DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA, CURSE OR BLESSING?

INTRODUCTION: A knife they say has two sharps mouth, the irony of Nigerias return to civil rule in 1999 has been and will continue to be a subject of discuss for many writers, authors, researcher etc. Nigeria is now enjoying the longest period of civilian rule since independence in 1960. The first civilian republic ended in a military coup in 1966, ushering in a devastating civil war and several more military governments. In fact, during the 33-year period from 1966 until the fourth republic came into being in 1999, civilians only governed for four short years. Historically, therefore, the dearth of democratic experience has created enormous challenges to institutionalizing democracy in the Nigerian fourth republic. Nonetheless, it is critical to recognize the fact that the trend over the past decade, and especially since 1999, is modestly positive. Despite a legacy of brutal authoritarianism under General Abachas military misrule, the civilian government of President Olusegun Obasanjo has, to its credit, made some significant improvements. Its economic reform program has won the qualified praise of the International Monetary Fund (IMF); civil liberties, freedom of the press, and an independent media are much improved.

The durability of civilian rule since 1999 and the rejection of the third term constitute unprecedented achievements. To be sure, pessimism and cynicism are widespread in evaluating Nigerian democracy. The cynics from the late 1990s, however, would have never predicted that Nigeria would now be poised to hold its third civilian election cycle. Nor would they have predicted that the president
1

would be blocked from assuming a third term by a national legislature bold enough to buck the Africa-wide trend of altering constitutions to allow extended executive terms. The rejection of the third term, moreover, was driven by an alliance of grassroots activists, civil society organizations (CSOs), and elected representatives. The democratic principles underlying electoral alternation appear to have gained widespread acceptance among the political elite, underpinned by an even deeper consensus on democracy as the only acceptable form of government in Nigeria. Civil society actors and the legislative and judicial branches of government are now asserting their constitutional powers more frequently in spite of having been silenced by decades of brutal military dictatorships. Again, all of these trends are very positive for the deepening of Nigerian democracy. Evaluating the trend line of Nigerian democracy requires a critical yet realistic perspective about the many barriers confronting Nigerian democrats. Indeed, in addition to overcoming the authoritarian legacies of colonial and military rule, the enormous size, ethnic diversity, and political complexity of Nigeria would daunt even the most talented and committed democratic reformers. When compared against perilous situations of neighboring states (e.g., Ivory Coast, Chad, Sudan, Congo), the fact that Nigeria survives as a united, democratic nation-state is no mean achievement and should be a cause for celebration.

NIGERIAN DEMOCRACY: THE JOURNEY SO FAR

In 1999, the now white-beard Gen. Abdulsalam Abubakar handed over Nigeria to a democratically elected civilian government. This, he courageously did on the 29th of May and thus marked Nigeria`s third attempt at democracy since the fall of the Tafawa Balewa regime on 15th January, 1966. Today therefore we are celebrating
2

Thirteen years of democracy in Nigeria without a hitch. There is then therefore no doubt that this is a moment for sober reflection. I find it necessary to, given the circumstance, delve into our political sphere though in a non partisan manner, simply to make an attempt at assessing Nigerias journey in the democratic vehicle in the last ten years. The media, being the fourth of the realm, has contributed in no small measure in trying to help Nigeria and indeed the international community assess Nigerias democratic gains in the last ten years. The BBC Hausa Service for instance, had organized several debates and invited stakeholders of ranging thoughts to make clear their thoughts as to the journey so far. Peter Horrocks, Director BBC World Service and Jamilah Tangaza, Head, BBC Hausa Service have played commendable roles in helping Nigeria assess the journey so far. In a debate captioned: "10 years of Democracy in Nigeria: The journey so far- What have been the challenges?, they landscaped a turf that was definitely tough. Distinguished personalities like the veteran politician Tanko Yakasai, the firebrand Abdul Kareem Dayyabu, Dr. Junaidu Mohammad, Gov. Ibrahim Shekarau, representatives of the PDP and the ANPP and a host of other participants made their immense contributions. This very debate is very important because it forms the principal building block of my assessment as all the participants agreed on one thing despite the differences in thought that exists amidst them. On the 28 th of May, 2009, all the participants at the debate in Mambayya House, Kano, where I was a spectator, agreed that though the country had remained an indivisible entity under the democratic setting, the dividends of democracy have yet surfaced on the nation`s horizon.
3

Everyone agreed that at present there is erratic power supply. There are no roads, standard schools and standard healthcare delivery system, security of lives and property, and food security. There is corruption in the economy, chaos in the polity and brouhaha in our arts. We are a caricature in the comity of nations because we have only succeeded in deceiving ourselves in the last ten years. These, everyone accepted. However, as to the reasons behind our travails, I am not without my personal perception. Those who are peculiar with the history of this country will attest that we are fond of doing things in haste and in the course somewhere, somehow we usually go into inventions and omissions, which in the end never augur well. Democracy, Abraham Lincoln says, is the formation of a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Given this, it is then right to identify that the key to democracy is a free and fair election. And we all know that to ensure a free and fair election, so many conditions must be satisfied. There has to be a platform for aspiring candidates; the political party and an unbiased election umpire to oversee the conduct of elections. The duo institutions of political party and election organisng body in a democratic atmosphere are as important as the democratic system itself. A biased election organising body entails the emanation of a non democratic environment as the wish of the common man would never be pondered. And a political party that was not formed on the basis of any ideology only entails the formation of a platform where politicians join only to clinch on to one seat or another. When our present political parties were formed, they were not formed on the basis of any ideology and this is where we erred. The benchmark for the formation of a political party is the coming together of people of the same ideology to form a
4

common front. Certainly, where there is ideology there is principle. That is why internal democracy is lacking in all the fifty-three political parties country. Some of the parties cannot identify their four walls, some have multiple leadership, some do not even have name. In a resume, because of their weak foundations, political parties do not serve the purpose of a political party and hence the locus standi. Ceteris paribus, a political party should ab initio, having been formed on an ideology, have its manifesto and a constitution, which every member must honour and respect. With the constitution, a legal party Executive Council is certain and hence internal democracy feasible. This circumstance would not only give a party the opportunity to organize free and fair primary elections but would also go further granting it the chance to form a formidable electoral force ahead of its campaigns. When all the parties in the country assume this modus operandi, a free and fair general election would only wait for time to unfold events as no stakeholder will connive with the election umpire and or security agencies to rig in any candidate. All the parties, having presented their best to the electorate, would allow the election process to take its proper course. Surely enough, with proper elections, a competent team will be given mandate. The right people will be in charge of the government of the day and thus good governance would take its place. A competent team would be in charged of the power sector and there will not be black out. There would be security of both lives and property. Education would be free. A standard healthcare delivery system would evolve. There would be good road networks and effective transportation systems. In fact, the economy would be healthy.

All these would have been achieved had it been our political parties were properly placed. And unfortunately, unlike in construction, there cannot be underpinning to serve as a remedy to our situation. But as I once told a senior colleague during a return trip from Wase to Bauchi, the solution to all Nigerias problems lies in our political leaders resolving to work in the best interest of the nation. NIGERIAN DEMOCRACY: THE CURSE-BLESSING SYNDRONE Nigeria is the most populous African state and one of the worlds most ethnically diverse societies, being made up of over 250 ethno-linguistic groups. Formally, these groups were agglomerated into a single political unit in 1914, but integration among them was minimal because Britains policy of indirect rule sustained and even magnified differences between them. By allying and strengthening the power of the northern Muslim aristocracy, colonial policy reduced traditional checks and balances, and severely limited access to Western education in northern Nigeria. Administrative policies and translations of the Christian Bible contributed to formation of new ethnic identities and new educated middle classes in the southern provinces of Nigeria where the modern nationalist movement was born. In 1939, the British carved out three regions, each with dominant (majority) and subordinate (minority) ethnic groups, and established commodity marketing boards which were later used to fund the political projects and parties from each region. Religion, too, is critical for grasping the difficulty of achieving consensus in a complex state like Nigeria. For example, from 40-50 percent of Yoruba are estimated to be Muslims, but this affiliation has not translated into political solidarity with the Muslim groups of the far north. Christianization, on the other hand, has integrated previously fragmented groups in the Southeast and in the Middle Belt or North Central zone of Nigeria. The
6

politicization of religion is nothing new in Nigeria, but has become more pronounced since the introduction of the Islamic (Sharia) criminal code in the 12 northern states after the 1999 election. Thus, there is no shortage of potential cleavages or flashpoints in Nigeria. Its size, limited internal communications, ethnic diversity, cross-cutting alliances and cleavages render it a difficult country to govern under the best of circumstances. By the time of independence in 1960, Nigeria was divided into three semi-autonomous regions, each composed of many nationalities with few common cultural experiences and even fewer incentives to act collectively as a nation. As the worlds fifth largest federation, it is not surprising that Nigeria has struggled with refining federal powers and obtaining buy in from its constituent groups who demanded the creation of more states and more local government associations (LGAs). Catering to the demands of constituent groups created incentives for ethnic mobilization around various new and imaged primordial identities. Indeed, some of the elder interlocutors interviewed by the Assessment Team noted that there was less inter-ethnic conflict under colonialism because the administrative units were more mixed. Critics say the 1999 constitution concentrates too much power in the central government, especially with regard to the control of police and the appointment of judges. The arrangement that each of the 36 states must have a minister in the Cabinet has further undermined appointments based on professional merit. The perennial challenge for the Nigerian federation, known as the National Question, has been how to transform the array of competing ethnic and religious groups into stakeholders. This has been attempted primarily through the multiplication of administrative units. At the same time, however, the tendencies for centralization meant that power was not dispersed, but that smaller and smaller political units were linked to the federal power structure in a top-down distribution
7

of resources and opportunity. This arrangement creates a balancing network of alliances and relationships that prevented any single faction or group from becoming dominant, but it aggravated conditions in the oil-producing states of the South-South zone, as discussed in the next subsection. IN DEMOCRACY WE ARE BLESSED! Given the structural barriers to democratization represented by the oligarchy, it is all the more remarkable that progress is nevertheless being made on a variety of fronts. The May 2006 defeat by the National Assembly of the third term initiative was the culmination of a number of positive trends in Nigerian democratic development. The concept of a Nigerian nation appears to have taken root. Second, is the evident consensus among elites and the public on the principle of alternation of power, a key foundation of democratic governance. Such alternation is so far defined 1) in personal terms, such that no individual can occupy the summit offices of the federation for more than two terms; and 2) in regional terms, in that government offices must be rotated at the federal level among the six informal zones of the nation, and among the senatorial districts and local government areas at the state level. Moreover, civil society and the public itself had roles in defeating the presidents third term gambit, signifying their growing influence in national politics. These roles were facilitated by new technologies of communication, such as cell phones, cable TV, text messaging and web sites. For perhaps the first time since 1999, legislators felt compelled to consult with their constituents and to vote as the public wished (84 percent were against the third term amendments),2 even though the presidency was reportedly offering $1 million bribes to each member of the National Assembly who voted in favor of the amendment package. Private
8

