i find this interesting. i don't recall us debating the point on cote d'ivoire, but i do agree with you on the need for a more balanced system. checks and balances. dennis duerden wrote about this in traditional african systems of rule, with kings' power hedged by age-grade societies or the like. and mamdani et al argued that colonialism destroyed the traditional balance by introjecting a system of unchecked power given to the appointed chiefs under colonial administrators. not terribly far from the power of totalitarian states.
my greatest disappointment since the 90s has been the failure of multisystem democracies to work, because the rulers, from biya to kagame to mobuto to mugabe etc have learned to delegitimize the system by undoing the oppositional structures. and even if they didn't, i quite agree that the checks in a legal and legislative branch aren't working in many african states, though not all.
the notion that we can return to the past seems fanciful, esp in an age where the very power of the african state has been attenuated by neoliberal economic forces.
so where are we? the kind of balance you laud, which i too laud, might be seen to have functioned somewhat in senegal, and still is, partly because mourid and tijanni orders divvy up the power--and accommodation to the opposing group has been ingrained in senegal for centuries, as mamdou diouf has argued. too bad the same hasn't come about in nigeria.
how do we get there? that's the real question. what do you think? what is the mechanism for inculcating that kind of change?
what i wonder is about the nature of power that operates in determining the political structures--what drives that?
ken
On 1/6/15 9:21 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
Olayinka,--
And may your tribe increase for this wonderful intervention. There is a debate in the archive of this forum about this. It was mainly between myself and Ken and occurred, I believe, during the Ivory Coast electoral brouhaha. The culprit in Africa's new crisis of governance and electoral democracy, I've always maintained, is the winner-takes-all presidential model of liberal democracy that we have adopted. Coming to Nigeria, when we uncritically borrowed the presidential system from the US, we didn't stop to think that in the US, the presidency, while desirable to political actors and parities, is not the be-all-and-end-all of all political and electoral quests, since the legislative and judicial arms exercise real checks on the president--and that, because there are functioning institutions of accountability, the president cannot control or determine how and where to allocate revenues or use state money to engage in political patronage as is done in Nigeria and most of Africa.
In the first place, I am still not convinced that we need the expensive presidential system, but once we adopted it, we should have known that, given our weak institutions of accountability, prevalent political corruption, weak checks and balances, and the tendency of an executive president to exercise overriding allocative prerogative, we would end up with what we have today: a political system in which control of the presidency, of executive national power, has become a do-or-die affair, the endpoint of all political contests. As a result, all over Africa, and especially in Nigeria, presidential elections have become moments of tension, conflicts, and existential anxieties for the nation concerned. We should have anticipated this conundrum and rejected the presidential system or tweak/mitigate it by introducing elements that either reduce and check the president's power or compels him and his party to form a broad-based government and govern by consensus.
For goodness sake, why can't we craft something that speaks to and reflects our peculiar situation--something outside the winner-takes-all model, even if it is not based on one-man one-vote? African democratic discourses tend to be predicted on the false notion that democracy is about elections and that only the principle of one-man, one-vote is acceptable as a premise for elections. The most important elements in democracy are not elections or electoral rituals but accountability, representation, consultative input from citizens, and legitimacy--and all of these can in fact be obtained without elections in the liberal democratic way we've come to define and practice the rite of voting and being voted for.
I am reading Nelson Mandela's Long Walk to Freedom because I'm teaching a course on the Mandelas. In the first section of the book dealing with his childhood, Mandela talks about living in the court of the King of the Thembu and seeing how political business is conducted, how matters are discussed by the king, his advisers, and citizens/subjects at special ad hoc meetings moderated by the king. He makes the point that consensus, consensual decision-making, deliberative egalitarianism, and inclusive, collective governance were the dominant features of this democratic model, not majoritarian or monarchical decision making. He makes sure to contrast this model of traditional democracy with the Western liberal, majoritarian, winner-takes-all model and concludes that, except for the traditional African process being patriarchal and male-centered, it's very inclusive, and minority opinions are always part of an emerging consensus and are carried along on the way to an acceptable decision, hence the concept of winners and losers does not arise. Mandela's essential argument is precisely against the winner-takes-all, majoritarian tyranny of Western liberal democracy, which has now become a source of perennial election-season nightmare in several African countries as elites fight each other to win the center and have their way in everything from allocation of revenues to decision making to the exclusion of their rivals.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Olayinka Agbetuyi <yagbetuyi@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Mwalimu Ikhide for distilling the essence of the speech. I once wrote something similar in 1998 which I titled open letter to Gen Abubakar at a time the late Aare Abiola was in captivity so that the logjam might be broken and the Aare's powerful foes who might think he might come out of gaol to gloat at them with his eventual victory sheathe their swords. The difference is I did not claim it was inspired by any holy book or deity.
I asked for a new kind of politics in which winner takes all would not be the hall mark and fight to the finish would not be the eventual strategy. I called it triumvirate presidency in the interest of all in which triumvirs will rotate ad-hoc temporary powers as chairs within their term of office on mutually agreed fundamentals.
I asked for a novel approach to politics in which individual parties with different manifestoes would not slug it out with competing falsehoods of what they did not intend to provide ultimately.
Many political pundits schooled only in Western political doctrines thought it would be unworkable because its not been tried first in the Western capitals from where they take their comeuppance.
Since then the UK in its own time of crisis has defied all odds to fashion out a diarchical arrangement which people would not have thought possible 7 years ago, in view of the diametrically opposed political programmes and manifestoes of the two parties. Seeing that immigration was its own pressing problem the arrangement allowed all facets of governmental policy to revolve around the immigration question (foreign policy, economic policy etc) to the extent that only a nincompoop would not realize that its a diarchical arrangement of the English against its others (internal/external). And the Scots in a recent referendum showed they were not hoodwinked by the subterfuge (so much for the misinformation that tribalism is only a third world phenomenon).
Now that the feelers of what is possible in an unusual situation is coming from the West who must always give the lead, African doubters can now give a fresh look to a novel way of addressing the structural causes of discontent and corruption without referring it first to what obtains in the UK or the US before attesting to its validity or workability.
Again, the choice of Pastor Bakare by Buhari must be seen in this light: to allay fears that he wanted to highjack power for the moslem North to impose Sharia on the whole country; or how else could this be achieved by with a pastor running mate?
Pastor Bakare should have credited his initiative with the wisdom of solving an African or human problem in an African way rather quote in the scriptures extensively; or what would he think if Buhari gives a similar speech in which at every pause he shouts Allahu Akbar? A case of my God is greater than yours which is the bane that begs the question; the quest for which polytheism holds the trump over monotheisms.
Olayinka Agbetuyi
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 12:15:22 +0000
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Tunde Bakare's speech
Tunde Bakare's speech [January 4, 20150 is a long winded mess filled with reams of babblespeak (how do peoplw sit for hours listening to this? SMH); it is best to scroll down to the very bottom to get to what he is trying to say, which I have cut and pasted below:OUR PROPOSITIONAL ALTERNATIVEWhat I have said in the past to our nation and our leaders, I will repeat here once more. To avoid the gathering storms, the following steps should be taken:
- Activate the constitutional provisions for the suspension of elections
Section 135(3) of the 1999 Constitution provides as follows:If the Federation is at war in which the territory of Nigeria is physically involved and the President considers that it is not practicable to hold elections, the National Assembly may by resolution extend the period of four years mentioned in subsection (2) of this section from time to time; but no such extension shall exceed a period of six months at any one time.The argument against this would be the notion that the country is not at war. If indeed the country is not at war, how can one explain the invasion and annexation of Nigerian territory by insurgents launching attacks from our borders and neighbouring countries? Let us not forget that on May 14, 2013, while declaring a state of emergency in three states, President Goodluck Jonathan said of the activities of terrorists:"These actions amount to a declaration of war and a deliberate attempt to undermine the authority of the Nigerian state and threaten its territorial integrity. As a responsible government, we will not tolerate this".Records indicate that since that declaration, the situation has only worsened. Therefore, if the country was at war then, according to the president, it is even more so now.I do recognise the fact that opinions are divided on whether or not the Boko Haram plague can be described as war or just an act of insurgency. Truth be told, this is mere semantics. As Aesop said, "the injury we do and the one we suffer are not weighed in the same scales". Depending on which side of the divide one belongs, the difference between war and insurgency can be likened to the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters. One man's meat is another man's poison, just as one man's music is another man's noise. Those that are condemned as 'terrorists' by one group are hailed as 'freedom fighters' by another.Therefore, I submit that if