The Nation Newspaper

Tag: democracy

  • Democracy and dissent

    Democracy and dissent

    Let us start with some obvious facts which are nonetheless too easy to overlook. First, this country has been operating an unsustainable model of development for a long time. We have behaved as if we can survive and prosper on a mono-economy even when we have evidence that points to the insanity of such a belief.

    Second, in what appears as a deliberate decision to tempt God, we unwisely live beyond our means. We breed without moderation, we consume what we do not produce, and the nation and citizens are not ashamed of our dependence on others.

    Third, at the beginning of the present republic, the leadership realised that a reset button needed to be pressed and efforts were made to reorient the public to a new economic reality of saving and economic diversification. But it was not a huge success.

    Fourth, in the last six years, the administration only engaged the reverse gear in the matter of savings and diversification such that most of the foreign reserve was gone and we had nothing to show for it.

    This was what the present administration inherited and is now saddled with correcting. The Buhari administration knows that as of May 29, 2015, it was in charge and the left-overs from the past administration, including its liability and credit, are now its responsibility.

    To its credit, the administration has taken up the challenge even if it has not succeeded to get the economy back to normalcy. What the administration sees as the fundamental problem is the mono-economy that it inherited, and the question it has attempted to address is “how can this situation be fixed and turned around?” Its answer, as far as I understand, is that we have to not only diversify but also localise.

    More to the point, localisation is construed as a component of diversification. First, we need to go back to our agricultural roots, and encourage production for both internal consumption and exportation for much needed foreign exchange, which must be used not for conspicuous consumption, but for investment in industrial production.

    Second, from the play-book of the administration, we know that it is also focused on the exploration of other mineral resources such that we have additional foreign exchange earning power. Finally, it knows that neither of these can succeed without waging a successful war against the foremost enemy of progress, namely, corruption in all its ramification.

    Now, none of the listed agenda items is a quick fix, as the administration has come to realise. Almost two years into its four-year term, the government is still battling a head-wind in each of its areas of focus. And the deleterious effect of the inherited liabilities, including unemployment, hunger, crime, and apathy, is still biting hard. It is therefore understandable that dissatisfaction with the status quo is as intense as it is.

    In the circumstance, what should be the attitude of a progressive government to the kind of protests that recently erupted in parts of the country?

    To my mind, progressives should unapologetically and unflinchingly support organised protests and dissent on matters of importance to citizens simply because democracy thrives when citizens are actively engaged in the political process. The height of engagement occurs when, notwithstanding their support for the government, citizens publicly demonstrate their objections to certain of its policies.

    A government that is not progressive in name only, but is also truly committed to the fundamental ideals of progressive governance, cannot consistently antagonise or discourage such protests. There will be various interpretations of the performance of the Buhari administration with regard to its handling of the last protests. Did it pass the test of consistency? Did it fall into the temptation of muscle flexing and rolling out the tanks? The fact that Acting President Osinbajo and his team did not succumb to that temptation is meritorious and it deserves commendation.

    The suggestion that democracy thrives with the active engagement of citizens is consistent with the fundamental understanding of democracy as the government of the people by the people and for the people. This definition implies that democracy is people-centred. If it is a government of the people, then the people must take full control, albeit through their representatives. But those representatives may fail to represent their interests adequately. Should the people then resign themselves to their fate or fall on their swords? None of the founders of liberal democracy thought so. They understand that the people have a right to take control.

    The justification for the active engagement of citizens does not rest only on the vested interest they are assumed to have in good governance. It is also anchored in the belief that government functionaries do not have the monopoly of wisdom and are as subject to mistakes as are citizens. At every level of government—federal, state, and local—policies are developed for the benefit of the people. But the proponents of those policies are humans without a justifiable ground for pretentiousness. The people, on whose behalf they initiate those policies, reserve the right to correct them, and true democrats must have the humility to acknowledge their mistakes and change course.

    Consider, for instance, the case of the economic policies—fiscal and monetary—in the wake of the fall in oil revenue and the attending consequences for business and employment. There is no denying the fact that there is suffering in the land and government has acknowledged that the economy is in recession.

    For citizens, however, this acknowledgement is only the beginning. The question on their mind is: what is government doing? And is it working? They understand that the Buhari administration is not responsible for the acts of the last administration that created the condition. They worry, however, if government is prepared to change course toward a more effective approach.

    Hungry people are angry people, and there is a limit to the patience that can be expected of them. Hunger displaces every other potential occupant of the mind, giving way to rage and fury. This is what we have been witnessing across the land from local government buildings to state legislatures and now to the centre. There is nothing strange or unwholesome about it.

    There is, however, much more that can be accomplished beyond rallies and protests. If it is true that citizens do not buy the idea that government functionaries have a monopoly of wisdom in the matter of policy-making, and if those functionaries also have the sense of humility to admit their limitations, then, citizens have a duty not just to protest but also to offer alternatives for consideration.

    It is not too much to expect, for instance, that one of the positive outcomes of the last protests and rallies would be a presentation to the National Assembly and to the Office of the President, a well-reasoned memorandum that presents an alternative proposal for the recovery of the economy. Surely, the government has the responsibility for setting the economic agenda. But we all have a stake in it since the pursuit of particular agenda has outcomes that affect everyone. It is not therefore out of line for a concerned citizenry to present thoughtful proposals for the consideration of those in power.

    What is being suggested here is not out of the ordinary. In the tumultuous days of nationalist struggles for independence, the fertile minds of our nationalist forebears, even prior to the establishment of political parties, were always ahead of the colonial masters in the formulation of ideas for the governance of the country. The Nigerian Youth Movement was a veritable source of virile agitation backed by thoughtful proposals that the government had to struggle to reject.

