today8 clearly

states that in a free society (democracy) “no one ought to harm

or cheat another of his life, health, liberty and possession”9.

Any government based on this principles of misconduct will be

unstable, chaotic and tyrannical since it “operates by caprice,

and the society it controls will be correspondingly unstable”10.

According to Locke:

In a properly conducted government, a democracy such a

state of affairs will be ruled out. Democracy is government by

laws that are arrived at after long deliberation by properly cho-

sen representatives of the people11.

Electoral fraud, cheating, violence rigging or manipulation of

votes either by INEC or ruling parties either at the national,

state or local government levels in Nigeria is sharply at vari-

ance with the democratic rights and freedoms of Nigeria people,

it is therefore a fundamental violation of the constitution and

liberty of Nigerians whose electoral mandates were stolen.

Considerations and Evaluation of Different Electoral

Frauds in a D e moc racy

As can be seen from the picture of electoral fraud experience

in Nigeria, it is differs from country to country and has different

national laws establishing, defining and sanctioning what con-

stitutes electoral fraud, its violations and sanctions. In Nigeria’s

flawed electoral process and history electoral fraud has had the

negative impacts on her people at the same level coups and

corruptions have weakened the country’s development. This is

because the electoral frauds not only were not only unpunished

but beneficiaries of electoral frauds were supported by govern-

ment institutions to form new governments and let in parlia-

ments at the national, state and local levels after the elections.

When people’s mandates are short changed and the electoral

fraud with its perpetrators not punished, it can reduce voters

confidence in a democracy, government and reduce their sup-

port for institutions that strengthen democratic participations.

Morphology of Electoral Fraud—A Universal

Perspective

The nature and symptoms of electoral fraud that is seen in

Nigeria draws from a universal perspective and definition that

attempts to establsih some working principle of what has been

variously described as political and democratic corruption. This

is because electoral fraud is an illegal interfrence in the trans-

parent process of an election. Accordingly, a working gleaned

from the Global Research website, Wikipaedia, defines elec-

toral fraud as an incident that not only destabilizes a democracy

but it could also put an election process into a credibility crisis

making it difficult for people and voters not to accept an elec-

tion process or its results:

“Electoral fraud is an illegal interference with the process of

an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bring about an

election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the

favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival can-

didates or both. Also called voter fraud, the mechanisms in-

volved include illegal voter registration, intimidation at polls

and improper vote counting. What electoral fraud is under law

varies from country to country. Many kinds of voter fraud are

outlawed in electoral legislation but others are in violation of

general laws such as those banning assault, harassment or libel.

Although technically the term ‘electoral fraud’ covers only

those acts which are illegal, the term is sometimes used to de-

scribe acts which although legal, are considered to be morally

unacceptable, outside the spirit of electoral laws or in violation

of the principles of democracy”12.

6Fisher (2002:3).

7Fisher.

8Popken and Sholl (1993/70) The political philosophy of John Locke,New

York): In the context of political theory it is accurate to say that electoral

fraud violates both the spirit and laws of democracies. According to John

Locke, considered rightly as the theoretical architect of democracy as it

exists in th e wor ld to day cl earl y stat es t hat in a fr ee so ciet y (d emocrac y) “n o

one ought to harm or cheat a nother of his life, health, libert y and possession”.

9Popken an d Sholl (19 93 /71) The politica l ph ilo sophy of John Locke .

10Popken and Sholl (1993/72) The political philosophy of John Lock: Any

government based on this principles of misconduct will be unstable,chaotic

and tyrannical since it “operates by caprice, and the society it controls will

be correspondi ngly unstable”.

11Popken and Sholl (1993/PP 74-76) The political philosophy of John Locke

According to Locke: “In a properly conducted government, a democracy

such a state of affairs will be ruled out. Democracy is government by laws

that are ar rived at af ter long d eli

eration by properly chosen representatives

of the people”.

In national elections, successful electoral fraud can have the

effect of a coup d’état or corruption of democracy. In a narrow

election a small amount of fraud may be enough to change the

result. If the result is not affected, fraud can still have a damag-

ing effect if not punished, as it can reduce voters’ confidence in

12The Spirit of Electoral Laws or Violation of the Principles of Democracy

(www.wikipaedia.com).

