|
NIGERIA'S 'DEMOCRACY DIVIDENDS' By The nation’s literary clan went agog recently when it generously expended kilometers of expensive newsprint and megawatts of electronic media energy on what looked like a stock-taking ritual in commemoration of the second year of the Obasanjo regime. One by one, all the learned commentators who mounted the podium had something to say about the status of the regime’s half time scorecard. And depending on the analyst’s loyalty, it was possible to make a general classification of the various conflicting verdicts which ranged from the most charitable by those who think that things have changed for the better in Nigeria since the inauguration of the new democracy to those less charitable who lamented that, if anything, the lot of the average citizen has actually deteriorated pitiably since then.
It was however clear that no one, not even the usually loud government megaphones, had the audacity to proclaim that it has all been rosy as they could only mutely harp on the old refrain of the arrival of ‘democracy dividends’, whereas, with proper contextualization of the Nigerian reality, it is indeed possible to say that we are making progress since there are mounting evidence everywhere that the nation is hankering after some positive developments. By an accounting metaphor, the nation might not have made profits yet out of her democracy enterprise but it has undoubtedly broken even. As for the declaration of dividends, I am not too sure about that for dividends, as a form of reward for success, cannot be lawfully paid out when the business is not doing very well.
What appears to be the frustration of Nigerians may indeed be the result of a baseless and premature very high expectation. While we glibly boast of a return to democracy, no one has asked what indeed are the incidents of democracy. What happened in May 1999, on a proper reflection, is at best a bold step towards the establishment of a democracy in Nigeria BUT certainly nothing near the minimum of a truly democratic process. I am not quite sure if it is generally understood in Nigeria that partisan politics is not necessarily interchangeable with democratic governance. While it is usual for elective political processes to function within a democracy, it does not necessarily mean that every political arrangement is democratic. Going through the mechanics of electioneering without the spirit and discipline of democracy is nothing but empty ritual devoid of dividends.
It is conceded that contrary to the situation under the naked military governments of the past, Nigerians can now openly express ourselves on almost any subject without the fear of being locked up or made to disappear arbitrarily; previous taboos are being challenged and government is being gradually demystified. But it is not necessarily an exclusive requirement of democracy that some civil liberties be tolerated in a society. It is a lot more than that. No doubt, one of the features of a functioning democracy is the full exercise of the right to self-determination, which, in its most elementary sense, includes the power of the society to govern itself. I do not know how many of our compatriots who are now lamenting the absence of the much-promised dividends of democracy can honestly claim that they now have the power to democratically influence the election of those who govern them. It is still the same old game of money power, open intimidation and primordial loyalty.
A truly democratic process, for example, will have no problem recognizing, as well as respecting, the mounting demands by a large segment of the population for the convocation of a National Conference, sovereign in status or not, with a view to resolving the nation’s nagging national questions and establishing the foundations for constitutional legitimacy which has continue to elude the Republic since 1966. Neither would it be difficult for a truly democratic society to appreciate the imperatives of resource control to the attainment of national harmony and social equity within the federation. Nor would a truly democratic society turn a blind eye to massive corruption and the primitive accumulation of ill-gotten wealth simply because to do so will ultimately create an ethical disequilibria as the lines between good and evil will thin out all to the detriment of law and order.
On the contrary, we are perplexed witnesses to the reality where elected officials are denying those, who out of the abundance of their sovereign power, elected them the power to request for a National Conference. What is the logic of representative democracy if the principals can no longer dictate to their agents? It is politically heretical in a true democracy for the elected to be impudently imposing its will on his elector. Every Senator, every Representative, every Assemblyman can only validly act in accordance with the aspirations and directions given by those he had offered and sworn to represent. That is the essence of a mandate. That has not been the case so far. What evidence do we still require as proof of the absence of a democratic culture yet in contemporary Nigeria?
We should not deceive ourselves thinking that the only alternative to military dictatorship is democracy for, between a military government and a constitutional democracy properly so-called, there are several variations, models and sub-models of societal management. Some may be better than a pure military regime but clearly worse than a democracy. There may not be a once and for all understanding of democracy itself but there is however a universal agreement that, for any system to be democratic, such must meet the basic criteria set by Abraham Lincoln centuries ago when he spoke of a government of the people by the people for the people. We can go through the expensive rituals of elections and actually succeed only in electing some one as leader who do not necessarily understand that he is going to assume an office owned by the people in which his actions and inaction would be determined by the will of the people and in the best interest of the same people. Leaders like Mobutu, Kamuzu Banda, Eyadema and many others, did contest and indeed won elections under some corrupt version of democracy. Abacha was about doing so too. In fact, there is sense in the popular view that President Obasanjo is only an accidental heir to the demised Abacha system.
There is no doubt, as we have already conceded, that certain things are better now and that Nigeria is nearer democracy today than it was before May 1999. What we must be honest about is that we are yet to assume the moral and operational responsibilities of democracy and, to that extent, a lot has also gone worse since then, depending on what you are focusing on.
The core of all true democracies whether, in the ancient Greek polis or in modern Nigeria, is the unalloyed sovereignty of the people. A truly democratic government is at all times a mirror image of the desire of the electorate. The correct theory upon which true democracies are established is the running of a government in the open service of the people by their representatives. The theater so far since May 1999 is that those who were strong enough to be elected into the various offices have labored so hard to live well over and above the level of those they claim to represent. No true democracy would permit of the situation where, for example, public office holders incestuously fix their own jumbo-size salaries, embark on fiscal vandalism and insensitive opulence all to the detriment of the national economy. Granted there is nothing like a perfect democracy but still, no sane political system will throw up some of the characters now parading as leaders in the country, as the people ought to be able to exercise their electoral prerogative to rationally determine who is best suited to represent them and go further to define what is it that they want them to do upon the assumption of office.
If there is anything that has happened so far to the polity, it is that some of those who currently run the affairs of Nigeria are giving democracy a very bad name. Granted that no society can claim complete immunity from corruption and incompetence but a democracy should be better off in this regard because of its absolute control over public officials within the framework of the Rule of Law and accountability. On the contrary, Nigerians are evidently helpless in the face of the unfolding legitimization of corruption and official arrogance by those whom they have handed power to in the name of democracy. Quite tragically, people are being pushed into the unfortunate, if not dangerous, rationalization that: if this is democracy, then, it is not worth fighting for. The truth is that this not a democracy yet. When people compare their lives under the evil man General Abacha with that under democratic President Obasanjo, the impression is often given as if democracy has done them in. That is the danger. For the Obasanjo semi-democracy to have arrogantly put on the toga of a full blown democracy in a wholly non-democratic environment would naturally breed undue hatred for the time-honored political invention, which no doubt is doing quite well in other climes.
The promise of the dividends of democracy by the government and the resultant expectation of it by the people of Nigeria and indeed, Africa is both illusory and preposterous. Shareholders expect dividends only because they have invested in the enterprise and they can rightly hold management accountable for their stewardship. Can we in good conscience say that we willfully and democratically put this government in office? What will the Babangidas and the Abacha moneybags, the proxy equity shareholders in the project, say in response?
I have no doubt that, sooner or later, democracy will come. Even with the little that is available already; certain regional/state leaders are trying their level best to improve on the lives of their people. Governors Tinubu of Lagos, Ibori of Delta and others are right on track in this regard as the are laying the foundations for immediate and future prosperity. The question is: If these exceptional governors could do this much in spite of the obviously prevalent non-democratic situation on the ground, then, they would certainly have given positive meaning to the present meaningless slogan of ‘dividends of democracy’ if things were better generally.
Democracy is good. No one, and not even the most negative and partisan distracters, can deny that. Unfortunately, what we operate for now is merely its semblance, certainly not the same thing as Lincoln, and indeed Nigerians, had in mind. That is why it is still necessary the we ask fellow Nigerians which part of the republic does he come from, what faith does he profess and what party does he supports before his basic civil liberties are accorded him. The way forward for the democracy project in Nigeria is for us to work harder for the eventual actualization of democratic governance in the country by consistently unmasking the charlatans presently debasing the system.
That is why those of us who indeed had something to do with the pro-democracy struggle in the dark days of the military must continue to have serious problems with the erroneous, if not spiteful, elevation of May 1999 over June 12 as a symbol of the new order. Our consolation is that there is ample room for the spirit of June 12 at the nation’s rendezvous of democratic renaissance. This is only an ephemeral phase characterized simply by greed and arrogance. Our present leaders cannot pretend not to know that the coming to power of the present regime was made possible by the sacrifice of those who wanted democracy not just for the acquisition of naked power through various means, fair or foul, but for the upliftment of the masses. They also wanted social justice, peace and progress. And for these, they paid their dues. So, remains their entitlement, not just a privilege, to ask for more.
It is important therefore that we humbly realize the shortcomings of the present order and accept the challenge to rectify obvious failings. Otherwise, what would follow could be a general renunciation of democracy by a people who would have mistaken it for the real source of their misery. If there was ever any occasion to fight for democracy, the time to do so is now as not much has changed or can change without deliberate effort. No credible dividends will accrue to the nation from the current Democracy Incorporated Plc, as the people are, strictly speaking, mere ineffectual spectators and not yet the controlling shareholders as they ought to be in the project. That creates the necessity for us to continue to insist that a truly democratic order be enthroned in Nigeria. Mere hypocritical proclamations devoid of concrete actions by an opportunistic set of leadership may only succeed in devaluing the concept of democracy just as they have already successfully done to the Naira, the national currency.
Prof. Mike Ikhariale Cambridge, MA 02138 USA.
|