Undermining democracy

Before 1999 and during the days of military dictatorship in Nigeria, the majority of the conscious adults dreamt and prayed for the day the country would return to democracy. We all hoped for a day when we will have the freedom to choose our leaders and to remove those who have gone against the popular will. The assumption was that democracy held the key to development as well as economic and social prosperity considering that leadership will be based on the will of the people. The idea of one person, one vote held so much glamour and promises. Twenty-three years thereafter, it is doubtful if we are in a democracy or a mere rule by civilians.

There are critical challenges with gatekeepers who over the years have become impediments to the consolidation of democracy. This is about governors and godfathers who have become obstacles to the idea of one person one vote. Governors are described as the leader of the party at the state level and they translate this idea to mean the privatisation and personalisation of the party structure and line-up. They determine who becomes a party official as well as persons to fly the flag of the party as candidates at all levels. From the senatorial to the House of Representatives, to the State Assembly, local government chairmen as well as councillors – they determine who gets the flag. At the level of the presidential primaries for the determination of the party’s standard bearer, they also determine the aspirant the state will vote for. They see themselves as the ultimate power in a democratic environment thereby relegating the idea of popular choice.

The godfathers, on the other hand, use their resources and their influence to intervene in the determination of candidates and standard bearers of their parties at all levels. They monetise politics and use undue influence to sidetrack the rules of engagement. Ideally, democracy is about choosing the best by the standards of society and rewarding candidates and parties with further terms for good performance. Alternatively, when the performance does not meet societal expectations, the party and candidates are voted out. Thus, democracy ensures a sanction and reward system for public service. Democracy is supposed to introduce some level of decency and civility, which moves elected officials when they fail and, or, have caused a lot of havoc to society, to either resign or at least apologise, be remorseful and acknowledge failure.

No, this is not Nigeria’s brand of democracy. Ours is the arrogance of failure, doubling down on lack of capacity, gross negligence and lack of fellow feeling. Our democracy is a promise to deepen the pangs and anguish of the people; no matter how many Nigerians are slaughtered by terrorists and insurgents, no one (including officials who have direct charge to prevent same) agrees to have failed, resigns or even offers an apology. It is the display of arrogant imperial majesty in the face of failure.

Nigerian lives do not matter. Even if all of us have to die, the president, governors and the leadership of the security agencies must continue in office. They have a constitutionally guaranteed right to occupy an office whatever the impact of their performance on our lives. Counting the number of Nigerians killed on a daily basis, can anyone in good conscience insist that Nigeria has functional federal and state governments?

When the conduct of governors and godfathers within the party are combined with another set of actors from other parties in an election and contest for power, where the highest bidder wins and public resources are used by the power of incumbency to determine the outcome of elections, democracy is grossly undermined. These public resources deployed by incumbents include security and policing resources and influencing the electoral umpire to betray the constitutional mandate of organising free and fair elections. Others include influencing the outcome of electoral judicial proceedings through a compromised judiciary who, in the first instance, were appointed through inordinate opportuning between the executive and high-level judicial officers.

In all these developments, the governors, godfathers and incumbents display unbridled contempt for the people who they consider to be inferior. They pay lip service to democratic principles. However, they do not think beyond their nose and only seek to enjoy the privileges of office in the short term. As soon as they are out of office, they start complaining about the same things they did while they were in power. In Akwa Ibom State, the incumbent governor claims a right to anoint a candidate and impose him on the people. In the states controlled by the All Progressives Congress, the party congresses have produced parallel candidates because no one believes in democracy. Former governors are struggling with incumbents over the control of the party in the state. Every big man or woman wants to impose his will and have an executive strictly loyal to him and not to the generality of the party. Pray, why is it difficult to have a verified register of all members of a political party in a ward, local government and state and use the register to conduct credible elections.
In almost all the parties, there is a provision for consensus in choosing leaders and standard bearers. But what is the idea of a consensus? The word consensus has synonyms, which include agreement, harmony, concord, like-mindedness, concurrence, consent, accord, unison, unity, unanimity, oneness, concert and general opinion. But what comes out as consensus is usually an imposition by party elders and leaders without seeking the opinion of the base who are the actual owners of the party.
After a purported consensus decision, there are still complaints and, in some instances, cases are filed in court by the aggrieved parties.

There can never be a democracy without democrats or people who believe and practice the idea of democracy. What we have been running since 1999 is civil rule as against the idea of democracy. Democratic norms have been stultified and unless some drastic positive measures are taken by the leaders, Nigerians will begin to question whether this type of governance is the best way to go in circumstances. What is the difference between a government produced by rigged elections or one where the opinion of the people does not count and another where the actors brazenly tell everyone to go to hell with elections?

Fellow Nigerians, we need to save our democracy by challenging failed elected public officials; asking them to resign and telling them in clear and simple words that they have failed. We do not need to wait until we are all kidnapped or suffer one form of leadership induced misfortune before we speak out. Before it is too late, let me restate that there is no right to occupy an office without the capacity, intellect and fellow feelings that should accompany the office.