Voter Education, Void Vote Syndrome andFuture of Nigeria’s Democracy

Collins ObiorahDepartment of Mass Communication

Federal Polytechnic, OkoAnambra State08037970007

dozyobiora@gmail.com

ABSTRACTThis paper highlights the need for voter educationin Nigeria against the backdrop of the implicationsof void votes syndrome occasioned by voterilliteracy and ignorance on the country’s fledgingdemocracy. It argues that leadership recruitmentvia electioneering processes remains the best wayof promoting popular sovereignty in representativedemocracy, and as such, the electorates should bebetter informed, guided, and educated to reduce theincidents of invalid votes during elections so asto give effect to the people’s choices. Itconcludes by submitting that there can be nodemocracy, in the real sense of the word, withoutpublic participation in electoral processes which,in Nigerian context, is being negatived presentlyby scores of invalid votes during elections.

Key words: voter education, void vote, election,democracy

Introduction

There is hardly any other political ideology in

human history that has provoked as much scholarly

discourse and acceptance across political systems

as democracy. Newly everyone today professes to be

a democrat and political regimes of all kinds claim

to be democracies. We are bedeviled with too many

qualifiers of democracy such as, popular democracy,

bourgeois democracy, participant democracy, liberal

democracy, guided democracy, home-grown democracy,

classical democracy, representative democracy and

the likes that the pristine ideals and values of

democratic government have become subjects of

intense polemics.

The meanings attributed to democracy in

political science literature vary from a way of

life to a form of government. As a way of life

Mbachu (1994, p.12) describes democracy as

involving freedom to make choices about what one

does, where one lives, how one uses his earnings;

the operation of institutions, the home, the

church, local, state, and local government; the

right of justified property ownership, social

justice and fairness; the absence of social and

class barriers; equality of opportunity and the

solution of common problems through the exercise of

the free will of the people. At a higher

theoretical level, he defined a democracy as a

political system in which the electorates

participate actively not only in determining the

kind of people that govern them but also in shaping

the policy output of the government. The keynote of

democracy as a way of life may be expressed as the

necessity for the participation of every mature

human being in the formation of the values that

regulate the living of men together. According to

Warren (1967,p.20), democracy is all about giving

and respecting the rights of the people as well as

providing equal opportunity for them to be

reasonably free from poverty and want. Its primary

essence revolves around the concept of popular

participation in the choice and selection of

leaders (Appadorai, 1975, p.523). What is

definitely crucial in every democratic setting,

argues Chikendu (1983, p.1), is that the people

should of their own volition, choose the person or

persons to represent them in their legislative

assembly. Hence democracy defines a source of power

rather than a manner of governing (Minogue, 1996,

p.16), and according to Shively (2008, p.150),

democracies vary in just how equal the access to

government is for ordinary citizens. He defines a

democracy as a regime in which all fully qualified

citizens vote at regular intervals to choose from

among alternative candidates, the people who will

be in charge of setting the states policies.

The idea of election and people’s

participation in the political process as revealed

by the extent literature are the hallmark of a true

democracy and where a political system falls on the

scale of democracy is contingent upon the degree to

which it recognizes and enforces civil and

political rights. Sovereignty in the governing

process resides in the people the exercise of which

confers legitimacy to the government through the

instrumentality of election. The more strongly

civil and political rights are guaranteed in a

society, the more democratic it becomes, (Arat,

1999, p.4).

Going forward, we examine the dimensions of

political participation in a democracy,

particularly as it concerns leadership recruitment

as well as the challenges facing Nigerian elections

and the ways forward.

The People in a Democracy

Democracy has changed a great deal from the form

that operated in the principles of direct public

involvement in decision making to an indirect form

where primacy is placed on election and leadership

recruitment. Unlike what obtained in the ancient

Greece where every adult citizen gathered at a

place to deliberate on common pressing socio-

political as well as economic issues, what is the

vogue today is the notion of representative or

indirect democracy which operates on the principle

of social contract.

Citizens’ involvement in the political process

is essential for democracy to be viable and

meaningful (Dalton, 19998). As Sallah quoted in

Olopoenia (2007, p.3) puts it “the ship of state

will be an empty vessel if the people are not on

board”. The centrality of representative

democracy, as it operates across the globe, is

hinged on the notion of popular sovereignty and the

power of the people to choose and displace leaders

through electioneering process. A necessary

requirement for democratization is the involvement

of the citizenry, especially those who have

attained the age of franchise in election

processes. According to Obiorah and Chiamogu

(2010, p.1), there can be no democracy in the real

sense of the word without popular support and full

integration of the people in the governing process,

particularly as it concerns public participation in

policy process and leadership recruitment.

Elections legitimizes a government, where it

is free and fair and nothing operated to scuttle

the outcomes and the vote of every citizen counted

equally. They offer the electorate a privilege of

choice and act as an instrument of control by the

people of their leaders. Democracy exists in part,

where the principal actors of a political system

are selected by competitive elections in which the

bulk of the population has the opportunity to

participate (Okeke & Obiorah, 2009, p. 127).

The disclosure thus far serves to put, in

proper perspective, the role of the people in a

democracy. However, we must quickly add that such

involvement is not limited to enfranchisement and

actual casting of votes since “elections do not

guarantee democracy to people who face undemocratic

counts, police, and bureaucrats” (Tom, 1992, p.

28); and according to Abdullahi (1991, p. 14),

“democracy consists not only in winning elections

but more importantly in establishing organic

relations with the people and allowing them to

control their leaders by holding them to account”.

The criteria for democracy go beyond formal

political institutions to the quality of life in

the society; beyond majority rule to concern for

minority; and beyond national boundaries to global

view of what is meant by the people in that rough

but essentially correct view of democracy as

government of, by and for the people (Obiorah,

2004, p.54). No doubt, this viewpoint re-echoes the

position canvassed centuries ago by Jean Jacques

Rousseau (1712-1778), who is seen as the leader-

exponent of participatory democracy. In his work

“the social contract”, Rousseau noted that

sovereignty not only originates in the people; it

is also retained by the people notwithstanding

their transition from the state of nature to civil

society. Sovereignty, he maintained, cannot be

alienated and the people’s deputies (leaders) are

not and could not be their representatives. Rather

they are merely agents of the people; and

government is nothing other than an instrument to

carryout instruments of the general will (See

Gauba, 2003, pp. 445-7).

Explicitly underlined above is the fact that

we cannot talk about democracy without emphasizing

people’s participation, voting and representation.

Democracy cannot be conceived in theory or created

in practice without the creation, recognition,

encouragement, and expansion of opportunities for

participation by all adult members of a state or

political entity. At the centre of democratic idea

is the notion of political participation which

defines the extent to which individual members of a

society share, take part, or get involved in the

life of that society. The point need be stressed

that political participation denotes the active

involvement of the individual members of a

political system in the governmental process

affecting their lives. It is not limited to

involvement in political processes such as

elections and leadership recruitment, in spite of

the fact that “participation by citizens in

competitive-elections is a distinctive feature of

democratic politics” (Bingham, 1992). It includes

the involvement of the people in governance and

related institutions of society, such as the

economy and culture. Participation in the political

activities in a democracy can take any of these

forms:

Elections and selection of leaders and

participation in societal affairs by the

people through their elected or selected

representatives.

Routine individual or group involvement in the

day-to-day affairs of the society; and

Shaping of public opinion on issues, events

and personalities including signing a

petition, attending a protest and

demonstration, political debates, etc.

The range of activities covered by political

participation is quite enormous however such

activities derive from the actual exercise of

political power by persons on whom the power to

government has been bestowed upon by the people

through the instrumentality of election. In other

words, the range of political participation

activities of a political system is a fruition of

leadership recruitment through elections.

Elections performs three major functions which

include to select competent individuals for public

office (legitimacy effect), to reflect the

preferences of a large spectrum of voters

(representative effect), and to discipline the

elected officials by threat of not being re-elected

(accountability effect). When elected officials

anticipate that they would not be re-elected if

they fail to perform, it makes them to be alive to

their responsibilities to the people. However one

vital condition that affects political

accountability is the competitive electoral

mechanism and at the core of that electoral

mechanism is the vote. If a large proportion of the

citizens do not express their opinions, election

would create no incentive for politicians to

espouse or implement public-interest policies.

