TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY:
CAN NIGERIA RIDE THE WAVE?
Text of a Convocation Lecture delivered at the Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki on April 25th, 2015 by Bishop Matthew Hassan KUKAH
"Whether Democracy succeeds or fails continues to depend significantly on choices, behaviours, and decisions of political leaders and groups" (Seymour Martin Lipset, 1994)
Now that the euphoria over the elections has reasonably subsided, perhaps this is the time for more sober reflection. We have enjoyed the huge outpour of self-praise, conviviality, gregarious ululations over what we might refer to as the great crossing by our country. Public reactions have called the elections one of Nigeria's greatest moments. Commentators have offered a wide array of explanations for the success. There is definitely no taking away the significance of this event. I have no intention of disrupting our much-deserved celebrations. However, my concern is that we will focus so much on the celebration and will not give sufficient thought to the challenges that lie ahead. This would be a fatal mistake.
This lecture seeks to bring to sharp focus something I have often spoken about, particularly since the beginning of what is now referred to as the Fourth Republic. That is, the transition to democracy. After an analysis of transitions to democracy globally, I once concluded that Nigeria would require a minimum of sixteen years to be able to assess the quality of our Democracy. I did not imagine that my analysis would be so precise. My argument went like this: Given our kind of transition, I thought that the Party in power would win the first and second sets of elections because the departing regime literally handed victory over to them. The opposition, with some hard work might try, but it could come so close and not really win the third elections. I concluded that by the fourth elections, if the opposition did not surrender, it could build on its failures and aim to win but the elections might go to a run off. Consequently, even if the opposition lost, it would be so energized that it would win the fifth elections, thus marking the beginning of a new experience for the people and the parties. Looking back, it seems I did not win the argument but was also not disappointed with the way things have turned out.
In this lecture, I will like argue that we must not underestimate the sheer amount of work that still remains to be done because I believe that our country is still in a transition. The mass exodus from the rump of the Peoples' Democratic Party, the PDP, to the victorious All Progressive Congress, APC, suggests that we still have carpetbaggers and contractors rather than politicians with principles.
I will divide this lecture into four parts. The first part will attempt to locate our reflection within the context of the debate about transitions to Democracy. In the second part I will look at a few lessons from other transitions that will enable us better appreciate our own situation. Thirdly, I will look at the last elections and see what lessons we have to learn from them. By way of conclusion, I will identify some specific themes that should occupy our attention.
1: Transitions to Democracy: Can Nigeria Ride the 4th Wave?
In our nation, not given to serious scholarship and diagnosis, very little has been done to address and explain the causative factors of our debilitating journey to Democracy. In my many Essays and Lectures, I have labored to make the point that our nation's intelligentsia and academia have not done enough to consolidate our Democracy. Perhaps this is not unconnected with the debilitating impact of the military on the psyche of the ivory tower. Years of military rule and assault have left in its wake a traumatized ivory towers, riddled with infighting, politics, intrigues, cultism, bigotry and all the ills that afflict the larger society. This has taken a toll on the student body and robbed them of the energy and vitality of youth, hunger for mentorship, quest for idealism and love of learning. Student Unionism, the school for leadership, has been filled with young men and women merely rehearsing how to replace their superiors in crookedness and greed. No one, including the students, now wants to take the long road.
The late Professor Samuel Huntington was the one who introduced the notion of what he called the waves of Democracy[1]. He identified three waves of Democracy since the beginning of modernization. According to him, the first wave occurred between 1828 and 1926. Even a mere passing knowledge of some little history would lead us to an understanding of where in the worldview Africa was at this period. What passed for Democracy at this time did not include our continent in any serious sense. Africans and women everywhere, even those who lived in the United States and Europe, were not considered as capable of participating in the process. At this time, Democracy was adopted as a means of consolidating the gains of empire building and industrialization across Europe.
The second wave of Democracy according to Huntington occurred between 1926 and 1942. Here, the First World War had already been fought and brought to an end. The struggle for industrial and territorial power had taken its toll and human greed had driven the world to a severe war. This time, it was Europe fighting itself with no external provocation. Within the four or five years of the war, most of Europe lay in ruins. Europeans surveyed the total cost and loss of war in which over 16 million lives were lost and some 20 million people injured. Waking from this gross folly, Europe quickly set up the League of Nations to serve as an umbrella of protection. Set up in 1920, the League sought to build on earlier initiatives which had found little success in keeping Europe together.
