THE SUCCESS AND FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA

THE SUCCESS AND FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA

“Democracy is the government of the people by the people and for the people”

Nigeria was liberated from British colonial rule in 1960. The early Nigerian leaders negotiated a federal constitution which guaranteed self rule for the three ethnically based regions in the new republic. The Independence constitution also offered equal and proportional representation in the central government as a way of ensuring stability in the new multi-ethnic nation. In the prevailing circumstances after Independence, a sound and farsighted constitutional basis seemed to have been laid, and our founding fathers were able to inspire in Nigerians a sense of national awareness by speaking collectively of the possibility of a great nation where ethnic pluralism and cultural diversity would constitute a source of strength rather than weakness. It was also expected that the federal plan would liberate the potentials of the constituent units of Nigeria's multi-ethnic character. As long as this constitutional arrangement was followed everything seemed to work relatively well. The prevailing euphoria, therefore, seemed to be justified that Nigeria had everything it would take to be a progressive nation as it was also abundantly endowed with human and natural resources of high quality.

Nigeria also remained the largest and the most populous market in Africa. In the early years of the 1950s, natural oil and gas were discovered in huge commercial amounts in the Delta region of the country, and thus the nation which was hitherto an agricultural economy found another window of opportunity for economic growth. Other indices were pointing to success for the young democracy- the middle class was growing, the balance of payments was favourable and the country was classified as a middle income nation in the 1960s. Both the regional administrations and the federal government were functioning properly and Nigerians were proud of their country.

Unfortunately, the country's positive process was abruptly aborted by interests which saw the country’s rather independent course not suitable to a new colonial order, as envisaged. The events that would start the tragic course of Nigeria occurred in 1966 when military officers obviously driven by inordinate ambition supported by external forces seized power in a bloody coup against a democratically elected government. Both the central government and the regional administration were ousted and the constitution of federal and regional autonomies abrogated. The military government then appointed officers to administer the states and proceeded to rule the country by military decrees. With military intervention came various forms of rapid instability as other opportunistic army officers staged coups and counter-coups. By 1993, Nigeria had experienced eleven different coups and counter-coups as every successive military junta used the pretext of the shortcomings of its predecessor as yet another reason to intervene. Meanwhile, the neo-colonial multinational forces were able to entrench themselves and their aims over and above the interests of ordinary Nigerians. In the new order of things, the emergent elite and their successors started to subvert the original vision of the nation and the constitution and replaced them with that of radical exploitation. In order to gain total control, the military government proceeded to concentrate all powers whether it was executive, legislative or judicial power in their centre.

With the constitution abrogated, participation or access to the governing process of the country was foreclosed to Nigerians. The effects of these draconian policies first drove the various ethnic groups to polarise themselves while ethnic identity became sharper and sharper. Unemployment rose sharply, crime became overwhelming and corruption became the order of the day. By 1975 Nigeria became totally dependent on oil exports. By 1980 it was no longer classified as a middle income country but one of the poorest and most corrupt, and the once burgeoning middle class had almost disappeared.

In the prevailing circumstances, various social groups started to question the real basis of the Nigerian Union. The organised opposition movement especially led by the Workers Union called for the restoration of the Independence constitution and the convening of a sovereign national conference to discuss the future of the country afresh. Other sections called for strict regional autonomies or confederation. In the Niger Delta- the source of the wealth- where deprivation was more acute, the people would not wait for mere words as they organised themselves into concrete resistance. Led by MOSOP, the struggle for the soul of Nigeria began in earnest.

The military rulers responded to this challenge with great force: mass arrests of opposition leaders, total destruction of towns and villages in the Delta region and extra-judicial killings of prominent activists. In attempts to defuse the crisis, the military government announced various programs of transition to democracy which would consequently fail. The reason for these failures is not too far from the fact that the authorities had no intention to relinquish power to a democratically elected government.

