|
Nigeria: From Democracy To Kakistocracy By Dr Ibrahim Braji Office of the Head of Civil Service, Kano, Kano State
Introduction: In my paper entitled, “THE NIGERIAN STATE, CLASS, AND DEMOCRACY” which was published by the Daily Triumph Newspaper of 30th & 31st of January 2007, I described Nigerian democratic experience as a “vulture democratic” system of government where the strong devours the weak in front of both the domestic and international communities. This paper tries to give in-depth analyses and bring forth the happenings within the present “democratic” setup. It tries to discuss the possible outcome of this democratic dispensation. This becomes necessary so that individuals who are interested in the study of Nigeria may find it easier to comprehend and even analyze the “democratic system” the nation is practicing. As my training imposed certain criteria on me amongst, which is to be definitive in treating issues it becomes apparent to start this paper by defining the major concepts in this paper. Thus, we are in support of Thomas Hobbes statement that in “the right definition …lies the first use of speech, which is the acquisition of science, and in wrong or no definition lies the first abuse, from which proceed all first and senseless tenets”.
DEMOCRACY: Since its formation, the word democracy is interpreted differently and in the end becoming a hybrid word to diverse scholars and politicians. The term usually conveys highly emotional and even ambiguous connotations. This probably explained President Jimmy Carter's statement some years ago. The former president of the United State in a speech to Indian Parliament in 1978 tries to describe democracy by comparing it with “life itself- always changing, infinite in its variety, sometimes turbulent and all the more valuable for having been tested for adversity.” Basing on this assertion, we could confidently argue that democracy per se is the outcome of the individual nations' experience. Some scholars even argued that no democracy is ever intelligible save in the context of its time and place. Thus, there has been confusion amongst scholars while treating democracy as a system of government. In fact, the emotional stance of most scholars while treating democracy as a system leads many analysts to begin exercising doubts about its analytical usefulness in academic discourse. Some scholars are even contemplating whether it is possible or beneficial to define or describe the term. Robert Dahl, one of the world-renowned scholars had to substitute the word democracy with polyarchy; a word coined by him in his book Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (1971). Dahl reserves the term 'democracy' for a political system, which is responsive to all its citizens. He considered such a system as hypothetical, hence, to his preference of the term. Mikhail Gorbacher, a former leader of the then Soviet Union, once claimed that, “democracy is just a slogan.” According to him, it has become a battle cry propagated by the Western nations in their conflicts with other nations, which are not in their good books. Truly, what we are witnessing is the fact that the word 'democracy' has become synonymous with USA foreign policy objectives for world domination. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have given the word another meaning and import altogether. It has become a “career” massage propagated, promoted, enforced, and protected by the USA and its allies. With this development, democracy is turned into phantasy and prejudices by United States of America's cultures of aggression and world domination.
This leads to scholars' constant calls for a new interpretation and understanding of the word. It is definitely not an easy task for us in this short write-up to answer such calls and discuss in details what democracy entails. Despite this, an attempt is made to tackle the outcry. This type of attempt is required not only as part of our search for knowledge but also as an encouragement to students of politics to participate in the current contextual definition debate of the term, ‘democracy.’
TOWARDS A DEFINITION Democracy has come to mean different things to diverse scholars depending on their ideological leaning. Democracy is not “a sum” that could be added up by academics and nonacademic with the result being the same. It is one of the few words loosely defined by scholars and students of social sciences. While Western scholars see United States of America as the bastion of democracy, there is no much ground for us to dispute the claims made by other scholars that identified Mussolini's fascist dictatorship or Hitler's Third Reich as modern democracies. In African continent also, while the late Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana identified his country as fundamentally democratic, Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia on the same line espoused his nation democratic values throughout his monarchical reign. The stance of these leaders on 'democracy' clearly shows its “opiative” quality that has been affecting those at the helm of affairs of their States. Like religion, democracy is turning into the opiate of the masses and the ruling class. It is becoming another form of hope for the down trodden and a justification for the dominant class rule. Through this claim of democratization, the lower classes are deluded and convinced that they have a say and an active role in the formation and running of their government. This may have convinced some scholars to argue with all seriousness that ‘democracy’ is an illusive concept and, unless we try to understand this, we may fail in our effort to define it.