    In our time, we tend to leave every aspect of governance to government, probably also because experience with military dictators have discouraged us from active involvement. But a democratic government is, or at least ought to be, different. A progressive administration must especially be humble enough to know that the people have a reservoir of wisdom from which it can benefit. Needless to add, government’s success is measured by the peoples’ well-being.

     

    Follow me on twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • This democracy

    This democracy

    The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth – Niels Bohr

    In the space of a week, the expression of the people’s will to be governed by people they elect showed three different faces. Vastly different nations, political contexts and democratic systems in Nigeria, The Gambia and United States of America presented major variants of a system of governance that sends back many of its students to drawing boards. In Nigeria, a routine constitutional requirement that presidents proceeding on leave notify the legislature and submit the leadership of the nation to deputies was met by President Muhammadu Buhari as he left the country for 10-day leave and medical attention. A few years ago, the failure of the late President Umaru Yar’Adua to comply with this requirement plunged the country into a constitutional crisis of such proportions; it required a rare national consensus and ingenious legal brinkmanship to push the nation beyond. In The Gambia, the popular will required a hefty push from barrels of the gun to survive a major setback. In the USA, a president-elect who had defied all conventional wisdom to win was sworn in to lead a nation that is deeply divided over the elections that produced him.

    The elections of 2015 in Nigeria broke with tradition in many respects. The results were not widely and violently disputed. An incumbent president and a dominant party were defeated, and they yielded power to those elected in a seamless transition. It is difficult to remember that in 2010, Vice President Goodluck Jonathan only assumed the office of President after a frightful attempt to create obstacles to the activation of constitutional requirements, a transition that represented a triumph of elite consensus around constitutionalism and evidence of a maturing democracy. One year later, the electoral mandate he won was stained with the blood of hundreds of victims of election violence which followed the elections. Nigerians were reminded of the fragility of their democratic process, and you could not fault those who wondered if it will ever be free of the damaging limitations which elections progressively subjected it to. The next general election then restored confidence that Nigerians could organise credible elections and strengthen the foundations of the democratic process. Those foundations allowed a president to leave the country in the hands of his deputy who himself was out of the country at the time, and hardly anyone batted an eyelid.

    Even as he left the nation in the hands of Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, Buhari was aware that the Nigerian military he had despatched to shore up the popular will of the people of The Gambia was on its way. Nigeria was executing the mandate of nations in the ECOWAS sub region to enforce, if necessary, the will of the citizens of a tiny nation whose landmark decision to reject a leader who was in power for 20 years was in danger of being repudiated. The Gambia was going to test the commitment of many African leaders to the democratic process, but Jammeh may not have been alone in underrating the capacity of Africans to influence the course of history in other nations. Many Africans had thought the freedom to travel long distances to fight on foreign soils and impose different orders belonged only to the most powerful nations, such as US, EU countries and Russia. There were many who hoped that the intense lobby of Jammeh will make him budge, because they did not believe that it was prudent and expedient for countries, such as Nigeria to wage wars in The Gambia over election disputes.

    As it turned out, the threat of the use of force was precisely what was needed to save the democratic process in The Gambia. Tragically, Jammeh shunned the fresh examples of John Mahama and Goodluck Jonathan, but while he shut out the voices of Gambians, he could not ignore the drums of war. A man who could have written his own political future ended up with one imposed on him, even with the elaborate assurances of the ECOWAS, AU and UN that he will be free of persecution. Gambian democracy has been rescued by outsiders who stood with a majority of voters. What does this say of the future of the democratic process in many African countries which, Gambia or not, will experience disputes over election outcomes? Is The Gambia a fluke or a standard? What will be the benchmark for disputes that should force nations to move into action, including the threat or use of force? Can Africans sustain armed threats or use of force against leaders who defy popular will in places, such as East and Central Africa?

    It is tempting to believe that the new Gambian president will respond to the historic decision of Gambians to choose him over Jammeh, as well as the resolve of African nations and their allies to enforce that decision, with good governance and a constant reminder of the experience of Jammeh. He will be challenged with the daunting task of liberalising the political environment that bore the character of Jammeh’s prolonged stay in power, and rebuilding an economy that needs fresh confidence and massive investment. The Gambia’s rescued democratic processes will be closely policed by neighbouring Senegal and other regional powers, such as Nigeria. The other major dimension of The Gambia experience is that it places a major burden on shoulders of leaders that went out on a limb to rescue the will of the Gambian people. Big nations, such as Nigeria and Ghana will now have to behave with as little blemish as possible, not just because they raised the bar in The Gambia, but because their own messy disputes around election results will almost certainly not be resolved by direct foreign intervention. They cannot afford to yield the higher ground to nations with a little more muscle than The Gambia, where disputes could create real threats of civil wars if foreign intervention is resisted by parties to disputes.

    While Africans were celebrating a victory of sorts, one that required the threat of war to enforce an electoral verdict, a new President was being sworn-in in America. The event was as profound as the swearing in of a black president eight years earlier. In 2008, the American son of an African student became president of the US, suggesting that American people and democracy had matured to a point where race played second fiddle to merit. After eight years, Obama’s dignified presidency was handed to a man who will fit the tag of serial offender of all known and unknown sensitivities Americans and the world have come to associate with responsible leadership. A sulking, powerful layer of US voters dragged the presidency from convention and handed it over to a man who offended races, religions, neighbours, allies, women, the media, the intelligence community and just about everyone or thing that can be tweeted into anger or fear. A supreme irony was lost to the world at a time a candidate who had threatened to reject an electoral verdict from US voters if he lost, was being sworn-in, and another in Africa who actually rejected the verdict of voters in his country was being forced to yield to popular vote. It may be just an amusing, academic question to ask what could have happened if Trump had lost the elections and carried out his threat to reject the result. A legitimate question to ask will be if Trump’s heresy had in any way bolstered Jammeh?

    US voters got what they wanted. Only time will tell if that will be what the Americans need to reunite a divided nation, with major segments angry and suspicious that they will be engaged in bruising fights with a president who thinks his mandate is an endorsement of everything he is and of his plans. The world now waits to see the new face of America, an exercise that is tasking, to say the least, because it worries that the future will demand major painful adjustments within the very little room available. People of The Gambia were handed a reprieve, but will now hope that subsequent elections will not require foreign warships and boots to enforce their will. Africans improved their ranking in the league of champions of the democratic system, and will now hope that The Gambia will represent a strong threshold that will determine future conduct on the continent. Nigerians have been further committed to the support of the democratic process, and will now be continuously reminded that you cannot export what you do not have yourself.

  • Celebrating democracy and First Amendment

    Celebrating democracy and First Amendment

    The peaceful transition of power from one administration or political party to another is the beauty of democracy, which should be a pride of all democrats and celebrated by every patriot. The succession crisis in little Gambia, with a sit-tight Jammeh, unperturbed about the image of his country, is a reminder of what might otherwise be.

    Americans have reason to rejoice in the strength of their institutions to withstand stress. An electoral institution that has, through the vagaries of life, stood firm and resolute for 240 years, is worth celebrating, and a people that have made sacrifices, including the ultimate one, cannot be accused of hubris if they chose to revel in grand style. The inauguration of a new President has offered the most adequate opportunity for such a national euphoria.

    In January 2009, I, along with members of my family, who had journeyed from three continents for the purpose, participated in this national festival of democracy when Barrack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. Some 1.8 million other citizens, residents, and visitors were there, including many who did not vote for Obama. That was the spirit of the time, following a long tradition.

    This time last year, a large majority of citizens had also hoped to be among the celebrants on the mall today. Many had made hotel reservations to beat the rush and the inflated cost that normally comes with procrastination. They didn’t have to know who was going to win the election. They just wanted to be part of the festival of democracy.

    As the primaries got under way, however, and the insults and bigotry came along with it, disillusionment and despair ensued. Whatever hope many of those trudging along for an acceptable outcome nursed was dashed on election day. And for many, the transition period from November 8 to date has not offered any reprieve from their sense of gloom and doom.

    Thus, while 900,000 visitors are expected for inaugural ceremonies in Washington, D.C. today, many are also coming to protest the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States. Another 400,000 are estimated to participate in the Women’s March on Washington this Saturday. Per the National Park Service, protest permits have been issued to 22 groups, which is “a considerable uptick” compared to past inauguration permits of an average of six groups. This year, inauguration protest and boycott is the most intense and passionate in 35 years. Why?

    The “why” question must not be misconstrued. We must not assume that celebrating democracy and engaging in protest are, in some way, antithetical. Indeed, they are two sides of the same coin. Democracy idolises freedom, while dictatorship privileges repression. Protest for or against an event, a candidate, or even a president’s inauguration, is a time-honoured exercise of freedom and, therefore, a celebration of democracy.

    That is not just a positive spin. It is the truth and it is the reason that the National Park Service cannot legitimately deny permits for protests and rallies no matter how embarrassing anyone, including the President-elect may find it. Indeed, there is no good reason for the man elected as the leader of the free world to feel embarrassed with the celebration of freedom in the form of protest.

    There is another reality, however. While protest is an expression of freedom, it is also primarily a symbol of resistance and opposition to the incoming President and his administration. The disillusionment and despair that has been experienced by many citizens from the primaries to the conventions through election day and to date is directly attributable to the pronouncements made and positions taken on various issues by the man who is being installed as President today. For many, there has not been in recent memory a presidential candidate or a President-elect who has so effectively and successfully captured the White House by what his critics characterise as a campaign of division and hate-mongering.

    These are not frivolous charges even if Trump as candidate and President-elect, thinks otherwise. For Mexican-Americans and their Latin-American, African-American and European-American friends and sympathisers, labelling undocumented immigrants from Mexico as rapists and criminals was simply mean. The attack on a female journalist, Megyn Kelly, for daring to ask tough questions during a Republican primary debate, turned off many women. And when the Access Hollywood tape emerged out of the blue, it only confirmed the charge of misogyny that many of them had made against Trump.

    The mocking of a disabled journalist, an accusation which he has repeatedly denied, but which video images apparently confirmed to many, only increased the number of groups with an unfavourable image of Trump even before the election. African Americans are naturally upset about Trump’s characterisation of inner-cities as crime-infested in a weird appeal to them to give him a chance because they had nothing to lose. This was all before the elections. So, when polls showed him losing to Hillary Clinton up until the eve of the election, it wasn’t difficult for voters to believe that he was cruising to a big loss.

    Even the FBI surprise announcement of further investigation into Clinton email just a few days before the election was not considered a game changer at that time. Who will vote for a misogynist, a bigot, a protectionist and a Putin “puppet”, as Clinton put it? That was the basis of the confidence of many in a Clinton victory and a Trump routing. But they were all wrong. The polls were wrong, or the election was impacted by outside influence as the intelligence community later revealed.

