Plutocracy is a government controlled exclusively by the wealthy, either directly or indirectly. In other words, it is a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. Plutocracy allows, either openly or by circumstance, only the wealthy to rule. This can then result in policies exclusively designed to assist the wealthy. It is not to be confused with oligarchy, which defines a political structure in which power is concentrated within a small group of people that are not necessarily wealthy.
It does not have to be a purposeful overt format for government. Instead, it can be created through the allowance of access to certain programmes, and educational resources only to the wealthy, thereby, making it so that the wealthy hold more sway. The concern of inadvertently creating a plutocracy is that the regulatory focus will be concentrated on the goals of the wealthy, creating even more income and asset-based inequality. In a plutocracy, access to political power is limited and requires one, either to possess wealth or to have support of the wealthy, by being willing to serve their interests. This may be a matter of restrictions that explicitly require that a person has some specified level of economic affluence in order to exercise political authority, such as holding public office.
Policies enacted and enforced tend to rebound to the benefit of the wealthy. As a result, a relatively small proportion of the population, with access to the wealth, and control of the commanding heights of the economy, is able to shape both public opinion and public policy in their own interests. Such policies tend to be cloaked in some seemingly legitimate policy goal that just coincidentally, results in advancing or securing the interests of the wealthy. Sometimes, they may even be carried out in the name of fairness, equity and righting historical injustices. The policies often harm the interests of the middle class, so that the wealthy tend to enjoy a more secured position.
On the other hand, democracy which is government of the people, by the people and for the people, is about opening up the space for everyone to aspire to that he/she believes.
In May 2018, the bill on “Not too Young To Run” was signed into law. But the youth have not benefitted much from it. The main challenge is that it is difficult for an average Nigerian youth to participate successfully in the electoral process, because of lack of financial requirement to vie for political office. The cost of nomination and expression of interest form of the two major political parties is out of reach of the youth. In 2019, APC presidential nomination form cost N45 million, while, PDP was N12 million. It is usually believed that election in Nigeria is a two-way race between these two main political parties because they have political structures, hence, the quest to run on either of these parties. Unfortunately, the youth who are desirous of vying for elective posts on the platforms of these parties are frustrated and discouraged because of the cost of nomination form. Besides, the huge cost of nomination form encourages god-fatherism to thrive, because the youth who lack financial resources, would seek the support of the wealthy.
The unnecessary cost of political participation speaks loudly, to the fact that representation in Nigerian politics is not yet democratized. This is because only a minor section of the wealthy and not those who have competence and requisite experience represent the people. Moreover, this has worsened the long standing gender inequality in Nigerian politics, because very few women can afford the cost of the form. Though, money is required to offset logistics expenses during electioneering campaigns, but in Nigeria too much money is wasted to that effect. In many African countries, a candidate does not need to print his name on any gift item to woo voters, but, here he must buy bags of rice, wrappers, and other gift items including vote buying to induce the electorate. Due to these expenses, the Nigerian youth are indirectly eliminated.
The Nigerian youth are intelligent, knowledgeable and innovative. Therefore, should not be marginalized in the political space because of lack of funds. They are many charismatic and passionate youth who are politically conscious, that can foster rapid growth and development in all sectors of the economy. Also, the youth are better performers in the area of sensitization and mobilization of the electorate during electioneering campaigns. The vibrancy of the youth makes them indispensable in politics, as such their inclusion in politics cannot be overemphasized. Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe and Samuel Ladoke Akintola among others, were members of Nigerian Youth Movement who led the struggle for independence. Their efforts gave birth to the independence of Nigeria in 1960. With the advantage of the internet and social media, the youth have unrestricted access to information and this has enhanced their knowledge base for robust political debate and positive contributions.
Therefore, the youth need to be given enough political space to make use of their intellect. The active participation of youth in politics must be seen as hope for attaining purposeful and sustainable political stability. In order, to maximize the benefits of the youth’s participation in politics, Nigeria should reaffirm her commitment to the “Not too Young to Run” legislation by discounting the cost of youth’s participation in politics. The political class should also provide the next generations the broad shoulders to stand, by encouraging them.
- Anyasi writes from Abuja.