The Nation Newspaper

Tag: democracy

  • Democracy, Global Corruption and the Trojan Horse

    In  the  quest  to clean up any  society it is agreed that  in terms  of taking bribes  both the giver  and the taker  of bribes are equally guilty   before  the law. Generally  however,  in  most societies  and nations,  the taker bears  the brunt of the opprobrium most  probably  because  the  taker is invariably  a public official working in a public  institution taking the bribe for  a normally  free  service or to bend the rules  or look the other way  on a legal  infringement by the giver . As  IMF  MD Christine  Lagarde said rightly this week   on   CNN ,  corruption destroys  any economy ,  and  that is the  truth.

    However  it is a mockery of the global  concern  on stolen  assets involved  in corruption and money laundry for  Mr  David  Cameron,   a Prime  Minister of a nation like  Britain which aims  to organize   next    year  a  global    anti-corruption  conference  on stolen  assets   in the UK ,  to have  told  the British  monarch as widely  reported,  that  some  ‘fantastically corrupt’  nations   like  Nigeria   and  Afghanistan are  coming  to the  global  anti corruption conference in London next  year. Such   a  shrilly  and   excited use  of words on a serious  issue  like   corruption  is  simply  misguided, insensitive  and uncouth in diplomatic  terms. Perhaps  if  Mr  Cameron  had  paused to weigh his words before speaking,  he would  have known  that Britain  in terms of receipt of stolen  assets  has  been  a major  beneficiary and  recipient  of stolen  goods   or  assets   more  than  any EU  nation except  perhaps France .  This   is  because  of the legacy  and connection  of Colonialism through which  both the British and the French  brought up those  African  leaders  they  handed power to after  milking such African and developing nations dry of their  assets  especially  minerals  and  agricultural  produce before  granting  them , what  with  the  benefit    of hindsight, we  can  now  safely   call   phony  independence

    Even  now the British  PM  should ask  for a list  of the owners  of the richest  Premiership    soccer clubs in  Britain  like  Manchester  City, Chelsea  or  even  new  Champions   Leicester   and open a register for them to find out how  they  made  the  money  that the  English  Premiership  has used  to  make its  citizens  so    happy  and psychologically  fulfilled  week  in, week  out.   Just    as    the same Premiership  has become the most  potent  instrument  for the re Colonisation  of the  minds, time and outlook of the citizens of the former  colonies  of  Great  Britain  and  France  globally   in  Africa, Asia,  and   especially   the  Middle  East, where  Britons, French  and  indeed  the agents of Western  Civilisation  are  most  hated.  So  in  basic  terms the term  ‘fantastically  corrupt’ may  not  be a monopoly  of nations like  Nigeria  and  Afghanistan where corruption  is rampant  and  may  even  be a way  of life. It  is equally  applicable  for the major  recipient  of stolen  assets like Britain  whose  capital  is littered or  adorned in terms of choice  property  by  the proceeds  of stolen  money  and assets  from  all  parts  of  the world

    Indeed it was  widely  reported that  Russian billionaires who  made money  by the plundering  of  Russian minerals  industries at  privatization  prefer to  go to  British  Courts to settle  claims  on ownership, fronting, interests  and   cross  interests  in such  assets  transferred to  Britain  because  they  believe in getting justice  on such  assets  in  British  Courts. But  no  one ever  denied in  Britain  that the assets  were  stolen  from  Russia  through  shady  deals  when the  West  including Britain  were pushing Russia  to  democratize, deregulate  and marketize  its economy after  the collapse  of  Communism  under   former    President  Mikhail  Gorbachez. The  British  government  looked the other way as the  Russian  stolen  assets  boosted  the British economy  and  the British  judges, assiduously ,  straight  facedly  administered justice  as if they never knew the  assets  in question were stolen  assets.  If that is not fantastic, out of the world corruption and duplicity  I  wonder what  it is. Mr  Cameron  should   just   listen to what  President  Muhammadu Buhari said  in  London    this week    that he would  not ask  for an  apology    from  him but would  only seek  that stolen  assets  be returned . What  the usually  taciturn  Nigerian  leader  did not  say  in so  many   words   was  that  those  who  live in glass  houses  should  not throw  stones,  especially  on global  corruption.

    In   fighting corruption  however  it  is  necessary  for  those  involved  to always look  over their  shoulder   because corrupt  people  have money  to defend their  stolen  assets and they  can  fight  back .But  those  who  fight  corruption  too if  they  are hurt  by  corrupt  practices  can  always  fight  back. Today  I  am  going  to use  Brazil as  an  example  of how  corruption  has fought back  successfully and dislodged a sitting president.   Also  I  will  use  Nigeria as an example  of where corruption  is determinedly fighting the anti  corruption war  of President Buhari by  putting  Trojan  horse   as   it were  within its  gates like  an  enemy  within.