    Since the election, President-Elect Trump has not backed down from his controversial positions and pronouncements. He has intervened in policy decisions of the Obama administration, ignoring the tradition of Presidents-elect waiting their turn. And for someone who had accused Obama of being an illegitimate president based on the conspiracy theory that he was not born in the United States, and who has held on to this bizarre claim for seven and a half years, it was the height of hypocrisy for Trump to be offended when his election was described as illegitimate.

    But that was exactly Trump’s reaction to Congressman Lewis, a civil right icon, who had made that observation, based on the intelligence community confirmation that Russia hacked the emails of the Democratic Party and Clinton Campaign Chair. Trump, who apparently can give insult but cannot conceive of himself receiving it, attacked Lewis as “all talk, talk, and no action” just days before his inauguration. And in solidarity with Mr. Lewis, about 50 House Democrats are boycotting the inauguration activities today. Again, in exercise of their First Amendment, they choose to express their disgust with their absence from the stage.

    There is a way in which all these actions and inactions, verbal expressions and silent motions are reconcilable as they can all be construed as what the founding fathers of American democracy had hoped for. Even though we may be offended by the misogynistic utterances, and by religious bigots and ethnic chauvinists, and even when the hypocrisy of haters that demand love disgust us, the beauty of democracy is its affording everyone the right of expression. It is the promise of the First Amendment.

    Of course, elections have enormous consequences which cannot be dismissed lightly. Policies will be made that can turn lives around in disastrous ways with no good escape routes. Checking out is not an option for many. Again, however, there is hope and it needs to be kept alive.

    In four years, there will be another opportunity for protesters and boycotters of today to exercise their rights to choose a candidate whose views and interests align with theirs, and whose policies they subscribe to. Voting is the ultimate positive form of political expression and it is to be celebrated and taken full advantage of. Perhaps, if everyone that qualified had taken advantage of the opportunity on November 8, 2016, a different outcome may have emerged. But it would not have prevented protests. Only a different group of protesters would probably have taken to the streets today.

  • Pot of soup democracy?

    SIR: Democracy alone can supply the vitalising force to stir the peoples of the world into triumphant action against their ancient enemies- hunger, misery and despair – Harry Truman

    After a prolonged military rule and the subsequent return to democratic rule in 1999, Nigerians had hoped for a much better life than what is obtainable at the moment. Dividends of democracy are certainly not starvation; despair or a do or die affair.

    Concerns of democratic governments and legitimate systems all over the world centre around providing welfare and basic necessities that will make life easier and prepare citizens for the challenge of nation building. Some countries even though not endowed with natural resources, have used their initiatives to guarantee that lives of their citizens are at least comfortable and satisfactory.

    It is obvious that politicians in our clime work for their own stomachs. This is glaring in their body languages especially if they are successfully voted into power. The poor electorates are completely abandoned to swim alone. Even when vote buying may not be a new phenomenon in electioneering in Nigeria, it was taken to a new dimension in the just concluded Ondo State election. Perhaps, this might be attributed to the high level of poverty which has made the poor masses vulnerable or susceptible to the prey from desperate politicians.

    It is worrisome and undemocratic that pot of soup is fast becoming a factor in winning an election. The scenario is that the desperate politicians want the votes to seasonally control the available resources while the poor masses need the pot of soup to take care of their empty stomachs!

    Why do politicians buy votes? This is possible when political parties fail to build brand that can convince voters that they are trust-worthy. Democracy is all about choice of leadership through political participation; it is an avenue for eligible voters to elect those that will lead them. Not a situation where political leaders impose themselves on the people, commando style, through intimidation and ballot stuffing.

    It is high time Nigerians understand the antics of politicians.  If politicians had done well, there would be no need to distribute rice, bread not to talk of buying voters cards during campaigns. We must draw lessons from US election and the just-concluded Gambian presidential elections where the people stood their ground and said no to political impoverishment and enslavement. We must say no to poverty and pot of soup democracy.

     

    • Alifia Sunday,

    Ilorin, Kwara State.

  • America’s Electoral College and Democracy

    “…that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” – Abraham Lincoln’s memorable Gettysburg’s Address of November 19, 1863.

    Few textual critics, if any, can improve on Abbey Lincoln’s concise definition of democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. In what sounds like a derivative of that classic definition, democracy may be said to be a system of government by the majority of eligible voters of a state, typically through elected representatives; a rule by the majority; a government in which the supreme power is vested in the (majority) of the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held elections.

    The political structure in the United States of America, where the emergence of the President and Vice-President depends on a so-called Electoral College, established by Article Two of the United States Constitution (1787), whereby the voice of the majority (popular vote) is bridled by a political artifice called electoral college vote is the very antithesis of “government of the people, by the people, for the people” and can, therefore, not be dignified with the name of democracy.

    Each state appoints a number of electors equal to the number of Senators (i.e. one hundred in all) and of Representatives (i.e. four hundred and thirty-five in all) to which the states may be entitled in the Congress, in addition to three electors from the District of Columbia and one elector each from the states of Maine and Nebraska. Those figures yield a total of 540 electors. Any presidential contender who wins at least 50 per cent, or 270 thereof,  becomes President of the United States, even if majority of the electorate (popular vote) prefers his/her opponent with the popular vote!