In 1986, General Babangida announced a transition program that would hand over power in 1989. He proceeded to create two political parties as the only basis to participate in the transition elections. Despite these affronts, Nigerians tolerated all the unreasonable dictates of the Junta in the hope of making the hand-over a success. The transition failed after all, because the military had no plans to leave as proclaimed. As always, they erected difficulties and outright cancellation of already completed parts of the elections, thereby frustrating the process.

At the end of a long 7 year transition program which was prolonged at every stage with one reason after another, crisis broke out in June 1993. In the presidential elections held in June Chief M.K.O. Abiola, himself a product of the progressive wing of Nigeria's politics, won a landslide victory drawing support from practically all sections of the country.
Unfortunately, the military junta suddenly announced that the elections' outcome had been cancelled and offered no reasons for their action. The problem was that the true wishes of the Nigerian masses were totally different from those of the military and their collaborators. The people wanted peace and democracy but the military and the foreign interests wanted the continuation of the status quo, and so any so-called transition to democracy would either fail or be aborted. Years of military rule, massive corruption and looting of national resources had imbibed in military officers the crave for political offices. Corruption was so deep and prevalent that practically all segments of the military establishment were totally dedicated to maintaining the status quo, which was working so well to enrich them. Apart from using force and brutality against their opponents, the military dictatorship also did a pretty good job in propaganda. Using weird propaganda they played one ethnic group against the other and ensured that the country was always constantly in crisis, a situation which their propaganda claimed could only be resolved by a strong military government. The basic claim was that the military was on a patriotic and messianic mission to save the country from ethnic disintegration; so, military rule, despite its aberrations, for now should be accepted as a necessary evil. Further, a major plunge of their propaganda claimed that Nigerian society was not ripe for Western-style democracy, a concept and style of government too sophisticated for a relatively native society. In any case, this alien democracy was not suitable for Nigeria, and that a period of gestation was necessary for Nigerian civil society to transform in a political metamorphosis; they coined such slogans as "a true and durable democracy”, or “self-made democracy” which would produce a totally indigenous Nigerian home grown democratic system. What a lofty and patriotic idea you can say. But is it really necessary to subjugate the people and rule them by force, in order to produce this so-called home-grown democracy? What has the taking away of political and economic rights of the people and massive corruption got to do with a so-called period of gestation that would usher in a durable indigenous democracy? Such slogans and propaganda were used to hoodwink the gullible population by whipping a false sense of national pride and fake anti-colonial sentiments. All these efforts failed in the end. Unable to control the situation, the Babangida dictatorship collapsed after he had appointed an interim government to succeed him. But from the onset, opposition leaders saw through the game plan as a strategy to cool and check the rising tide of opposition to military rule.

In December of 1993, General Sani Abacha, the most reclusive of all the dictators who had all the time been in the inner circle of the ruling clique, pushed out the interim government with every ease as earlier speculated. He immediately imposed martial law while scrapping the already completed democratic institutions like the legislatives and the state governments. Chief M.K.O. Abiola, the winner of the June presidential elections, was arrested and detained without charges. Opposition parties responded with massive demonstrations and strike actions throughout the country. In the turbulent months ahead, Abacha's security agents would hunt down all opposition leaders in the country.

In July 1994, a nation-wide strike by oil workers later joined by practically all workers movements in the country, nearly paralysed the country. The strike lasted for several months and nearly brought down the military regime, but unfortunately, faced by threats and mass arrests of leaders, the strike action collapsed in September. But back in the military quarters, there was a new reckoning. In October 1994, the Abacha regime announced yet another fraudulent program of transition to democracy which was merely greeted with widespread scepticism. In order to douse the demands for a national sovereign conference, the new military regime announced plans for a constitutional drafting committee to recommend a new constitution for Nigeria. To constitute this committee, General Abacha would appoint 35% of its members and the majority of the remaining 65% would be candidates hand-picked by him. In this way the military junta teleguided the constitutional committee’s work. Beside these interferences, General Abacha's government enumerated certain issues, like the present unitary structure which denied federal rights to the states, as matters that could not be discussed by the committee. Other matters which affected the military's hold on power were absolutely outside the jurisdiction of the committee. In the end, a document largely dictated by the ruling regime was produced subject to the ratification of the Armed Forces ruling Council, of which General Abacha was the chairman.

The second phase of his transition consisted of the establishment of political parties and the holding of elections. After several months of manipulations, five political parties were registered and all were headed by Abacha's cronies. The secret agenda was for Abacha to transit from military dictator to a civilian one , but with legitimate authority as having been elected. In the following national conventions of the various parties to pick their presidential candidates for elections, all five parties adopted General Abacha as a so-called consensus candidate. Abacha's plot claimed that because the country was in such a precarious situation, only General Abacha was capable and indispensable to bring peace and unity to the country. The campaign for democracy intensified, and called for a nation-wide boycott of the coming election in which Abacha was the only candidate. Nigeria was faced with this stalemate when the hands of providence struck in August 1998. General Abacha suddenly died under mysterious circumstances at his mansion in Abuja. The widespread spontaneous jubilation throughout the country at the news of his death brought relief upon a country that had been suppressed for so long.

The sudden death of Abacha offered Nigeria the chance to make another review. The rank and file of the military has been imbued with political ambition over the years and so the whole establishment was in shambles. Opposition to further military rule was at its highest tempo and the level of anti-military consciousness was very high in the country. The traditional bases of support for the military both inside and outside Nigeria were showing signs of weakening. Interest groups which had profited from military rule and steadfastly supported it, became weary of a war in which they now saw no opportunity for survival. The whole nation was faced with contentious issues which in reality could only be resolved through democratic dialogue. On the ground, the military was faced with sure and imminent defeat.
These conditions helped the military establishment to see reality, and put together a hurriedly packaged relatively short transition of 9 months that to save its face brought General Obasanjo to power. The curious thing about the last days of military rule in Nigeria was that even in the last day- May 29th, the day of hand-over, not many believed the military would really relinquish power to civilian authority. But on the other hand, the relative success of the military to foist a civilian façade as its successor which is by and large reservedly accepted as a change is yet another development whose impact and consequences are yet to be understood.

The symptoms of the old corrupt dictatorship are again so early, rearing their heads. In the new National Assembly composed largely of former active supporters and apologists of military dictatorship, legislative bills to alleviate corruption and economic deprivation are being ignored. The various vote-catching populist steps taken by the incoming successors are dying just as soon as they have been proclaimed with fanfare. General Obasanjo's strategic power still resides in the hands of former actors in the old dictatorship. The general mood among the people and in the land is that of sagacity. The claim of liberation will depend on real and substantial economic and social alleviation of the people who have suffered so much and who have been oppressed so much throughout decades of successive brutal dictatorships in the country.

In spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Nigerians have intensified the struggle for democracy within the past decades in their country, still, the various attempts failed. The spertinent question therefore is- why did these attempts fail to produce any progress? A close analysis of the various factors that have dominated Nigeria's politics in the past 35 years will throw light on these questions. First one has to go back to the period in our history before Independence. After the end of slave trade in the middle of the 18th century, the British successfully conquered the Kingdom of Benin, Oyo and the Sokoto caliphate and other mini-empires that were existing in the area we call Nigeria today. Over these territories was imposed British Colonial administration, whose sole aim was the political and economic exploitation of its resources for the British Industries. For administrative convenience, the British colonial authorities divided Nigeria into two administrative units, the Northern and Southern protectorates, which were administered separately. In 1914, both protectorates of the North and South were amalgamated into one called Nigeria. After the anti-imperialist campaign, which gained success in Nigeria during this period, the British were finally forced to concede political independence to Nigeria in 1960.

However, the economic colonial relationship was left literally intact to be managed by the new emerging Nigerian comprador elite who were willing to protect the interests of their former colonial masters in the management of the post-Independence economy. The recognition of the existence today and the perpetuity of this surrogate policy in Nigeria’s affairs is very important in trying to understand the primary cause of today’s political and economic upheavals in the country. Successive governments, whether they were military or civilian, have by and large served this policy and therefore helped to maintain British and European economic influence in Nigeria.

In the Niger Delta region where the application of this policy has been more acute, the effects have led to not only political and economic denial, but to outright brutality in the hands of a formidable alliance of multinational oil companies, the parasitic ruling elite and government security forces who have been benefiting from the corrupt economic system. Attempts by ethnic Ogonis to confront the multinational corporations and their government collaborators were brutally suppressed in 1995 with the hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa and top-ranking leaders of the opposition.

These exploitative economic conditions have also led to massive corruption in Nigeria, so overwhelming and immoral that money stolen from Nigeria by ruling military officers and their civilian collaborators was estimated at 60 billion US dollars. It is ironical that this stolen money is now lodged in various banks in Europe and the U.S.A. So far demands for the returning of this wealth to Nigeria have only been met with hypocritical apologies and claims of alibi by the same foreign interests who have organised, supported and maintained the successive dictatorships that have plundered Nigeria’s economic resources. Nigerian’s cry for justice and their demand for the recovering of their country’s stolen wealth is not going to go away. In the years ahead it is expected that the demand for recovery of stolen money now lying in banks across Europe and the U.S.A. will likely intensify.

In these circumstances, the country’s economy is captive in the hands of a grand alliance of international and domestic interests whose main aim is to exploit the national resources of our country. The question of transition to democracy is also often erroneously interpreted. Mere elections to constitute a new government will not necessarily change these conditions. What is needed is a fundamental revolutionary process that is capable of changing the old corrupt agenda and capable of erecting new structures that can pave the way to real change. Even though the present government is an elected one, one hardly believes that with the old structures still in place and the heavy infusion of past corrupt leaders in the government, the new government has any capacity to lead a liberating process. At the close of the 20th century, the peoples' struggle for liberation has gained high momentum. There is more awareness in the land, as to the reasons and sources of Nigeria’s corrupt system. Almost all the constituencies except the exploitative elite class, are demanding a new basis for national existence and a new basis for international relations. A concerted effort should be made to win these fundamental demands.

Nigeria has recorded remarkable success in democracy – Ndoma-Egba

As Nigeria marked Democracy Day, Senate Leader Chief Victor Ndoma-Egba, SAN, has said that the country has recorded remarkable achievement since the enthronement of democracy after many years of military rule.

Senator Ndoma-Egba who stated this in an interview with Vanguard in Abuja said that Nigerians now enjoy the rule of law, speak freely and move freely, adding that a lot had been achieved without compromising any of the freedoms guaranteed by the nation’s constitution.

The Senate Leader while commenting on the country’s democratic journey so far as the country marked he democracy day said, “When we are doing an assessment on how the country has fared since 1999, I will like to categorize the assessment into tangibles and intangibles.

“’The tangibles are those aspects people can construct with any of their senses, either with the sense of vision or the sense of touch, then the intangibles are of course those imperceptible things you cannot see or touch.

“’ Now for the intangibles, I think the most remarkable is that this is the longest episode of our democracy in our post independence history, we have had a number of episodes of democracy in our long years of military rule, 13 years unbroken is the longest that we have experienced and for me it is a major achievement and that we have achieved this long of episode without compromising any of the freedoms guaranteed in the constitution is again a major achievement.

“’People speak freely; people move freely the rule of law largely is observed, so it is a major achievement. In respect of the tangibles, yes we could have done far better than we have done because people see democracy not just as an opportunity for expressing or enjoying those intangible benefits but also an opportunity for enjoying the tangibles, they want to see better roads, they want to see better schools, they want to see stable power, they want to see good healthcare and all of that in those areas in the areas of intangibles.

“ I think we could have done far better than we have done, but it is not something that we can redress in a day because if you take the decay in virtually all the sectors that I have mentioned, they are not decay that happened over night. Within the power sector for instance, you remember once upon a time in this country in 20 full years there was no single new investment in the power sector so when you have that kind of situation it is not the type of situation you think you can address with a magic bullet.

‘’So those are issues that will take time in addressing. Then we have of course had security challenges the worst of all being the one that we are experiencing now and my reaction to it is that what we are going through is a manifestation of certain fundamental contradictions in our polity that can be negotiated and I believe will be negotiated through the democratic process.

“In order words democracy offers us an opportunity to address those contradictions, but you know in many years of military rule, we didn’t have an opportunity to discuss them not to talk of negotiating them or resolving them, they were held under the jack pot but you know with the departure of the military and the return to democracy those contradictions have propped up and now they have been propped up we just have to face the reality and face them squarely by addressing them through either negotiations or dialogue,”’ he stated.

The place of democracy in the just concluded 2015 general election

2015 Elections Consolidates Nigeria’s Credentials As Modern Democracy – Mahama

The Chairman of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), John Mahama, has said that Nigeria’s elections have consolidated the country’s credentials as a modern democracy.

Mahama, who is also Ghana’s President, made the statement on Tuesday when he paid a courtesy visit to Prof. Attahiru Jega, the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in Abuja.

He said that no election in West Africa had attracted so much interest and attention as that of Nigeria due to several reasons, as Nigeria remained the biggest economy and most populous country in Africa.

He said that the just concluded elections had sent a good signal to other countries in the sub-region, including Cote d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso and Guinea. Scheduled to hold elections within the year.

“Everybody has been watching as an example, what is going on in Nigeria here.

“The elections have sent a very good signal to all other countries that are holding elections in the ECOWAS sub-region to help emulate as it has been done here.

“ I think there is a lot that many countries can borrow from you in terms of rolled out technology, probation of voter identification cards and how they were distributed.

“Also the equipment for reading those cards, verifying and authenticating the voters as to whom they actually are,’’ Mahama said.

He said although there were always challenges with technology, “I think this is a first step; as we go forward we can continue to improve the technology so that we can improve our elections.

“I must say that in the circumstances you faced, I believe you have done very creditable job and I wish, on behalf of all my ECOWAS colleagues, to congratulate you and your staff.’’

He urged INEC to keep up the good work, saying in doing that Nigeria would be better for it.

Mahama said that the ECOWAS Commission and Ghana would continue to work with INEC.

“As president of Ghana, Nigerians and Ghanaians are brothers and sisters and so we have a very special relationship.

“We share the same values with the same interest and cultures and so we will continue to share experiences. This victory is as much yours and ours.’’

He said that there was no winner or loser but that the winners were Nigerians.

He said that it was time for all Nigerians, irrespective of their political parties, to work together and move Nigeria forward.

“Nigeria has a particular responsibility in the sub-region because it is the biggest economy in ECOWAS and I believe Nigeria has to carry their responsibility to move the sub-region forward,’’ Mahama said.

Earlier, Jega described the visit as unique, saying it showed brotherly love which was very significant in promoting unity, peaceful co-existence and deepening democracy in the ECOWAS sub-region.

He said that Nigeria as a member of ECOWAS had a lot to do to contribute to the progress, development, peace and stability of ECOWAS.

Jega said, “ECOWAS, no doubt has a tremendous role to play in terms of harnessing her resources and energies of all countries in the sub-region in order to develop our region, promote peaceful co-existence and deepening our democratic development.’’

He said INEC was delighted that the little it had been able to do had been widely appreciated, adding, “this is show of support and encouragement’’. (NAN)

Share this

Share on FacebookPlus on Google+