    This  week  the Brazilian  President Dilmar Rousseff  was  suspended while impeachment  proceedings  commenced  against her. Dilmar  has  called this   a coup but  the New  York  Times  in an editorial  called her impeachment  a  successful  fight  back  by powerful  politicians  in Brazil who  felt  that he did not  protect them  enough when the corruption  charges brought  against them on Petrobas Brazil’ s  major  company  broke  out  sometime  ago. The  Petrobasanti  corruption  investigation  has consumed  many prominent  and powerful  senators and businessmen  in  Brazil  but  Dilmar  was unscathed  even  though  she was Chairman  of  Petrobas  before  she became  president.  Her  party the  Workers  Party has  produced  the last  two  presidents in Brazil  and it is  her second term that is being scuttled  having been  elected to a second  term  in  2014. Dilmar  is being impeached  for tampering with the budget deficit  that made the economy looked buoyant  for  her election in her  first term a not unusual ploy in  most elective democracies.

    Yet  her real  sin  could  have  been  that her predecessor former  President  Lula  Da  Silva  brought two  major  sporting events to  be staged in  Brazil  and  defeating two  major world  powers,   especially  Britain  and the US  in the process. Under  Lula,  a socialist, Brazil  won the rights to stage the 2014  World  Cup  and the 2016  Olympics.  The  bids  for the events  had  serious  UK  and  US  interests  and  President  Barak   Obama    was   even   personally present at  one in which  he was upstaged  by the Brazilian  president. This  has  been  used  as a campaign  issue  against Obama in the on going US presidential  elections by no less a person than the controversial  GOP presidential  Nominee  Donald  Trump. Dilmar  and her party could  be paying for daring to walk where angels  fear  to tread and the anti  corruption  machinery  of the US  may  be  having its own  back  on the  Brazilian President, her predecessor and their  nation for  daring to humiliate  the US in  the  prestigious   international sporting world  while its own  government was reeking with  corruption at Petrobas.  Dilmar’s  fall again  has shown  that on  corruption again those  who  live in glass  houses  should  not  throw  stones.

    In  the   case of  Nigeria I  am  greatly  disturbed  by  the new  petrol  price  of 145  naira simply  because  of the  multiplier  effect in  terms of high  prices it will create on virtually  every consumable item  you  can  imagine as well  as  transportation  and  commuting fares  which will  affect the welfare  and  living standard  of the average  Nigerian, very  adversely. That  is why I think  it is a Trojan  horse  parked  within the gates of the Buhari  administration  like  the Greeks  did in Greek  mythology  only to come  out at night  to  slaughter  the unsuspecting citizens  of Troy. The  price  hike to  145 naira  will erode  the goodwill  that this administration  has  enjoyed so  far  especially  on the war  against  corruption. If  the APC  had  campaigned  that it  would  raise  petrol  price to 145 naira it could not have won  the 2015 elections. I  thought the increase  was a ruse  to antagonize  the new  government  but then even  Asiwaju  Bola Tinubu  has said  that Nigerians should  learn  to live  with  this pain. This  is  a very  tall order and the political  system  is  going to be very  charged  from  now on just  because  the increase  would be very  unbearable  for  most  Nigerian  families.  I  honestly  hope that the  anti-corruption  forces  have  not penetrated   the administration and  are using  this new deregulation  or new  petrol price  to derail  its  focus  on  the   anti- corruption war  or  even  governance  for  that  matter.  Both  the timing  and the huge  increase do  not serve the interest of  our democracy  and  those in  government should  really  look over their  shoulders in the  days  and  weeks  ahead  and do  a rethink  or a u turn  before   it is too late. Once  again  long live the  Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria.

  • EU, Nigeria and democracy

    EU, Nigeria and democracy

    WHEN Governor Ayo Fayose was in Ibadan issuing his thunderous blather about the media, President Muhammadu Buhari’s gerontocracy, and herdsmen who should be resisted by every means fair or foul, the Ambassador and Head of European Delegation to Nigeria, Michel Arrion, was speaking stimulatingly of the nexus between untrammeled media and the fine texture and growth of democracy. The EU ambassador declared democracy in Nigeria as unexampled on account of the total liberty the press enjoys. He is right. Mr Arrion is even righter to suggest that, “By facilitating the free flow of information and ideas on matters of public interest, and by ensuring transparency and accountability, independent media constitute one of the cornerstones of democracy.”

    It must not be taken for granted, however, that press freedom and the consequential activation of Nigeria’s robust democracy are a product of their mere inclusion in certain provisions of the constitution. Nigerians themselves took control of the matter of press freedom and decided to enrich their democracy. It helped that they had the law on their side, and the constitution is unambiguous in its provisions. But without the pertinacity of Nigerians, their leaders, not to say even the lawmakers, were not minded to allow such rich and robust application of press freedom laws and democratic principles.

    Even under the military, when press freedom was almost completely countermanded by jejune enactment and application of gagging decrees, media professionals always played brinkmanship, aggressively pushing the frontiers of the freedom of speech to its elastic limit. They suffered the consequences; but in the process, and by their intransigence and innovativeness, they showed the futility of gagging the press. It would, indeed, have been immaterial should the 1999 Constitution (as amended) pretend not to recognise and accommodate in its statutes what enterprising Nigerians had already secured for themselves by the force of their intellect and ingenuity.