    Why, one may wish to know, is there any need for “Election Day” (always announced with fanfare) or popular election such as happened on November 8, when the popular vote counts for nothing in the final analysis? For example, if, for the sake of argument, the two major presidential candidates polled 269 Electoral Votes apiece, the 435-strong House of Representatives would be asked to decide which of the two candidates becomes President of America, the Popular Vote notwithstanding! In the recent presidential election in the US, the non-partisan Cool Political Report had candidate Hillary Clinton at 62,825,754 popular votes in contradistinction to candidate Donald Trump’s 61,486,735 (or 47.9 percent to 46.9 per cent, respectively. Another 6-9 million votes were cast for third-party candidates, including Libertarian Gary Johnson, Green Jill Stein and independent David Evan McMullin. That translates to 53.1 per cent of voters casting their ballots for candidates other than Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than one million votes, but lost the Electoral College Vote (she polled 232) to Trump (who allegedly won 290).

    The 2016 presidential election in America made Trump the fourth President to lose the popular vote but win his spurs against his opponent. In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes, won 185 Electoral College votes. His opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 Electoral College votes. Hayes was elected President. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes, won 233 Electoral College votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 Electoral College Vote. Harrison was elected President. In 2000, Republican George W. Bush garnered only 50,456,062, and his main opponent, Democrat Al Gore, got 50,996,582 popular votes. Even so, Bush became President as he polled 271 Electoral College votes to Al Gore’s 266. Usually and almost ineluctably, candidates that lose the popular vote but become Presidents via that load of hocus pocus called “Electoral College Vote” turn out to be particularly unsuccessful and unpopular Presidents! It is strange that all the beneficiaries of the Electoral College Vote peculation have been Republicans!

    The Electoral College is, essentially, a vestigial structure—a relic of a bygone era in which the founding fathers specifically fulminated against a nationwide vote of the American people to choose their next President. Instead, the draftsmen of the constitution, (particularly Delegates Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and George Mason, the man, of Virginia) gave a small, lucky group of people called the “electors” the power to make that choice, arguing that “the people (popular vote) haven’t the requisite capacity to judge the respective pretensions of the candidates.”

     Such was the origin of the Electoral College, which makes the election of the Chief Executive of America a despicable simulacrum of democracy. The outcome of a presidential election in the US is really just settled in a few so-called swing states. Today, only 12 of the 50 states in the US control about 53% of the votes in the Electoral College.

    On the basis of the odious political contrivance called Electoral College Vote, an undisguised enemy of democracy, (and hoping there was no “malicious software” in the election machines), Donald John Trump has been elected President-elect of the US. He had consciously made far-reaching electoral promises: he will build a wall to separate the US from Mexico and will make the latter to pay for the cost of the wall; he will transfer the Israeli capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; he will defeat ISIS; he will repatriate all undocumented immigrants; he will stop all Moslems from entering the US; he will resile from the multilateral Climate Change (Paris) Agreement; he will contract out of the NATO confraternity; he will stop the carnage on US streets; he will appoint a Special Prosecutor to prosecute, and put, Hillary Clinton in jail…

    Whether or not he becomes popular or unpopular during his first four years in office, or remains President after the November 2020 presidential election, or, indeed, will be impeached as predicted by the same polyhistor and Presidential Historian, Prof. Allan Lichtman, who predicted his victory in the 2016 election, will depend, largely, on the extent to which he fulfils, and the manner in which he executes, his 2016 electoral promises. One hopes that the American electorate will hold him to account!

     

    • Akiri, an attorney writes from Lagos.
  • Search for internal democracy in parties

    Search for internal democracy in parties

    Following the curriculum recently developed by the Political Parties Leadership and Policy Development Centre of the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), party leaders have expressed views on how to maintain internal democracy, reports Tony Akowe, Abuja

    The lack of internal party democracy is no doubt one of the major problems facing the current democratic dispensation. It has been used as a campaign weapon by political parties. It was a sing song of the All Progressive Congress (APC) during campaigns for the 2015 General Election and the party has continuously insisted that it is the only major party in the country that practices internal democracy. Many believe that the crisis rocking the main opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) today is the absence of internal democracy which led the party to impose candidates on the people for elective positions in the past.

    Worried by this development, the Political Parties Leadership and Policy Development Centre of the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) developed a curriculum for the administration of political parties in the country in 2013. Acting Director-General of the institute, Jonathan Mela Juma, believe that after the 2015 General Elections, which saw the change in government from one political party to the other, there was the need to review the curriculum to accommodate new views that will help move forward political governance in the country and boost the capacity of the political parties. He also believes that with new officials elected for Inter Party Advisory Committee (IPAC), there was also the need to include them in the scheme of things. Juma said the 96-page document, which was produced with support from the Democratic Governance for Development Project of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP/DGD II) is to be used to train the leadership and other key stakeholders of the parties to deepen democracy and participatory governance in the country. He also disclosed that donor agencies have been responsible for the sponsorship of the training of the political leaders since inception of the centre in 2013 to2015 and that the present effort was sponsored by the Federal Government due to the need to deepen democratic value in the country.

    However, leaders of some of the political parties in the country believe that the current democratic practice does not in any way encourage opposition and growth of smaller political parties. National Chairman of Labour Party, Abdulkadir Abdulsalam, condemned a situation where the party in government is allowed to use government money to suppress the opposition to the extent that they are not able to raise their head. According to him, the party in power hardly allows the opposition political parties breathing space and do everything to muscle them. He also condemned the idea of making the President the leader of the parties at the national level and governors leaders of the party at the state level, adding that the current crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party was partly created by such action, saying, once there is no President, the party collapses.

    On his part, the National Chairman of the Citizen Popular Party, Chief Sam Eke, said “Money politics will always come into play since there is no electronic voting. I want to see a curriculum that will provide for electronic voting in the country. Many of the parties should be encouraged to go into merger talk with the sole aim of producing one candidate to contest elections rather than the army of candidates we have contesting elections today and making no impact. A lot of the parties will begin to have electoral success once this is done.