television companies provided live coverage of the debates in the Assembly, and newspapers published lists of which legislators were for or against the measures. Positive changes since 1999 include an improvement in the human rights situation (see Section 2.2 below), affirmation of freedom of the press and other civil liberties, and greater freedom for civil society advocates. The National Assembly and Supreme Court are playing more active roles and starting to become more effective in asserting their constitutional prerogatives in the face of a dominant executive. On the other hand, the police routinely torture detainees, few prisoners appear before judges, and security forces harass elected officials, human rights activists, and the independent media. While the Government of Nigeria (GON) has overcome the international pariah status that dated back to the mid-1990s, when Nigeria was temporarily expelled from the Commonwealth as a result of human rights violations, much remains to be done. Nigerias international financial reputation has also significantly improved as a result of its agreement with the Paris Club of 19 official creditors to settle its external debt with the group. In exchange for a payment of $12.4 billion, the Paris Club countries agreed to forgive the $18 million remainder of the $30 billion debt held by Nigeria. Upon completion of its payment in April 2006, Nigeria became the first sub-Saharan African country to completely eliminate its Paris Club debt. The country still owes some $5 billion to other lenders, including the World Bank and the private sector. Nigeria has now been taken off an international credit blacklist and is able to borrow on favorable terms again. The broader economic reform program that conditioned the debt elimination deal is known as the National Economic Empowerment Development Strategy (NEEDS). The reform package was approved by the IMF as a condition of endorsing the debt deal, and the IMF enacted a two-year Policy Support Instrument (PSI) in October 2005 that includes
9

ongoing IMF monitoring of progress made in the reforms. The IMF completed its first review of Nigerias PSI in April 2006 in which it endorsed government policies to date. THE CURSE: STILL VISIBLE: The positive trends cited above do not erase the abysmal record of the Nigerian oligarchy. Given the scale of petro-revenues and the potential of Nigerias natural resources, the oligarchys failure to address the most minimal of the majoritys basic human needs can be construed as criminal negligence. The World Bank ranks Nigeria as among the worlds poorest countries, with the vast majority of the population living on less than $2 per day. Only 40 percent of Nigerians have access to electricity. Most citizens suffer from grossly inadequate state services, such as the provision of public utilities (electricity, water, sanitation), social services such as education and health, or the maintenance of public security. Most social indicators, such as life expectancy, health, and education, have actually declined despite a windfall of oil revenues. Meanwhile, demographic trends are bringing massive numbers of young Nigerians into the political sphere over the next 10 years, most of whom are gaining political consciousness within a context of frustration and hopelessness. Explosive demographic growth helps to explain how the Nigerian state became so distanced from the needs of its people. In the early 1920s, when the first federal arrangements were conceptualized by the British, the population stood at less than 20 million. By independence in 1960, the number of citizens was estimated to have doubled to 40 million. In the 45 years after that, the population has soared even more rapidly, to an estimated 137 million in 2005. The nature of demographic change is even more worrisome than total population figures would indicate,
10

however, with Nigeria having one of the highest urbanization rates in the world at around 5.3 percent per year in a country that is still mainly agrarian. Moreover, most estimates place over 40 percent of Nigerians under the age of 15, which means there is a massive demographic bulge approaching adulthood amidst a dearth of opportunity or hope. It is becoming widely accepted that for this new generation, conditions and prospects are worse than they were for the youth at independence in 1960. Rising violence, assassinations of candidates, more advanced weaponry, and misuse of security forces to intimidate candidates has lowered public expectations for the 2007 election. Members of the oligarchy manipulate ethnic, religious, and geographic cleavages to gain leverage in the inter-elite competition for resources. Electoral registration assumes a reliable, legitimate census. The first census to be carried out since 1991 took place in March 2006, but questions regarding origin were omitted to reduce controversy surrounding the distribution of political representation and economic resources among states.

11

REFERENCES Abubakar AA (1998). from the Text on the National Broadcast.

Fambom S (2003). Public Funding of Political Parties in Africa. Paper submitted at the Africa Conference on Election, Democracy and Governance. Pretoria, South Africa. www.goggle.com. Ibodje SWE, Dode RO (2005). Political Parties, Voting Pattern and National Integration in Nigeria In B. Onu and A. Momoh. eds. Elections and Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria. Lagos: A-Triad Associates.

Joseph RA (1991). Democracy and Prebendal Politics in Nigeria: The Rise and Fall of the Second Republic. Ibadan: Spectrum Books.

Lemay MC (2001). Public Administration. California: Wadsworth. Lively J (1975). Democracy. Britain: Western Printing Services Ltd. Ouyang H (2009). Political Parties and Consolidation of Democracy: The Case of Russia. http://www.oycf.org/perspective/6-063000. Schumpeter JS (1954). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London:

12