|
A Flawed
Democracy
By
Reuben Abati
culled from GUARDIAN, May 28,
2006
Tomorrow May 29 is the seventh
anniversary of Nigeria's return to democratic rule after years of failed
experiments with governance and long seasons of military tyranny which
virtually re-conditioned the people's orientation and sowed the seeds for
future collapse of the Nigerian state. Tomorrow, the rulers in the corridors
of power will expect us to celebrate; after all this has so far been the
longest season of democracy in the country, we have been able to keep the
soldiers in their barracks and despite the failures and triumphs of the last
seven years, Nigeria has remained one country. What should be noted, though,
is that comparatively, democracy is a new form of government in Nigeria. The
last seven years can therefore be assessed in terms of lessons that the
people may have learnt through specific highlights during the period.
We must begin with the
admission that all things considered, this has been a flawed democracy:
our institutions are weak, the police is not more efficient today than
it was seven years ago, power supply remains epileptic, petroleum
products are available but they are so expensive partly because the
government is insisting on an import-dependency policy while the
country's refineries remain comatose, government officials are still
corrupt; the scope for human freedoms may have been expanded a little,
but the police are still shooting people indiscriminately, government
officials behave as if they are above the law, media houses are still
being attacked by government agents.
The government has an
economic reform programme which it promotes as a major achievement,
but the reforms have not addressed the big challenge of poverty
which is at the root of social dysfunctionality; there is no meeting
of minds on the supremacy of the rule of law; the average Nigerian
is alienated from his own society; the real sector is
under-performing; there are no jobs, no water supply, no beauty, so
much ugliness, anger and despair. Yesterday, for example, was
Children's Day, but Nigeria's children are under-privileged,
malnourished and trapped in unhappy homes and schools that are
ill-equipped. Nonetheless, the idea of democracy is now firmly
implanted in the hearts of our people. They want it because they
have seen its advantages. They are prepared to defend it. They love
it. They desire it. This passion for democracy can be traced largely
to the highlights that I referred to above. I propose to examine
them in turn and their relevance to our experience.
The first is the idea
of the people's proprietorship of democracy. This is something
that we can point to as a growing feature of Nigerian democracy.
Under the military, the people were outside government; they
were not in a position to ask questions or define their own
interests in the governance process. The soldiers ruled with
guns, threats, blackmail and intimidation. Since 1999, the
people's voice has been heard much louder in this land. There is
a growing sense of equality of worth, with ethnic groups and
communities insisting that they must be treated as equal
partners in the Nigerian arrangement. Under the military, every
company was required to have a Northerner on its board,
preferably as the Chairman, even if that Northerner did not have
a penny in the investment. Today, no Nigerian investor would
accept that; people from the Niger Delta travel to Abuja and
they wonder and they have asked questions: why should a city
that has no river have so many bridges and flyovers whereas the
people who are surrounded by rivers have no bridges in their
communities? Minority groups have become more persistent in
demanding for equity. There is a streak of independence that is
running through various communities, and this explains the
emergence of ethnic militias, every group has felt a need to
defend itself even under a democratic government. Old issues
have been reinvented and public opinion has become a key element
of democracy. The refusal of the authorities to allow that
opinion; their attempts to stifle the people's voice is what has
generated so much tension in the last seven years. But the most
recent debate of the so-called Third Term agenda has established
the lesson beyond controversy that respect for the people's will
is the only means of guaranteeing confidence in a democracy.
The second
highlight is the focus in seven years on the duty of
government. Both the people and the media have been most
vocal in drawing the attention of elected representatives to
the fact that the only way they can justify their presence
in power is to serve the people. The elections may have been
rigged in many places but it can be said that in parts of
Nigeria, some Governors have tried to give effect to the
people's mandate by doing a few visible things. Money may
have been stolen, contracts may have been inflated, but
generally the people have shown much intolerance for theft
in the corridors of power. Those officials who were caught
with their hands in the public till were promptly shamed by
the people.
The clear,
unambiguous message of the last seven years is that the
duty of government is to serve the people's interests,
and ensure their security and welfare. Where government
fails to provide a people with a sense of security, when
it denies the people a sense of freedom and ownership,
when it fails to provide them with jobs, with potable
water and other basic necessities of life, including the
opportunity to realise their full potentials as
citizens, it diminishes their humanity. Democracy in the
people's reckoning means improvement in their
circumstances. When a full account of Nigeria's
experience of democracy under this administration is
taken, the duty of government will certainly be of major
interest.
The third
highlight that I recommend for consideration is the
concern in the last seven years about the dangers of
elective dictatorship. One of the early discoveries
was that civilian democracy is not necessarily a
government of the people. It can be hijacked by
dictators in civilian garbs. And this is what has
happened to Nigerian democracy. The biggest battles
of the last few years (in Oyo, Anambra, Lagos State
vs. Federal Government, Plateau and elsewhere) have
been about the crisis of elective dictatorship. The
ruling People's Democratic Party had hardly won
majority power than it immediately turned itself
into a party of conquerors. By 2001, the PDP had
effectively marginalized the opposition in all parts
of Nigeria. This made it possible for the party to
record a landslide victory in 2003, and to create a
situation analogous to a one-party state. Having
been mutilated, the PDP rode roughshod over the
opposition; its officials acted as if Nigeria had
become their private estate; the Governors in the
states turned themselves into party leaders and the
legislature into an extension of Government House.
