By Emmanuel Oladesu 

Twenty one years after military rule, Nigeria has achieved relative political stability, although the polity is frequently upset by economic disaster, religious tension and ethnic violence.

The gains, compared to the past years of locust, are enormous. Democracy may not have been fully achieved, but civil rule is a foundation that future progress can be built upon and fortified.

That was why many Nigerians were alarmed during the week when the Presidency said it had uncovered a plot to topple Buhari’s government.

Is coup the solution to insecurity? The tools of nation building should not be associated with undemocratic change of baton.

According to reports, the Federal Government alleged that the plot involved disgruntled religious and political leaders, who want to gain political control, not through the ballot box, but through the back door.

The statement by the Presidency trailed the warning by the Department of State Services (DSS) that some individuals and groups were making clearly divisive and destabilising utterances, and engaging in actions that threatened the peace and sovereignty of Nigeria.

A coup, or an attempted coup, is tantamount to treason. It is a rebellion to the democratic order; an aberration, an anathema. The idea at this stage is devoid of logic and offensive to reason. It may be a recipe for greater chaos.

Read Also; How to win the war on insecurity

It is said that the bedrock of a coup is the intention. However, despite the gravity of the offence that warranted the alarm by government, President Muhammadu Buhari, a retired General, has refrained from rounding up the masterminds of the insurrection, or the “agent provocateurs,” making Nigerians to want to doubt the authenticity of the claim.

If some people are planning a coup and the government has uncovered a sinister plot, what is delaying their arrest?

Civil rule was bought with a big price in 1999. It was not achieved on a platter of gold. The blood of many pro-democracy crusaders was shed. The most peaceful election was annulled. Its symbol died in mysterious circumstances in detention. Political soldiers were tossing stakeholders around. The transition programme was first delayed. After a long time, it collapsed because the undertakers lacked fidelity.

Under the military, the vast country became a military fiefdom. The state became the greatest corrupter of society. Liberty took a flight. Military administrators became lords of manor. Many of them never had knowledge of the areas they forcefully governed.

Indeed, military rule is old fashioned. More importantly, military intervention is outdated as Nigeria now musters efforts to develop institutions that give form and content to democratic governance.

Should the military be instigated to hijack power again, Nigeria may be back to square one. Democratic pillars of society will crumble. Political parties will be proscribed. Parliaments will be disbanded. Executive councils at the federal, state and local governments will be dissolved. The constitution will be set aside. There may be bloodletting in the course of seizure of power. Military professionalism will have to take a back seat. It will be utterly damaged. Nigeria may again become a pariah state; an object of mockery in the comity of nations.

Draconian laws will be re-introduced. Decrees of the interlopers will unleash anguish. The first casualty is fundamental human rights. A new struggle for freedom will begin, perhaps, at a greater price. The press will be caged.

The grim reality is that unelected structures will spring up. The defective and lopsided federal system will give way to a complete unitary system. The society will be polarised by divide-and-rule tactics. The fear of guns will become the beginning of wisdom. Fear will induce silence.

The military may quickly solve a problem. But, at the end, they will create greater, more damaging and protracted problems that will last for generations.

To whom are military rulers accountable? Military regimes have no tenure. It is not a rule by consent. Its legitimacy is limited to hours of jubilation by the gullible.

Gone are the days when the political soldiers who hijacked power were perceived as modernisers. Past experience showed that they became exponents and defenders of self-interest, with an alliance with self-serving elite, confederates, lackeys and collaborators who willingly assisted them to ruin the country.

The ruling military elite ultimately become promoters of ethnic friction, agents of sleaze, sit-tight dictators and emasculators of popular rule. The danger is that coup becomes a culture, with a clique dethroning another clique that may also be ultimately overthrown by another clique. The casualty is the trembling country.

There is no alternative to democracy. But, through periodic elections that are not rigged, there could be an alternative to a failed administration and a ruling party that has failed to live to expectation.

Yet, democracies may not be insulated from emergencies. Elected leaders should always endeavour to rise to the occasion to rekindle public confidence. This is the gap in the current administration. That does not suggest that the tools of nation building should be associated with non-democratic means of change of baton.

Throughout the world, countries, whether rich or poor, must of necessity pass through certain stages of development. Passing through these inevitable phases in Africa, particularly in Nigeria, may mean that some crises of nation-building have to be resolved. The orders in which the challenges may come are neither specified nor predictable. What is important is the mobilisation of collective efforts to resolve these unavoidable crises in an atmosphere of national oneness.

Nigeria has been battling with these challenges of development, including identity, participation, legitimacy, integration, penetration crises, and conflicts over the distribution of resources. It may be that the inability to properly resolve them has contributed to the current national predicament.

The greatest difficulty today is insecurity, which was inherited by the current administration, but which is worsening under President Buhari.

Insurgents seem to be waxing stronger. The Northeast and Northwest are caving. The Northcentral or Middle Belt is agonising.

Yorubaland is battling with herder/farmer clashes and kidnapping. There is anxiety.

The Southeast is being confronted by an inexplicable war against the police and innocent people.

The Southsouth has lost its peace too. The governors are taking measures to avert the incursion of troublers of peace.

Security is on the Exclusive List. Therefore, stakeholders have heaped blame on the Federal Government, not for lack of efforts and commitment, but for failure to prosecute the anti-terror war with a speed of lightning and achieve positive results.

It is now evident that the Federal Government will be seeking the assistance of other countries. If Nigeria will be seeking help from foreign bodies, why not explore domestic help?

Why can’t the Federal Government offer positive reinforcement to Amotekun of Southwest and encourage Ebube Agu to take a firm root in the Southeast? Since security is local, what is the basis for the continued over-centralisation of the security apparatus?

Is it not becoming clearer that Nigeria also needs more soldiers and policemen, more funding for security equipment, more political will, more intelligence gatherings, more public support, more speed, and a collective resolution and an agenda for restoration of security in a just, equitable, democratic and united Nigeria?