Full Speech Of NCP Party On Independence Day


The National Conscience Party (NCP) is 25 years old, since our declaration as a political party on the 1st of October 1994. Ironically we are only able to win a state assembly seat in Ekiti State by our representative by the name Adekoya Benson who latter decamped to People Democratic Party (PDP)

We have watched with total dismay, how our politics has taken a downwards trend, from violent to money politics, from intimidation to cross carpeting, from manipulation voters apathy etc . Hence the need for an electoral reform that will be all  Inclusive. Proportional Representation (PR) comes to mind.
Proportional representation (PR) systems is often credited with producing more equitable outcomes between political
parties and encouraging wider social group representation than majoritarian systems.
 It  will instill greater trust, efficacy, and faith in the political system Citizens that are disadvantaged by majoritarian rules (political minorities) will have a relatively greater shift toward positive attitudes about democracy following a transition from a majoritarian system to proportional representation.
Proportional Representation will take care of nomadic politicking, reduces money politics , wider participation ,inclusiveness for women, youths and persons with disability (PWD), ensure that  votes counts and above all political party supremacy base on ideology.
It is our strong hope that this advocacy will be strongly supported by all for the survival of our Democracy and advancement of our electoral system .
Dr Yunusa Tanko
National chairman
National Conscience Party (NCP)
There is dissatisfaction with the way that Nigeria electoral system translates votes into seats. There is a strong regional dimension to this dissatisfaction, it is  emphasized that however,  in no zone of the country does more than a bare majority find the workings of the present system acceptable.
 The subject of electoral systems, though dry-as-dust to some and arcane to many, is or ought to be of central interest to anyone concerned with the operation of democratic systems of government. Elections are the defining moment in any democracy and in representative democracies, as one scholar reminds us, elections perform two fundamental tasks: they confer authorization upon those chosen to represent the electors and they hold representatives to account for their actions while in office.
(2) Electoral systems, the means by which elections are formally structured, are thus a vital component in the achievement of these goals. The heavy use of money is totally unacceptable.
Nigeria considers shift to a proportional voting system
The Nigerian Federal Executive Council (FEC) deliberated sometimes ago about the potential electoral reform projects for Nigeria.
Although it has not found any consensus on the matter so far, its review committees are working hard to set up quickly major conclusions, that will then be presented to the National Council of State.
The most populated country in Africa, Nigeria is seriously considering changing its voting system to proportional representation.
There is a growing consensus that the American-style, winner-take-all electoral system is in need of dire electoral reform. Consequently, in 2008 President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, appointed a diverse 22-member Electoral Reform Committee (ERC) headed by Hon. Justice Muhammadu Lawal Uwais, former Chief Justice of Nigeria, to “examine the entire electoral process with a view to ensuring that we raise the quality and standard of our general elections and thereby deepen our democracy.”
During its proceedings (that lasted over one year and three months), the Electoral Reform Committee has heard from experts from a variety of countries (including Cameroon, Canada, France, Ghana, India, Mexico, South Africa and many others) as well as former Heads of State, State Governments, political parties, State and national independent electoral commissions, civil society groups, the media, and the general public through numerous public hearings and presentations.
After this extensive investigative process, the Committee submitted its report in December 2018.
It recommended a shift to proportional representation in elections for the legislature and local government councils, as well as many other reforms aimed at enhancing the independence of the electoral commission, establishing a special status for women and other disadvantaged persons and re-introducing independent candidatures in all future elections.
The committee wrote that the idea of proportional representation was informed by the need to have all “inclusiveness, simplicity and accountability.”
“It promotes universal adult suffrage by ensuring that all voters are of equal value, that no valid vote cast is rendered useless, ineffective or wasted as all votes cast nationwide or state-wide or local government-wide, as the case may be, are taken into account. It also facilitates representation of women and other disadvantaged groups in the legislature and the local government councils.”, the report says.
The ERC report has overall received good reviews from Nigeria’s press and political elite, but more importantly, it has been endorsed by both the Action Congress (AC) and the Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP), who have requested President Umaru Yar’Adua to immediately implement the ERC recommendations, so as to ensure sufficient preparations for the 2011 ballot, spurning the 2015 date for the implementation of the reforms evoked by the government.
Strictly defined, electoral systems are the mechanisms by which the preferences of citizens are translated into seats in representative institutions. As such, their impact on a whole range of elements that make up the political character of a society is quite considerable.
The behaviour of political parties and candidates for elected office will, for example, in large measure be conditioned by the shape of an electoral system. Canada’s electoral system is a case in point.