A. CASIMIR ET AL.

democracy. Even the perception of fraud can be damaging as it

makes people less inclined to accept election results. This can

lead to the breakdown of democracy and the establishment of a

dictatorship. Electoral fraud is not limited to political polls and

can happen in any election where the potential gain is worth the

risk for the cheater; as in elections for labor union officials,

student councils, sports judging, and the awarding of merit to

books, films, music or television programmes. Despite many

instances of electoral fraud, it remains a difficult phenomenon

to study. This follows from its inherent illegality. Harsh penal-

ties aimed at deterring electoral fraud make it likely that indi-

viduals who perpetrate fraud do so with the expectation that it

either will not be discovered or will be excused13.

The Democratic Governance for Development

Project in Nigeria

Electoral fraud in Nigeria has served the ignoble purposes of

weakening the people’s confidence and support for democratic

institution in Nigeria. Institutions of democracy strengthen and

stabilize democratic development since they encourage and

legalize wider popular participation in the democratic and de-

velopment process. As a result of the several decades of organ-

ized electoral fraud perpetrated at the national, state and local

levels of governance people have lost faith in governance, in-

stitutions and experienced mass alienation and exclusion from

the process of governance. This has weakened the development

programs, projects and prospects of Africa’s most populated

country. The huge electoral fraud committed during the 2007

elections made the European Union, the Commonwealth and

the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to carry out

a detailed study of the pervasive problem of why Nigerians

have lost interest, confidence and faith in democratic institu-

tions14. (The DGD sponsored survey) and came to the conclu-

sion that the pillars of democracy in Nigeria are weak and, as a

result, electoral manipulation and fraud are used to truncate the

popular mandate and wishes of the people.

To strengthen democracy in Nigeria democratic pillars such

as the media, gender, the legislature, youths, the civil society

and INEC needed to be enlightened and empowered with true

democratic values to be able to place them at a pedestal they

can be mobilized during elections to guard and protect the vot-

ers of people during and after elections. The democractic pillars

will not only restore confidence in democratic institutions but

will enable the votes of the Nigerian people to count. Super-

vised and managed under the United Nations Development

Program (UNDP), the DGD project in Nigeria is jointly spon-

sored by the European Union, Canadian Agency for Interna-

tional Development, (Cida), the Department for International

Development of the British Government (DFID), the Korean

Agency for International Development (KOIDA) and the

UNDP. The Nigerian Democractic Governance for Develop-

ment Project (DGD) was targeted principally at checkmating

the incidence of electoral fraud which has sabotaged Nigeria’s

democratic aspiration and progress. With the high level of

transparency, peace and fair polls witnessed in 2011 elections,

the international and local observers and development partners

may have been correct in giving credit to INEC Nigeria’s new

electoral management body under Professor Attahiru Jega

checkmating historical incidences of electoral fraud. More im-

portantly to be factored into this democratic credit mix is the

positive impact and influence played by the DGD in Nigeria in

restoring the electoral confidence of Nigerians in democratic

institutions14.

Tendencies and Tenacity of Past Electoral Frauds in

Nigeria

Inspite of many instances of electoral fraud as witnessed sev-

erally in Nigeria, it is a phenomenon difficult to study and

checkmate. Perpetrators of electoral fraud in the country, de-

spite new electoral laws meant to checkmate them, still per-

petuate it and violate the electoral freedoms of Nigerians with

impunity. They do so either with the expectation that the fraud

will not be discovered by INEC, they may collude with willing

INEC officials, police or if discovered, that they will go unpun-

ished.

