By Oseloka H. Obaze
Nigeria is 65. She struggled for her independence, but never fought for it. That has made all the difference in her appreciation of her nationalism, unity and democracy. Also, Nigeria fought a civil war to stay united, but because the agonizing consequences of that war were not equally felt, the appreciation of the war’s underpinning value varies.
The choice of Nigeria becoming a democracy was not one made by Nigerians. It was a convenient and not-so-hard choice made on their behalf by colonial masters. As surmised by one writer, “Nigeria is a nation that insists on playing in the theater of democracy, while the script is being written elsewhere.” Nigeria’s present ethnic composition, defaults respectively to the feudal, monarchical, and republican system. If Nigeria was predicated purely on linguistic and ethnic considerations, there would have been, perhaps, five nations: Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Ijaw, and Fulani. Other smaller ethnicities might have also qualified as confederations. Efik-Ibibio would be one such nomenclature.
Because some things only happen in Nigeria, the nation is what it is, by expedient experimental foreign design. That is the stark reality. A corollary, is that in Nigeria, the defense of democracy or lack thereof, is quite often driven her fractured nature, systemic ethnic biases and by the ever-present irony of ignorance. Oftentimes, these ironies border on political idiocy. Nigeria is a perfect case study of a nation that has experienced colonial rule, self rule, authoritarianism, military anti-politics and a dual subset of participatory democracy; as a parliamentary system and now, a presidential system.
The debate about Nigeria’s trajectory as a united nation has always been animated. Historically, Nigeria has tethered on the brink, but hardly ever reaching the tipping point. The presumptive basis for consolidated nation building has been dissected in all forms and manner, usually under the rubric of restructuring. Not even the Aristotelian dictate that emphasizes equality amongst equals and proportionality amongst the unequal seems to have helped.
As a nation of over 250 languages, with many ethnic groups and a surfeit of minorities, the dominant Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo tribes (WAZOBIA), have held the leadership sway since her independence in 1960. Yet, as unlikely as it seemed, by a twist of natural attrition and constitutional fiat, a member of a minority tribe, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, fortuitously led the nation as president in the Fourth Republic.
Yet, discussing past, present, and future of democracy in Nigeria inevitably yields mixed results. Why? Because Nigerians covet democracy, but seem incapable of living up to its ideals. Some now even consider the military era, as more constructive, productive and cost-effective in developmental terms. Perhaps, democracy in Nigeria calls for putting new eyes on old ideas and controversies that hobble the nation.
The practice of democracy in Nigeria tends to negate the concept “of government predicated on the principle that power should be vested in the people.” Also, democracy for Nigerians is no longer predicated on political beliefs as much as it’s driven by ethnic and social identities. Such identity paradox creates unending dissonance in democratic politics and governance. By extension, it amplifies Nigeria’s “growing distrust of and frustration with democracy.” But then, Nigeria is not by any means the only nation where democracy has caused hyper-divisions in her political landscape.
A recent op-ed I wrote, elicited the following rebuttal from an octogenarian, who was born in pre-independent Nigeria, lived in Biafra and served in her army, and consequently served as a career Nigerian Foreign Service Officer, rising to the rank of ambassador. His words: “If this Nigeria doesn’t die, a rebirth of a new Nigeria might be a hoax.” His perspective is Biblical and Botanical.
Biblically, we read about destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days, which for believers, is epitomized by the consequent death and rise of Jesus Christ. Botanically, seeds die in order to regenerate and germinate and bring forth new plants and growth. Another interlocutor asked: “How will Nigeria not die or be saved when Nigerians are afraid to die or even make sacrifices for the sake of saving her.” These observations are beyond rhetoric. The debate about Nigeria’s fate and future tends to be schizophrenic: blunt and dodgy at the same time. Nigerians covet democracy but are unwilling to make sacrifices that underpin its efficacy, robustness and survival.
The desirable quest for a New Nigeria is aimed at amplifying and consolidating her democracy, with its consequential rights, liberties and equality for all. The defense of democracy in Nigeria is all about finding common cause and equity in an egalitarian society. Ironically, that quest is frequently subsumed and subjugated by the notion that democracy works well, only when a certain ethnicity is in charge. As such, various ethnicities are fixated on the notion that Nigeria only work well, if not better, under their leadership. Again, such ironical thoughts negate the fundamental notion that democracy is the government of the people by the people. Such ironies are born of ignorance or primordial considerations.
Meanwhile, governance experts have adduced three kinds of democracy: “Constitutional democracy – governed by a constitution. Defensive democracy – a democracy that limits some rights and freedoms in order to protect its existence. Deliberative democracy – in which authentic deliberation, not only voting, is central to legitimate decision making.” Nigeria has dabbled, I believe, in the first two and now seeks to find her grounding in Deliberative democracy. General Ibrahim Babangida unwittingly, foisted a defensive democracy on Nigeria, with a restricted two-party system inclined “a little bit to the left, and a little bit to the right.” That system flopped, courtesy of its originating dubious intent.
Still, it should matter little, who leads a nation in a true and vibrant democracy, if the leaders abide strictly to the rule of law, and give primacy to respecting the Constitution, its dictates and legitimate decision making processes. One of the beauties of democracy, is the holding of periodic, genuine and credible elections, in which the citizens decide who should rule them. Voting and transparently electing who should rule in accordance with the extant laws, is a form of defense for any democracy. Inherent in that process, is what ought to be the unfettered ability to vote out bad and underperforming leaders. Ironically, out of ignorance, miseducation, poor orientation, or blinkered bigotry, Nigeria’s voting population continue to default to ethnic considerations or financial inducement and other set of ironies predicated on ignorance.
A major challenge dogging Nigeria’s present day democracy is the seeming inability of her leaders to abide by constitutional dictates and legitimate decision making processes. Not only are constitutional rights eroded routinely, the pillars of any true democracy, the separation of powers are also holistically ignored. Above all, the core principle of making the people’s vote count has never been accorded priority, despite existing laws to that effect. It is this reality that has led to the endless quest for restructuring and electoral reform. However, because the culture of impunity and sectionalism has eaten every reform and restructuring strategy (apologies to Peter Drucker), change has remained elusive. It is the culture eating strategy that has technically, emasculated political opposition and weakened national democratic institutions. Today, Nigeria is not only insecure, physically, fiscally and psychologically, the nation is progressively on a lawless boil. This is what makes Nigeria an “undemocratic democracy.”
Some Nigerians now advocate for a return to the parliamentary system. Their thesis is that the system ensures proportional representation in government based on votes won. The objective is to overcome the prevailing myth of representation that is essentially lineal and skewed unapologetically in favour of the winning party. The attraction of this proposition, beyond its cost-effectiveness, is that it ensures opposition’s concerted role within and outside the government. But it does not ensure the fealty of the system’s operators within and outside the corridors of power. It is this nexus between political idiocy and irony of ignorance, which quite often are fungible that compounds the lack of political will and shirking of sacrifices required for true nation building.
Whereas our democracy has advanced in numerical years, it is stultified in concrete terms and still operationally nascent. As such, Nigeria’s unchangeable past will consequentially instruct and define her unknowable future. Meanwhile, democracy is hard work. We have to work hard at it. But we can’t do so with the present cadre of political leaders, who are not only short-sighted, but utterly indifferent to the fundamentals ethos that undergird any sustainable democracy. Happy Independence!
———-
Obaze is MD/CEO, Selonnes Consult – a policy, governance and management consulting firm in Awka.