Whenever doubts about the dominance of democracy arise from any quarter, more often than not, emotive reactions often cloud the debate. Democracy has become so entrenched in our contemporary political experience that we simply just take it for granted. We relish its bewitchment so much that its conceptual arsenal often escape our scrutiny. We even often failed to wonder, for instance, if even 'liberal democracy' itself isn't a gross misnomer. We need to ask Jefferson and other founding fathers of the United States.
I am coming from political philosophy and the contextual socio-economic experience Dr Zalanga is talking about.
The most important question of political philosophy is that of how people can organise themselves in the society in a suitable enough manner that will facilitate living the good life in orderliness. Any theoretical response to that question presupposes a particular understanding of human nature. Democracy presupposes a flattering understanding of humans as benign beings who are essentially good in themselves. Or, as Dewey puts it:
"The foundation of democracy is faith in the capacities of human nature; faith in human intelligence and in the power of pooled and cooperative experience."
I think this presumption is essentially wrong. I suspect that Hobbes and Machiavelli were prophets who had fundamental insight about who we are and how we ought to go about organising the human society. We really ought to revisit their insights...
I have often wondered at the supposed theoretical necessity of coupling constitutionalism with democracy. If we are essentially benign beings who have a grasp of what we want, why do we need the constitutional? In theoretical sense, there is no necessity between constitutionalism and democracy. I am inclined to think that the coupling is a hint that ought to have warned us about the flawed theory of human nature that democracy harbours. Constitutionalism points at some authoritarian imposition upon our subterranean proclivities that rear their monstrous heads when unchecked. What circumscribes these tendencies is either divine sovereignty or the sovereignty of the law--either the fear of hell or of Kirikiri (or any other terrible gulag)!
Respect for the law is foundational, and there is no mushy theory of human nature behind the law. How did Scripture puts it? The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked! Who can know this heart? The law.
And thus, the foundational essence of constitutionalism requires, I think, the rethinking of the adulation that has heralded the coming of democracy. Even Rousseau's understanding of democracy has a deep hint of authoritarianism! It seems to me that the democratic faith, and a recent one at that, fails to respect the long history of human social relations. Military authoritarianism isn't inherently bad; it contains a command structure that speaks to who we are. Of course we have terrible examples of military autocracies turn bad. But what about those that habe turned good?
In Africa, democracy has been hijacked by political elites' rentier temperament and an inordinate lust for power. Unfortunately for us, to use Negri's terms, democracy, paradoxically, is aiding and abetting the constituent powers (locked eternally into a minority position) against the constitutive masses (Negri would prefer 'multitude') locked into a majority position. The boundary between the constituent and the constitutive--the minority and the majority--is ironclad! Or rather, it is subject to the obstinate law of inverse proportion: the increase in the majority is inversely proportional to the decrease in the minority! In Nigeria, the Lazaruses and all the other lumpen-elements will continually mass at the gate of the rich men, seeking the crumps that fall from their tables. Even the dogs are tired of licking the sores they parade; the dogs too have entered the struggle for survival. The rich watch us within the high mansion of their constitutional impunity. Why then do we fear the return of the military if it guarantees development? Or is democracy enough as an end in itself?
How does democracy respond to contextual imperatives? Isn't that the essence of Dr Zalanga's worry about democracy's vaunted credentials? I repeat: maybe Nigeria needs democracy at some point, but we need a foundation for its flourishing first.
Adeshina Afolayan
Sent from Samsung Mobile
-------- Original message --------
From: ZALANGA SAMUEL <szalanga7994@msn.com>
Date:
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: SALARY COMPARISON OF LEGISLATORS ACROSS SEVERAL COUNTRIES
Sure, Nigeria needs democracy or whatever. But after how many years of democratic rule, statistically speaking, for many ordinary Nigerians in the part of Nigeria that I come from, it is better to be a cow in Europe than to be a kind of human being there. I explained what this assertion meant at the University of Jos in a public presentation and the people agreed with me. It was not said out of disrespect, but it was said to clearly demonstrate the misery of many of our people.
-- I grew up poor and my people are still the "wretched of the earth" and so it is not possible for me to go to Nigeria and not interact with such people. Such an encounter is profound education and reminder. A cow in Europe is more secure than many ordinary Nigerians because of EU subsidy (not less than $2:50 per day) and because of the products with market or economic value that cow produces,, which makes it more economically relevant.
I have heard a lot of rhetorical arguments in favor of democracy but I am interested in results that transform the human development of ordinary Nigerians. We are wasting too much time. As Martin Luther King Jr. said in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, some scholars and elites have a tragic conception of time, because they will tell these poor people in Bauchi and other parts of Nigeria to wait, by and by, pie in the sky. I came from those poor people who are treated like sandals by the rich and powerful and I truly feel based on empirical evidence the price these people are paying for democracy is too much.
China is not a perfect country but with its authoritarianism, it has pulled many people out of poverty in a manner that is far better and faster than Nigeria. Singapore has an authoritarian government. But many Nigerians would not mind staying there because it will provide them better opportunities. Nigeria has liberal democracy but 25% of her annual budget is on the national assembly. I cannot defend this kind of liberal democracy when many of our people cannot make $2 per day, they have no healthy drinking water, no good education or health care and we are not investing much to develop their human capital -- empowering them. Our elites want them to be permanent beggars so that they can control them, all in the name of democracy.
Liberal democracy is not built on some kind of mysticism but rational system of governance rooted in a rational individual and so we must evaluate it in those terms. It is working for a few, but not the majority. IN one data I came across 85% of Nigeria's oil money goes to 1% of the country's population.
If democracy was serving the people of Nigeria well, I would have no problem with it. but I am willing to debate anyone based on evidence on how decades of democracy has NOT helped the ordinary peasant in rural Bauchi State where I come from. And this is true in many parts of Nigeria, especially, the North. The peasants are not Cultural Dopes. They know their pains. It is difficult for me to argue without looking at the empirical evidence. I am really very sorry in this respect. I do not mean any disrespect. Show me the results in terms of the transformation of the lives of the least advantaged people to use John Rawls principle in his theory of justice as fairness.
And moreover even if Nigeria wants democracy we know full well that there are certain prerequisites for democracy to function in the liberal sense of it. You do not just come and copy the presidential system of government of another country whose democracy developed in certain concrete historical and cultural contexts different from yours and just impose it on your people.
What sincere effort have the Nigerian elites made to put in place concrete conditions that will help the effective functioning of democratic institutions? Little or nothing. They just use the democratic freedom to make our people become more bigoted along religious and ethnic lines, instead of encouraging people to work together to solve common problems. How long will it take Nigeria to change at this pace and kind of liberal democracy? Will the whole world wait for Nigeria? The train is leaving. Again as Martin Luther King Jr. said in his said letter, I will ordinary Nigerians are yearning for justice with a sense of "cosmic urgency." On Thanksgiving day, my thanksgiving was not simply celebrating what I have, but praying for others who do not have. I am not more human than them, and so I pondered why I got what I have and they do not, and concluded that if I was to think on behalf of humanity, I have little to rejoice about the system of injustice, even though I may think I am doing "well."
My lamentation.
Samuel
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 09:42:42 -0800
From: corneliushamelberg@gmail.com
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: SALARY COMPARISON OF LEGISLATORS ACROSS SEVERAL COUNTRIES
On Sunday, 7 December 2014 09:43:26 UTC+1, szalanga7994 wrote:
--
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.
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 09:42:42 -0800
From: corneliushamelberg@gmail.com
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: SALARY COMPARISON OF LEGISLATORS ACROSS SEVERAL COUNTRIES
"It's coming from the women and the men.
O baby, we'll be making love again.
We'll be going down so deep
the river's going to weep,
and the mountain's going to shout Amen!"
(Democracy, once upon a time, according to Leonard Cohen)
"I am not against democracy per se, but..." (Dr. Samuel Zalanga)
"Nigeria would do better under an authoritarian system that has more determination, commitment, vision and discipline to create conditions and environment that will enable all people to pursue their legitimate aspirations." (Dr. Samuel Zalanga)
A Confucian discipline or the protestant ethic as part of a people's culture, or as a national ethos is only to the good, but we're talking about Nigeria, not even North Korea.
The second statement must be broken down into its two components, (1) an authoritarian system per se, and (2) an authoritarian system that Dr. Zalanga wants to qualify - ideally – as a benign, unelected military dictatorship of the type that up to this late date, Nigeria has never known, for the simple reason that from the word go, any such "authoritarian system" is bound to be bedevilled by problems of its own making, such as that you cannot take away from the enfranchised Nigerian people, certain of their civil liberties and the rule of law, e.g. the freedom of the press and the right to say that the president is an idiot (and to be prosecuted for defamation by Doyin Okupe) , without very strong resistance to such measures.
In that West Africa interview conducted by Sister Stella, Emeka Ojukwu told us that the military always takes over for one reason only:" for profit"
On a pragmatic level the cost of running an administration under a military dictatorship is considerably reduced with the curtailment of senators' salaries etc, but what are the other advantages of a still unproven, long term "authoritarian system "for Nigeria?
Even if a Jesus type (love your enemies, do good to those that hate you, turn the other cheek) were to be head of such an authoritarian system, there could be other problems...