Nigeria’s Electioneering Democracy in Retrospect

John Locke began his analysis of the nature of

government with an attack on the divine right of

kings. He propounded a totally different theory of

government according to which kinship was an office

created by human agreement that served the common

good of those agreeing to create it. The compact

from which political society originated, according

to him, was concluded in order to preserve the

natural rights of the contracting parties, but what

mattered more, with regard to the question of

legitimacy, he observed, was that monarchy, as

indeed all political institutions, is based on

agreement and on the consent of the people. In

contradistinction with the views espoused by his

predecessor, Thomas Hobbes, the social contract, he

argued, does not create authority, as political

authority is embodied in individuals and pre-

existed in the state of nature. Instead, the social

contract merely transferred the authority they each

enjoyed in the state of nature to a particular

body. The legitimacy of political authority in the

civil state, thus, depends, according to Locke, on

whether the transfer of authority has happened in

the right way. Specifically, it depends entirely on

individuals’ consents, hence it was contended that

“No one can be put out of this estate and subjected

to the political power of another without his own

consent” (Locke, 1990, p.63).

The above exposé serves to situate the import

of elections in a democratic settings. Elections

are integral part of every democratic order. They

give the people voice and serve to re-enact their

belief in the governing process. Obegolu (1991,

p.1) defines election as the expression, by vote,

of the will of the people; the selection of one

person or persons from a specific class to

discharge certain duties in a state or society; and

the act of choosing or selecting one or more

persons from a greater number of persons. The

operative words in these definitions are

“expression by vote of the will of the people”;

therefore, when people are appointed, selected or

co-opted to occupy elective positions by persons

other than those entitled by law to partake in such

selection, when the will of the people is not

allowed to manifest in any particular situation; or

where the electoral processes are tampered with

such that the outcome do not reflect the wishes of

the electorate, either before, during or after the

elections, the exercise could no longer be rightly

referred to as election. As Okoye (1996a, p.5)

correctly submits, a polity could be said to be

democratic if;

…it operates a political system inwhich nothing antithetical tofundamental human rights isunjustifiably allowed to deny itsadult members opportunities of, andactual participation in theactivities leading to the election ofgovernment leaders; in which nothingis allowed to alter the opinions ofthe electorate expressed throughtheir votes and in which the popularopinion of the majority of the peopleand the interest of the majority formthe basis of governmental policiesand policy implementation.

Attempt by Nigerian political class to

entrench representative democracy at the turn of

political independence in 1960 culminated in the

entrenchment of electioneering democracy in the

country. What has however generated divergent views

was the extent to which those elections have

measured on the scale of free and fair elections.

Aside the problem of malpractices, other challenges

to Nigerian elections are the problem of voter

apathy and invalid or void vote syndrome occasioned

by the factor of voter illiteracy and ignorance and

which is made worst by poor and/or outright lack of

voter education.

Since the 1979 general elections, significant

numbers of registered voters have consistently not

exercised their franchise and scores of votes are

declared invalid and discountenanced as a result of

breaches of voting regulations paving way for what

is known in the lexicon of election in Nigeria as

void vote syndrome.

Table 1: Presidential Elections Statistics 1999-

2011

ElectionYear

TotalRegiste

redVoters

TotalVotesCast

% TotalInvali

dVotes

% TotalValidVotes

%

1979 48,499,

091

17,098,

267

35.

26

- 2 - -

1999 57,938,

945

30,280,

052

52.

3

431,61

1

1.

42

29,848,

411

98.

582003 60,823,

022

42,018,

735

69.

1

2,538,

246

6.

04

39,480,

489

93.

962007 61,567,

036

- - - - 35,397,

517

-

2011 73,528, 39,469, 53. 1,259, 3. 38,209, 96.

040 484 7 506 19 978 81Source: Vanguard Newspaper 14 February 2014retrieved from

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/04presidential-elections-1999-2011-in-fingures on 1/3/14.

In the 1979 presidential elections, only

17,098,267 out of the total registered voters of

48,499,091 representing 35.26 percent voted in the

election. 2 percent of the total votes cast in that

election was declared invalid and never counted in

determining the winner of that election. Perhaps

the controversies that trailed the election would

have been averted had all the votes been valid.

Voter turn out in the 1999 general election was

also not quite impressive although appreciable

increase was recorded. Out of the 57,938,945

registered voters for that election, 30,280,052 or

52.3 percent actually participated in the election.

However only 29, 848,411 voters cast their votes

out of which 1.42 percent amounting to 431,611

votes were declared invalid. Although the number

of registered voters for the 2003 and 2007 general

elections increased to 60,823,022 and 61,567,036

respectively, so also was the number of invalid

votes recorded during the elections. In 2003

presidential elections, only 42,081,735 voters

representing 69.1 percent exercised their

franchise. Out of that number, 2,538,246 or 6.04

percent votes were declared void and invalid and

therefore not counted. In the 2011 elections, there

was further decline in the number of total votes

cast notwithstanding the all time highest number of

registered voters recorded for that election. A

total of 73,528,040 voters registered for the

election, but only 39,469,484 voters representing

53.7 percent actually voted in the election. A

total of 1,259,506 of that number (3.19%) were said

to be invalid as a result of which a total number

of valid votes was put at 38,209,978.

Table 2: Parliamentary Elections Statistics 1959-2011

ElectionYear

Registered

Voters

TotalVotesCast

VoterTurnout(%)

VotingAge

Population

VAP%

InvalidVotes %

1959 9,036,0

83

7,185,5

55

79.52 16,532,

640

43.

46

-

1979 48,499,

091

15,686,

514

32.34 38,142,

090

41.

13

-

1983 65,300, 25,400, 38.90 43,620, 58. 3.20

000 000 780 231999 57,938,

945

23,573,

407

40.69 52,792,

781

44.

65

2.40

2003 60,823,

022

29,995,

171

49.32 64,319,

246

46.

63

-

2007 61,567,

036

- - 71,004,

507

- 4%

2011 73,528,

040

21,074,

621

28.66 81,691,

751

25.

80

-

Adapted from Institute for Democracy and ElectoralAssistance (IDEA) website –www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?countrycode=NG on1/3/14.

The case was not in anyway different with the

elections into the National Assembly as revealed by

Table 2 above. In 1959 parliamentary elections,

voter turn out was put at 79.52 percent – the

highest ever recorded in any Nigerian election. But

by 1979, that figure has plummeted to 32.34

percent. It increased slightly to 38.9 percent,

40.69 percent and 49.32 percent in 1983, 1999 and

2003 respectively during which also there was

increase in invalid votes.

The revelations thus far leave no one in doubt

as to the fact that the history of representative

democracy in Nigeria is characterized by unwitting

disenfranchisement of a significant number of

electorates in the choice of their leaders.

Voters Education and Consolidation of Democracy in

Nigeria

We have underscored the import of popular

participation, particularly the roles of elections

in a democracy. We have equally highlighted the

challenges posed by voter apathy and void vote

syndrome in democratization process in Nigeria. It

therefore bears pointing out, at this point, that

the latter problem in our electoral system derives

due largely to three factors; illiteracy of most

voters, ignorance of the electorate regarding how

to exercise their voting right and lack of proper

education concerning elections, their organization,

procedures and general modus operandi.

For an election to be successful, and meet the

standard of democracy, voters must be allowed

unfettered freedom to partake in electoral

processes, particularly voting. They must

understand their rights and responsibilities; and

they must be sufficiently knowledgeable and well

informed to cast ballots that are legally valid and

acceptable in determining the winners in elections.

The provision of knowledge of political processes

and rules regarding actual casting of votes is what

we refer to as voter education.

The term voter education is used in this paper

to describe the dissemination of information

intended to equip the voter with the specifics and

mechanics of the voting process for a particular

election. It involves, amongst other things, the

provision of information on who is eligible to

vote, where and how to register, how the

electorates can check the voter lists to ensure

that they are not excluded; what type of

elections are being held and the voting system

to be adopted, who the candidates are; where,

when and how to vote, and also importantly spur

the willingness of the people to participate in

electoral politics by strengthening their

confidence that the electoral process would be

effective in selecting governments and

promoting policies that would benefit the

individual voter.

Responsibility for Voter Education: Mirroring Media

Roles

There is no denying the need to properly educate

the voters. What is contested always is whose role

it is to provide the requisite voter information

that will enhance improved and better voter

participation in Nigeria. There has also not being

a consensus as to how best to carryout voter

education either.

It is the statutory duty of election

management bodies (the Independent National

Electoral Commission (INEC) and states electoral

bodies to carryout voter education. However, the

general public, including political parties, non-

governmental organizations, civil society,

organizations, faith-based groups, and the mass

media can play vital roles in this regard since as

Iredia (2007) rightly observes, the electoral

commission does not have the capability to

undertake voter education. The powerful channels

and the most potent strategies and the technical

format for effective public enlightenment, he said,

belong to the media.