It seems, correct to argue, therefore, that democracy must be understood as a historical and political-social phenomena related to the development of a nation. It is on the basis of a nation’s history that a definition of the word can be constructed, which will enables scholars to understand what it is, and how it originates and develops.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The word democracy has Greeks origin. The term is derived from the Greek words “demos” (the people) and “Kratos” (authority). Lincoln while paraphrasing the words of Cleon, a Greek philosopher, defined democracy as “the government of the people, by the people and for the people.” This definition by Lincoln is a recast of Cleon’s who defined the term in 422 B.C. as: “That shall be democracy which shall be of the people, by the people, for the people.” Despite the simplicity and banality of Lincoln's definition, it has been influencing the thinking of students of politics for years. This definition is the most often quoted and referred by most scholars and students of politics. Most scholars unfortunately linked this definition to Lincoln instead of the originator, Cleon.
Nevertheless, the central idea of the subject of 'democracy' is the struggle for power between competing interest groups. This view is confirming Hobbes claims that man by nature is always inclining and is perpetually after the acquisition and utilization of power. Man struggles for power to either dominate or manipulate others is the etymon of politics. Moreover, politics, which is the backbone of democracy has been for centuries and would continue to be power politics. Thus, to understand 'democracy' in a nation one needs to comprehend its politics.
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM To us democracy is a State system. It is not just a form of government as seen by most students of politics. For a government is the machinery or an agency of the State formed for the formulation and implementing of policies. While democratic government is characterized by the survival of the fittest, a democratic State is an ethical institution, which is being obeyed by the citizens out of conviction and respect than out of fear and intimidation. It is a system, which is ideologically based. People obey the democratic State because they see that as obeying themselves and not their representatives. It (democratic State) is an order of society; therefore, it is more than a form of government. It is, therefore, erroneous to define the term (democracy) as just a system of government where “everyone has a share in the selection or removal of its leadership” at specific period. It is neither a mechanism for electing government to act on behalf of the people nor an institutional arrangement per se but a system setup for a purpose, which is developmental in every respect. It is, therefore, wrong to describe democracy with structural arrangements, such as the establishment of political parties, pressure groups, electoral laws, etc alone. It is not something or an instrument to be seen, touched, restructured, or captured. It is beyond a simple idea, but a reality.
While treating the term democracy one realizes the fact that he is dealing with an issue, which does not only deal with the past or the present but with the future struggle for power for the betterment of society.
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT / STATE
In a democratic government, emphasis is on the issues of “who governs and on how the leadership comes into power?” However, democratic State besides raising these issues adds a fundamental one, which is “at what ends?” Thus, democracy should be defined, not only by what it entails, but also by what it does in the interest of its citizens. A system that satisfied the basic human needs, such as education, and health is closer to being democratic than the one that allows party formation, voting of leadership, etc. A democratic State implies a democratic government, but on the other hand, a democratic government does not necessarily means a democratic State. This statement may be confusion at a glance but it is the truth in its finest form. The confusion becomes more intense in Third World nations where we encounter democratic governments: governments claiming western nations’ democratic tenets, such as elections, party formation, competition for leadership, freedom of association, etc, but not democratic States. What we are implying is that a democratic State recognizes and accepts that every man has value. After all, democracy is a human venture, centered in, around, on him, created, and sustain by him. A democratic State exists for its citizens and not for its own sake. No government, however, democratic is a “democratic State” if it does not provide or bring out the best of man. That differentiates the developed nations' democracy with the developing ones. While Europe has successfully seen the rise of democratic governments and at the point of democratic States, the Third World nations are still battling with the initial steps of establishing democracy: as a system of government. The United States of America, Britain, Germany, etc, are almost at the level of democratic States running democratic governments. Nigeria, Ghana, Niger, etc, for example, are toddling towards the establishment of democratic governments.
Democracy is not a thing per se, a possession for a specific group of people, but a relation where the action of man determines who becomes a leader for the implementation of peoples' wishes and aspirations. Democracy exists for the good of the citizenry. As man made, democracy is not static. Man is by nature dynamic, the same with democracy; a system created by, and for him. Indeed, as nation develops its system changes in goal, character, and form. Systemic transformations are necessary aspects of human development. It is, therefore, worth arguing that while some systems progress, modernize, or expand others degenerate, decline, demise, or take other shapes.
