Why Nigeria is not yet a democracy
Chris Ngwodo
 
 The premise for this piece is profoundly simple. It is that there is a marked difference between the kind of leadership that Nigerians say they want the sort they actually want and the kind of leadership that Nigeria as a nation needs. There is more to this distinction that mere semantics.

On the whole Nigerians tend to express a preference for angels in the public square. We claim that we want good men and women of unimpeachable integrity at the helm of affairs. These are people that we perceive as capable of surmounting the moral challenges often posed by power. Apart from this, Nigerians say they want a messianic authority figure that will put things right, fight corruption and transform the economy. In contrast to these claims, the Nigerian society consistently demonstrates a lack of sympathy for the so-called angels. The idealists and thinkers of our society are applauded for their rhetoric but are shunned with utter ignominy at the polls by the very masses whose cause they claim to champion. In fact our society displays a very high tolerance for demons in public office. This paradox is one of the key difficulties in combating corruption. Graft has a demand and supply curve.

Although official graft is often reported as a syndrome afflicting public servants, next to nothing is said of the immense social pressures that are brought to bear on public office holders by the very society that claims to want to see an end to corruption. From the time, he or she is appointed into office, the Nigerian public servant is besieged by relatives, kinsmen and godfathers for sundry favours. The same society whose denizens rail against the evils of corruption in high places has no problems availing itself of its odious utility in cutting corners and short-changing the system. We say that we want ideologues and thinkers driving politics and policy but in reality Nigerians have scant regard for the politics of ideas. Our people prefer the politics of power, patronage and parochialism. A politician who depends on moral suasion and ideological clarity stands no chance against a rival who has an arsenal of cash and bags of rice to deploy in his campaign. What do these paradoxes tell us? They reveal to us the schizoid psyche of a Jekyll and Hyde society that is torn by conflicting desires for change and for preserving the status quo.

The common error of reportage that describes Nigeria as a democracy is a critical inaccuracy in our thinking. This error is rooted in the simplistic definition of democracy in terms of quadrennial rituals of electoral activity. In truth, Nigeria scarcely possesses the ethos of a democratic culture. Our socio-culture is inclined towards feudalistic, authoritarian and gerontocratic leadership models. This is why traditional rulers despite their theoretical non-involvement in politics retain an immense influence on the polity. The influence of the traditional institution is underscored by the culture of political aspirants traversing the length and breadth of the country paying homage to and collecting chieftaincy titles from various monarchs. These garlands of favour from various thrones within our context equate with political capital. Our socio-cultural concept of power also explains the predominance of godfathers in the political process. These are the men of means and influence who are the kingmakers of our system and who claim the allegiance of politicians who are elected through the channels of their influence.

Thirdly our society's customary veneration of age has shaped our traditional leadership models. This accounts for the element of gerontocracy in our politics notably evident in the southwest where septuagenarian and octogenarian disciples of Awolowo destroyed the Awoist movement by refusing to hand over to younger apostles. Gerontocratic paternalism is a deeply ingrained impulse in our socio-politics. The office holder or political leader is not a seen as a representative of the people but as a benevolent patriarch. Governance is consequently interpreted as the dispensation of fatherly favours to worthy children. Discerning students of Nigerian politics realize that the traditional institution, age and godfatherism rank as the main sources of political capital. People power ranks as the least determinant of political capital or political fortune.   It is in the light of these observations that one must view the developments in the polity. The liberal democratic society that we seek cannot simply be legislated into existence. Rather it will emerge as an outcome of the country's socio-political evolution. In the normal course of this evolution, there is room for leadership models of various kinds. Ideologues, thinkers and pragmatists all have their roles to play. Nigerian politics at the current stage of its evolution is not conducive for the emergence for the emergence for ideologues and thinkers. The problem is one of enabling environment. All the factors of power currently reside in the custody of godfathers, traditional chieftains and career politicians. The impotent idealism of angels in the public square is wholly incapable of confronting the challenges posed by these entrenched interests.

Nigeria at this stage needs people who are unafraid to take the difficult decisions which cost short term hardship for long term benefits. We need authoritarian pragmatists who understand the distinction between doing the right thing and doing things right. Many times the road to the socio-politics in which ideologues, thinkers and angels are truly esteemed is paved by the labours of authoritarian pragmatists.
For all its vaunted advantages, democracy has its dark side. The fickle judgments of the "masses" can paralyze leaders who hinge policy and politics on opinion polls and approval ratings rather than on dictates of conscience and necessity. The fear of the people that preoccupies democratic leaders does not necessarily approximate with the fear of God which is the foundation of a good society. The leadership that Nigeria needs is one that will not be ensnared by tyrannical populism. Democracy in not perfect and like all other systems has its own problems. Any system of government with enough hubristic self-conceit to equate its operation with the expression of divinity (the voice of God) is an oversold prescription.

Nigerian democracy has its own fundamental problems. Not least is the fact that deep down in our collective psyche, Nigerians aren't really believers in the brand of democracy which by definition connotes self-help and communal initiative. We subscribe more readily to K.O. Mbadiwe's aphorism that "the first democracy is the democracy of the stomach." Thus in fact Nigerians do not really care whether a civilian, a soldier or a mercenary is in Aso Rock. They simply want to see food on their tables, water gushing out of their taps and electricity illuminating their homes. Whether these amenities are provided by an angel or by a devil is moot. At heart Nigerians are ardent believers in "the democracy of the stomach." At the onset of the 4 th republic, some commentators in the ranks of the government did not help matters by adopting the curious slogan "dividends of democracy." Critically these dividends were defined as tangibles power, roads and potable water. The contradiction is clear. There is nothing democratic about these amenities as military governments have provided them in time past.   The administration lost an opportunity to define our proto-democracy accurately in terms of values. We preferred to interpret democracy in terms of Nigeria's stomach rather than her soul.

Another challenge is that of demography. A society predominantly populated by illiterates, semi-literates and even the socio-political illiterates that emerge from our educational system with alarming frequency lack the real power of intelligent choice assumed by the democratic system. During the early nineties, Umaru Shinkafi and Olu Falae paired up to contest for the presidency. Falae was marketed to millions of peasants in the north as "Awwalu Falolu," a supposedly Hausa man that had grown up in the south west. This tactic was deployed again to gain local sympathy in 1999, when Falae ran against Obasanjo. The point is that any society where such tom-foolery can be used to win votes cannot truly be said to be democratic. The fact is that only a fraction of our population has the mental equipment required to weigh the issues and make intelligent choices at the polls. The rest are simply teleguided like puppets by godfathers, kingpins and aristocrats.

The educated fraction of our population, particularly the middle-class suburbanites and upper class intellectuals are largely apathetic to the political process. This is a key factor in understanding the rise of certain centers of power and influence. It explains the curious situation in Ibadan. Ibadan is a city that boasts a proud intellectual heritage as a university center and is the spiritual home of the Nigerian intelligentsia. Yet the politics of Ibadan is dominated by an octogenarian butcher named Lamidi Adedibu. Adedibu is acclaimed as the strongman and godfather of Oyo state and has at his behest a private army of Motor Park touts, thugs and assorted brigands. The situation is the same in Anambra state. Traditionally the Anambra people pride themselves on their heritage of intellectual dexterity, cultured disposition and urbane sophistication. For all these virtues, Anambra politics is controlled by a semi-literate kingpin called Chris Uba. Like the godfather of Ibadan, Uba runs a parallel command and control structure of touts and thugs that function as his enforcers. Both godfathers installed their prot�g�s in government house and then stage-managed their ejection them from office. In both instances, the bone of contention was ultimate control over the treasury of the state.

People like Adedibu and Uba exist only within the context of a vacuum in politics created by the apathy of the progressive elite. A more disturbing and a less palatable argument is that Uba and Adedibu thrive because they mirror the values of their environment. Regardless of the vituperations of the "commentariat" of the Lagos-Ibadan media axis, the truth is that our socio-culture supports the existence of these godfathers and their kind. Nigeria has exactly the sort of governance it deserves. And although Nigerians tend to dissociate themselves from the state, we must understand that the Nigerian state is a reflection of its society. Its exercise of power is in complete consonance with the deepest impulses in the Nigerian psyche. Things would change if the civil society transferred more effort from the unimaginative sport of social criticism to the real issues of social transformation at the grassroots.  The deficiencies of Nigerian democracy are to be expected given that she has been accustomed to dictatorial governance for about three decades. Regardless of what some pessimists would have us believe, Nigeria is certainly not a lost cause. What then are the solutions?

First, patience is a virtue. Nigeria is evolving. Liberal democracy cannot be legislated or wished into existence by a few. The truly democratic instincts in pockets of our society must be fanned into a flame. Democratic habits have to be learned and this will take time. Demography is also a critical issue. Nigeria is a young country. About Sixty percent of our population falls into the age bracket of between 18 and 35 years. Much of this population was born during military rule, experiencing democratic experiments only fleetingly or never at all. This means that we are culturally more familiar with non-democratic models of government. Both society and state need an education and a real conversion to the idea of democracy.

Nigeria in many respects resembles the America of the 1960s in which JFK's biggest challenges on the way to the presidency were his faith (Catholicism) and his age (too young). In some other respects, it also resembles the wild, Wild West depicted in American westerns where anarchy, lawlessness, cowboys and injuns all collided. Generally nations are built over a long period of time. Nigeria's evolution will take its course with some helpful proactive steps.

Secondly we need education. Democracy without education is dead. An intellectually disabled population cannot operate a democracy. An intellectually alive and morally perceptive populace cannot be bought or sold and cannot be deceived. An enlightened citizenry is crucial to the emergence of an enlightened political class and quality governance.

 
Thirdly we need to turn to micropolitics as a real tool for social transformation. There is a vacuum at the grassroots because the third tier of governance is neglected by progressive politicians. Much of the developmental disasters in our society are attributable to the absence of governance at this level. One of the errors of progressive politicians is their tendency to aim for the presidency that is out of reach. The error is the notion that Nigeria can be changed from Abuja. This is untrue. Much change can be wrought at the grassroots if progressives would aspire to lower office rather than higher office and then work their way up, building support, credibility, momentum and capital. 

Robot  # 1 | 23.12.2006 09:25

The premise for this piece is profoundly simple. It is that there is a marked difference between ...Read the full article.