Before the success of INEC on the 2011 electoral feat, Nige-

ria was racked by a pervasive history of electoral fraud since

independence. As agreed to by several scholars such as Patrick

Iroegbu: 2003: 17, since 1960 when the country attained politi-

cal independence from Brittan electoral fraud at a time became

a disease ravaging Nigerian people and undermining their de-

velopment planning, leading to a psychological phenomenon

known as electoral fraud anger syndrome that disposes the

cheated masses to violence:

Beyond any reasonable shade of doubt, there is a political ill-

ness that sweeps across Nigeria at any given election time since

independence. This political illness is very contagious, disrup-

tive and result to wrong choice of credible leaders to make

development and healthy living occur. It has a name. We call it

“severe Nigerian Electoral Fraud Anger Syndrome” (SNEFAS).

The concept of this political illness is typically one character-

ized by devastating impact on people’s thinking and emotional

control each time it plays out. Has it mattered to know how

many people died in the last concluded (2003) elections? The

figure could be frightening. The electoral time bonus of a gov-

ernment sweeps people across to death once it is detonated. But

how come choosing leadership in Nigeria can be so devastat-

ing?

It has become obvious that violence, savagery, kidnapping,

vote stuffing ballot box snatching, bribery, and corruption of

security/electoral agents and outright rigging out of rival politi-

cal opponents were part of what constitutes electoral fraud in

Nigeria. Police brutality and total disregard for human life and

dignity connive to generate massive electoral malpractices in

Nigeria during which youths and college students are used as

political thugs, armed and sponsored by Nigeria’s political

elites and political parties who want to won at all costs. This

article would not focus upon the history of electoral frauds in

Nigeria nor upon what causes them. Some of the identified

cultural shapes of Nigeria’s electoral fraud had been identified

in the introduction—we would go further for the purposes of

clarity to expand the conceptual identification process of what

constitutes electoral fraud not only in Nigeria but in other de-

veloping democracies.

13Wikipaedia. Ibid.

14The huge electoral fraud committed during the 2007 elections made the

European Union, the Commonwealth and the United Nations Development

Program (UNDP) to carry out a detailed study of the pervasive problem o

why Nigerians have lost interest, confidence and faith in democratic institu-

tions. See: The DGD Project sponsored survey of participatory level o

igerians in the country’s democractic institutions and processes of election

and development (2010), UNDP Nigeria website.

170

A. CASIMIR ET AL.

Electoral Fraud Species in Developing Democracies

Electoral fraud can occur at any stage in the democratic proc-

ess, but most commonly occurs during election campaigns,

voter registration or during vote-counting. The two main types

of electoral fraud are preventing eligible voters from casting

their vote freely (or voting at all); and altering the results. A list

of threats to voting systems, or electoral fraud methods, espe-

cially its species that occur in developing democracies such as

Nigeria is as follows:

Manipulation of the Electorate

Political elites seeking votes indulge in an unfair manipula-

tion of the voting public through gerrymandering, demographic

manipulation, outright disenfranchisement of registered voters,

intimidation, vote buying (cash for votes), printing a confusing

ballot papers that could mislead voters, stuffing of ballot boxes

with illegally thumb printed votes, deliberate mis-recording of

votes (it either increase for a favored candidate or decrease for

an ill-favored opponent, abuse of proxy or electronic voting, or

destruction and invalidation of genuine votes cast (or vice versa

—validation of invalid votes).

Legislative Vote Fraud

It may be surprising to a lot of people that vote fraud in new

and transitory democracies can also take place in the legisla-

tures of such democracies.

Electoral Fraud and Voting Machines

Surprisingly, the technology used to refine and enhance par-

ticipating value of the electoral process in both new and old

democracies have become tools to expand the possibilities of

electoral fraud, its un-dertection and increased use of technol-

ogy is steal the people’s mandate.

Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is the drawing of electorate boundaries in

order to produce a particular result. Typically, electorates will

be organized so that one group of people (for example poor

people or a particular ethnic or religious group) is concentrated

into a small number of electorates. This means that parties fa-

voured by that group will win by a large majority in those elec-

torates, but lose more narrowly in a larger number of elector-

ates. This may result in one party gaining the most votes overall

but still losing the election. Gerrymandering is most common

under plurality voting systems, in which the winner must win

the most electorates rather than the most votes overall15.

