Democracy At Crossroads In Nigeria: The Paradox Of The War On Corruption

By

Oche Onazi

ocheonazi@yahoo.com

“A pure democracy may possibly do, when patriotism is the ruling passion; but when the State abounds with rascals, as the case with too many at this day, you must suppress a little of that popular spirit”

                                                                  Edward Rutledge to John Lay

                                                                                November 24, 1776 [i]

At the risk of sounding as an enemy of the Nigerian - State and its second war on corruption, recent related events in the country have put to question the sustainability of its somewhat marginal democratic experience. The Nigerian democratic context in itself may more appropriately be referred to as an ‘aristocracy’ (a rule by a portion of our very ‘elitist politicians’), which is subtly moving towards the path of authoritarianism. At the centre of this predisposition is what I term as “the paradox of corruption”.

The war on corruption is the mantra. Few can deny that corruption remains a topmost challenge in all facets of Nigerian life, particularly to our context, its democracy. In this short piece, I argue that although corruption has indeed impeded authentic democratic practice, the “war on corruption” itself is very much at odds with democracy.   Recent evidence of the persistent disregard for the sanctity of the ‘rule of law’ in the pursuit of corruption, particularly the attempts to rid the nation of some corrupt governors supports our proposition.

Beneath these, is a profound tension between ‘law and morality’. I therefore suggest the need for a normative order devoid of moral judgments, particularly with the difficulty of attaining the universality of values. Corruption, a moral concept itself is relative, for this reason, the tendency of a ‘Mr. President Vs Mr. Vice President’ scenario (your corruption is wrong and not mine), is always likely to repeat itself. Furthermore, whilst Nigeria’s current president maybe perceived as a man of high moral standing; what are the implications of having a president who differs in such values? Hence, in our opinion, only the inviolability of the rule of law, no matter its limitations, should form the basis of any meaningful strategy on corruption.  Besides, positing an approach for tackling corruption under the prefix “war” is itself problematic.  In as much as one appreciates the enormity of corruption in Nigeria, I however argue that a war - like approach is likely to return us to the dark days of anarchy and authoritarianism.  The events of the recent weeks in Ekiti and Plateau State(s) are clear manifestations of this predisposition.

That said, an interesting parallel exists between Nigeria’s war on corruption and that of terror of the United States. Indeed, a number of commentaries in Nigeria’s electronic media have taken this lead. Even Nigeria’s celebrated anti- corruption boss has also drawn a similar parallel. Many who appreciate the post - 9 / 11 diffusion of anti – corruption strategies and the emergence specialist anti – corruption agencies would be least surprised.  

Following from Hardt & Negri’s Multitude; War, Democracy in the Age of Empire, however, we discover that the conventional perception of war has itself been increasingly transformed, thus poses a problem.  Put in their words,

“The rhetoric of war has long been used, of course, to describe activities that are very different from war itself. In some cases, war metaphors are applied to forms of competition and relations of force that do not generally involve lethal violence or bloodshed, such as sports, commerce and domestic politics. In all of these contests, one has competitors but never really enemies properly conceived.  Such metaphorical usage serves to highlight the risk, competition, and conflict involved in these various activities, but it also assumes a fundamental difference from real war. In other cases, the metaphorical discourse of war is invoked as a strategic political maneuver in order to achieve mobilization of social forces for a united purpose that is typical of a war effort”. [ii]

Instances of the latter perception may include the United States war on poverty of the mid – 1960s, as well as its later wars on drugs and wars ‘on’ and ‘against’ terror.[iii] Far from having specific nation – states, communities or individuals as enemies as in the traditional sense, war is now targeted at abstraction or against a set of practices.[iv] However, with exception to the war on poverty, the latter wars to a large extent mark a transition from its metaphorical use to real terms in armed combat or the use of force against vague, ‘immaterial enemies’. [v]

Furthermore, war today is no longer temporal, wherein ‘surrender, victory or truce marks an end of hostilities’, war assumes an indefinite character. [vi] This is especially so with the emergence of the United States post – 9/11 “war against terror”. Again, the eloquent words of Hardt and Negri, are difficult to ignore,

“[A] war to create and maintain order can have no end. It must involve the continuous, uninterrupted exercise of power and violence. In other words, one cannot win such a war, or rather, it has to be won again every day.” [vii]

With such a feature, who can then predict an end of such kind of hostility? Rather than being a ‘state of exception’ war is now a permanent state of affairs. Therefore, with the constant incarceration of its citizens and reduction of their civil liberties, in other words a ‘zero tolerant society’.[viii] It is therefore difficult to fault Hardt & Negri’s thesis, that war is not a friend to democracy,

“[I]n the modern period the wartime suspension of democratic politics was usually posed as temporary, since war was conceived as an exceptional condition. If our hypothesis is correct today the state of war has instead become our permanent global condition, then the suspension of democracy also has become the norm rather than the exception”.[ix]

The Nigerian context has continued to manifest these tendencies, especially with the contemporary emergence of a ‘zero tolerant society’ in opposition to corruption. The abuse of civil liberties and continuous incarceration are the norm.  The rule of law, if at all it exists, is trampled upon. Not surprisingly, ‘due process’ and ‘good governance’ remains a rhetoric and non – existent in the execution of this war. We see evidence of this, in the cases of Bayelsa, Oyo, now Ekiti and Plateau States. In fact, at the time of writing, some members of the Plateau State House of Assembly remain incarcerated for their political convictions. Then, the odd situation of six or so legislators attempting to impeach their governor, as part of this war. Another paradox; ‘we have to be corrupt to fight corruption’. Hence, the war on corruption itself is encased with corruption.

From the foregoing, one can only speculate on what democratic future lies ahead as a result of the precedent being set. Today, it maybe an Ayo Fayose, Joshua Dariye or even an Abubakar Atiku at the receiving end.  Who knows who it would be in future? To what extent do these legacies pose a threat to ‘un – corrupt’ leaders, since we have a system that runs on the superiority of values as opposed to the rule of law? What then do we make of our higher law - the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? Few can contest its inadequacies, but it not only stands above our diverse values but also remains the only ‘string that binds the nation together’. It is therefore not difficult to conclude in saying that we are running the risk of a return to authoritarianism; an ideal in which is at odds with the constitution. It is hoped that this short piece would engender constructive public discourse on the feature of the nation’s democracy, although we must at the same time acknowledge that its main shortcoming, is that it fails to provide any solutions; it was never meant to do so in the first place.

References