|
Conference Material By Eric Ula-Lisa
The Nigerian nascent Democracy is in Reform mode. The Conference or Dialogue called by the President and Commander-in Chief, General Olusegun Aremu Obasanjo is currently in session at Abuja. Whether you agree with it, or not, the talk-shop is not about to be halted except by the order of a courageous judge. The inaugural address gave the parameters which dwelled more on pre-empting the arguments of others than on the reason for the Conference itself. The constitutional issues, however, are a no-brainer; the President has the authority to receive advice from as many of his party faithful and hangers-on as he desires. The issue of appropriation of nearly one Billion Naira of state funds to pay the “Wise Men” outside the budget set for his coterie of forty-plus odd Assistants, Special Advisers and Senior Advisers is another kettle of fish altogether.
The Necessity of Reform
Everyone, including the villains, has at diverse times and places agreed that the Nigerian Political space is in such a disgraceful state that proper growth of the State is not possible until the mediocrity in leadership is identified and excised like a cancerous growth: To start with, General Obasanjo mentions in his inaugural speech his reasoning;
”History has presented us with the opportunity to reassess, refocus, redefine and redesign our political landscape in a direction that would strengthen the bonds of unity, enhance the processes of democratic consolidation, strengthen the structures so as to solidify those values that promote democracy, good governance and good neighborliness; and open boundless opportunities for all Nigerians to be, and to feel that they are part of the evolving political process and socio-economic advancement…” President Obasanjo, February 21, 2005
While taken at face-value, it may be a good opportunity to tackle the issues identified by the government above; the hurried manner the conference is organized, the parties consulted or invited to this transforming dialogue and the exclusion of the critical intellectual heavy-weights is indicative of an apriori conclusion. You dare not espouse a view contrary to OBJ’s vision of what he thinks you should think. For good measure, L’etat c’est OBJ. Perhaps, OBJ does not have any vision. Maybe his policy wonks just craft for the President a good speech that may or may not be his vision. We speak from experience, the experience of the democratic tinkering of his fellow-traveler, IBB.
Before General Obasanjo, his colleague and friend, General Babangida had also sometime in the past said:
“We are committed to these basic tenets of democratic government, and we will adhere to it (sic) in order to remove the mistrust attached to the leadership by our people. We are convinced that we cannot truly make progress as a nation unless and (sic) we collectively take our destiny in our hands. We equally accept that the challenge of leadership dictates that government must remain responsive to popular wishes [author’s note – “As in June 12th ?”] in order to foster a sense of belonging”
Excerpts from An Address by General Ibrahim B. Babangida, Abuja January 13, 1986
IBB’s subsequent acts regarding June 12 show clearly that his speech above was not espousing what he believed in. He proved that his leadership was not “responsive to popular wishes” although the people trooped to the streets, shut down businesses, printed newspapers, flyers and died in the process of defending their God-given freedom.
More recently, Umaru Dikko regarding leadership in Nigeria also said:
“You see, if everything is in order and they are able to live up to the people''s expectations, perhaps there might have been no need for this conference”. Umaru Dikko as found at http://odili.net/news/source/2005/mar/6/315.html
The consensus from active participants, politicians Democracy experts and the much maligned independent “Internet Pundits” is that the State of Nigeria needs urgent repair. The pertinent question is how to go about fixing the bad leadership? Is it by inviting the same bad leaders of yesteryears who have contributed to the mess to come fix it because they are experienced in fraudulent manipulations of systems? Who are the identified stakeholders, salient or otherwise?
Issues from the perspective of Government
“Some
issues that have emerged include, but are not limited to, the challenge of
constitutionalism and constitutional reform; the opportunity to bring all
stakeholders together to discuss the preferred political path for the
nation; the challenge of building new, accountable, responsive and focused
leadership; and how to build, operate and sustain real political parties.
Other issues are those of nationality, identity, freedoms and liberties,
social justice, rights and obligations; electoral reforms that ensure
credibility and respectability of elections; relations between tiers of
government; performance of government and how to ensure truly democratic
governance for all. In all of these, the central challenge is still how to
strengthen the social contract between the custodians of state power and
the governed”. PRONACO’s Position as canvassed by WS
“Does
it really matter, this appropriation of democratic attributes? Very much
so alas, since it is a reflection on how 'democratically' the nation has
been governed in the past six years. What the President is thus declaring
before the entire world is that democracy means however he chooses to
define it. A process in which the convener of a meeting of four hundred
allots himself one-eighth of the representation - of which, fortunately, I
was one, so it is not a question of sour grapes - then allocates to the
political party of which he is absolute leader the right to nominate 174
candidates - six delegates per state governor - is not a democratic
process. This President, it must also be recalled, straddles two additional constituencies - the military and the club of former rulers, the latter of which are granted automatic participation, not, mind you, in order to appear in sackcloth and ashes for individual roles in the nation's present predicament, but as honoured, front-line participants etc. Altogether, 'all the Presidents' men' have the majority voice at the conference. Of course, one concedes the presence of some individuals who will assert their right to independent thought. Nonetheless, by no stretch of the imagination should anyone term this 'a democratic path' to a national dialogue. This is a process that insists on an outright monopoly of the right to opinion to such a degree that the nation's police chief - either on instruction, or simply from perception of, and anxiety to grease the Presidential will, thunders down on dissenting voices, and promises to unleash the full weight of his notorious security apparatus on those who so much as think of gathering like minds to offer an alternative vision of their collective existence. Democracy means pluralism - to which lip-service is paid in the presidential address - and this includes the plurality of opinion, and its structures of expression. Wole Soyinka February 27, 2005
Stealing PRONACO’s Thunder
Any writer or intellectual who has suffered the theft of his intellectual property would identify with the angst felt by prominent members of PRONACO who at the risk of danger to life and property have continued through the years to urge persuade or defy the authorities in seeking to organize a Sovereign National Conference. To be spurned and then pre-empted in organization is one thing, to be insulted as an impractical theoretical Ideologue is another.
”These
are not theoretical issues to be exploited in political grandstanding.
They are concrete issues that confront our nation and people and it is
only appropriate that we seek the right time and moment to embark on a
collective quest to reposition our nation politically for democracy,
participation, positive leadership, and sustainable development. That time
is now. The Federal Government has no hidden agenda in this exercise. This effort is the product of widespread consultations with salient stakeholders including the leadership of the National Assembly and the National Council of State. We have paid attention to and insisted on integrity, track record, capacity and ability to articulate relevant issues. We are not at war with any constituency or interest group. Rather, we are laying bare, opportunities for all Nigerians to be part of a historic process of working for sustained democracy, positive change and enduring polity. This is even more important given our deep concern about the successor generation and the foundations that we lay today.”
What could have stood for a good policy statement then veers into ad-hominem exhortations and preachments as evinced by the following:
“However, I call on all those who are yet to learn that the military era is over, that we must begin to see the Nigerian cup as half full rather than half empty and that the best way to express maturity, patriotism and relevance is not to stick to a culture of perpetual attacks, cynicism, aloofness, arrogance, ego-centricism and bad politics. Rather, it is more profitable to join the process, make contributions, educate the public positively, and stop the unhelpful culture of attempting to throw away the baby with the bathwater all the time. Our country has grown far beyond these opportunistic grandstanding strategies that rely on ideologies, methods, language and ideas of the past that have been transcended all over the world.”
In fairness to President Obasanjo, he is not a new convert to the cause of those who believe that Nigeria needs a change. President Obasanjo has always paid lip-service to the need to clean out the Augean Stable while in active consultation with the Grand Commander of the Corrupters-in-Chief who was one of the major players before 1999. In a prior speech delivered in Canada, he had said:
“The story of my country Nigeria is fairly well known. Until 1999, the country had practically institutionalized corruption as the foundation of governance. Hence institutions of society easily decayed to unprecedented proportions as opportunities were privatized by the powerful. This process was accompanied, as to be expected, by the intimidation of the judiciary, the subversion of due process, the manipulation of existing laws and regulations, the suffocation of civil society, and the containment of democratic values and institutions. Power became nothing but a means of accumulation and subversion as productive initiatives were abandoned for purely administrative and transactional activities. The legitimacy and stability of the state became compromised as citizens began to devise extra-legal and informal ways of survival. All this made room for corruption.