Manipulation of Demography

In many cases it is possible for authorities to artificially con-

trol the composition of an electorate in order to produce a fore-

gone result. One way of doing this is to move a large number of

voters into the electorate prior to an election, for example by

temporarily assigning them land or lodging them in shanty

households. Another strategy is to permanently move people

into an electorate, usually through public housing. If people

eligible for public housing are likely to vote for a particular

party, then they can either be concentrated into one electorate,

thus making their votes count for less, or moved into marginal

electorates, where they may tip the balance towards their pre-

ferred party. A loose immigration law may also be used by a

country to manipulate electoral demography that they secretly

support. In 1983 and 2003, it was heavily suspected by the

oposition parties that Nigeria’s borders were thrown open by

the ruling party at the centre to allow Nigeriens and Chadians to

country as illegal aliens who after the elections become threats

to the peace and stability of the country16.

Electorate Manipulation

Most electoral fraud takes place during or immediately after

election campaigns, by interfering with the voting process or

the counting of votes. However it can also occur far in advance,

by altering the composition of the electorate. In many cases this

is not illegal and thus technically not electoral fraud, although it

is sometimes considered to be a violation of principles of de-

mocracy17.

In many cases gerrymandering occurs within, or is the result

of, electoral law. However it may sometimes take the form of

true electoral fraud, for example if laws governing the drawing

of electoral boundaries are broken, or officials are bribed or

otherwise coerced into altering boundaries in a way which fa-

vours a particular group.

Disenfranchisement

The composition of an electorate may also be altered by dis-

enfranchising some types of people, rendering them unable to

vote. In some cases this may be done at a legislative level, for

example by passing a law banning convicted felons, recent

immigrants or members of a particular ethnic or religious group

from voting, or by instituting a literacy or other test which

members of some groups are more likely to fail. Since this is

done by lawmakers, it cannot be election fraud, but may subvert

the purposes of democracy. This is especially so if members of

the disenfranchised group were particularly likely to vote a

certain way. In some cases voters may be invalidly disenfran-

chised, which is true electoral fraud. For example a legitimate

voter may be “accidentally” removed from the electoral roll,

making it difficult or impossible for them to vote. Corrupt elec-

tion officials may misuse voting regulations such as a literacy

test or requirement for proof of identity or address in such a

way as to make it difficult or impossible for their targets to cast

a vote. If such practices discriminate against a religious or eth-

nic group, they may so distort the political process that the po-

litical order becomes grossly unrepresentative, as in the post-

Reconstruction or Jim Crow era until the Voting Rights Act of

1965. Groups may also be disenfranchised by rules which make

it impractical or impossible for them to cast a vote. For example,

requiring people to vote within their electorate may disenfran-

chise serving military personnel, prison inmates, students, hos-

pital patients or anyone else who cannot return to their homes.

Polling can be set for inconvenient days such as midweek or on

Holy Days (example: Sabbath or other holy days of a religious

group whose teachings determine that voting is a prohibited on

such a day) in order to make voting difficult for those studying

or working away from home. Communities may also be effec-

tively disenfranchised if polling places are not provided within

16Williamson, Chilton (1968). American Suffrage from Property to Democ-

racy. Prince t on, NJ: Princeton U. Press. ASIN B000FMPMK 6.

17Sadiq, Kamal (2005). When States Prefer Non-Citizens Over Citizens:

Conflict Over Illegal Immigration into Malaysia (PDF). International Stud-

ies Quarterly, 49, 101-122.

15Understanding Gerrymandering—Threats to Voting System s (NIST).

A. CASIMIR ET AL.

reasonable proximity (rural communities are especially vulner-

able to this) or situated in areas perceived by some voters as

unsafe18.

Intimidation

Voter intimidation involves putting undue pressure on a

voter or group of voters so that they will vote a particular way,

or not at all. Absentee and other remote voting can be more

open to some forms of intimidation as the voter does not have

the protection and privacy of the polling location. Intimidation

can take a range of forms.