According to Huntington, the third wave of Democracy occurred between 1960 and 1970. After over one hundred years of slavery, rape, banditry and exploitation of the African continent, African and Asian countries were variously granted flag independence and were on the path of Democracy. This was more an attempt at ending the white man's burden than demonstrating any altruistic love. Independence was hinged on the adoption of Constitutional forms of government along with bureaucracies and standing armies. A wiser world now decided to rethink the notion and philosophy of the League of Nations.
Now, the world realized that there was need to focus on our common humanity. Nd Democracy seemed a veritable platform on which to hinge this notion. Thus, the United Nations came up with a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, focusing on the belief that all of us were created equal in the image and likeness of the creator. Its preamble read in parts as follows: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law…Now the UN General Assembly proclaims the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations[2]. These noble words have served as a compass for guiding the world out of its barbaric inclinations leading to wars.
For the better part of the so-called third wave of Democracy, it seems doubtful to suggest that Africans and Asians really experienced the benefits and fruits of true independence and Democratic governance. Under the heat of the cold war, a form of colonialism continued as proxy wars, military coups and authoritarian regimes became instruments of control. For the better part of almost 50 years, authoritarian, one-man dictatorial regimes were the norm of most of Africa. From the late 70s through the 80s and 90s, the Afrikaners stood rock solid, convinced that their theft of African lands and their scotched earth brutality and modern day slavery against Africans would last forever. While the world looked away, Africans rallied and struggled for freedom for their kith and kin in Angola, Mozambique, and South Africa. Those countries that had managed to secure flag independence were firmly in leashes and their masters ensured that they, their resources and citizens, remained tied to their former colonial powers.
We can argue that in reality, therefore, most of Africa did not really ride on the third wave of Democracy. I will rather argue that it was at the fourth wave of Democracy that Africa seems to have come of age. This period for me would be from the late 80s through to the 90s till date. This is the period which Professor Francis Fukuyama controversially referred to as the end of history. His argument was that the end of Communism had marked the terminal point of Communism and Ideology and now opened the world to the frontiers of western liberal Democracy. Despite the elegance of his argument, the future would prove this prediction to be both true and false. Professor Fukuyama did not foretell the confusion, blood bath and terror that would mark what Professor Huntington himself controversially argued the clash of civilisations in the wake of this quest.
This fourth wave, marked by the collapse of the Berlin wall is what has opened up new vistas for us. It is on this crest that Nigeria has had a most bumpy ride. Like a man on a horse ride, we should feel proud that despite the bumps, the rider is still firmly on the saddle determined to continue on this journey. It is against this backdrop, that we might say with the great Chinua Achebe that although the Democratic wave started in the nineteenth century, the train never really arrived at our station until 1999. Before then, we seemed like Sisyphus, the one cursed by the Greek gods, who, after painfully rolling the stone to the hill, watched it roll back to the bottom of the hill and he had to start all over again.
Now since it seems that we have crossed to the other side, can we look back at the land of Egypt and remember that it was a land of pain and suffering? Can we look back at the years devoured by the locusts and think about how to plan for the green years ahead? What is there to suggest that the politicians have learnt any lessons? Given the fact that there is so little to choose from between the PDP and the APC, what are we to expect? We are being warned about the ugly challenges that lie ahead against the backdrop of the dwindling oil prices. Will the subsidy racketeers merely change their jerseys? What about the threats of Boko Haram? In other words, has Nigeria turned the corner? Have we finally placed the stone firmly on top of the mountain? Is it so well protected that it can withstand the hostile elements or will something trigger its roll back to the bottom of the mountain? We shall return to this at the end.
2: Transitions and the Land Mines Ahead
In my reflections on transitions, I have always drawn attention to the need for countries to understand that transitions are not linear in progression and that their outcomes are never predetermined or conclusive. Successful transitions cannot be measured by the quality of the ink and the signatures on the agreements or Constitutions. Expectations often vary; suspicion, fear, anger are often part and parcel of the process. This is why we must note that all transitions from authoritarian regimes do not necessarily lead to Democracy, unity and progress. More often, they lead to destruction of the foundation on which a country was built. There will always be those who would look back and prefer the chains of slavery, they will prefer those days when "they sat beside the flesh pots of meat, when they ate bread to the full" (Ex. 16:3). The difficulties of transitions may rob them of their privileges and they will seek to disrupt the process by various means. However, different transitions lead to different outcomes.
First, you could have a transition that is the result of the end of war in which one side triumphs and another surrenders or decides that they want an end to the war. Some examples are Algeria, Angola, Mozambique, Uganda, Rwanda and Zimbabwe. When countries transit, it is not uncommon for them to lapse into civil war, even if temporarily. Expectations vary and a good example is what happened in South Africa when some of the Afrikaners stage-managed a rash of black-on-black violence so as to stall the process of transition.