Academic observers have noted that in this country the electoral system is weighted in favour of regional preferences, so that parties are encouraged emphasize regional rather than national concerns during election campaigns.
This has tended to produce patterns of representation at the national level whose focus is regional and whose consequences are centrifugal.(3)
More importantly, the way in which an electoral system translates votes into seats in elected assemblies may influence the degree of public support for the democratic system itself.
If, for example, citizens do not perceive that their preferences are adequately reflected in the legislature following an election, their support for the system in general is likely to decline.
Turnout during elections will drop off, respect for politicians and elected representatives will fall, and laws enacted by government will not be seen as fully legitimate.
According to wikipedia 85 countries practice proportional representation these countries Canada , South Africa, Ireland etc.
Democracy is an ideal, an abstraction which often assumes concrete dimensions for the vast majority of people through the electoral system. For many, an election marks the only occasion of any form of political participation — it is the only tangible evidence of what it means to be a citizen in a democratic society.
It is therefore of utmost importance that electoral systems be seen as fair and as fulfilling public expectations; if not, democracy itself is put at risk.
The major category of electoral system is known as proportional representation or PR. Proportional Representation systems are specifically designed to allocate seats in proportion to votes, in the hope that assemblies and governments will accurately reflect the preferences of the electorate.
PR systems are now the most frequently used electoral systems in western democracies.
Under PR, political parties are assigned a number of seats in parliament corresponding to the degree of support they have received in a given electoral district; of necessity, this arrangement dictates that all PR system rely on multi-member districts. typed and single transferable vote (STV) systems
No electoral system is perfect; each has its advantages and disadvantages of which the careful observer should be aware. This section of the paper summarizes the arguments made by proponents and critics of the various systems.
It is helpful to remember that these arguments are sometimes polemical; an objective effort to assess each system on its merits is therefore worthwhile. We should ask whether or not given electoral systems are effective in achieving certain desired outcomes. One scholar has suggested that elections in representative democracies should ideally accomplish the following goals:
(i) A parliament reflecting the main trends of opinion within the electorate.
(ii) Government according to the wishes of the majority of the electorate.
(iii) The election of representatives whose personal qualities best fit them for the function of government.
(iv) Strong and stable governments.(12)
One might ask, as well, whether a give electoral system is capable of achieving these aims:
(i) An outcome which is acceptable to those who have lost the election and community acceptance of the voting system as the best possible basis for running the country.
(ii) Fostering of respect for different points of view.
(iii) Fair representation of minorities and other significant groups in society, such as business people, women, and labour.(13)
However desirable, it would be next to impossible to find an electoral system that is able to satisfy all of the points listed above. Nevertheless, these criteria do provide an objective scale which can facilitate comparison and evaluation of electoral systems. The lists can also serve as a means of sorting out competing, compelling, and sometimes confusing arguments made on behalf of the various systems.
The principal argument advanced in favour of PR is its ability to reflect more accurately the preferences of voters in terms of seats in parliament. Voters are said to be more willing to cast votes for smaller parties when they know that their votes will produce tangible results, and when seats are allocated on the basis of the share of the popular vote.
The ability, in general, for PR systems to deliver seats to smaller parties encourages the formation of such parties, a factor which promises representation of a wider spectrum of public opinion.
While studies confirm that PR systems on average offer greater proportionality than majoritarian/plurality systems,(23) some researchers have discovered that it is still possible for a plurality system to produce a more proportional result than a PR system.(24) Other factors, such as the number of parties contesting an election, may influence the proportionality of electoral outcomes.(25)
A closely related argument is that PR systems offer greater opportunities for legislative representation for minority groups and women.
However, a recent Canadian Royal Commission on electoral reform pointed out that levels of women’s representation in elected assemblies are often attributable to variables other than the electoral system, for example political parties’ adoption of quotas for women candidates. In this respect, the behaviour of political parties, especially in party-list PR systems, is crucial to women’s ability to gain seats in elected assemblies. More careful analysis reveals that PR jurisdictions that do not use a quota system for women candidates have records similar to Canada’s in this regard — and sometimes worse.(26)
It is also claimed that, because minority views are not marginalized, political discourse and political participation are enlivened in PR systems. The one reliable empirical indicator for this assertion, levels of voter turnout at elections, tends to confirm this.(27)
Arguments against PR, however, can be just as compelling as those in its favour. Some critics point out that PR systems encourage the emergence of extreme views, which, though quite often based on short-lived opinions of the day, are given a certain longevity and enhanced legitimacy through access to parliamentary representation.
This argument is best summed up by Irvine, who writes that under PR systems,
movements gain representation in parliament and credibility as contestants in elections.
They remain as available and plausible alternatives if regimes run into economic difficulties, and may be able to make difficult the functioning of a democratic regime.(28)
PR systems are also criticized for the complexity of their balloting process and the way in which votes are tallied. Available information suggests that, while voter turnout may indeed be high in PR systems, ballot spoilage is also high, a possible sign of voter confusion when offered a multiplicity of choice.(29)
Concerns are also expressed about the shape of the governments that result from PR electoral systems. In contrast to plurality/majoritarian systems which favour the formation one-party governments, PR systems generally produce coalitions.
Thus, when casting their ballots in a PR system, voters are not electing a government. Governments under PR are typically formed after elections, when parties attempt, through a bargaining process, to build governing coalitions. Voters, in effect, have little direct say regarding the complexion of their government.
As well, coalition governments are viewed as less than stable. The bargaining among parties continues after the government-building process as various elements strive to have parts of their agenda adopted as official policy. Compromise can be brokered, but negotiations often produce rifts that cannot be resolved.
Consequently, unless there are changes in governing coalitions, the coalition will collapse, leading to new elections. It is on this basis that some have argued that coalition government is inherently unstable so that the electoral system that produces it is unsatisfactory.
Critics also claim that, contrary to appearances, coalitions actually make it more difficult to change governments. Coalition membership may fluctuate following elections, but the stronger members usually remain in place.(30) As a consequence, it is much more difficult to change a government under PR than under plurality/majoritarian systems.
Additional claims are made with respect to the advantages and disadvantages offered by specific forms of PR.
Party List Systems
Those who defend party list PR systems argue that political parties occupy an important place in any representative democracy and that the list system helps to ensure that the role of parties will be maintained and strengthened.
On the other hand, parties acquire too much power when they can determine whose names will appear at the top of the lists. Those elected on the basis of this system owe primary allegiance to their parties rather than to their electorates. Such concerns can be addressed by allowing voters to choose among lists or within lists.
Party List Systems: Variants
Variants of the party list system that allow voters to chose either from among a party’s candidates or between the candidates on several parties’ lists allow voters a truer expression of their preferences. These variants help ensure that the candidates with the strongest levels of support are elected; the legitimacy of the outcome is enhanced.
If however, voter choice is restricted to the candidates from a single party, candidates will be encouraged to compete against members of their own party rather than those from rival formations. This puts party cohesion at risk and makes the task of governing more difficult.
The Single Transferable Vote
Because STV, unlike party-list forms of PR, emphasizes the candidate rather than the party, it offers an advantage in that it “…makes possible the fair representation of opinions which do not coincide with party divisions.”(31) Also, in contrast with party list forms of PR, representatives under STV systems are more inclined to be attentive to constituency needs because they depend on their constituents, rather than their party, for re-election.
Critics of STV claim that it leads to weaker parties and hinders the emergence of a responsible party system because candidates work to attract personal support, sometimes at the expense of other candidates from their own party.(32)
Experience in Australia has shown that when as many as fifty candidates can contest an election under an STV system, the process of counting the vote may be lengthy. An additional disadvantage, also drawn from Australia, is the complexity of casting a ballot, as suggested by high levels of ballot-spoilage.(33)
While electoral systems are a vital component of any representative democracy, one should not overstate their importance. Even the best electoral system will fail if other conditions are not met. Two Canadian political scientists have written a thoughtful reminder of this. “Electoral systems,” they write,
do not determine the nature of party systems, nor the type of government, majority or minority, single-party or coalition, in any country. Governmental outcomes are largely a function of the balance of party forces: the party system, in turn, is largely shaped by a country’s political culture and social structure and by the electoral behaviour of its citizens.
However, the electoral system … is a powerful intermediary force, modifying the competition among parties, distorting or faithfully reproducing the electoral preferences of the voters. Since elections are key institutions in modern democracies and provide the chief mechanism of political participation for most people, the means of translating individual votes into political representation is … an important factor in a country’s political system.
As stated in the introduction to this advocacy, elections constitute the most direct, and indeed for many the only, experience of what it is to be a citizen in a democratic society. Perhaps it is for this reason that rising levels of discontent result in demands for change in the way elections are structured, as was seen recently in New Zealand and Italy, when a change of electoral system appeared to be a convenient and effective way of redressing the wrongs in the democracies as a whole.
Canadians, beset with many of the same doubts and discontents, may well begin to ask whether they desire a similar change.
It is our sincere hope that if this Iis largely supported it will add more value to our Democracy and electoral system.

Related posts

Leave a Comment