The domestication of democracy in Nigeria
There are critics of Nigerian democracy, who claim that our democracy is dead. Yet, some of them are fighting tooth and nail to participate in it, by attempting to grab
There are critics of Nigerian democracy, who claim that our democracy is dead. Yet, some of them are fighting tooth and nail to participate in it, by attempting to grab power by all means. Who rides a dead horse? OK, let’s assume they are merely exaggerating. Ask them what is killing Nigerian democracy. Their responses highlight three recurrent themes: (1) that Nigeria is turning into a one-party state under the APC, the ruling party. Never mind that they too are in one or the other of the 20 registered political parties other than the ruling party; (2) that the present President is a dictator; and (3) that the legislature is a rubber stand for the presidency.
The truth is that these criticisms are now new. During the tenure of President Olusegun Obasanjo, the first President in the ongoing democratic dispensation (199-2007), all three features were present. True, the APC now has 31 Governors, controlling 31 of the nation’s 36 states, but at the height of its glory in 2004, the PDP under Obasanjo had 32 Governors and controlled 32 states. That was when the PDP was branded as the largest party in Africa to rule for the next 60 years! Many of those touting one-party state today were in the PDP then.
The problem is that we have failed to interrogate why this is so. While we continue to use Western democracy as reference point, we have failed to recognise the gestation period of Western democracy from its humble origins in Athenian demokratia in ancient Greece centuries ago to modern forms in various countries. Similarly, we have ignored various ways in which we have adapted Western democracy to our history, our social and cultural practices, and the peculiarities of our society, including its variable regional, ethnic, and religious composition, each group with its own unique form of traditional administration. It is necessary to interrogate these questions, especially with reference to the presidential system of government we borrowed from the United States, if we were to fully understand the aberrations we condemn in our democracy and to proffer the right solutions.
The starting point is to understand the interruption of the first republic by the military, which suspended the erstwhile 1960 constitution and the legislature, eradicated the parliamentary system of democracy, forced a unitary government on the country, and ruled by decrees. Not done, they equally bungled the second republic (1979-83) and the third (1992-93). By the time the military finally gave way after over three decades of misrule for the emergence of the fourth republic in 1999, they had left their footprints in at least two significant ways:
First, the military crafted a presidential constitution in imitation of the American constitution but different in significant ways. For example, the President of the Senate in America is the serving Vice President, regardless of political party. Besides, there are numerous clauses in the Nigerian constitution that depart significantly from the American model. Nigerian electoral practices are also remarkably different from American practices. While elections are conducted by local counties, Nigeria’s elections are conducted by INEC, the all powerful electoral commission in Nigeria. The supervisory and financing role of the presidency over the electoral commission further highlights the concentration of powers at the centre.
Elections are a key agent of democracy, providing necessary opportunities for democratic renewal. Ideally, elections allow the people to reward good leaders with their votes and vote out non-performing ones. In Nigeria, however, this critical role is diluted by illiteracy and poverty, especially among rural dwellers. Most voters cannot distinguish between good and bad leaders. Besides, they are willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder. No matter what noise we make about the need for electoral sanity, illiteracy and poverty will remain stumbling blocks.
Second, after years of military misrule, the military, in consultation with Northern emirs and political leaders, foisted a former military leader, General Olusegun Obasanjo, on the nation as their anointed candidate in the PDP. A former military Head of State, Obasanjo came with the mindset of a military leader. He wielded the big stick as he liked, dribbled his political party, manipulated the leadership of the Senate and the House of Representatives, trampled upon the constitution, disobeyed court rulings, and imposed a successor in 2007, after a failed attempt to serve a third term. At the height of his powers, his party followers branded him “Father of Modern Nigeria”! No, Obasanjo was not a dictator and Nigeria was not drifting to a one party state under him.
The military legacy has continued with a lopsided constitution, which concentrates executive and financial powers at the centre at the expense of the federating states. The problem with executive powers in the hands of the President and Governors is twofold: one is the continued legacy of military dictatorship and the other is the influence of our monarchical tradition on executive positions. Traditionally, the emirs held sway in the North just as Southern monarchs held sway in the South. This deference to authority is inherent in our tradition, and it remains evident in our political practices today.
The foregoing only touches on key agents of the domestication of democracy in Nigeria, that is the adaptation of Western democratic tradition to suit our own tradition. These adaptations have been brewing for 27 years. There is no indication that they will end soon, if at all. The question then is: What should we do to give our democracy a character that respects our history and peculiarities but outgrows the present drawbacks?
Read Also: Taiwo Oyedele: Meet Nigeria’s new minister of finance and coordinating minister of economy
There are two critical solutions among others. One is to reorganise the federating units and devolve powers to them. Make the six geopolitical zones the federating units and let each one handle its constituent states and local councils as it wishes. The six zonal Development Commissions could be used as the springboard for the reorganisation. Allocate at least 60 percent of the resources to the federating units. This will reduce the power of the center and make citizens look more to their Governors than to the President for solutions.
Moreover, a less powerful and less resourced presidency will allow the legislature to “breathe”. It will also allow the legislature to discipline, defund, or override the executive without fear. At the same time, it will reduce the amount of sleaze in the National Assembly repeatedly decried by the people. But then the legislators need reorientation, while voters must be well educated about the type of politician to send to the National Assembly.
The second major solution is to set aside the present constitution and write a new one, based on the above reorganisation. The new constitution will take into account our peculiarities, including incorporating our traditional administrative system as in Botswana, where the dikgosi represents a blend of pre-colonial traditions and modern democratic oversight aimed at keeping the Chiefs relevant but in check by modern political authority.
The truth is that, despite hiccups here and there, our democracy is growing, not dying. But it needs modifications to make it truly our own and recognised as such.
