James Agena
Department of Political Science/
Public Administration
Ebonyi State University,
Abakaliki
Abstract
The lofty ideals of democracy and its humane disposition saw Nigeria adopting this most cherished system of government globally. But Nigeria’s experience at democratic governance has not been a happy one. The country that had for three times experimented this governmental .system never benefited from the good tidings inherent in democratic practice rather the system had impoverished the people. Poverty now is -written on the faces of Nigerians, a development which had elicited a lot of questions like whether the country was not ripe for democratic governance or whether there’ is an actual lack of democrats. This article seeks to examine these issues. It argues that the Nigeria democratic experiment is one where non-democrats are managing the polity culminating in the non-observance of the fundamental rights of the citizens and the rule of law. The article, recommends that for the country to experience stability in the polity, there is the need to de-emphasize money politics; obedience to the rule of law und an improvement on the general conditions of the average Nigerian who is almost dying of starvation.
Introduction
Nigerians both at home and in Diaspora heaved a sigh of relief in May, 29, 1999, when the military administration of General; Abdusalami Abubakar handed over power to a democratically elected civilian government after a long period of military interregnum. Most Nigerians were particularly happy over the new development because of the many agonizing moments which they had experienced over military dictatorship and hoping that with a civilian government now in power, many of the injustices that they had suffered under the military would be addressed and also all the decaying infrastructural facilities across the country would be revitalized in the shortest possible time. With these expectations from the hands of the new crop of leaders, Nigerians sat back to watch with keen interest how the new civilian administration would tackle the country’s numerous tooth-aching problem. Their stern belief in the ability of the new civilian administration to provide the much needed panacea to the nation’s problem stem from the realities that as men and women elected by the people, they would not fail to discharge these onerous responsibilities as a sure way of keeping faith with the social contract they entered with the electorate.
There is no gainsaying the fact that at the inception of the Obasanjo administration, in 1999, the Nigerian state was at the verge of disintegration and virtually everything was at a standstill; the international community not only shut their doors against Nigeria as a country but that the country was socio-economically described as an outcast and beggar nation. Even at home front, things were not the way they ought to be and in the words of Imam and Ibadan (2004) at the national level, “the citizens were totally disillusioned, alienated and hence, faithless in the Nigerian nation-state, law and order had virtually broken down while fundamental rights were brazenly undermined.” The Nigerian economy at the time was in bad shape with a lot of intimidating problems resulting from gross mismanagement, pervasive corruption and the lack ‘of accountability.
When the administration of Olusegun Obasanjo settled down to address the country’s problems, many of her approaches to the issues at stake were fundamentally not in line with the expectations of the people as the policies of the government are not people-oriented thereby, eliciting the obvious question of whether real democrats were actually elected into positions of leadership.
THE CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY
Democracy is seen as one of the best, if not the best system of government the world over. This position is informed by the fact that under a democratic governance, there is usually the respect for the rule of law and the fundamental rights of the citizenry. Because of the freedom which the citizens enjoy under a democratic environment, there exists in contemporary era, a universal craze for the entrenchment of democratic values in any political system. Democracy, it should be noted is of Greek origin, but, its ideals is today being cherished by numerous individuals and even governments the world over.
Democratic governance has to do with the exercise of legitimate power either directly or indirectly through elected representatives but the interesting thing is that this use of power is usually with the consent of the people. Those at the helm of affairs in a democratic set-up are supposed to provide answers to socio-political and economic questions. Obadan and Imam (2004) agreed with this view when they conceive of democratic governance thus:
Under democratic governance, factors such as economic equality, fraternal feeling and political liberty within a defined territory are indispensable prerequisites. The institutional expression within democratic governance in contemporary times are equal rights for all normal adults to vote and stand as candidates for election; periodic election; equal eligibility for executive and judicial offices (provided the essential qualifications for the performance of the assigned duties are satisfied); and freedom of speech, publication and association.
The ability of the citizenry to enjoy these numerous advantages of democracy is usually dependent on a number of factors ranging from socio-economic and natural endowment of the people. This equally goes to show that democracy has a lot of respect for the fundamental rights of the people and the rule of law. Whenever a government refuses to observe religiously these features of democracy, such an administration cannot be said to be democratic. But for these ideal features of democracy to be achieved in any polity, the people need to tolerate each other and imbibe the spirit of “give and take”, as under a political democracy, the minority are to be given a sense of belonging in the decisions of the majority. Democratic governance cannot be realized if either the majority or minority are isolated from the policies of government.
For Roberts and Edwards (1991) democracy carries with it certain fundamental features. In their postulation, democracy entails popular participation; absolute respect for the rule of law; a general guarantee of fundamental freedoms which lubricate popular participation; periodic competitive, free and fair elections with the vote of every citizen counting equally; respect for majority rule as well as the readiness of the minority to acquiesce in the decision of the majority; accountability, guarantee of separation of powers in practice, transparency and responsiveness in governance and opportunity for change of government or any leadership found wanting.
Democracy should be seen as providing opportunities for all citizens to develop their potentials because in an environment where majority of the citizens are not literate, many of the citizens cannot take active part in the decision making process. It, therefore, behoves on government that is said to practice democracy to aid free education. Government should equally guarantee the citizens job security, a take home pay that would actually take the people home and provide a good condition of service for workers. It is only when this is done that the ever waning gulf between the rich and the poor would be bridged. Agreeing with this stand, Appadorai (1978) opined that:
Democratic governance demands from the common man a certain level of ability and character; rational conduct and active participation in the government; the intelligent understanding of public affairs; independent judgment; tolerance and unselfish devotion to public interest.
Contrary to the above position, democracy as is experienced in Nigeria is far from producing individuals that can really contribute rationally to the policies of government but rather, it had produced for the Nigerian society individuals who are not only fearful but uncritical, and in that stead are not interested in the happening in government, a development that does not guarantee its continued survival.
Though democracy as earlier pointed out is the best and most cherished system of government the world over, the system is not without its flaws. Imam and Obadan (2004) saw the problems inherent in most democracies around the world to include:
• Problems arising from inability to fulfill its precondition. This, they asserted makes democratic governance rule of ignorance as it pays attention to quantity and not to quality.
• Democratic governance tends to be capitalist in practice, as it represents nothing but the rule of propertied oligarchy.
• Fundamental attributes of democracy like equality and majority rule remain as myth as the smaller number can remotely control the majority with its wealth.
• The basic assumptions of democratic governance are practically difficult to fulfill. For, according to them, the citizens are supposed to be intelligent, have self-control and conscience, for good democratic governance to flourish, but, these assumptions are not adequately fulfilled.
Indeed, it should be stated that there is no system without its weakness and in the words of Diamond (1990) “democracy is the most widely admired type of political system but also the most difficult to sustain.” Be that as it may, democracy has won the hearts of most people across the globe especially, its guarantee of fundamental freedom and the rule of law and to that extent not comparable with any other system in terms of its humane treatment of people.
DEMOCRACY: THE NIGERIAN EXPERIENCE
The history of democracy in Nigeria before the present democratic experiment is replete with an avalanche of problems. Nigeria, it should be noted -had thrice, experienced democratic governance but any attempt x-ray the actual practice of democratic governance in Nigeria would obviously bring a lot of disappointing results to the researcher. When mention is made of the country’sexperience at democratic governance immediately after independence in 1960, one cannot but state that the inability of the then democratic governance to thrive was purely as a result of the ethnic chauvinism that existed that time, coupled with the fact that politicians then were fighting a war of supremacy rather than being concerned with the management of the state affairs. The masses were the worst hit, as their’ condition did not improve having suffered harsh realities resulting from colonialism. When the military eventually struck in 1966, its aftermath saw the country fighting a civil war for almost thirty (30) months. The army had to take over the seat of power in the face of these harsh realities and only to allow the civilians come back in 1979 with President Shehu Shagari. The Shagari administration plundered the nation’s resources into cosmetic projects that had no impact on the people. It was not too long that the administration started experiencing budget deficits. Ministers who served the administration especially Alhaji Umaru Dikko diverted imported rice that was meant to alleviate the suffering masses into personal use. The state during the regime was heading towards disintegration. The enthusiasm, which greeted the military take-over of the government of Shehu Shagari in December 1983, by the Buhari led military adventurers attests to the realities that the administration had not performed. The Buhari led administration had not fully settled to address the problems of the state when General Babangida and his cohorts took over power, accusing the Buhari administration of not governing in the interest of the masses.