    “I also want to see a curriculum that will provide for computerized party registration because it will discourage a situation where a single individual will buy up party membership cards and sharing same to his supporters. Party financing should also be part of the curriculum. People now pay for votes. Is that part of democracy?”

    For Bashir Yusuf Ibrahim, National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM), building a curriculum for the political parties should not only lay emphasis on internal party democracy and how to achieve it, it should also focus on party administration and party financing. According to him the curriculum should focus on three key areas: These are party administration, capacity building and how party leaders emerge; party financing which should centre on how the party gets its funds because the current system is very expensive and is like running a government. You must have offices in all local government headquarters, the state capital and the federal capital with each manned by officers. It should also focus on internal democracy within the parties.

    Presently, there is no more inter-party crisis like it was during the first and second republic. What we have now is intraparty crisis because of lack of internal democracy. But Godson Okoye, National Chairman of United Democratic Party said “Nigerians work and operate with different purposes in mind. We must work with the national interest at heart. There must be something that people are working toward in the national interest, something that everybody identifies with. If we don’t, no curriculum will work in Nigeria.”

    The curriculum developed by the institute argued that as political parties take an increasingly high profile in public affairs and governance, it is very important that the parties reflect the democratic principles that they espouse in their political campaigns. It said “while many parties call for a more democratic character of the state, an equal number struggle to guarantee that their internal practices reflect the democratic principles that they publicly champion so strongly. Some ways in which parties can enhance internal democracy and also build more democratic participation through activities outside campaigning for office and taking power need serious examination”. It stressed that “principles of internal democracy and democratic participation are not only important as ideals, but also as they meet the interest of political parties to build themselves as attractive and inclusive institutions over time”. The document stressed the fact that most political parties recognise both the challenges of organising free and fair internal party elections and the importance of creating a party that allows equal opportunities for aspiring leaders and candidates to contest election for leadership positions. According to the booklet, “in a situation where parties are relatively fluid and have limited sense of who their actual membership is, organising democratic internal party elections is especially difficult. Likewise, direct primaries for candidates are challenging, given a situation of limited resources and the interest of powerful individuals in the party intent on influencing the election towards their candidate of choice.” It suggested the creation of a clear set of rules on how internal party elections are to be conducted, with the appointment of a neutral and credible party electoral commission or equivalent body to oversee these elections. It also wants the adoption of a clear cut policy on who is allowed to participate in party elections, preferably through the establishment of a national party register containing a list of all eligible voters or, if the primary is open, clear rules for how voters are to be identified and validated.

    The curriculum described managing internal democracy in a party as a work in progress as certain individuals will have interest in manipulating democratic processes to their advantage. It stressed that closely monitoring how democratic processes might be subverted is essential to protecting democracy, pointing out that internal party democracy can be subverted through the manipulation of party membership list. This, it said, can be done through individuals acquiring party identity cards, producing fake copies of party membership list, altering the existing party membership list in a biased way, setting illegal qualification for becoming members, among others.

  • Group trains journalists on corruption, governance, democracy

    A collation of business organisations called “International Private Enterprise” (CIPE) in partnership with the Plateau Coalition of Business and Professional Association (PLACOBPA) is to hold a one-day media workshop for editors, desk managers and correspondents on business enterprises in the northern part of the Nigeria.

    The coalition are currently developing Business Agenda (BAs) for their respective states in Multi-phased projects  to serve as tools that will allow private sector actors to collectively identify and discuss obstacles that stand for the development and growth of the business sector with potential solutions for them.

    The Marketing Communication/Public Affairs Advisor, Mr. Haroun Audu (NIPR), stated this yesterday during a press briefing held at the Hill Station Hotel in Jos, the Plateau State capital.

    He said the mandates of CIPE’s is to strengthen democracy around the globe through private enterprise and market-oriented reform, as one of the four core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy and has worked with business leaders, policymakers and Journalist to build the civic institutions vital to a democratic society since 1983.

  • CD lauds UN for institutionalising democracy

    The Campaign for Democracy (CD) on Monday lauded the UN for its commitment to democracy in all countries of the world, especially in Africa.

    The South East Secretary of the non-governmental organisation, Dr Jerry Chukwuokolo, gave the commendation while speaking with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Enugu on the achievements of the organisation, 71 years after.

    Chukwuokolo said that the world body had made it clear and followed up with action that military rule should not be allowed in any country, especially in Africa where military dictatorship held sway previously.

    “The fear of the UN had made military officers to maintain their constitutional role of protecting the territorial integrity of countries and not to meddle into politics.

    “Also, UN action to re-instate democratically elected leaders ousted by the military in some countries had shown that democracy had come to stay,’’ he said.

    The secretary also lauded the UN for its concern for poverty alleviation, hunger and disease in poor countries, which most African countries belonged to.

    “UN had done a lot in education, healthcare and rural infrastructural development in Nigeria as well as its recent intervention in bringing succour to millions of displaced and starving people in the North East,’’ he added.

    Chukwuokolo, who is also a lecturer in political science at the Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, said that the UN had intervened and helped to end civil wars and wars between neighbouring Africa countries.

    “Billions of dollars had been spent to bring peace to troubled African nations both as intra-national or inter-national conflicts.

    “It had adjudicated through its international court in cases of land and marine border disputes and saved the continent and her people needless conflicts and bloodshed.’’

    Chukwuokolo said, however, that the UN was being used as a tool to advance the interest of member states of its security council and its allies.