At the root of the corruption quagmire in Nigeria, is the failure and virtual collapse of governance, the contamination of democratic values, the erosion of accountability procedures, and the prevalence of bad leadership. The erosion of public confidence in the country's political and economic institutions promoted a culture of contempt for the rule of law and ultimately and unfortunately, a societal tolerance for a myriad of conducts previously considered abominable.” President Obasanjo 2003
The question is who has Obasanjo identified as the perpetrators of the ills and how has he dealt with them when even the Oputa Panel Report did not see the light of day but for the much maligned civil society who privately released it.
Even IBB through his Political Bureau had identified the dysfunction as quoted above. The problem is not a lack of good policy speeches. It is the hypocrisy that lies at the desk of every military President whose claim to morality in government was that he sought to be a “Corrective Regime” to teach Nigerians democracy and set up “lasting Democratic Institutions” while willfully violating every democratic tenet and trampling on the existing Constitution.
Currently, President Obasanjo can only be predicted through his acts and who he keeps company with. Obasanjo fired Audu Ogbe for being independent in thought to replace with another person, one of the Military boys who would obey orders to manipulate the system for a quasi-military democracy. Whatever reforms, if carried out in conjunction with IBB, through the hard work of the military establishment, led by General Adisa (late) or his replacement, it shall be business as usual. So who practiced this corruption in Government that made Nigeria famous? Any discerning Nigerian who points these contradictions is a perceived enemy of the State to be hounded; yet we are promoting a democracy with a “vibrant civil society”.
Defense of the Government Position
The inaugural speech of the President wisely tried to tackle the counter-arguments that may ensue.
…Almost
as we were commencing this new democratic dispensation, there were
deafening calls for a sovereign national conference essentially based on
the agenda of avoiding the repeat performance of the events and
experiences of the mid-1990s. For reasons that will be adduced, we
rejected the call for a sovereign national conference. But we had remained
open to constructive, positive and purposeful discourse on how to move our
nation forward….
Commentators, pundits, and hired hands have come out to defend the government position as if the mere fact that we have a de facto government in place, there need not be any opposition to its proposals or policies. Every person versed in realpolitik is aware of the awesome power of incumbency and the abuse of same especially in the Nigerian political system. No use demonizing the opponents of the conference who oppose it on principles. Such lack of finesse only displays the fear of superior arguments.
Some Issues
While we had made public unsolicited representations to the government in our prior writings regarding the issues to be tackled in such a discourse; we know that President Obasanjo’s government is not unmindful of the issues. The question would be:Does the government have the moral authority to tackle them? Can the current list of PDP-dominated members have the courage to face the real issues (inclusive of the issue of Sharia)?
The following words of the authority in government speak eloquently to the issues:
“In many emerging democracies, a central challenge for deepening democracy is how to effectively build the key institutions of democratic governance, namely:
(i) A system of representation, with well-functioning political parties and civil society organisations;
(ii) An independent electoral system that guarantees free and fair elections;
(iii) A system of checks and balances based on the separation of powers, with independent judicial and legislative branches of government;
(iv) A vibrant civil society, able to monitor government policies and to provide alternative forms of political participation;
(v) A free vibrant and independent media with a strong dedication to professional ethics;
(vi) Effective civilian control over the military and other security forces.
Since democracy is a system of government under which the people exercise the governing power, either directly or through their elected representatives, the will of the people, expressed through free choice, is a cardinal value of democracy. Most scholars would agree that there are about five essential ingredients or core values of democracy, namely:
(i) The right of the people to freely choose their governments in periodic but free and fair elections;
(ii) The right to freedom of association, especially in forming political parties;
(iii) The right to freedom of expression, especially freedom of speech and press freedom;
(iv) The primacy of the rule of law and independence of the Judiciary; and
(v) The commitment to transparency and accountability of governments to the people.
v Constitutional Reforms v Electoral reforms v Political Party reforms v True federalism v Suitable and viable revenue allocation formula; v Clear resolution of such matters as who is a citizen? Who is an indigene? And who are merely settlers even though citizens of the Federal republic. v Judicial reforms to ensure justice and the rule of law.
Excerpt from lecture on “Consolidating Democracy through Good Governance” delivered by Professor Jerry Gana, Political Adviser to the President
LET THE TALKS BEGIN.
|