1) Violence or the threat of violence: In its simplest form,

voters from a particular demographic or known to support a

particular party or candidate are directly threatened by support-

ers of another party or candidate or those hired by them. In

other cases supporters of a particular party make it known that

if a particular village or neighbourhood is found to have voted

the “wrong” way, reprisals will be made against that commu-

nity. Another method is to make a general threat of violence,

for example a bomb threat which has the effect of closing a

particular polling place, thus making it difficult for people in

that area to vote19.

2) Attacks on polling places: Polling places in an area

known to support a particular party or candidate may be tar-

geted for vandalism, destruction or threats, thus making it dif-

ficult or impossible for people in that area to vote.

3) Legal threats: In this case voters will be made to believe,

accurately or otherwise, that they are not legally entitled to vote,

or that they are legally obliged to vote a particular way. Voters

who are not confident about their entitlement to vote may also

be intimidated by real or implied authority figures who suggest

that those who vote when they are not entitled to will be im-

prisoned, deported or otherwise punished. For example, in 1999

elections, anonymous flyers were circulated that if people fail

to vote for Retired General Obasanjo, the Nigerian military

establishment might refuse, or in fact, rethink handing over to

Chief Falae, the opposition presidential candidate; Obsanjo was

projected as the military candidate being a former military

Head of State of the country.

4) Economic threats: In company towns in which one com-

pany employs most of the working population, the company

may threaten workers with disciplinary action if they do not

vote the way their employer dictates.

Vote Buying

This is a common a common phenomenon in Nigeria’s past

electoral history. It is called “cash for votes” I call it the mone-

tization or commercialization of the voting process and the

conscience of the mostly poor voters. Voters may be given

money or other rewards for voting in a particular way, or not

voting. In some jurisdictions, the offer or giving of other re-

wards is referred to as “electoral treating”20.

Misinformation

People may distribute false or misleading information in or-

der to affect the outcome of the election. Most commonly,

smear campaigns (the circulation of false rumours) are made

against a particular candidate or party. Smear campaigns are not

necessarily illegal and can therefore not always be considered

election fraud. However in some countries smear campaigns

may violate libel or slander laws and in others, as the Philip-

pines, such campaigns are specifically illegal. Another way in

which misinformation can be used in voter fraud is to give vot-

ers incorrect information about the time or place of polling,

thus causing them to miss their chance to vote21.

Misleading or Confusing Ballot Pape r s

Ballot papers may be used to discourage votes for a particu-

lar party or candidate, using design or other features which

confuse voters into voting for a different candidate. For exam-

ple, in the 2000 US presidential election, Florida’s butterfly

ballot paper was criticised as confusing some voters into giving

their vote to the wrong candidate. Ironically, however, the bal-

lot was de signed by a De mocrat, the party most ha rmed by thi s

design22. Poor or misleading design is not usually illegal and

therefore not technically election fraud, but can subvert the

principles of democracy23.

Ballot Stuffing

Ballot stuffing occurs when a person casts more votes than

they are entitled to. In its simplest form, ballot stuffing literally

involves “stuffing” multiple ballot papers into the ballot box.

Another method is for voters to cast votes at multiple booths,

on each occasion claiming that it is their only vote. In some

countries such as Nigeria, India, El Salvador, Namibia or Af-

ghanistan voters get a finger marked with election ink to pre-

vent multiple votes. In Afghanistan’s elections of 2005, this

method failed as the ink used could easily be removed. A more

subtle technique is impersonation, in which a person pretends

to be someone else. The person whose vote is being used may

be legitimately enrolled but absent, a real but deceased person,

or entirely fictitious. A particularly unsubtle form of ballot

stuffing, known as booth capturing, sometimes occurs in India.

In these cases a gang of thugs will “capture” a polling place and

cast votes in the names of legitimate voters, who are prevented

from voting themselves24.

Misrecording of Votes

Many elections feature multiple opportunities for unscrupu-

lous officials or “helpers” to record an elector’s vote differently

from their intentions. Voters who require assistance to cast their

votes are particularly vulnerable to having their votes stolen in

this way. For example, a blind person or one who cannot read

the language of the ballot paper may be told that they have

voted for one party when in fact they have been led to vote for

another25.

21Wisconsin Democratic voters targeted with Koch-funded absentee ballot

notices advising them to vote two days after the recall election. 2 August

2011.

http://boingboing.net/2011/08/02/wisconsin-democratic-voters-targeted-wit

h-koch-funded-absentee-ballot-notices-advising-them-to-vote-2-days-after-t

he-recall-election.html

22Lacayo, Richard. “Florida recount: In the eye of the storm”. CNN.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/13/recount.tm/inde

x.html.

23Stealing Elections, Revised and Updated: How Voter Fraud Threate ns Ou

emocrac

/John Fund (2008) 224-226.

24Kiesling, John Brady, “Charting Electoral Fraud: Turnout Distribution

Analysis as a Tool for Election Assessment” [2].

25hpilkin, Sergey, Mathematics of Elections—Vote Fraud Ruling Shifts

Pennsylvania Senate New Y ork Times, February 19, 1994.

18Joseph Grego,

history of parliamentary elections and electioneering in

the old days (1886) pp. 226-28 onlin e.

19Did bomb thre at stifle vote? (Capital Times, May, 2 010).

20Parliamentary Electorates And Elections Act 1912—Section 149,New

South Wales Consolidated Acts.

172

A. CASIMIR ET AL.

Misuse of Proxy Votes

Proxy voting is particularly vulnerable to election fraud due

to the amount of trust placed in the person who casts the vote.

In several countries there have been allegations of retirement

home residents being asked to fill out “absentee voter” forms.

When the forms are signed and gathered, they are then secretly

rewritten as applications for proxy votes, naming party activists

or their friends and relatives as the proxies. These people, un-

known to the voter, then cast the vote for the party of their

choice26.

Destruction or Invalidation of Ballots

One of the simplest methods of electoral fraud is to simply

destroy ballots for the “wrong” candidate or party. This is un-

usual in functioning democracies as it is difficult to do without

attracting attention. However in a very close election it might

be possible to destroy a very small number of ballot papers

without detection, thereby changing the overall result. Blatant

destruction of ballot papers can render an election invalid and

force it to be re-run27.

Vote Fraud in the Legislature

Vote fraud can also take place in legislatures. Some of the

forms used in national elections can also be used in parliaments,

particularly intimidation and vote-buying. In many legisl atures,

voting is public, in contrast to the secret ballot used in most

modern public elections. This may make their elections more

vulnerable to some forms of fraud, since a politician can be

pressured by others who will know how he or she has voted.

However, it may also protect against bribery and blackmail

since the public and media will be aware if a politician votes in

an unexpected way. This method served in stopping former

president Obasanjo from accomplishing his infamous “3rd term

tenure elongation agenda” when, on the floor of the National

Assembly, legislators, afraid of the recall powers of their con-

stituents watching the tenure elongation debates in a live tele-

cast, voted against that unconstitutional amendment sought by

the former president o extend his presidency without popular or

constitutional mandate.

Electoral Fraud and Voting Machines

All voting systems face threats of some form of electoral

fraud. The types of threats that affect voting machines can vary

from other forms of voting systems, some threats may be pre-

vented and others introduced. Some forms of electoral fraud

specific to electronic voting machines include: tampering with

the software of a voting machine to add malicious code altering

vote totals or favor any candidate; tampering with the hardware

of the voting machine to alter vote totals or favor any candidate;

or abusing the administrative access to the machine by election

officials might also allow individuals to vote multiple times28.

It is worthwhile to emphasize the fact despite the nature,

specie or morphology of electoral fraud as a phenomenon in

emerging democracies. It needs to be checkmate and prevented.

The concepts of secrecy and openness are used as too good

preventive measures to checkmate electoral fraud. This is be-

cause it is well known29 the secret ballot system of voting pre-

vents directly several incidents of voter intimidation, manipula-

tion, vote selling, buying while openness of the entire electoral

process by an independent and just electoral management body

(such as the 2011 INEC in Nigeria under Professor Jega) not

only helps to checkmate electoral fraud in its various ugly

shades.

With respect to legislative electoral fraud open voting by leg-

islators and covered by the media enhances the electoral integ-

rity of legislative assemblies. It also increases the credible rep-

resentative value of legislators as it ensures that they role in

accordance with the wishes and interest of their constituencies

who are watching their voting pattern in parliament. This par-

ticular transparency in legislative voting helped actually in

checkmating the kind third ambition of Nigeria’s former presi-

dent Olusegun Obasanjo who wanted to bribe and manipulate

the National Assembly with money to support his illegal tenure

elongation project which is unconstitutional and unpopular in

the country. The then president wanted to use voter fraud tech-

nique to win the votes of the Nigerian Senate and the House of

Representatives for a tenure elongation which is not legally

backed by Nigeria’s constitution.

Generally speaking we may also factor election observation

as part of the preventative measures to checkmate electoral

fraud in general elections, especially in a new democracies.

Essentially, election observers save the purpose of helping to

identify areas where fraud could be perpetrated, sensitize its

staff to stop and assure voters that they certify the election to be

free, fair and transparent. For example part of the duties pro-

grams assigned and carried out by both local and international

observers in the 2011 election in Nigeria was to prevent fraud

in the central tabulation carried out by INEC came out with an

open public list of results from all the polling booths and at the

end of voting announced the result before the eagle eyes of

observers, party agents and the voters. Nigerian legislatures at

the local, state and national chambers may want also to experi-

ment with domestic observation of its voting patterns to reduce

the incidence of voter-buying, “Ghana must go” money spree

and money for budget approvals from Federal Ministers.

Conclusion

The principle of one man, one woman one vote under girds

the success of every democracy. In every election this principle

is put to severe test and evaluation both by the people, election

observers, monitors, and society groups and even those in the

government who will participate in the election to test their

popularity or unpopularity are agreed that electoral fraud either

at the general election or in the legislature chambers truncates

democracy, cheats the and demise them the dividends of both

democracy and development. Electoral fraud has been identi-

fied as one of the most devastating reasons why Nigeria has

remained poor in the midst of her abundant natural, human and

mineral resources. This is why this article considers “electoral

fraud as the worst form of corruption”29. Before the 2011 April

26Jeannette I. Andrade (2011-11-18). “Electoral sabotage case filed vs Ar-

royo, Ampatuan, Bedol”. Philippine Daily Inquirer. See, for example the

ational Voting Rights Institute report on New York State incarceration

policies: [1].

27Layton, J., “ How can someon e tamper wi th an elect ronic vo ting machine”.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/vote-tampering.htm. Retrieved 2011-02-

27.

28Tom Feeble: 1977, pp. 140-149.

elections, various stakeholders and pillars of Nigeria’s democ-

racy attended a rally in Benin with the objective wring with the

29Youaltern: 30 April, 2011,Presidential Commitment to Electoral Reform

Speech, Benin).

A. CASIMIR ET AL.

174

best shategy of strengthening and stabilizing her democracy

through electoral reforms. Electoral fraud was identified as the

number one fundamental factor militating against eh emergence

of a matured participatory and pro-people democracy in Nige-

ria30.

To checkmate and end the incidence of electoral fraud in

Nigeria’s democracy this article advocates more rigorous

transparency, increased people participation in the pre-during,

and post election phases in the future as well reflected and

modeled by the new INEC under the leadership of Professor

Attahiru Jega. The success of the 2011 Election in Nigeria was

hailed locally and globally because they succeeded in reducing

electoral fraud to the barest minimum, a clear departure from

the past. Electoral Fraud in Nigeria could be further prevented

and the integrity, transparency and credibility of our democracy

enhanced with different globally tested and proven methods of

prevention. Fraud prevention techniques could be summarised

as “secrecy and openness”. The secret ballot prevents many

kinds of intimidation and vote selling, while transparency at all

other levels of the electoral process prevents most interference.

We can summarize some of the acceptable methods used in the

developed democracies to checkmate the incidence of electoral

fraud as: the secret ballot system of voting; transparency; statis-

tical indicators or legal prosecution of culprits of voter frauds.