    “Respect for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as enshrined in the UN General Assembly Charter is not upheld.

    “Some indigenous people in Africa wishing to gain their freedom are not backed up by the UN as it backed democracy and its principles so far.’’

    UN is a replacement for the ineffective League of Nations. The organisation was established on Oct. 24, 1945 after World War II to prevent the occurrence of such conflict.

    At its founding, the UN had 51 member states but currently has 193 members, including Nigeria.

  • Nigeria’s doubtful democracy

    Every Nigerian, irrespective of party affiliation, jubilated after a successful conduct of the 2015 elections which got the greatest hype in the history of the nation.  The euphoria cut across board, not so for the feelings that the new set of politicians who have taken over the mantle of leadership are the confirmed messiahs, but far more that the forecast of mayhem after the election did not come to pass.

    Many, especially the international community, feared a cataclysm of unfathomable dimension as tension rose in the March 28, 2015, presidential polls. Some predicted that President Goodluck Jonathan was going to be the last president of a united Nigeria while it appeared as if the May 29, 2015 handover date was not going to be.

    For 17 years, in a post-military era, Nigeria has managed to maintain its democracy, however wobbly it has been.  The country has undergone various elections which were seen to be flawed in certain respects.  The beauty of it is that in spite of these imperfections, the military allowed the system to sanitize itself rather than rush to the rescue through coup d’état as it were in the past. As for the last elections, we cannot pretend that a lot of irregularities played up in its conduct. Only the blind could claim not to have seen the army of kid voters, the falsification of figures, the intimidation of opponents’ supporters and the like which went on in a large scale.

    Be that as it may, winners emerged and have been fully in control for one year plus.  It may be more appropriate to refer to those who could not realize their ambition to be one thing or the other in government as “the unelected” rather than “losers”, for the real losers are yet to emerge. They would emerge after their tenure and they would be among the supposedly chosen ones – those who are likely to fritter away the public goodwill bestowed on them and perform poorly. Recount the present condition of the likes of James Ibori, the late Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, Lucky Igbinedion and others who won elections and lost their dignity years after. They won elections quite alright, but they became losers after.

    It is of essence, however, that this hard-earned democracy be continuously reviewed to strengthen it for posterity. The unrelenting presence of separatist movements in the country has seriously put to question the so-called democracy which the government professes.

    In every democracy, the electoral process has always mattered so much.  It is for this reason that much is expected from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the umpire in the nation’s political contests.  Dysfunctional card readers and inadequate distribution of permanent voter’s cards, as well as registration of under-aged voters, besides selling out and deliberate falsification of figures by INEC officials, are the major flaws recorded against INEC in the 2015 elections.  Indeed, a full-blown electronic voting system is more desirable than the use of dysfunctional card readers that, at best, serve us the way the low voltage supply of electricity serves our electrical appliances.

    As for the haphazard distribution of voter’s cards, one wonders why INEC always waits for four years before commencement of the review of voters’ lists and preparation of their cards. How rational is it to fix the exercise within a time frame?  Why can’t it be a continuous exercise in which anyone who attains the voting age walks into any INEC office with proof and gets a smooth registration and instantly obtains the card? Why won’t the system be flexible enough to allow any eligible voter to cast his vote in any part of the country regardless of the polling booth of registration?

    Also, the nation’s electoral statute book needs to be retouched, especially where it grants politicians unfettered liberty to change parties as they do with their underwear.  It is against morality and natural justice for a politician to climb to a position of power and give the party that served as his ladder the boot without losing the position. Such immorality should not be condoned by the government. Under such a condition, parties are rendered rather irrelevant, giving credence to the postulation that Nigeria has only ONE PARTY and that the party is nameless. The thinking is that this “party” is constituted by the most powerful people in Nigeria found in PDP, APC and others. They use these acronyms to hoodwink the masses and as tools for their machinations. Members of the faceless cabal use the parties like spanners to tighten or loosen whatever nuts and bolts they need to deal with, in line with their whims. If our democracy is to really qualify as a government of the people, for the people and by the people, it must be extricated from the grips of these powerful men and must be made to be robust in dialogue, negotiations, give and take, and statesmanship.

    For this democracy to make meaning, there ought to be a good measure of freedom under which autonomy is guaranteed to groups and ethnic nationalities. Absolutism is a negation of democracy, just as the system is not always a game of numbers. We cannot describe as democracy a situation where a majority votes to dispossess a minority of their economic rights. It is not also the making of laws that are skewed to favour a section of the country. In a union where democracy thrives, egalitarianism prevails and there is mutual cooperation, not the “Jonah in the belly of a fish” kind of union. Nigeria professes federalism even though on a false premise. True federalism, as is practised in countries that enjoy relative peace, has inbuilt principles that impede separatist tendencies which is prevalent in Nigeria today.

    In a democracy, the separation of powers is clear cut among the three arms of government where the executive executes laws made by the legislature rather than the laws they make in their bedrooms, and these laws are interpreted by the judiciary. In that case, no one man is seen as the feudal lord with the whole of Nigeria, or a state, as his fiefdom.

    Government lessons teach what a federal structure should be, all federating units coming together by an agreed, rather than foisted, terms, with measures of autonomy and 100% derivation, only contributing to the centre. If we study the details of a true federalism, we discover that, rather than this winner-take-all system, power devolves more to the federating units. That way, the federating units retain their dignity and do not feel used by the majority. It is, indeed, not a crime for one to love his people, his ethnic group, or project and protect the ideals of his people. What is essential in coexistence is to define terms, which Nigerians have not been able to do. Under this situation, crisis is perpetual. Although federal systems differ with countries and locations, a test of a true one is the amount of peace it guarantees as well as the intensity of the centripetal force it generates, in other words, how it draws the units together.  TRUE FEDERALISM is where none of the federating units would feel a deep sense of loss when their son is not in control of the centre.

