ONE would have assumed that if one recommendation of the Electoral Reform Committee was going to be accepted without much deliberation, it would be the one suggesting a period of six months for the resolution of electoral disputes before elected men and women are sworn into office. That the Federal Executive Council did not consider this recommendation to be sufficiently important speaks volumes about the collective sense of judgement of its members. For more than 17 months, the legitimacy of incumbent President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua was disputed in the courts of law; one would have thought that, on the basis of personal experience, he would be the one arguing vigorously in support of this recommendation.

Honestly, were this writer to be a member of the Electoral Reform Committee he would have argued for a shorter period of three months. He would have anchored his argument on the need to reduce the number of elections we are confronted with by staggering them into different years. Resolving election disputes should be a matter of priority in an election year and there should be no need for it to drag on for too long.

Look for instance at how swiftly the disputed election in the State of Florida was resolved when Al Gore contested the American presidency with George W. Bush in the year 2000 and look also at the fact that even when Barack Obama was elected President on November 4, 2008 he did not assume that position until January 20, 2009.

The American constitutionalists, intelligent human beings that they were, made provision for a reasonable space of time between the conclusion of presidential election and inauguration of a new president into office.

Hopefully, when the National Assembly deliberate on the White Paper report, they will permit their judgement to be informed by experience, common sense and what is good for the Nigerian nation. They ought to know that someone who did not win an election should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to assume the position of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or governor of any state in the federation - even for just one day. The oath of office is sacred; it should not be administered when we are in doubt. Remember that Barack Obama swore to the oath of office twice, albeit because of a minor mistake in the first instance and that should inform us that some societies take it seriously.

Also to be guided by experience and commonsense is our choice of who is chairperson of the Independent National Electoral Commission. The adjective 'independent' would have been corrupted if the President who happened to be a member of a political party is the one appointing that chairperson. The Electoral Reform Committee recommended that the power of appointing the chairperson of the Commission be vested in the National Judicial Council but the Federal Executive Council rejected their recommendation on the ground that the principle of Separation of Powers would be compromised if such a power were conferred on the body.

However, Dr. Reuben Abati in a well-researched and well-argued article, "Electoral Reform and the Federal Executive Council", (The Guardian, March 13, 2009) highlighted diverse practices in a few African nations which, in itself, is to suggest that we may not have exhausted all available options on this rather controversial and highly sensitive issue. The argument for ensuring that the National Electoral Commission is truly independent is as compelling as that of not dragging the judicial arm of government into the messy waters of politics.

Not so controversial is the idea of independent candidacy which has been understandably hailed by Nigerians. In a society where everyone wants to be President or Governor, how will such a provision not go down so well? Of course this writer endorses the idea of independent candidacy but is not too sure if it will enhance the quality of our democratic practices. It is a matter of wait and see.

In the run-up to the 2007 elections, about 50 political parties were registered and about 25 candidates contested the presidency. The number of contestants could easily have flooded the electoral space if independent candidacy were then part of our democratic culture. A lot of work will have to be done on this provision if it becomes law, to ensure that it is not open to abuse. The independent candidate, in the American presidential election parlance, is referred to as 'third party'. He or she knows that the presidency is not there to be won by an independent candidate, but is in the race because an issue he or she identifies with may have been ignored by the main political parties. If such an issue has implications for electoral outcome, a major political party may expediently absorb it. In short, Americans do not frivolously exploit the independent candidacy opportunity, not least because of enormous financial implications.

There was this moaning about proportional representation not being injected into the electoral system. Honestly, if this idea was presented to the Federal Executive Council and they rejected it, it is a job well done. Those who propose ideas should learn to do so in the context of our political arrangement and this is not to say that they are not entitled to advocate a change. Our representative democracy is personality-based, not party-based.

The senator, for instance, represents a senatorial district. You do not just assign senatorial seats to a political party simply because it has won a certain percentage of votes. The Americans do not have proportional representation because it is inappropriate to their political arrangement and the British do not want it because it would merely proliferate the political space with mushroom political parties - some kind of invitation to political instability.

Reform is desirable, especially in a society where such a reform can lead to positive changes. Reform is not just about institutional framework or provisions but significantly about the human factor. The thieves we rightly identified in our war against corruption and made so much noise about, are today dictating political and economic terms in their various states. In fact, they are fighting back and Mr. Nuhu Ribadu can testify to this. So much for a culture of lousy reforms.

* Dr Akinola lives in Oxford, England