In the transitions in Zimbabwe, Uganda, Rwanda and now Democratic Republic of Congo for example, Presidents Robert Mugabe, Yoweri Museveni, Paul Kagame and Joseph Kabila seem determined to create only a nominal form of Democracy while consolidating the hegemony of the ruling elite under one party dictatorships. The claims often are that the diversities do not permit multi-partyism in the real sense, or that no one can be trusted to rule the country. In each situation, those in power so demonise the past that they create the impression that a vote against them is a vote for a return to the past.
Somehow, the countries continue to stagnate or grow at their own pace, with muted opposition. In each of these cases, the countries are still holding together and stability remains a veneer for sustaining dictatorship. In the case of Rwanda, the pouring of foreign aid and the development of infrastructure seems to be the excuse that the government has for ensuring that it remains in power. How long these developments will last for, no one knows. They present us with possibilities and lessons in Nigeria.
The extreme case of transitions leading to great anarchy is to be found in the developments after the end of the cold war especially in the former Soviet Union. We witnessed an upsurge of old antagonisms, leading to the use of identity (religion, ethnicity) as means of seeking separation and independence. Today, many of these countries are better off than they were. They are prospering and enjoying the fruits and benefits of democracy. The wars of Bosnia, Yugoslavia and so on are an example. Rwanda's case is also an example.
We must of course ask, why do some transitions succeed and others fail? There are many reasons but essentially we can collapse them into two. First, is the quality of internal leadership in the country. New leaders often seek to replace the old ones by merely inheriting their privileges and the tools of violence which they willingly deploy on the new opposition. Mandela's ability to use his moral authority to rein in his own people and manage the emergence of a rainbow coalition which was a government of national unity is an example of a different kind of new leader. The second reason, which builds on the first, is the question of the reaction of the international community and donor agencies. The reaction of the western world towards Mandela, largely an exercise in conscience cleansing, saw foreign aid pour into South Africa and Mandela being elevated to the status of a secular saint. After ignoring Rwanda and allowing the genocide to happen, again, the international community has rallied around Kagame and offered his country aid. South Sudan for example, has not had the same response from the international community. Little wonder, it is caught up in war.
3: Has Nigeria Crossed the Rubicon: Lessons to be learnt
The elections have come and gone. Except for some extremists within the ruling party, who were looking forward to purchasing new yachts, private jets, new homes in Dubai and so on, we all seem to have felt reasonably happy with the outcome of the elections. How do we move ahead?
It is true that these elections could have swung either way. Many would argue that President Jonathan and his Peoples' Democratic Party, PDP, could have won the elections had they not succumbed to the hubris that has become the hallmark of the PDP. We all know the story of the peculiar circumstances that brought the party into being. We also know that despite that, the Party became an association of takers and buccaneers more than anything else. The Party could not deal quickly with the issues of greed and the arrogance of some of its men and women in power. The Party could not control the excesses of some of its Ministers and Henchmen/women. It simply saw itself as presiding over a distribution agency. Many would argue that it became insensitive to the needs of its supporters. It had no mechanism for internal cohesion and simply believed that it was the elephant that could never be slayed.
I have raised these issues when the opportunities provided themselves. In almost all the opportunities I had to speak at the Party's retreats, I called attention to the fact that the PDP needed to change its ways, move beyond prebendalism, greed and primitive accumulation so as to institutionalize Democracy in our country[3].
The important thing now is that the All Progressive Congress, APC, has won the elections. The APC does not have a track record. It is a gathering of takers and there is no reason why it could not end up like the PDP from where it has drawn most of its leaders today. President Buhari has won after contesting for the elections three times under three different political platforms. Most people agree that the APC is a conglomerate of factions and fractions of disparate groups which were welded together by a common belief that things must Change. There are no angels anywhere in sight. There are many lessons for us to draw from but I will only take five.
3.1 How to interpret the victory
The first is how to interpret the victory itself. There is no need for us to go over the issue of President Jonathan's magnanimous and graceful concession. What is most troubling is the nature of the victory of General Buhari in the Northern parts of the country and the reactions to his victory in the northern states. Ordinary young men literally killed themselves in celebration of an election victory! For the youth of northern Nigeria, this victory was not just any victory. The amount of psychological and physical terror that had been visited on non-supporters of APC was frightening. Openly, there have been stories of young northerners telling Christians that they are lucky because had the election gone the other way, they would all be dead. Those of us living in the north also heaved a sigh of relief to what had been the end of a long night of uncertainty and trauma. What are the implications of this for the new government?