    Our home-grown democracy is guided by laws that exclude fine and respectable candidates with integrity from the political arena, leaving the landscape to be populated by jobbers who do nothing else but scheme on ways to take over power by all means, with their eyes fixed on the common purse. That explains the high proclivity to malign, vilify and even assassinate opponents who, they feel, possess the spirit that matches the desires of the electorate. On reaching the echelon where high-powered decisions are made, they set out to dismantle the existing rules to make way for their machinations against the interest of the people. Why can’t career civil servants, university lecturers and technocrats in various fields contest elections without resigning their positions? Why? That is why we have so many shallow-minded men and ignoramuses in control of affairs, an unscrupulous lot that cares less about dignity or integrity.

    A true democracy is expected to produce statesmen who, to borrow President Muhammadu Buhari’s words, are for everybody and for nobody in the course of serving their father land.  The weighing scale for statesmanship is constituted in their spoken words, performance, promises kept, degree of controversies stirred up and how they were managed during their administration, even the ability to rise above tribal sentiments and jingoism. When government rumbles, all must find ways of stabilizing things, because government is like the stomach which, when it rumbles, all other parts of the body would be uneasy until a remedy is found.

  • In Ondo, democracy will take its course

    In Ondo, democracy will take its course

    As the race for the Ondo governorship heats up, the signs are so clear that the APC is on course towards achieving remarkable success in the November 27 election. This is evident, for instance, in the sheer number of aspirants that have expressed interest in flying the APC’s flag in the election. This is indicative of the immense goodwill the party enjoys in the state and the confidence among the aspirants of the exceedingly bright chances of the APC especially against the background of abysmal performance of the PDP-led administration in the last eight years.

    It is not unusual in the context of such intense competition for the ticket of a popular party like the APC, that there will be diverse allegations, insinuations and innuendoes as regards the transparency, impartiality and integrity of the intra-party process. This has always been the case in all party primaries in the country since 1999. But no one can doubt that the APC has always demonstrated its commitment to demonstrably credible intra-party primaries at all levels. This was evident in last year’s presidential primaries as well as the transparent intra-party polls to pick candidates in Kogi and Edo states for example.

    As the highest-ranking party leader from Ondo State, I strongly affirm that the Ondo APC governorship primaries will be no exception. The APC as a party is committed to a free, fair and transparent process that will see the candidate with the most votes emerge as flag bearer. And from that moment on, the party, other contenders and the leadership will line up behind that flag bearer. To insinuate a contrary plan without any evidence is political mischief and we must be wary of those pushing this agenda to weaken the APC ahead of the governorship elections.

    The screening of all 24 candidates took place in a most transparent manner at the national headquarters in Abuja. Candidates have seen that they have been screened with no intention to disqualify anyone. Each candidate has a right to contest in the race. With the screening concluded, all that sailed through have the clear to campaign as hard as they want. Their concentration should shift to how they will become the choice of the electorate or become the candidate of choice by the electorate. All said and done, the people, in this case the delegates will ultimately decide.

    The attempt to scapegoat the chairman of the party and a few other leaders is unnecessary distraction. The primary will be conducted by the national headquarters of the APC based on the constitution of the party and not the whims of any state party chairman. The delegates’ list is under lock and key. Any complaints can be channeled through me to the national headquarters.

    Those attacking and cursing and encouraging hooliganism are only working to weaken the party. They might even be agents of destabilization.

    For each of the aspirants, victory will only be delivered based on the number of people they are able to convince to vote for them and ultimately how they square against our political opponent, the PDP.

    Just like in other party primaries both within and even in the most advanced countries, influential party leaders throw their support behind aspirants they believe can best represent the party’s values and ethos as well as help achieve victory in the general election. In the ongoing electoral process in the United States, for instance, Hillary Clinton became her party’s candidate largely with the support of the Democratic Party establishment while Donald Trump emerged triumphant in the Republican Party because the party rank and file defied the preferences of the party establishment. The most important determinant of the emergence of a democratic party’s candidate, therefore, is the will of the majority of the accredited party delegates. It is certainly an unfair underestimation of the intellect and character of the people of Ondo State to insinuate that 3000 delegates will have no minds of their own and can be herded in a given direction through any form of ‘imposition’ or ‘endorsement’. Indeed, once the party principle of free and fair primaries is adhered to the last letter, terms like imposition and endorsement become irrelevant and diversionary.

    It shall be no different with the Ondo State APC primaries. Endorsement or no endorsement, the most acceptable candidate will emerge in a free and fair process. Of course, it is only natural that some of those who have invested so much of their time, energy, intellect and other resources in the emergence of the APC as the formidable force it is today may throw their weight behind aspirants of their choice. There is nothing in the APC constitution that forbids this. Such speculations, however, lie within the realm of speculation and rumor. The critical factor is that no one can alter the delegates’ list. Once the candidate emerges, we the party leadership who have the responsibility will lead the campaign. No one who wishes the APC success in the general election will encourage any undemocratic manipulation of the intra-party selection process. I therefore congratulate all who successfully scaled through the screening process and enjoin them to canvass vigorously for the support of the delegates so that we have a truly keen, fair and free intra party primaries as a step to resounding victory in the governorship election proper.

     

    • Chief Akinyelure is Vice-Chairman, South West APC.