TRANSMUTATION OF DEMOCRACY
Truly, Nigeria is under a democratic government and as all democracies, it is a nation where the leadership is elected “freely and equally” by the majority. There is, nevertheless, the need to be cautious of using the terms, “freely and equally” in Nigerian elections. However, this is not a place to discuss Nigerian elections for fear of diversion. In fact, the Nigerian democracy has all features of western 'democratic governments' such as, freedom of expression, free press, formation of political party, equality before the law, universal suffrage, etc. However, these features are oriented towards acquisition of power and the protection of particular interests and not the promotion of public interests as a whole. Naturally, politics has three goals, which defines political ends and purposes. These are ambitions, special interest, and ideology. The Nigerian democratic system has been able to satisfy the goals of individual ambitions and special group or dominant class interest of acquiring power for its own sake. It could not satisfy the ideological goals because the system is in the phase of delivering a democratic government and not a democratic State. For a democratic government to transmute to a democratic State, it must be able to achieve an applied system of political beliefs that are logically coherent within a more sophisticated conception of one's present and future social condition.
TUTELARY DEMOCRATIC EXPERIENCE Nevertheless, the country had witnessed a transmutation from a tutelary democratic experience under the military dispensation to political democracy. Under the tutelary era, many of the trappings of Western-style democracy were identifiable such as popular elections, registration of political parties to compete for power, functional legislature, etc in the nation's political field. Generals Babangida, Abacha and to a lesser extent Abubakar regimes were periods when the nation witnessed tutelary democratic experience. Under the military era, the nation was neither fully under a plainly totalitarian or democratic government. Such a system is inherently unstable, and it is not surprising that the efforts of the military leadership failed to deliver a democratic State. The best it could deliver was a jibe of a democratic government. Professor Jega in one of his expositions correctly argued that civil rule although necessary is, however, not sufficient condition for democracy. This is not surprising as the most predominance goals emphasized by the military transition programs were that of individual and dominant class interests of acquisition of power and wealth for the protection of personal and ruling class interests.
Ideology was never given prominence in either party formation, or the struggles for power during the transition period. Sure enough, the registered political parties do not hold any fundamental different conceptions of what kind of society Nigeria should be. The conflicts overpower witnessed under the tutelary era was much more over personal interests than over ideological differences. This leads to a situation where politics was left to “professional” politicians who would not dare challenge the existing system.
This explains the reason why less and less ideologically inclined politicians are found in the present experiment. They are becoming irrelevant and their early achievements of influencing party formations, manifestos, and programs during the Second Republic politics (1978-1984) have since demised. Those who espoused radical ideas of restructuring the nation have lost ground as their influence in the political field is demising. The few who found themselves in some of the registered parties are either made to accept the views of the founders, which are conservative and pro-status quo or made extraneous in the political setup.
None of the registered parties presently has strong link with the radical restructuring of the nation's political and economic formation for the benefits of the lower class. None even gives a scientific understanding of the Nigerian situation nor proposes solutions to the pervasive poverty endangering the majority class. In fact, the parties are so identical that it is becoming harder by the hours to differentiate them. It is also toilsome to identify any of the registered parties with specific policy declarations that are different or worth attention from the others. While campaigning for votes the parties were promising the same things to the electorates. This elucidates the daily cross carpeting being witnessed as politicians change political party at the slightest chance.
BACKGROUND TO DEMOCRACY In fact, we agreed with Max Weber who argued that ‘democracy’ in the modern sense could only occur under capitalist industrialized societies. It is a system linked with the emergence of private property and division of labor in Europe. As other developing nations, Nigeria is neither truly capitalist nor industrialized. Thus, the system is imposed by the developed nations on the developing ones for capitalist interests. The system, therefore, is an outcome of capitalist development in a world scale. As such, Nigerian democratic process may at best be described as a false attempt to implement harmless democratic principles to satisfy world power. It is not a domestic system as its roots and fibers are outside the shore of the land. The system is not, therefore, about providing services to the citizenry but a means of satisfying the demands of world capital.
Thus, the struggle for democratic principles in Nigeria is being fought over the issue of the nation’s integration into the world capitalist market. The struggle is, therefore, not an authentic national or independent movement for the establishment of democracy, but a teleguided moves for the satisfaction of European countries. The outcome is that, Nigeria is settled with false democratic structures, such as, political parties, voting, campaign, and elections without ‘democracy.’
TOWARDS KAKISTOCRACY Thus, democratic government can metamorphose either to democratic State or to Kakistocracy. Kakistocracy is another Greek word (kakistos “worse” and cracy “authority,”) i.e. bad government or simply a government by the most unscrupulous or unsuitable people, or a state governed by such people. It is a government controlled by the least-able or least-principled and qualified people. From the date, the military intervened and later set up transition programs futurists noticed the laying of the foundation for Kakistocracy in Nigeria instead of democracy.
THE RULING PARTY The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is a party formed not only to contest elections but also to inherit the military leadership. It is a party formed from personal interest of individuals associated with its formation, which was camouflaged into common interests of Nigerians. The military saw the party as a stabilizer and a unifier of different bourgeois tendencies in the country. The PDP is a mega party formed by individuals who shares the same aspirations despite their different social and political background. These individuals solidified their petty differences to form the party to maintain their political advantage. The selection of a retired General Obasanjo to contest the presidency under its banner was a conspiracy against Nigerian people and the democratization process. The General is known for his anti-democratic stance on many issues, such as, multiparty system, political opposition, and views. To expect such an individual to nurture Nigerian democracy by the founders of the PDP informs their failure to understand the political belief of General Obasanjo. Sure enough, after ascending to the presidency he turned against them and either forced, frustrated them out, or make them irrelevant in the party they formed while, he was in prison. With that, he personified the party thereby making it a symbol of terror.
The PDP replaces the military totalitarian politics with its own system. It main features of leading the nation is through strident use of corruption, coercion and violence as can be seen through the persecution, jailing, and even killing of political opponents. It sustains its disciples through blackmails and its leadership through frequent purging at the slightest chance. It reduces democratic institutions, such as the legislature, to nothing more than a rubber stamp, just as it weakened the judiciary. The legislature is made so weak that it becomes an appendage of the executive. Due to executive corruption majority of its members compromised their positions, thereby joining the bandwagon in expropriating the State resources. Thus, in spite of it constitutionally recognized, functions it becomes a symbolic institution legitimizing policies and decisions taken by the executive. In majority of cases, the legislature pretends or closes its eyes on executive’s abuse. The party has also penetrated the judiciary that courts are not allowed to function and where they do, their rulings are hardly recognized. The party is never disturbed nor worries about it nonconforming stance on legality and other legitimate norms. It successfully reduced politics to the crude mechanics of domination, corruption, and exploitation.
The Party leadership is using the State to accumulate wealth and power. However, this may look similar in outlook with what happened during the military regimes, but the PDP is not only concerned with the present but also the future. It plan is to be perpetually in power through the elimination of any contesting power bloc. While the military takes their involvements in politic as an aberration, the PDP looks at itself as the sole proprietor of the political leadership in the country. This explains the massive election riggings witnessed in 2003 and 2007 General Elections.
The struggle of the former President (Obasanjo) to remain in power failed because of the resistance of the populace. Despite the efforts of the party and the president to influence the decision of the Houses through massive monetary inducement to support a third term for him, the resistance of the populace and the open distaste showed to those in support left no chance for the move to change the constitutional provision. Adding to that, Obasanjo lack personal attractiveness, magnetic personality and have no oratorical ability. His ambition of becoming another Mobutu Sese Seko was dashed by his years of misrule. This is despite the fact that towards the end of his era he became so dictatorial, rigid, and even personifying the party and the government. He not only set the framework for any political and economic activities but also dictated what changes were desirable in the national sphere. He turned the presidential seat into a monarchy where his sayings become sacred. The president disregard for the “checks and balances” enshrined in the constitution is legendary. His failure to bring forth prosperity, security, etc to the nation undercut his ambition for a third term.
The party has never promised anything new nor the ability or the urge to develop the nation. The party was not formed to realize any historical mission. From 2003, the party and the government it formed embodied illegality. It seems to our understanding the party is not making any effort to conform to legal or legitimate norms. It successfully reduced politics to the “crude mechanics of domination,” exploitation, and open stealing of public funds. Its popularity is dwindling by the minutes leading to the rise of factions and decampments by most of its founding members.
THE OTHER PARTIES As the ruling party is becoming more dominant in the political field, the other registered political parties that are supposed to oppose it are decaying by the hours. Alliance for Democracy (A.D.) has completely rotten away as its ethnic roots and supports could not muster the moral strength to fight the P.D.P. even in Yoruba enclave. The A.D. was after all formed mainly for the purpose of imposing a Yoruba man on the nation's political leadership and as far as the president was theirs' (even if he is not a member of the party), the party has no reason to be in opposition or even existence. In fact, the party leadership's struggle for power mellowed down with the election of Obasanjo as the president in 1999 under the banner of P.D.P. The party tacit support to the “son of the soil” continued up to the time he handover power to President Shehu Musa Yar' Adua in 2007.
All Nigeria Peoples' Party (A.N.P.P.) is now going through its most turbulent period as the leadership has already joined President Yar' Adua's Government of National Unity (GNU). The popularity of the party is winding down as a division has appeared between the presidential candidate and the leadership. The actions and utterances of the party leadership have clearly exposed their lack of seriousness in the struggle for power. It seems the leadership is contented with the few political posts allocated to its members by the ruling party than to support the party's presidential candidate in his court case against the P.D.P.
Action Congress (A.C.) is a faction of P.D.P. and A.D. Those frustrated out by the parties they either started or contributed immensely in funding found a haven in A.C. It survival and future participation in politics depend on the interest shows by Atiku Abubakar to contest future elections. A.C. is a party that has no grass root support although it was able to attract some “juggernauts” (with apology to K.O. Mbadiwe) who have been movers and shakers of Nigerian politics. Since formation, it was not able to mobilize the citizenry against the P.D.P. Some of its leading members (while in P.D.P.) were instrumental to 2003 elections rigging, which gave P.D.P. another term in office. After joining AC, they became Atiku's handbag. They were consumed by Atiku political structure, thereby, becoming irrelevant in the nation's political equation. In fact, throughout the 2007 election campaign period one hardly noticed them. The outcomes of the elections show their diminishing political influence and their inability to march PDP rigging machine.
Thus, A.C. is a one-man party where the interest of Atiku Abubakar was paramount. It failed to upset the dominant position of the P.D.P. Its performance in Lagos at the 2007 elections may be linked to the then Governor, Ahmed Bola Tinubu who used his office to see to its success.
The other registered political parties were ‘lilliputians’ as their influence in the struggle for power was nothing to write home about. They are more popular on the pages of Newspapers and over the Radio than on the political field. Some are even fictional than real. Although, All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) and Progressive Peoples Alliance (PPA) were able to form government in Anambra and Abia States their influence is limited to those states.
CONCLUSION “If men and women of capacity refused to take part in politics and government, they condemn themselves, as well as the people, to the punishment of living under a bad government.”
The above statement is by a US Senator, S. J. Ervin, which is relevant to the Nigerian situation. More and more people of capacity, integrity, and moral standards are being frustrated out or are refusing to join politics. General Buhari who is one of the few with high moral character is not having it easy in the political field. His attempts to ascend the presidency in 2003 and 2007 hit the rock due to the massive rigging of the ruling party. His party (ANPP) leadership is withdrawing its support and is even threatening the General with expulsion. A drama is being played and the citizens are watching, as the nation’s political field is now being controlled and managed by those whose self-interest is paramount. Anytime these people talked about the national interests, their positions or interests are threatened. It is, therefore, not surprising that Transparency International ranks the country as one of the most corrupt nations in the world. The oil revenue accruing is either being misappropriated or stolen by the leadership at broad daylight. The leadership does not even hide the corruption nor have fears or the guilt of exposing their ill-gotten wealth. The question now being fielded around by Nigerians is “who is not corrupt and not who is corrupt?”
Nigerian politics is monetized as is being run by corrupt politicians who have turned the State into an avenue for capital accumulation. In fact, the EFCC has listed 133 unworthy Nigerians who are now occupying positions of authorities, either as members of the Houses of Assemblies and Representatives or Ambassadors, Senators, Governors, etc. In fact, of the 36 State Governors from 2003-2007, around 31 of them were under investigation by either the EFCC or ICPC on corrupt enrichment. Out of the indicted Governors, six were reelected while seven won senatorial seats in 2007 elections. Those who were not able to stand for elective offices are rewarded with ambassadorial or ministerial posts by the PDP government.
Nigerians are resigning to their faith, as those leading them at the national, state and even local government levels through “rigged elections” are not representing them but themselves.
Thus, the “bad guys” with low moral standing have now taking over the nation leadership. With an imposed Senate President, (rewarded for supporting Obasanjo’s Third term) whose election to the House is in contest and a Speaker of the House in corruption imbroglio the nation is drifting apart. The fragile State is cracking, as it could not withstand the weight of the present politics. It is a politics that has been wholly polluted by corruption, indiscipline, non-accountability, and non-transparency in governmental affairs. It seems the President may not be able to control the drift as the moral question of his election is still dangling on his neck. By the hours, the nation is turning into one of the world poorest nations, having a large percentage of its citizens in pervasive and absolute poverty. It has one of the worst distributions of income in the world as the middle class is completely wiped out. The possible outcome of this situation is either a total collapse, ‘democracide’ (i.e. killing of ‘democracy’ with apology to Professor Ali Mazrui) or total transformation of the system. The end-point of this situation is, therefore, Kakistocracy. |