The Babangida regime for eight years squandered the nation’s resources in an endless transition programme culminating in the annulment of the June 12, 1993 Presidential Election, described as the freest and fairest in Nigeria political history. The winner of this historic election, the late M.K.O. Abiola, demonstrating his intention to fight for justice over the annulment stated, “even mother nature has demonstrated an outstanding democratic spirit in coming out to vote on the Election Day.” The Babangida administration rather than hand over to a democratically elected president set up an Interim National Government which never saw the light of the day as the Chairman of the Interim Government was said to have voluntarily resigned his appointment in November 1993 by the then Secretary of defence who later took over as the Military Head of State. He described his administration as a child of necessity and went ahead to engage in – transition, which never ended till his death in 1998. The Military High Command then had to saddle General Abubakar with the responsibilities of ending the Abacha transition programme. The administration of Abubakar kept faith with the Nigerian project and in May 29, 1999, a new civilian administration was sworn in to the chagrin of bookmakers, Nigerians had indeed for a long time clamoured for democracy. Gbenga (2004) saw democracy thus:
The beauty of democratic rule lingers on the very important fact that power is in the hands of the people, the people have a ‘say1 in governmental affairs and can monitor the activities of public officers and call them to order when they deviate while they are at liberty to appraise, criticize and oppose governmental policies and actions and be listened to by the government. Various radio and television programmes these days, feature mostly face-to-face interviews with public officers thereby making for accountability.Democracy has indeed remained a beautiful bride especially, its guarantee of fundamental freedom and the rule of law.
TRAVAILS OF THE PRESENT DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENT IN NIGERIA
The many problems of democratic experiments in Nigeria have elicited a lot of questions from Nigerian on whether the Nigerian environment was not safe for democratic, practice or whether, it was just a result of the absence of real democrats who understand the ideals of democracy and is ready to utilize it to the benefit of Nigerians.
In Nigeria’s first and second republics, the masses were at the suffering end as the political leaders at the time hide under the cloak of ethnicity for their selfish political advantage to the detriment of the impoverished citizens of the country. The third republic was inconclusive as the presidential elections were annulled, a development that culminated in the crisis that led to the death of many poor and innocent Nigerians. When the present administration of Olusegun Obasanjo came to power, the government stated its desire to bring about democratic dividends. The much awaited democratic dividend never came but rather the Federal Government was to order the utter destruction of Odii town by military men in the year 2000, on the excuse that restive youths in the area are distorting oil exploration, a development which was new in democratic set up, culminating in the president being described as an undemocratic democrat. The regime’s performance was not too far from that of other administrations in Nigeria be it military or civilian, and within two years of the Obasanjo administration, the Transparency International told the entire world that Nigeria is the most corrupt country in the world, thereby, discrediting the war on corruption that was a brain child of the administration. Keeping a dossier on the administration, a constitutional lawyer, Mike Ozehkome opined that:
The present administration has been too sluggish in terms of addressing the problems of the country. The three tiers of the government have not helped matters. The federal, state and local governments executives, for example, have become lords onto themselves. They are all busy looting. Some are building mansions all over the place … what is happening today is a relic _ or carry over of military dictatorship. Obasanjo is still learning how to be a democrat. His military antecedents are still haunting him, (Newswatch, May 14,2001, p.44)
Ozehkome was not alone in bringing to the knowledge of Nigerians the undemocratic manouevre of the Obasanjo administration. In his words, Alhaji Saleh Jambo spoke of the Obasanjo administration thus:
What we have today is rather a civilian regime and not democratic dispensation. That is why since inception the president has had problems with the National Assembly. He has changed the leadership of the Senate, tried to remove Speaker Ghali Na’ Abba and has been unable to rally people around him. He seldom listens to advice even though there are many men and women of goodwill in the country that can adequately advise him on what he ought to do. But the more you advise the president, the less he listens. If anyone has the courage to challenge the president, he is blacklisted. He wants to control the legislature as well as the executive even when it is not his business to control the two. (Crystal, September 2001, p.8).
It should be noted that some of the public utterances of the president do portray him as a democrat. Rather than address our bad economic state, the president had continued to increase the prices of petroleum products and various attempts by the Nigerian Labour Congress to let the president see reason why the increase is unnecessary had fell in deaf ears. The president in a bid to change Nigeria’s bad image in the international arena engaged in a series of overseas trips which consequently made him to pay less attention to the country’s political and economic problems. This equally contributed to the government of Obasanjo g scored low in performance.
In his usual comment on government overall performance, Lagos lawyer radical human rights activist, GaniFawehinmi has this to say:
For a president to have traveled 162 times out of the country and slept 415 days – one and half years of his four year reign overseas, it was not surprising that the government has failed to address the nagging problems of the country… this regime at the centre and in the states have given to Nigerians disillusionment, dissatisfaction and disaffection because there is unprecedented corruption at all levels of government. the president and the governors are behaving like in a military dictatorship. As a matter of fact, there is no smell of democracy in the country. What the people have witnessed is obdurate and obstinate dictatorship by the president and governors. They do the very opposite of their sermonization and pontification. Nigerians are totally worse off now than before; there is acute poverty both at urban and rural areas of the country. Mass unemployment is high. They cannotprovide good health care, water and electricity. Education is not their priority. A state of hopelessness is what we see staring everybody in the face. (The Guardian, August 24,2003, p.7)
Another area where the undemocratic posture of the present administration is very conspicuous is the case of the Abduction of the Anambra State Governor, Dr. Chris Ngige on 10th July, 2003. Ordinarily, most Nigerians thought that such an act is a treasonable felony and that the culprits would soon be arraigned in court but that was not to be. What rather happened was that the Governor’s security details were withdrawn because of the ruling of Justice Nnaji (now retired) and this left many mouth agape. The president was subsequently accused of having a hand in the Anambra political crisis. The Anambra crisis deepened to a point where in November 2004, Chris Dba who was the political godfather of the state governor sent his men on rampage and destroyed many government properties.
The unbearable state of affairs in Anambra State prompted the immediate past Chairman of Peoples Democratic Party (POP), Chief Audu Ogbe to write what he described as a harmless letter to the President which stated thus:
That week, in all churches and mosques, we, our party and you as head of government and leader of this nation came under the most scathing and blithering attacks. We were singly and severally accused of connivance in action and so forth. Public anger reached its peak. You set up a reconciliation committee headed by Ebonyi State Governor, Dr. Sam Egwu and we all thought this would help calm nerves and perhaps bring about some respite. But quite clearly, things are nowhere near getting better. While the reconciliation team attempted to inspect damaged sites in Anambra State, they were scared away by gunfire further heightening public anger and disdain for us. On Tuesday, the 30th day of November 2004, another shocking development – a reported bomb explosion in Government House, Awka. Since then, the media, public discourse within and outside of our borders has been dominated by the most heinous and hateful of expletives against our party and your person and government. It would appear that the perpetrators of these acts are determined to stop at nothing since there has not been any visible sign of reproach from law enforcement agencies. I am convinced that the rumours and speculations making the rounds that they are determined to kill Dr. Chris Ngige may not be unfounded. The question now is what would be the consequences of such a developmerit? How do we exonerate ourselves from culpability and worse still, how do we even hope to survive it? (The Comet, January 2005, p.22)
The patty chairman who by this letter thought he was genuinely concerned with the happening in Anambra State and the need for the intervention of the president, little did he know that he had written a sack letter for himself. The president in his usual approach to national issues forced the party chairman to resign his position and Nigerians were told that the National Chairman of Peoples Democratic Party resigned based on integrity.
The spate of killing of political opponents across the state is also an indication that the present democratic regime is yet to imbibe the spirit of democracy. From Enugu to Rivers down to Delta, and many other states of the federation, the assassination of political opponents has been on the increase.
The National Assembly equally had its fair share of the president’s undemocratic method especially, the upper legislature (Senate)’ where the president determines the number of days a Senate President would stay in office culminating in the production of five Senate Presidents in five years from five different states. The latest being the fall of Wabara because of complicity in the N55 million Naira bribery scandal. Nigerians though are happy over this development due principally to the fact that Wabara never won any election to be in the Senate talk more of being a Senate President.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Democracy is a good system of government but, Nigeria and Nigerians have been unlucky at every democratic experiment due principally to the kind of people who at the end of the day emerge as leader. It is just a case of having non-democrats managing democratic structures and the result is far from obvious. In his words Odey (2005) states that the poor masses of this country are suffocating under the yoke of Obasanjo democratic tyranny because, the poor are not only socially alienated, they are politically enslaved, economically impoverished and devastated and also psychologically traumatized.
In the face of these realities, Nigerians are still hopeless because of the inability of the present democratic experiment to embark on projects that touch the lives of the people.
There should be a political re-engineering, which will make for the building of democratic structures and policies put in place for its sustenance and survival. Furthermore, Nigeria and Nigerians should de-emphasize money politics because of the inherent dangers of putting the destiny of Nigerians in the hands of money bags who are not concerned with the development of the state and its people, but rather, to continue to acquire more material resources for themselves and their relatives.
The provision of adequate security for the citizens is another area that government ought to urgently address, a development where there exists a general state of insecurity will deter men and women of integrity from getting involved in politics, thereby, making for an obvious lack of credible people in the helm of affairs.
The need to make political positions less juicy is another step through which genuine individuals who want to serve the country would emerge. It will also put to stop, the spate of killing of political opponents and those who eventually emerge, as leaders, would always know that it is a call to serve.
Independence of legislative arm from executive interference will make for stable polity. The legislature is usually the first estate of the realm over the executive and should perform her duties without interference. The importance of the legislature in the political process led Locke to describe it as “the supreme power of the commonwealth.”
There is equally the need for government to address the poverty level of Nigerians as this will go a long way in ensuring that the war on corruption makes a positive impact.
References
Adigun, A. Larry and Ebere, a (ed.) (2004), Nigeria’s Struggle for Democracy and Good Governance, Ibadan: University of Ibadan Press.
Appadorai, A. (1978) Substance of Politics, New Delhi: Kpnof
Asiegbu, J.U. (2003), A Political Survival Agenda For Nigeria, Umuahia: Atlas Press and Pam Unique Publishers.
Bello, I. and Obadan, M. (2004), Democratic Governance and Development Management in Nigeria Fourth Republic (1999 – 2004), Ibadan: Jodad Publishers.
Crawford, Y (1998). “The Colonial State and its Political Legacy” in; Donald Rothechild and Naomi Chazan, (eds.) The Precarious Balance, State and Society in Africa, Boulder: Western Press.
David, Sanders (1981), Patterns of Political Instability, London: “Macmillan Press Ltd. Cited in John Higley and Michael Burton.
Elliot, Florence (1973), A Dictionary of Politics, England: Penguin Books. Fawehinmi, Gani (2003), “100 Days of What? Of Pains?” The Guardian, Sunday August 24, p.7.
Gbenga, L. (2004) Democratic Prospects and Problems in Nigeria in Internal Review of Politics and Development, Vol. 2, No. 1.
Jambo, Saleh (2001) “Special Interview” Crystal: The Internal Magazine, September, p.8.
Kukah, M.H. (2003) Democracy and Civil Society in Nigeria, Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited.
Larry, D. (1990), “Three Paradoxes of Democracy,” Journal of Democracy Vol. 1.,NO.3. Summer.
Nwabueze, B.a. (1995), Nigeria ’93: The political Crisis and Solutions, Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited.
Odey, John (2005), Lamentations of a Lost Generation, Enugu: Snaap Press Limited.
Roberts and Edwards (1991), A Dictionary of Political Analysis, London: Edwards Arnold.
Solomon, Akhere (2004), “The Executive in Democratic Nigeria: Problems ‘and Prospects, in Bello, I. and Obadan, M. (eds.), Democratic. Governance and Development Management in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic (1999 2004), Ibadan: Jodad Publishers.