Flirting with Martial Ideas
By
I am almost running away with the impression that Nigerians have a lazy attitude to matters of governance. Since the beginning of this political
dispensation, we have never stopped to remind ourselves of the ugly fact that civilians have never been able to conduct a successful transition to civil rule
programme. Particular reference has been made to the 1983 experience when the transition elections that returned the then National Party of Nigeria as the
ruling party ushered in a political contraption that collapsed like a pack of cards three months later.
In reminding ourselves of this sad fact, our attitude has essentially been one of pessimism. We do not believe that we can scale the next hurdle. We appear to
be merely interested in striving towards the ideal. And when the Nigerian tells you that civilians are not capable of conducting democratic elections, he is
making veiled reference to the possible intervention of the military in governance. The logic or illogic behind this manner of reasoning is that failure of
civil rule would, naturally, eventuate in military incursion into governance.
Under the present democratic dispensation, those who appear to be scared stiff of the consequences of our inability to conduct civil rule to civil rule
transition have resorted to selling new ideas to us. There are, for instance, those who have suggested that we should adopt a single five-year tenure instead of
the present four- year renewable tenure. The idea behind this is the belief that the second term syndrome would cease to hold us hostage the moment we jettison
the existing order in favour of a single tenure. Behind this novel option is the consciousness that a failed transition would foist the military on us.
Again, when the Nigerian romances with this military mentality, he does not feel a sense of revulsion or revolt. He does not feel apprehensive that something
dark and ugly is about to befall the society. He sees it as the logical consequence of the inability of the political class to put its acts together. Thus, from
the heart of hearts of the average Nigerian, military rule is not, after all, an aberration. It is a necessary check on the perceived or presumed excesses of
the politicians. Our inner convictions betray this attitude. But the contradiction is that our posturing points the other way. Many of us enjoy engaging in
sociological abstractions. We build castles on air concerning what we imagine to be the last vestiges of the military in our body-politic. But that is only as
far as it goes. Our real selves have not imbibed the culture that can effectively keep the military where they belong.
But if there is any situation that has betrayed our imaginative romance with military ideas, it is the frenzy that has characterised the on-going face - off
between the President Olusegun Obasanjo and the House of Representatives. The House has tabled a motion to impeach the president. It has listed a number of
constitutional breaches which it said the president is guilty of. But what has the move brought to us? The insinuations and comments that have rent the air in
the last few weeks are symptomatic of the way we are. We enjoy chasing shadows. We have employed all manner of sophistry in our perception and definition of
impeachment. Some have seen it as an attempt to truncate the democratic process. Others have packaged and sold it as a move that may break up Nigeria.
This is nothing but a display frenzy. It is attempt at blackmail. It is even a negation of the real essence of democracy. Democracy is not an imposition. It is
a government by choice. A democratically elected public office holder is therefore accountable to the people. When such accountability is not apparent, the
people reserve the right to ask questions. Where there are breaches, sanctions ought to be imposed. It is an important way of checking the excesses of those
whom we have chosen to take charge of our affairs. Impeachment is therefore normal in a democracy. It is integral to it. It is therefore not supposed to create
panic. Impeachment is an expression of disappointment. It is not a movement towards armageddon. If anything, it a veritable avenue of releasing a people from
the tyranny of the powerful minority.
Thus, rather than see impeachment as a reversal of democratic gains, we should see it as a consolidation of it. When there is good reason for impeachment, the
option should be vigorously pursued. In doing this, it is imperative that due process is dutifully followed. This is one aspect of the on-going debate on
impeachment that many have ignored. What have been displayed in abundance in certain quarters is the delusive fancy that military adventurism will no longer be
entertained. Yet, we have not stopped to ask ourselves how we can rebuff military incursion into governance when we still harbour tendencies that favour the
return of the military. To make progress, we have to purge ourselves of military hangover.
If we are not burdened with military mentality, a certain Lam Adesina, an elected Governor of a state, would not have jumped into the erroneous conclusion that
the move being made by the House of Representatives is aimed at toppling the government of president Obasanjo. Why did Lam have to sound off without reflection?
It is because that is the mentality that rules many of us. We like to toe the line of least resistance. If it were not so, a Lam would have employed a little
rigour in his dissection of the situation. And if he had done that, he would have come up with a reasoned and mature interpretation of the situation.
In fact, the pity of our present situation is that we have clearly put the military on guard. They have become interested in the matter. That is why the Chief
of Army Staff has taken pains to assure Obasanjo that the military is behind him. The military establishment has also insinuated that certain elements are out
to destabilise the government of the day. However, the military has said it would not let this happen.
You can now see how we have got the military to join the fray. The military is supposed to be apolitical. But have we not, out of sheer frenzy, dragged them
into an issue they are supposed to be insulated from? This is a tragic fallout of our present situation.
When therefore an Umaru Shinkafi faults the interventions of the Chief of Army Staff on the matter, he can hardly be faulted. Shinkafi's argument is that the
military is supposed to owe allegiance to the constitution. In other words, the Armed Forces has a constitutional responsibility to defend the territorial
integrity of the country. This responsibility is not the same thing as keeping a watchful vigil over an Obasnajo presidency or that of any other Nigerian for
that matter. To reduce the job of the military to that of defending a seating president is to plunge the establishment into the murky waters of politics. This
is what has happened. That is where we are now.
It was the insinuations and rumours concerning the military in the present circumstance that got the House of Representatives to begin to tell us that they
would resist any military intervention. But the truth is that the legislators may not be able to do much if such a scenario is foisted on us. They are not more
capable than the rest of us who have, in our own way, been flirting with such undemocratic ideas. My worry is that it is utterly mischievous to suggest that our
legislators would, consciously, invite the military to intervene. Such a position cannot be supported by commonsense. As a group that has benefited immensely
from the largesse of this democracy, the lawmakers are not likely to be enthusiastic about plans to truncate the democratic experiment.
The only thing we have succeeded in doing in this matter is that we have exposed our fragile underbelly. We have decided to engage in the wrong debate. By so
doing, we have aroused the political consciousness of those who are not supposed to have any business in politics. We should retrace our steps. But in the
meantime, let us, in the parlance of Born Again Christians, say that we are believing God that the unexpected will not happen.
Nov 2002