3.2 Restoring public confidence in government and politics
This brings us to the second point, namely what should General Buhari do? Or, to put it another way, what can he do? To be sure, restoring public confidence in government and politics will have to be General Buhari's immediate challenge. This will come about by the nature of the choices he makes in assembling a team. Here, he must move away from seeing assembling a team as a period of sharing of carcass, a typical characteristic of governments in Nigeria. Nigerians have shown that they trust his judgment and his integrity. The detractors of the APC say that Buhari is APC and APC is Buhari. Well, in a way, this may not be such a bad idea. After all, Lew Kwan Yew was Singapore and Singapore was Lee Kwan Yew. Mandela was South Africa and South Africa was Mandela. A tree may not make a forest, but counting the trees in a forest starts from one tree. Buhari can therefore shape both the APC as a Party and Nigeria as a country. He may have integrity, but integrity by itself does not win elections. The challenge before him would be to have the sagacity to manage his patrons and their choices. The Hausas say in a proverb: Whoever takes a leper's money must give a leper a haircut. So you cannot take his money and then suddenly realize that he is leprous.
Fighting corruption sounds fantastic and is a great calling card. But, where in this country is corruption not written all over? What would be the consequences of fighting the corrupt men and women? Will the victory amount to merely replacing one band of robbers with another? My take is that the idea of a fight against corruption is a no brainer. The greatest and most successful weapon against development is development. The late Professor Claude Ake captured it well when he said something to the effect that the Democratization of development is the best development of Democracy. So, rather than chasing the thieves, the President should work hard at addressing the issues of the misery and squalor that have come to define Nigeria. Development will raise the best army to fight corruption.
3.3 Reconstruction, reconciliation and rehabilitation
Thirdly, how should the President embark on the policy of reconstruction, reconciliation and rehabilitation? This country has had three attempts at dealing with the issues of reconciliation, but none has achieved the required outcome. From the three Rs of the Gowon regime after the civil war, the Oputa Panel by President Obasanjo and the Yar'adua Amnesty Programme, we have not come anywhere near resolving the issues of long buried animosities, real or perceived injuries and so on. This is not the place to review these developments, but clearly, there is great need for some form of healing across the country.
President Jonathan tried his best to stay the course. However, there are many Northerners who believe that now is their turn to get their own amnesty deal. Unpacking the racketeering that reduced the insurgency into a highly lucrative venture would require a programme of its own. The President's challenge will lie in how he responds to the perceived interpretations of his victory especially within the various institutions, networks and interest groups in the north. He has to contain with traditional rulers, the various ideological strands within Islam, for example, Kadiriyya, Tijaniyya, Izala, Ansar, Boko Haram and the whole. Most of the interests of these groups under the banner of Islam are in direct opposition to one another. They conflict with one another, they intersect, counterpenetrate and are territorially divergent. All of them are fighting for different things for Islam and for themselves. These groups believe that a Buhari victory is a victory for Islam. Managing these will require uncommon skill.
He is lucky that he has the unassailable credentials that his base requires; honesty, asceticism, a sense of justice, integrity, and lack of visible show of greed. The belief that he will not be an enemy of Islam will help to make his judgment trustworthy. He can, with courage, pull the nation away from the combustibility that has come to define northern Islam today. He has to identify those areas of state intervention that the northern Muslim elite have continued to use to line up their pockets under the pretext of defending Islam.
The President has to move the state away from the stranglehold of all religions so as to free both religion and the state to fulfill their role in the attainment of social welfare and justice. Will the state, at Federal, State and Local Government levels continue to spend money on Pilgrimages, the building of places of worship and so on? How will the northern Governors deal with the issues of return of Schools and the funding of Education as a means of bridging the yawning gap in the northern states? A secular, just and democratic Nigeria should be our vision.
3.4 Be careful of the intention and the ambition of those in the wings
Fourth, from the reactions to the elections, it is clear that we have a lot of work to do. Across the northern states, APC Youth supporters openly derided Christians, telling them that they were lucky that they voted rightly and that had Buhari lost the elections, there would have been war. What this comes down to is the need to appreciate that free, fair, credible elections are not a guarantee that we will get the right outcomes. The references I made above illustrate this point.
