The budget and the nomination form

THE 2011 BUDGET:

The BBC's breakdown of the federal government's 2011 Budget Proposal:

Ministries: $12bn
Other government bodies: $350m
Parliament: $707m
Pensions and gratuities: $1bn
Transfers to statuary bodies: $1.3bn
Debt payments: $3.5bn
Other expenses: $2.6bn

Total Running Costs: $21bn
Capital Expenditure: $6.5bn

Total Budget: $27.6bn

THE NOMINATION FORM

Different countries have different methods of nominating candidates.

In some countries that use the parliamentary system, national and (in the case of Canada, South Africa and I believe Australia) provincial/state party leaders can impose a candidate of their choosing on a constituency even if a super-majority of the constituency party-members prefer someone else.

It is not necessarily a democratic process, even in "democracies".

That said, the idea of "purchasing" nomination forms as it is done in Nigeria is to block the poor majority and the middle-class from direct participation in politics.

The poor are at the very edge of survival, while the middle-class are making ends meet while spending what should be their retirement savings to support their extended families. Neither would have spare money to "purchase" a nomination form even if they were priced affordably, which they are not.

In a sense, the "nomination form" system guarantees godfather politics, because the forms are priced so high as to be afforded only by the rich ... or by someone who has a rich godfather. To hold political office, you must be a Big Man, or sell your soul to a Big Man.

Godsons have to repay their godfathers' investment, or their godfathers swiftly make their states ungovernable. It is interesting that political machines seem to have more "constitutional" power over states than state governments; men like Chris Uba and the late Lamidi Adedibu even gave orders to the state police as though they were commanders-in-chief.

The political office-holders have become experts at finding ways to fleece the treasury on behalf of their godfathers without technically breaking the law. It seems the job description of executive positions extends no further than the award of spurious contracts, while the legislatures have become experts at passing bills that put more money in the pocket of the legislators without explicitly saying so.

Rather than take money out of the treasury to give to their godfathers (which would be a crime), some governors have given front companies affiliated to the godfathers contracts to collect taxes and other revenues on behalf of the state. The companies are paid on commission, keeping a percentage of the revenues they collect. In effect it is the same thing; you are giving the godfather a slice of the state's treasury except you are not breaking the law.

Big Men invest a lot of money to secure political offices for themselves or for their godsons. They are keen on getting their money back, and perhaps making a profit. And we end up with high-stakes, do-or-die politics, because the competing political machines are staring at a stark choice between high profits and high losses.