In Nigeria today, everybody wants to enjoy the dividends of democracy but few are ready to subject themselves to the principles and tenets of democracy. A cursory look at how we conduct elections, behave in public office and take decision clearly indicate that our system is run like in a garrison, war-like manner, with little regard for the rules of the game and common good. Ours has been a case of a supposed democracy without democrats. With over sixteen years of unbroken civil governance, Nigeria ought to have come a long way in deepening the institutional infrastructure of democracy. But the contradiction of wearing the garb of democracy on manifestly authoritarian governments have easily robbed the country of a good foundation and have deprived her of the opportunities to enhance and deepen the quality of democracy.
In essence, Nigeria’s performance on critical indicators of democracy such as free and fair elections; transparency and accountability; rule of law and human rights; civil, economic and social rights; party discipline, internal party democracy; press freedom and media integrity; government responsiveness to the needs of the poor, etc. has, at best been galloping, with waves of intermittent progress and reversals. The parlous state of democratic practice in Nigeria is a reflection of the marginalization of the ‘people’, impoverished democratic culture as well as the lack of understanding of the basic tenets of democratic principle and rules.
Over the years, the verdict of students of Nigeria’s democracy is that though incremental progress has been recorded in civil rule, our journey towards sustainable democracy is still at its puerile stage. I will posit that any democracy that does not have good governance or the people as the primary focus is like a house built on sand; it can never be durable and fit for purpose, as its collapse is going to be just a matter of time. Hence, in this write up, attempts will be made to examine how the critical foundational flaws can be identified, addressed and or redressed.
The first major weakness is the quality of the legal and normative frameworks guiding the practice of democracy in Nigeria. One of the distinct features of democracy is that it is built on the rule of law and also provides for the establishment of institutions and structures of government to administer, enforce and uphold the rules. The primary Order from which others derive is the Constitution. In a normal circumstance, the constitution is supposed to encapsulate the totality of our value systems, norms, attitudes and beliefs as a people. However, the etymology of our 1999 Constitution (as amended) reveals a military-imposed contraption, which in some contexts, is at variance with the very principles and tenets of democracy including the yearnings and aspirations of Nigerians. Some of our laws are also not reflective of the current state of societal dynamics as they were made in a totally different cultural and sociological context during the colonial era. It is also amazing that as of now, there are hundreds of Decrees inherited from the military that have not been amended and updated to align with the principles of democratic governance.
Happily, in recent times, the National Assembly, in close coordination with the executive arm of government and civil society stakeholders have started a process of comprehensively amending the constitution and other archaic laws of the federation. New laws have also been enacted to enhance freedom of information, access to justice and promote economic liberalization. Though there are still major constitutional amendments required, the task should not be left to the National Assembly alone. For our democracy to become institutionalized, there is the need for the society to build consensus around critical issues and ensure that they form the core of our constitution.
The second major weakness is weak institutional framework. The relationship between the law and institutions is paternalistic with the former being the father figure and the latter, the child. In many cases, institutional strength is contiguous upon the strength of the constitution or the enabling enactments. Strong institutions are also critical to the delivery of democracy dividends, as they ensure the day-to-day transformation of inputs (law, memos, instructions etc.) into outputs (policies, basic services, prosperity, etc.). They also moderate the possible negative impact of partisanship in decision-making processes in a democracy. To underscore the importance of strong institutions, their derailment during the First and Second Republics signposted the collapse of each democratic experiments. Though many of the critical institutions have managed to survive over the years, they are in need of severe reforms. For instance, notwithstanding the accolades received in 2015 for conducting free and fair general elections, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is still in need of critical reforms. I make bold to say that INEC was able to pull off the 2015 polls because of the leadership provided its then Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega and his team But for an agency’s reform to become institutionalized, it has to go beyond the leader; such reform must be internalised by the rank and files of its officers and personnel. Unfortunately, this is not the case with INEC due to its dire weak institutional framework, hence, there is no guarantee that future elections will be free and fair as we had it in 2015.
The third challenge is inadequate understanding of the proper role of legislature and parliamentary representation. The parliament as the institution through which the will of the people is expressed, has witnessed deliberate and orchestrated public resentment and weakening in recent times. This has buoyed the executive arm of government to merely accommodate and tolerate the legislature and at times, to trample on its independence and coerce it into becoming an appendage to the executive. Indeed, in the first four years of the current democratic dispensation, the legislature was not able to assert its autonomy, a factor that undermined the effectiveness of its representation role. Most of the attempts by members of parliament to influence the policy-making process, ask questions, and enhance the delivery of democracy dividends to their constituents were blocked by the executive. From 2003, the situation has improved slightly due to the resolute effort of successive leadership of the National Assembly to assert its constitutionally guaranteed powers. Indeed, analysts believe that the Parliament, working to express the will of their people, strengthened Nigeria’s democracy at a critical juncture in 2003 when it voted to defeat the Third Term ambition of the then President Olusegun Obasanjo.
However, despite the pockets of golden moments in the history of legislative representation in the Fourth Republic, very little progress has been made in strengthening the National Assembly as an institution. Time and again, members of parliament find themselves dealing with propaganda of an over-resourced National Assembly while surreptitious moves were made by external bodies to impose their preferred leadership on the parliament. The situation in State Houses of Assembly is worse. The leadership is often selected and replaced at will by governors who constitute themselves as overlords to other stakeholders in the democratic process.
Overall, the culture of legislative hostility was encouraged by two critical factors. The first was the hangover of military rule, which made the people to be ignorant of the roles and processes of this key arm of government. The second major factor was the role of patronage (nicknamed stomach infrastructure) in Nigerian politics. As the representative of the people, the public see no difference between the legislators and the executive arm of government and often approach them for dispensing with contracts, house rents, school fees, medical bills, maintenance bills, funeral expenses and bills for other social functions both conceivable and inconceivable but too numerous to mention here which are often use as their re-election or otherwise. For Nigeria to deepen her democracy, there is need for enhanced civic education and enlightenment to enable the public know the roles, capabilities and limitations of the parliament; for the executive to appreciate the checks and balances inherent in the system and the society at large to work harmoniously with the National Assembly as an institution to ensure the seamless delivery of democracy dividends.
The fourth major challenge of democracy in Nigeria is the decreasing role of the people or citizens participation. Every Nigerian wants to reap the dividends of democracy but nobody wants to work for it. The current civil rule is a product of years of bitter and bloody agitation. Yet, the beneficiaries of this tokenism have become complacent and unable to move the nation forward after the major players in the pro-democracy movement had yielded the public space to the wheeler-dealer political actors, who have done an ignoble job of keeping Nigeria tied on the same spot for several years and have ensured that dividends of democracy remain only a dream for the marginalized toiling masses.
What this boils down to mean is that there is an urgent need to deepen democracy in Nigeria through people’s active participation. In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Resolution 62/7 declaring 15th September as International Day of Democracy. The resolution’s preamble defines democracy as “a universal value based on the freely-expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems, and their full participation in all aspects of life.”
In essence, Nigerians should keep watchful eyes on their leaders and keep demanding, where necessary, the implementation of what they have promised during the election campaigns. They should not be afraid to express their opinions, vote where elections are held and correct their past mistakes and organize themselves into pressure groups for the purpose of influencing government decisions. This also means that all Nigerians should be part of and be committed to the deepening of democracy, effective functioning of democratic institutions, fostering of a culture of interaction and dialogue, adherence to the constitution and other laws, observance of credible elections and the legitimate use of public resources for better public service delivery system in the country through their own positive contributions as well. Together we strive, together we achieve.