We must therefore not get carried away by the euphoria of having achieved credible and peaceful elections in Nigeria. A lot can still go wrong if we do not watch out for the demagogue who has other intentions for Democracy. For example, Hitler came to power not through a coup but through a Democratic process of free and fair elections. The Brotherhood in Egypt came to power barely three years ago by riding on the crest of the Arab spring which opened them up for Democracy. Some years back, the FIS in Algeria were almost about to take power by a Democratic process, not a military coup. They wanted to use Democracy to kill a Democratic ethos and culture. The challenge therefore is not the process but the intention and the ambition of those in the wings. We must therefore keep vigil of the precious prize we have won.
3.5 Rebuild our common humanity
Fifth and finally, the President has to manage the egos of those who believe that now it is their turn to eat[4]. Professor Ake has noted that ego is indeed a great challenge to Democracy in Africa. He spoke of the men and women with large egos have tended to manipulate Democracy for other non-Democratic means[5]. Today, in my view, Nigeria's challenge is not so much the popular idea of fighting corruption. It is rather the need to see that corruption is the symptom of the cancerous ailment of a society that has lost its soul. How to rebuild our common humanity is one of the greatest challenges that lie before us. Let me now conclude.
4: Summary and Conclusion: Moving Forward
In this lecture, I have tried to address the issues of transition to Democracy. I have noted that Nigeria has come very late to the table, but we believe that the last elections have placed us on a positive platform to enable us deepen our Democracy and hopefully take our place with other respectable nations in the world. We must now renew our commitment to Democracy and seek to place our country on an irreversible path of Democracy. It is, as Professor Amartya Sen has argued, the guarantee of freedom and development. It is also the antidote to war and hunger[6]. The plausibility of Democracy and its correlation with qualitative human development is verifiable.
In a study undertaken by the World Bank in 1989, it was discovered that out of the 24 richest countries in the world, only three of them were not Democratic. The same study showed that out of 42 of the poorest countries in the world, only two of them had ever experienced Democracy. The visible correlation between Democracy, wealth creation and security has made Democracy attractive to the world. For example, in 1973, only 32% of the world's population lived in free, Democratic societies. Between 1990 and 1994, the number went up to between 38 and 58%. Today, the number hovers between 60 and 70% and this is because of the population of China!
It was Professor Robert Dahl who argued that the essence of Democracy is competition, inclusiveness and civil liberties. Democracy will die if it does not serve as a platform for creating opportunities, managing diversity and encouraging the attainment of the common good. For too long, we have defined ourselves as Christians, Muslims, Northerners, Minorities and so on. General Buhari's elections have shown us the need for coalition and consensus building and that no group can go it alone.
It was great to see General Buhari in his various regalia. One must commend those who rebranded him. However, the challenge is for the new President to see beyond voting patterns, to concretise the plurality of colours that marked his elections. I asked my friend Dr Kayode Fayemi, the former Governor of Ekiti, how the APC intends to deal with the many desperados flocking to the APC. He gave me a simple but deep response: You are a Bishop. You cannot stop all people from coming to Church, rich, poor, rascals, sinners and saints. However, you can at least determine who can become a priest among them. As we surge forward to build our country, let us pray that by the end of four years, this country would be better, stronger and much improved.
I cannot end without repeating what has become a bit boring now, namely, the graciousness of President Goodluck Jonathan. When I had a chance to speak to the President, I told him that I was convinced he was not yet aware of the significance of what he had done. He has made politics honourable. We know from what we have now heard that what he did was the result of his very strong, deep and patriotic convictions as a statesman. May God bless him and bless our country.
Let me leave you with the immortal words of Wendell Phillips, who, in an address to the Anti-Slavery Movement in Massachusetts on January 28, 1852, stated that:
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to the principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.
[1] Samuel Huntington: Democracy's Third Wave, (University of Oklahoma. 1991)
[2] UN Declaration of Human Rights. (New York. 1948): Preamble.
[3] I must thank God for the opportunities I had to make my points. What surprised me was that they kept inviting me to these events. For example, in 1999, I was invited to speak at the first PDP Retreat ahead of President Obasanjo's inauguration on the theme of Ethics in Government. In 2007, just ahead of Yar'adua's inauguration, I spoke at the PPD retreat on the topic, Another Nigeria is Possible. In 2011, I spoke at another Retreat for the PDP and I presented a paper titled, How did We Get Here? This is not counting regional and state political events by different parties.
[4] Michela Wrong: It is our Turn to Eat. (Harper. London. 2009). This is an excellent book that deals with the fruitlessness of issues of fighting corruption in Kenya. The story is one that can be sadly replicated across the continent of Africa.
[5] Claude Ake: The Feasibility of Democracy in Africa (Codesria. Sengal. 2000)p25
[6] Amartya Sen: Democracy and Freedom (Oxford University Press. 1999)
No comments:
Post a Comment