The mass media have always been deployed to

educate voters in advanced democracies. McQuail

(2005:523) acknowledged this role when he observed

that “in (such) democracies, the media… usually

find their raison d’etre in their service to their

audience, to whom they provide information…” and

education. In doing this, Curran (2005:129) adds

that the media assist voters to make an informed

choice at election time. The media achieve this in

form of news stories, write-up by columnists,

commentaries, features and interpretative stories

by journalists. Added to these is political

advertising or space and time allotted candidates

to show-case their potentials.

It becomes incontrovertible that mass media

are sine qua none in our political clime. Due to

the fact that the mass media have the ability to

effectively report and enlighten people, Utor

(2000:21) accords mass media the duty of decision

moulder and that of teacher. Similarly, Abagen

(2009:39) asserts that they have evolved over time

into an essential ingredient in the dynamics of

political rebirth. By virtue of this responsibility

the mass media shape the opinion and attitude of

people, especially in their capacity as voters

(Foster, 2010:142).

For the mass media as channels of purposeful

communication about politics to be impactful,

McNair (2003:24) avers that the political messages

which cover verbal or non-verbal statements should

be deliberate. Denton and Woodward (1998:11) add

that "the crucial factor that makes communication

'political' is not the source of a message, but its

content and purpose." This is because political

communication, in substance, revolves around the

intentions of its senders to influence the

political environment.

While advocating the need for the information

role mass media play in enlightening society,

Wilcox, Ault and Agee (1998:10) emphasised that:

There has always been a need forpolitical communication if for no otherreason than to inform citizens of theservices available and the manner inwhich they may be used. In a democracy,public information is crucial if citizensare to make intelligent judgments aboutthe policies and activities of theirpolitical parties. Through information it

is hoped that the people will have thenecessary background to participate fullyin the activities and programmes of theparty system.

Regarding the role of the mass media in voter

education, Soola (2009, p.32) observes that “A

virile media is the bastion of democracy and good

government.” In other words, it is part of the

functions of the mass media as clearly espoused by

the social responsibility and democratic-

participant media theories and pursuant to the

powers conferred on them by the 1999 Constitution

of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, to

provide the voters with the streams of information

and requisite consciousness that will re-awaken

them from their political slumber and ensure proper

casting of votes. According to Kalu (1985, p.19),

“The ordinary expectation is that the mass media

will focus on serious matters that portend serious

consequences for the people and their political

choices.”

The media should clarify campaign issues,

bring aspirants close to the electorate, and teach

the voters the differences between party and

candidate to enable them make a wise choice (Akpan,

1985). Given that a greater percentage of Nigerians

are still illiterate and ignorant of the working of

the political system, it is pertinent that every

information pertaining to election should be

disseminated repeatedly in local languages. Thus,

the media must go beyond the mere dissemination of

information and engage in political education.

Posters, stickers, handbills and flyers as well as

such activities as street theatre, role playing,

speeches, radio spots, jingles, songs, cartoon

strips and even the social media can be used to a

better result.

Summing Up

Our major task was to examine the implications of

void votes syndrome occasioned by poor voter

education on the country’s democratic governance.

In doing that, we established the link between

democracy, election and popular participation; and

emphasized that democracy without full

participation of the people in leadership

recruitment in particular, lacks legitimacy. It is

also our humble view that invalid votes in election

is a subtle way of disenfranchisement of Nigerians

and that the trend portends danger to our

democratic future. Hence, multi-dimensional

approach to voter education is canvassed with the

mass media at the forefront since according to

Okoye (1990, pp. 219-220).

The press (mass media) should notscruple when occasion demands it, toshock society out of its smugcomplacency, its arrant parochialismand mental stupor; to say who or whatwent or is going wrong and suggesthow things can be righted; to focusattention on what is interesting,what is important and what isnecessary for national development;to identify and give a forum to thethinkers of society and bring what isdistant near and make the strangeunderstandable, thus easing for thepeople the transition fromtraditional to modern society.

References Abagen, T.F. (2009). “The Mass Media and the Evolution

of a Viable Social and Political Order.” In

Nigerian Journal of Communication ResearchVol.1

No. 1.

Abdullahi, A. (1991). The way to go. African Concord,(Lagos), November 25, p.12.

Akpan, E. (1985). Broadcast journalism in a multi-partystate. In O. Nwuneli (ed.) Mass Communication inNigeria. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publisher.

Appadorai, A.A. (1975). The substance of politics. London:Oxford University Press.

Arat, Z. (1991). Democracy and human rights in developingcountries. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.

Bingham, P.G. (1992). Contemporary democracies: Participation,stability and violence. Port Harcourt: SunrayPublications Ltd.

Chikendu, P.N. (1983). Electoral Malpractice inNigeria: A case of the 1964 and 1979 generalelections. Paper presented at the NationalConference on Elections, held at the University ofNigeria Nsukka between 1-4 February.

Curran, J. (2005). “Mediations of Democracy.”In Curran,

J and Gurevitch, M. (eds) Mass Media and Society

(4th Edition). London: Hodder Education.

Dalton, R.I. (1998). Citizen politics in Westerndemocratic: public opinion and political partiesin the United States. Great Britain, West Germanyand France. Chattaam House Publishers.

Denton, R.E. & Woodward G.C. (1998). Political

Communication in America. New York: Praeger.

Foster, S. (2010). Political Communication. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press. London: Sage

Publications.

Gauba, O.P. (2003). An introduction to political theory, fourthedition. India: Macmillan.

Iredia, T.O. (2007). Information dissemination, votermobilization and election monitoring in Nigerianelectoral process. In M. Ogun (ed.) Improving thefortunes and destiny of Nigeria through the ballot box. Abuja:Catholic Laity Council of Nigeria.

Kalu, O.U. (1985). Religion and political values in Nigeria: Apluralistic perspective. Nsukka: University Press.

Locke, J. (1990) [1690]. Second treatise on civil government.Edited by C.B. Mcpherson. Indianapolis: Hacket.

Mbachu, O. (1994). Democracy inAfrica: A theoreticaloverview. In O. Omoniyi et al (eds.), Democratizationin Africa: African perspective, vol. o1. Benin: Hima and HimaLtd.

McNair, B. (2003). An Introduction to Political

Communication. London: Routledge.

Obegolu, C. (1999). Free and fair elections in Nigeria: Hindrancesand remedies. Enugu: Jinken Publishers.

Obiorah, C.C. & P.A. Chiamogu, (2010). Governance andpublic alienation in Nigeria: An exploration ofthe legitimacy crises in Nigeria’s democraticprocess. Paper presented at the South-East ZonalConference of the Nigerian Political ScienceAssociation held in association with the

Department of Public Administration, FederalPolytechnic Oko between 27-30 September.

Obiorah, C.C. (2004). Press and democratization inNigeria: The fourth estate status desideration,Global Communicator, vol. 1, No. 1, June, 52-61.

Okeke, M.I. & C.C. Obiorah (2009). Reinventing socialmobilization for improved political participation:The NOA – media challenge. Oko Journal of Communication& Information Science, vol 1, No. 2, 123-137.

Okoye, I.K. (1996a). The illusion of democracy in Nigeria.Onitsha: University Publishing Company.

Okoye, M. (1990). The Nigerian press in the 1990s andbeyond. In I. Nwosu (ed.), Mass communication andnational development. Aba: Frontier Publishers.

Olopoenia, A.A. (2007). Social and economicdisenfranchisement in the development process.Paper presented at the 10th Ojejunji AboyadeMemorial Lecture held at the University of Ibadan.

Shively, W.P. (2008). Power & Choice: An introductionto political science, eleventh edition. Boston:McGraw Hill.

Soola, E.O. (2009). Media, democracy and misgovernancein Africa. International Journal of African Studies, Issue 1,25-35.

Tom, M. (1992). Decade of democracy. Newsweek(Washington), January 6, p. 37.

Utor, M .(2000). “The Mass Media, Ethics and

Professionalism in Nigeria.” Journal of Mass

Communication and Society. Vol1. No. 2

Warren, H. (1967). Our democracy at work. USA: PrenticeHall Inc.

Wilcox, D.I., Ault, P.H., & Agee, W.K. (1998). Public

Relations Strategies and Tactics. New York:

Wesley Edu. Publishers Inc.