Emerging political associations

Emerging political associations

In the last few weeks, at least six political associations have announced their existence, and intention to seek registration as political parties, either alone, or in combination with other associations. The groups include the National Conscience Party (NCP), a labour-centred political group yet to acquire a name, National Progressive Forum (NPF), the National Frontier (NF), the National Solidarity Association (NSA), and the United Nigeria Development Forum (UNDF), the first group, NCP, we should know fairly well, given our knowledge of its leader, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, and the contents of its programme already presented to the public. The second, that is, the labour group may be something similar to the Labour Party of Babangida's transition. The third group, NPF, is reported to be made up of "hard core progressives", where I hope that the meaning of "progressive" has not changed so much from the definition that was given in December 1982 in Bagauda, Kano at a Nation Seminar: "Towards a Progressive Nigeria", by a participant Herbert Ekwe - Ekwe "Generally" said Ekwe-Ekwe, "progressives are those who believe in the possibility and the desirability of progress, identified here as the socio-economic and moral improvement of the human condition, which predicates on a high optimism about the human nature". But in class societies, progressive politics is "geared towards the amelioration of class contradictions in favour of the dominated classes and other strata, or in fact the abolition or overthrow of the class character of the oppressor state by the dominated". I have no reason to deviate from this definition. Of recent we have heard of unity talks between the progressives and the Movement for National Reformation (MNR) led by Chief Anthony Enahoro. MNR's platform is well known: democracy, equitocracy (implying the empowerment of regional and ethnic groupings), responsible, accountable and civilised governance. The combination will be an interesting development.

Fear is reportedly evoked by the fourth, fifth and sixth political associations which are regarded as military formations through which soldiers, once expelled from governance, seek to come back to power. The fourth political association, NF, is said to be a "splinter group of PDP" the fifth, NSA, is said to be made up of "those who served under Babangida", and the sixth, UNDP, has "mainly middle ranking offices who served under Abacha". The advertised leaders of these groups - including the one said to be faction of PDP and therefore expected to be civilian - are retired military people who held political officers or high military command positions between 1985 and 1998, spanning the regimes of Generals Babangida, Abacha and Abubakar. Most of them are young, and all are wealthy, very wealthy. Although their knowledge of what government is all about ma y not be profound, they know what power is, having exercised it in the crudest and most arbitrary way. The "mainstream" and "democratic" politicians and their friends in the media are afraid of them. Why are they feared? How I wish I could start my analysis with some faith in what. Nigerian politicians and state functionaries say in the public. Unfortunately, in Nigerian politics, what is said is always distant from what is believed; and what is done is seldom in consonance with what is said. You will commit a grave error of judgement if you ever take publicly expressed fears as anything near genuine inner worries.

What we are witnessing, is not a new phenomenon. Retired military officers have increasingly entered partisan politics, playing leading roles, since Babangida's transition. What is happening now is a mere expansion of this phenomenon: a more rapid entry of military people, in substantial numbers, into partisan politics. In the present dispensation, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a retired army general; the Minister of Defence is a retired general; the presidential chief of staff is a retired general, so is the National Security Adviser; three senators are retired officers who wielded immense political power under Babangida. One of them almost became the president of the Senate when the office suddenly became vacant last year. Al least one state governor had served as a military governor, several retired military officers occupy legislative and executive positions in state and local governments. The three registered political parties, especially, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), have several retired military and police officers as leading members.

There are, no doubt, developments to fear in Nigeria's electoral politics as the nation marches to the magic year 2003. But shadows should not be mistaken for the real objects. Two elements make up a masquerade: the mask and the human being. The mask is not the masquerade, nor is the human being. Contradictions between the mask and the human being are normal; the mask may appear tough and military, while the human being behind it is timid. The masquerade lives with these contradictions in normal times. But in serious crisis, the masquerade sheds its mask, drops its mystifying name and assumes the name of the human being. But that is during serious crisis which may never come in a particular case. So, what really are we to fear in the present situation in Nigeria? First, we ought to distinguish the following state forms in the political universe of capitalism: military dictatorship; military-backed or militarised dictatorship; neo-liberal democracy; and popular democracy. The first two forms can be classified broadly as dictatorship while the third and fourth forms can go under the name democracy.

We know what military dictatorship is. The younger generations of Nigerians should simply refer to the regimes of General Buhari (1984 - 1985), Babangida (1985- 1993), Abacha (1993- 1998) and Abubakar (1998-1999). Examples of military-backed or militarised dictatorship include South Africa under apartheid, Zaire under Mobutu, the present regimes in Rwanda and Algeria, fascist and police states in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s. Germany under Hitler, Spain under Franco, and Portugal under Salazr, Two critical points need to be made here. First, although military-backed or militarised dictatorship may not even have military people, serving or retired, in political positions they may, in certain historical circumstances become more brutal, more repressive and more unaccountable (politically, judicially and socially) than pure military regimes. Secondly, a military-backed or militarised dictatorship may, in fact, be an elected government operating under a constitution. Hitler's government was elected, so was Mobutu's government in Zaire and Abel Muzorewa's government in Zimbabwe - Rhodesia in the late 1970s. Obasanjo regime has the potential of becoming militarised.

Neo-liberal democracy and popular democracy are state forms that can, in general, be contrasted to dictatorship - military, militarised and military-backed. Neo-liberal democracy is what the Nigerian political class says it is fighting to establish, or develop, in Nigeria. The system consists of a small number of large parties, that mutually agree that they should be dominant, or even exclusive , in a system, that is heavily monetised; parties whose programmes are similar in essential matters: privatisation, deregulation and "free trade". But, above all, liberal democracy accepts the subservient role of Nigeria in the global capitalist "village". We know what popular democracy is. It is the opposite of neo-liberal democracy within the family of Western democracy. Again, a crucial point can be made here. Given a historical setting, like Nigeria, where retired military and police officers constitute a strong fraction of upper and middle classes, these two forms of democracy - neo-liberal democracy and popular democracy - may have substantial number of retired military and police officers in political offices. The United States of America is an old example. What to be watched is the role of coercive institutions of state (army, police, etc) in governance and the nature and democratic content of the governing or emerging political parties. The background (military or civilian) of politicians and political office holders is of secondary importance until a serious crisis erupts when, like in Yugoslavia, retired generals are summoned to the barricade.