the President considers that a part of the federation will be disenfranschised by reason of the Boko Haram plague, a postponement of the election may not be out of place. In my view, the litmus test to arrive at the type of war contemplated by the constitution is the practicality of getting people in the affected states to line up to vote for candidates of their choice in situations where they cannot predict when the next attack will be launched by insurgents. I hold the view that the drafters of the law feared for mass disenfranchisement of Nigerians who will refuse to risk their lives, hence the requirement that the nation wins the war before conducting an election.Be that as it may, there is yet another argument. It goes thus: "Since the government has demonstrated a very high degree of incompetence as far as combatting terrorism, is it not better to have a replacement, particularly in terms of a new government led by the person of the APC candidate, General Muhammadu Buhari, which can only happen through elections?" This reasoning seems valid, for though the president has made several attempts at tackling the issue, his avowed political will has not yielded fruit and the situation has only worsened. It is perhaps too complicated for him to deal with. But what is the guarantee that there will be free, fair and credible elections and the opposition will not be rigged out of victory once again? What is the guarantee that the power of incumbency will not successfully manipulate the presidential elections? Even if General Buhari wins, what would happen if, in response to a Buhari victory, another wave of insurgency explodes in the South-South in such proportion that will completely ground the Nigerian economy? Is that what we want as a nation?However, I must state that the proposal for suspension of elections is not with a view to giving the president an avenue for undue tenure elongation but for the purpose of building a coalition that will bring lasting solutions to our problems.
- Create a Transitional Government
In suspending the elections, to gain the support of all stakeholders, the president must not act with the intention to seek re-election. Rather, he should, within the period, commit himself to building a non-partisan coalition comprised of major stakeholders and competent statesmen from each geopolitical zone. This coalition, headed by the president, will constitute a combined force that will tackle terrorism and address what I have earlier referred to as the fundamentals, within a time frame of two years or less.
- Address the Fundamentals
Addressing the fundamentals calls for immediate implementation of the report, or part thereof, of the 2014 National Conference especially as it relates to:
- Restructuring with a view to achieving true federalism under Zonal Commissions as well as fiscal federalism ensuring, as proposed by the report of the National Conference, that adequate allocation is given to a Solid Minerals Development Fund in addition to other recommendations geared towards economic diversification.
- Achieving national reconciliation and integration by adopting, constitutionalizing and propagating the National Charter for Reconciliation and Integration.
- Conduct accurate census
Aside facilitating development planning, an accurate census will lay the foundation for a sound identity management scheme, facilitate effective and efficient local government administration, provide the basis for proper constituency delineation and enable the conduct of well-organized voter-registration exercises.
- Establish a truly independent electoral body
A truly independent electoral body whose head will no longer be appointed by the president and whose funding will be drawn from first line charge on the federation account will guarantee the conduct of free, fair and credible elections.
- Create a true people's constitution that will reflect the aforementioned features
A true people's constitution, rather than being preambled by a military decree, as in the case of the 1999 constitution, will be preceded by the people's expressed interest to co-exist as a nation and be governed under agreed principles as espoused in the Charter for National Reconciliation and Integration adopted at the 2014 National Conference.
- Conduct free, fair and credible elections in the consensually accepted constitutional arrangement
In the end, as an integrated rather than regionally and religiously divided nation, we will arrive at the same juncture we are currently but, at that time, better prepared with the fundamentals in place and with the nation set for the leadership of the best of the north and the best of the south while the federating units, truly federal, are constitutionally empowered for collaborative and competitive development.- IkhideStalk my blog at www.xokigbo.comFollow me on Twitter: @ikhideJoin me on Facebook: www.facebook.com/ikhide
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- kenneth w. harrow faculty excellence advocate professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment