Learning the Lessons of 2003

Just to add insult to injury, the international community is perceived to support a supposed democratic regime when the citizens of the Niger Delta know full well that, since 1999, the political direction their states are heading in is anything but democratic.

People are expecting the run-up to the 2007 elections to be the most bloody of any previous election held in the Niger Delta. When this likely political violence is combined with all the other tensions that are present in the Niger Delta, the fall-out of a failed electroal process in 2007 could - potentially - destabilise the whole of West Africa. It could also add .

The realisation that the political trajectory of politics in the Niger Delta was heading towards the barrel of the gun and not the electoral ballot box; truly came to ahead in 2003. Citizens of the Niger Delta regularly laugh at the suggestion that democratic elections were held and refer to their political situation as 'democrazy'. Individuals are not expecting the current direction of politics in the Niger Delta to change, in fact they are sure it is going to 'go up in smoke' and a 'hail of bullets'.

At the same time there is a general sense of hope that things might and should happen soon, that could rapidly transform the political environment. The international community should take note and recognise that its failure to seriously condemn the electoral process in 2003 has help set the background to the potentially truly awful situation we now face. There was a strong feeling that there is no legal way for the current Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) incumbents or their party successors to be elected on the back of a popular mandate. The politicians have simply failed to deliver and are therefore going to have to rely on a process of 'selection not election' and then enforcement of the result through the gun. This is not a secret; everybody knows that unless things rapidly change the elections will be rigged. This is reflected in the strong feeling that the 'old guard' still remains in power and the same pre-'democratic' elites still dominate the political scene.

These perceptions that are portrayed as realities, have resulted in all politicians with a chance of gaining office as having the need to have an armed wing at their disposal. The money available through political corruption and the readiness of idle youths, to attempt to gain some form of social mobility, makes this process all too easy. The 2003 elections were won by those with the greatest armed support. It is now unclear as to where the loyalties of the 2003 political thugs are placed. The winner takes all outcome of the Niger Delta's politics makes the stakes so high that individuals are willing to plunge their whole region into chaos in order to gain that vital seat of immunity and power. This reality has resulted in the domination of a one party region. The PDP dominates the politics of the Niger Delta and politicians of the PDP will use every means at their disposal to ensure that this remains the case. If the PDP were serious about bringing sustained change to the region they would have begun to campaign on issue based politics a long time ago. Their failure to deliver to the local population makes this an almost impossible task.

The lesson was learned in 2003; now serious political contenders are perceived as having a mandate of access to power, not through popular support, but through the power of the gun and their connections within the political patronage system. The people of the Niger Delta do not get to express their political will and some will fight to change this, unless those in power begin to visibly reduce the decades of neglect and not add to it.