Nigerians were almost nearly helpless until
divisions within the PDP created an internal
opposition movement which in the last two years has
functioned like an alternative party.
This
is why it was possible to defeat the third
agenda in the National Assembly. If the PDP had
remained as united as it was before 2003, it
would have been difficult to give expression to
the people's true wishes. Thus, Nigerians ought
to have seen how a dominant political party can
become a dictatorship, and use that as guide in
making choices in the 2007 elections. Should the
PDP be "rewarded" for its sins with another
majority representation? However, the Presidency
was the biggest factor in that dictatorship. The
President personally turned his office into the
very epicenter of Nigeria, and by so doing did
great damage to the idea of federalism.
Governors and everyone else was required to act
as the President's "boy"; those who showed any
sign of independence were accused of disloyalty.
In seven years, Nigerians have witnessed
many personality battles in government which
can be traced to the blind scramble for
power and position. Nigeria's democracy
invariably encouraged the emergence of other
mini-dictators including Ministers who
travel in murderous convoys, local
government Chairmen who are lords in their
own right, First Ladies who operate as if
they were the ones who won the election and
not their husbands. There has been so much
talk about corruption, but the biggest
corruption of Nigeria's democracy is located
in this abuse of privilege and office.
The fourth highlight is the supremacy of
parliament. This is a lesson that we
have only learnt recently. The debate of
the Third term agenda and its resolution
by the National Assembly confronted
Nigerians with the capacity and
potential of parliament as a
transcendental body which can identify
an issue, amplify it, reconstruct it,
inflate and deflate, provide focus and
direction and in the end, take a
decision on behalf of the generality of
Nigerians. If they had voted otherwise
we would have had to live with their
decision. This was an important moment
for Nigeria because the more established
perception of parliament among the
people is that it is a corrupt assembly
of men and women whose only mission is
to collect bribes from the Executive and
enjoy privileges of power. The class of
2003 in Abuja managed to redeem itself,
and in the future it is to be expected
that the present generation of Nigerians
would take a much keener interest in
parliament having suddenly chanced upon
its strategic value.
This is linked to the fifth
highlight namely the value of
elections. In 1999, Nigerians
conducted democratic elections with
great expectations. They wanted
democracy by all means. There was a
collective resolution that the
military had to be sent out of
power. In 2003, although the
elections were flawed, Nigerians
were willing to accept the result
because they did not want anything
that would derail democracy. For
them, democracy had become a sort of
blackmail. They have seen however,
that politicians are not necessarily
good people. They can promise heaven
and earth during election campaigns
but when they get to power they do
something else. They become
dictators, exercising divine powers,
expecting to be worshipped by the
people. The elections of 2007 would
prove to be critical because both
the people and the politicians now
have a stake to ensure that the
right persons are elected into
office and that the elections end as
an expression of popular opinion.
This is where the national
electoral body is seemingly at
cross-purposes with the people.
What will be required from the
people is vigilance, and their
target needs not be the
candidates alone but the
godfathers who see every
election as a business
opportunity and INEC with which
they collaborate to impose the
wrong candidates on the people.
The people know who these
Godfathers are; they are members
of our communities; they are not
all as visible as Lamidi Adedibu
and Chris Uba, but they are in
every community as local
chieftains whose veto power is
cast in concrete.
The sixth and for now, the
final highlight is the
failure of individual
responsibility. Too many
Nigerians depend on
government and politicians
to make the difference that
we seek in our lives.
Government can play its part
but the task of ensuring
progress is collective.
Unfortunately we live in a
society where people do not
care enough for and about
themselves. We break laws
with impunity. We take the
laws into our hands. The
average Nigerian does not
want to respect traffic
rules and regulations. He
would rather not obtain a
driver's licence even. He
does not want to pay tax and
he believes that he can
bribe his way out of any
situation. He is very
religious but religion is
for him just another social
vehicle. We live in a
society where people think
that others owe them a
living and that they do not
have any obligations. There
is so much recklessness that
translates almost into a
love of evil and disorder.
This has been the biggest
threat to Nigerian democracy
since there can be no
democracy without the people
themselves.
What we must do is to
rescue democracy from
the enemies of progress
and strengthen it. We
need to address the
arbitrariness of the men
of power, and make
individual votes count
such that elections
would be truly an
expression of public
opinion and choices. We
need to build a national
consensus. The present
administration had made
a feeble attempt in that
direction but it failed
because there are too
many insincere persons
in the corridors of
power who are pretending
to be acting in the
people's interest. And
how can a nation make
progress if it is unable
to build consensus
around certain basic
issues?
|