RE – The "tiger mom" – I asked a Chechen mother how come Chechen men are so brave and she told me that it's because they were never bullied or given corporal punishment by their parents when they were children.
This discussion must continue...
In Sweden I'm mulling over our minister of finance and her prime minister now telling us that Sweden's third largest party in the Swedish Parliament, the Sweden Democrats are "a neo-fascist party", and telling us this, only after the Sweden Democrats torpedoed their budget. That's part of democracy. for you. I don't agree with our prime minister and his minister of finance about this labelling. Moreover, the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats are likely to win even more sympathy and more seats in the March 22nd Elections perhaps precisely because of this new labelling...
On Sunday, 7 December 2014 09:43:26 UTC+1, szalanga7994 wrote:
Nigeria's Second National Development Plan had the following as objectives of National Development, i.e., creating or achieving:a) a united, strong and self-reliant nation.b) a great and dynamic economy.c) a just and egalitarian society.d) a land of bright and full opportunities for all citizens.e) a free and democratic society.I surely commend the older generation of Nigerians who thought all Nigerians deserve such a nation. But where did that generation go? When did they change their mind, or was this all a gimmick in the first place. Let the reader check the salary comparisons of legislators across several countries of the world and see how Nigeria is a serious embarrassment. Here is the link for the salary comparison:One important lesson from this is that those who think that democracy is necessary for development need to think twice. It is a very simplistic claim. Japan laid the foundation for modern development after the Meiji Restoration, which was authoritarian. Singapore is authoritarian; South Korea and Taiwan laid the foundation of their countries under authoritarian regimes just like the United States after the Civil War. Ony authoritarian governments would operate the kind of Jim Crow system that existed in many parts of the U.S. especially the South. It is not true that to for a country to be successful capitalistically it needs to be a liberal democracy. Of course we know that the issue is not just democracy or authoritarianism per se. There is not short cut around good governance and effective institutions, and the issue here is that sometimes and under certain conditions, authoritarian regimes may govern better and create more effective institutions that set a better context for economic development. But as it is, democracy is not a panacea, I am sorry to say.Most of all, China has made great progress in reducing or getting people out of poverty even though it is not a liberal democracy in the way that people want to think of that term. China has guided liberalized economy while the political system is authoritarian i.e., the Beijing Consensus. As Professor Niall Ferguson said, when he visited the country after the 2008 Great Recession, many Chinese people say in relation to the WEstern claim of the monopoly of all wisdom to bring about prosperity, "physician, heal thyself." The very things that made the Western capitalist system a model plunged the world into an economic catastrophe and after the 2008 Great Recession, economic power started tilting to Asia. Ferguson would later express his frustration with the West in his book on The Greatest Degeneration. Nigeria too is an example of such degeneration given how relatively more effective the institutions function when I was a boy.Democracy as it is, is terrible for Nigeria. Nigeria would do better under an authoritarian system that has more determination, commitment, vision and discipline to create conditions and environment that will enable all people to pursue their legitimate aspirations. If democracy means this kind of expenses as in the table of comparison with no accountability and effective solutions to the national problems of the country, then democracy is too expensive for Nigeria and maybe many other African countries as well. I do not care whether the proponent of such a democracy is ALexis de Tocqueville, Locke, or Lincoln. Thomas Hobbes is more relevant for Nigeria in terms of empirical reality. There are certain conditions for civilization or economic prosperity. Currently they do not exist for everyone in Nigeria or even the great majority.I am not against democracy per se, but I want to see results and the data in this comparison suggest that for the ordinary Nigerian, democracy is just another added burden without any dividend or payoff. It is time not to make case for democracy just in theory but to show through empirical results.This reminds me of Amy Chua's Battle Cry for the Tiger Mom. It turns out that authoritarian mothers who have clear vision and mission are more likely to help their children to succeed even when on the surface it may appear that the mothers are mean. Laissez Faire mothers may appear humane on the surface, but end up producing lousy results. Nigeria, if she was a mother, is a very LAISSEZ FAIRE MOM. And she is seeing the results of her mothering strategy -- WOEFUL FAILURE. She helps in producing many children that have no moral conscience when it comes to how they treat their fellow brothers and sisters. As for the father or fathers of the nation, we do not know even where they are. If the fathers exists and were serious, they will mobilize some of the committed children to support the Tiger Moms and embark on a campaign to salvage the nation. On the contrary when you try to make a case for Nigeria, if you mention one thing you want to do to make a difference, you are told ten reasons why it is a waste of time. That is why sometimes I just start my conversation about Nigeria by saying Nigeria is at the end of history, i.e., there is nothing new under the sun that would emerge except the escalation of what we see today. Maybe that would provoke some Nigerians to have some hope, as they would be force to disagree with the pessimism.Samuel
--
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment