PEOPLE AND POLITICS BY MOHAMMED HARUNA

March 27 and the bastardization of our democracy

kudugana@yahoo.com

Former military vice-president Admiral Augustus Aikhomu described it as “a matter of gangsterism”. the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Alhaji Bello Masari, said it was “unhealthy for democracy,” while the President of the Nigeria Labour Congress, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole said it has “nailed any hope about the power of the ballot.”

All these three leading Nigerians were, of course, talking about the last local government elections. Few people, I think, might have entertained any illusions that the local government elections would usher in any dawn of genuine democracy following the massive fraud, some would say, barefaced robbery, that characterized the last general elections about a year ago. Fraud, after-all, begets fraud. Therefore, it would have been a not-so-minor miracle if those who came to power as governors through last year’s fraudulent elections, and their supporters who benefited from the fraud, joined hands to supervise free and fair local government elections.

Even then few people could have foreseen the monumental charade that Nigerians witnessed on March 27 in the name of elections. Stories of the theft of electoral materials, of stuffing ballot boxes, or of simply filling in the result sheets - you name it – are now surfeit, but the most telling evidence of how cynical the general public had become about elections since last year, was that they voted overwhelmingly with their feet to stay away from the polling stations.

As at the time of writing this piece, the election monitors were yet to publish their reports on the conduct of the elections, but from my own experience, I will be surprised if they report as much as a quarter  voter turn out. For nearly one hour from about 1pm on the day of the election, I went round my neighbourhood in Malali GRA, Kaduna, and the neighbouring Unguwan Sarki ward and subsequently the Gabasawa ward where my family home is located. In all these wards I saw very little evidence of people bothering to come out at all to vote. In some of the polling booths where not many people did come out, I was told that the voters left without voting because the election officials didn’t report to the polling stations. Indeed so much confusion, much of it clearly deliberate, greeted the elections in my Kaduna North Local Government that they were shifted, first, to the following Saturday and, subsequently, backwards to the Wednesday before. And Kaduna North was hardly the worst case scenario in a state which was, in turn, hardly the worst in the country.

Given last fortnight’s experience, it is hardly surprising that Nigerians have generally become pessimistic about the future of democracy in the country. Even then Nigerians cannot simply afford to resign themselves to a future without democracy.

The obvious question is what can we do to stem the slide into anarchy that the truncation of our freedom of choice by, of all people, politicians, portends? My fear is that there isn’t much beyond hoping that there are still enough people within the political class with the capacity to bring about the structural changes necessary for the exercise of our freedom of choice. The way I see it, the two greatest obstacles to the practice of democracy in our country are the structural inadequacies of our political system and the self-serving attitude of the political class, especially its leadership, in reverse order of importance.

I don’t know if there is much anyone can do about the problem of leadership, but at least something can be done about the structural inadequacies of the political system. The biggest problem in this respect is simply that we are a federation only in name. In a true federation, the powers of the central government may be enormous but essentially they are still residual. Nigeria was a true federation only up to January 1966, when the military first intervened. From then on we have ran a unitary state in everything but name. From 1967, instead of the federating units giving residual powers to the centre, it was the centre that has given powers to, or taken powers away from, the states which it has created.

Principal among the powers the centre has taken away from the states was that of the creation and  control  of local governments. Here, the major milestones include 1976,   when the military made local administration uniform throughout the country, and 1989 when the Federal Government made local government reform exclusively its own. Six years later the Federal Government restored state competence and control over local governments to some extent but by then the spirit of arbitrariness very much evident in the central government in its attitude towards grassroots democracy, had pervaded the state governments.

As local governments became the plaything of both the central and state governments, local autonomy became increasingly meaningless. Local government were created so arbitrarily, their numbers grew by geometric progression. In 1976 the number was about 300. During the Second Republic, the state governments increased them to a total of 603. Shortly after the military returned in December 1983, they were reduced to 304. This was under General Muhammadu Buhari. After General Ibrahim Babangida overthrew Buhari in a palace coup, the new military president reverted the number back to 600 or so. Finally, after General Abacha took over in November 1993, he increased the number to 774, even though the draft constitution he made in 1995 somewhat gave back the powers of creating local governments to the states.

Since then, the numbers have increased unofficially. Unofficially because the 1998 constitution is ambiguous about the powers of the state to create local governments by first, giving them the powers in Section 8, but subsequently listing the existing 774 and thus making a constitutional amendment seem necessary before the state can fully exercise those powers.

The state governments that have purported to have created new local governments have done so not really because they are genuinely interested in nurturing democracy. They have done so mainly because local governments have attracted enormous statutory allocations from the federation account since the 1989 local government reform, allocations that are by far in excess of any revenues the local governments can generate internally.

It seems to me then that one excellent way to deal with the structural inadequacies of our political system is to cut down the number of local government to manageable proportions. One way to do this is to review the criteria for statutory allocations to local government using population - and derivation – rather than their number, as the main criteria of revenue sharing, as was the case in 1976.

A second step towards reforming the local government system would be to amend the constitutional imperative for the central registration of political parties. Until the soldiers came along, no one registered parties. Indeed individuals were free to contest elections without party platforms. Naturally the soldiers wanted to centralize and control everything. So they imposed party registration and they have since made it impossible for people to get together to form parties for purely resolving local matters. Unfortunately politicians who should know better, have also become keen on centralization and control.

Removing the financial incentives for frivolous creation of local governments and liberalizing party formation would not, of course, on their own address the bastardization of democracy at the grassroots which manifested itself ever so glaringly on March 27. The two steps would also not address the problem of the self-serving attitude of the political class. However, they are part of the necessary steps that Nigerians must take if they ever wish to see democracy eventually rise phoenix-like from the ashes of March 27.

*************

Write-Back

Dear Sir,

On Atiku’s “persecution”

Although I have been reading your articles and comments for several years now, this is the first time I am writing to you. I must give it to you that you write well - simple, coherent, and logical. I also sincerely believe that you are fair; you would always examine the opposing sides of an issue and draw a beautiful conclusion. Please accept my greetings.                        

In your recent article on the maltreatment of Atiku, however, there was a major omission. Notwithstanding that in all good human cultures, one should not berate a person with the statement that "I told you so", I can't find a person more deserving of such rebuke than Atiku Abubakar. Concerning matters of state and governance of  120 million people, Atiku has been most selfish, careless, and grossly poor in judgement.

Atiku was certainly important in the first 'democratic' appearance of Obasanjo, but he was not as momentous as some other, more influential, domestic figures, notably, Ibrahim Babangida, Abdussalami Abubakar and others who have helped wreck poor Nigeria. Needless to say, if  the 1999 decision to impose Obasanjo on Nigerians and the critical role played by Atiku, turned out to be a mistake, the decision to renominate him for a second term was, to put it mildly, unfortunate.

In my view and understanding of events, which might be limited, Atiku Abubakar was the single most important player in the decision to impose a second Obasanjo term on the rest of us. In the light of Obasanjo's failures,  it was a rather wicked and selfish decision on the part of Atiku to support him. He could have stood for God Almighty, for the people, for the truth, for democracy, and for the enhancement of Nigerian unity, by rejecting  Obasanjo at that decisive moment.. Instead  he choose to smear the character of a loyal Nigerian - Alex Ekwueme. He rejected  Ekwueme, rejected himself, rejected other competent candidates, and voted for a person who has clearly failed. How tragic!

Here is your omission: you failed to point out that Atiku did not make a strong case for his loyalty to Obasanjo, who has really done a very poor job of governance. It is not a matter of question, he, Atiku, is a failure too. He failed when he could not help deliver on good governance; he failed when he endorsed Obasanjo's second term. Was he concerned about charges of ethnic politics? Why? there was Ekwueme and other excellent southern candidates to choose from.

Why should you then shield Atiku and paint his portrait as a  sad, angry, and helpless victim in the hands of an overbearing boss? Why should you blame Obansanjo for haunding him? Has Obasanjo been loyal to anybody since 1999? He has not been loyal to the masses of Nigeria, or even to those who claimed to have propped him up.       

Poor Boni Haruna; if it is true that he was a mere collateral victim, I guess he should see it as the cost of loyalty. As we Nigerians would say "No Condition is Permanent" As for your claims of persecution of Atiku, the multitude of Nigerians will disagree with you.  

Keep up the good work. Your readers will help when you slip off. .

 Safian Rabiu

Dear sir,

              After reading your article on the "persecution" Atiku Abubakar, I wish to raise some comments/questions.  

If it is true as you rightly suggested, that Obasanjo was not so keen on retaining Atiku as Vice president for his second tenure and Atiku more or less blackmailed him into doing so at the PDP convention in Abuja, why are you sympathetic to Atiku? Did he not invite whatever  treatment he is now getting?

For you to suggest that the Adamawa jugdement was made to spite Atiku Abubakar, is to say the least unbecoming of your reputation. That suggestion, without any supporting proof, from you is worse than what Atiku said is response to the ruling. If Atiku's tantrums can be excused because of anger, I am at a loss on how to understand your insinuations. The fact that Adamawa does not present the worst case of electoral fraud that took place last April, does not mean Justice Zanna is like all other judges.

If Atiku feels threatened by the president he can either resign or fight back and each choice has it's consequence.

            Finally, 'persecution" is simply a bad word for describing Atiku's current travails.

Jijji Saadu