We can also conclude this article with a brief rundown and

analysis of the content of each methodology as follows:

Secret Ballot

The secret ballot, in which the general public does not know

how individuals have voted, is a crucial part of ensuring free

and fair election through preventing voter intimidation or retri-

bution. Although it was sometimes practiced in ancient Greece

and was a part of the French Constitution of 1795, it only be-

came common in the nineteenth century. Secret balloting ap-

pears to have been first implemented in the former British col-

ony—now an Australian state—of Tasmania on 7 February

1856. By the turn of the century the practice had spread to most

Western democracies. Before this it was common for candi-

dates to intimidate or bribe voters, as they always knew who

had voted which way31.

Transparency

Most methods of preventing electoral fraud involve making

the election process completely transparent to all voters, from

nomination of candidates through casting of the votes and

tabulation. A key feature in insuring the integrity of any part of

the electoral process is a strict chain of custody. To prevent

fraud in central tabulation, there has to be a public list of the

results from every single polling place. This is the only way for

voters to prove that the results they witnessed in their election

office are correctly incorporated into the totals. In many cases,

election observers are used to help prevent fraud and assure

voters that the election is fair. International observers (bilateral

and multilateral) may be invited to observe the elections32

(examples include election observation by the Organization for

Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), European Union

election observation missions, observation missions of the

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), of the African

Union as well as international and local observation organized

by NGOs, such as European Network of Election Monitoring

Organizations (ENEMO) of the Centre for Peacebuilding and

Poverty Reduction (CEPPER)). This was particularly effective

during Nigeria’s 2011 Elections when INEC invited both for-

eign and domestic observer missions with NGOS to witness

and monitor the integrity of the voting process to ensure trans-

parency.

Statistical Indicators

Various forms of statistics can be indicators for election

fraud e.g. exit polls which diverge from the final results. Well-

conducted exit polls serve as a deterrent to electoral fraud. High

numbers of invalid ballots, overvoting or undervoting are other

potential indicators33.

Prosecution

In countries with strong laws and effective legal systems,

lawsuits can be brought against those who have allegedly

committed fraud; but determent with legal prosecution would

not be enough. Although the penalties for getting caught may

be severe, the rewards for succeeding are likely to be worth the

risk. The rewards range from benefits in contracting to total

control of a country. In Nigeria, calls for stiffer penalties for

electoral fraud and malpractices have led to 2010 Electoral Law

Reforms which have established INEC Electoral Tribunal to try

and imprison violators and perpetrators of electoral fraud in

Nigeria. This is what has worked in other electoral climes to

stabilize democractic governance for development. It is there-

fore a combination of both prevention and deterrence strategies

could reduce the incidence.

REFERENCES

Amy, M. (1994). The forgery of votes. Tower House Publication,

Kingston.

Amy, M. (year). Frauding of elections. Tower House Publication, King-

ston.

Kieshing, J. B. (year). Charting electoral fraud: Turnout distribution

analysis as a tools for election assessment.

Legal Provisions to Prevent Electoral Fraud—An Article from the ACE

Project.

Shilkin, S. (2010). The mathematics of elections. Turnbike Electoral

Support Series.

Pat, U. (2011). National assembly is endangering our democracy. Peo-

ple Monthly.

Patrick, I. (2003). Electoral fraud and Nigeria’s 2003 Democratic quest

(Part I). Alberts.

Thomas, B. (1994). Philosophical analysis and democratic concepts.

Peer House Publication, India.

Voter Fraud (year) An article from the ACE Project.

Walter Mebane, (2011). Comparative election fraud detection. A Turn-

Bike Electoral Report series.

30Oshimole: April, 2011 Rally , Benin, Nigeria.

31Gill, K. “Help America Vote Act—HAVA”.

http://uspolitics.about.c om/od/elections/a/hava.htm Retrieved 2012 - 02-12.

32Johnston, Phillip; David Millward (Friday May 10, 1996). “Strategy to win

votes topped lunch menu at Dame Shirley’s”. The Daily Telegraph (Lon-

don).

33Saltman, Roy G. (January 2006). The History and Politics of Voting Tech-

nolog

. Palgrave Macmillan;40-4.