  • Democracy without citizens’ participation?

    SIR: The dishonorable happenings in the 8th National Assembly have resolutely convinced politically-engaged Nigerians that a critical mass of politicians in the upper and lower chambers of our law making ivory tower are not there for representative democracy, but to earn the largest legislative allowances and wages in the history of democracy on earth.

    From the melodrama produced by the Machiavellian process of picking principal officers in the lawmaking assemblage to the current Saraki saga, the drama seems to keep evolving unabatedly from the floors of the both houses. Nigerians are finding it hard to move on with zest as expected by standard demands of citizenship because those they have elected to represent them at the National Assembly now advance their personal interest without recourse to their constituents.

    How come solutions to poverty and unemployment at the grassroots are all about tricycles and sewing machines but N3.8 billion is spent on Sports Utility vehicles (SUV) for themselves?

    Why do our public officers think that people at the grassroots should be the only ones to take the hit in the bumpy ride to economic reconstruction?

    The answers would be that our public officials are not accountable to the public. The elected members even attempted to redefine what free speech should be in our democracy. Money and power always have a way of introducing a twist in noble human rectitude.

    Why should they be held accountable in the first place? After all, as purportedly written by a sitting Senator, some of them ‘paid every inch of the way’ to get there. Therefore, they will never be afraid to happily and perceptively over-promise but under-deliver because there is no immediate penalty for doing so.

    Perhaps, common sense should tell our Senators that ‘in the spirit of change’, the constant fleecing of public funds and display of contempt for public intelligence, which used to be a norm, is becoming a thing of the past in Nigeria. But then again, common sense has never been part of their equation.

    The facetious response from a senator to an individual she represents reconfirms two truisms about Nigerian politics: Truth has no place in our system and money wins elections. The system is so corrupt we can smell it in the air we breathe.

    Money and material considerations are part of politics in every democratic setting. But they have always taken away the voice and rights of the common man in Nigeria.

    It is obvious that appealing to our elected officials in the National Assembly might not change their dishonorable approach to public service since some of them have been bought or paid for by someone else at the party hierarchy. Nonetheless, we will continue to remind them that in representative democracy, they are not our leaders but our representatives. They are there to carry out the will of the people. In simple terms, their primary task is serving their constituents.

    In the past, whistles were used to nobly pass messages to our elected officials. But the prevalent circumstances in our National Assembly have shown that our lawmakers have ear plugs in their ears. We are wiser and audacious now. We are engaging the use of drums and trumpets to articulate our disenchantment to democracy without citizens’ participation.

     

    • David Dimas,

    Maryland, U.S.A.

  • The irony of our democracy: deformed elites versus disempowered masses?

    Even though representative democracy almost invariably gives power to the elite, it also expects that such elites are intellectually and morally strong enough not to take advantage of the position delegated to them at elections

    The irony of our democracy: deformed elites versus disempowered masses?It is the irony of democracy that the survival of democratic values—individual dignity, limited government, equality of opportunity, private property, freedom of speech and press, religious tolerance, and due process of law—depends on enlightened elites. The masses respond to the ideas and actions of elites. When elites abandon democratic principles or the masses lose confidence in elites, democracy is in peril.—Thomas R. Dye

    The noise about the attempt of the Senate to amend the CCT and Administration of Criminal Justice Acts seems to be going down after announcement of suspension of the amendment. What should not be allowed to evaporate is the cause and implication of the embarrassing behaviour of senators involved in the suspended amendment for the country’s democracy.

    It is not surprising in a democracy that the attempt by some brazen senators to amend CCT/CCB has drawn conflicting comments from pundits. On the side of pro-amendment senators, commentators have warned against muzzling or muffling senators for carrying out their duty. But on the side of public interest, senators involved in the process of amending a law under which the senate president is being tried have been called bad names that may not be totally undeserved: political elites with no sense of enlightened self-interest and no sense of shame.

    While some senators including the lawmaker who initiated the amendment process have presented their motivation as clean: ensuring that the laws provide fair hearing for all citizens, others have said things that should embarrass the average citizen. One Senator Biodun Olujimi justified the move to amend the laws thus: “If you don’t assist your neighbour when his house is burning, it will extend to yours.” One comment that was propagated fast among the folks, not only because of attempts to amend CCT/CCB laws but also on account of the decision of senate leadership to provide N35 million SUV to each senator is that the Senate has become a ‘One-Chance’ bus system.

    ‘One Chance’ is one of Nigeria’s formulations to describe the country’s moral turpitude. It refers to a bus service run by thieves or robbers who, instead of carrying their passengers to their destinations, rob them after sedating them or often without any sedation and discharge them in an area that may not be familiar to the passengers. Calling the country’s upper legislature ‘one-chance’ is an indirect way of calling the country’s senators morally irresponsible people who set out to defraud the people and act habitually without scruples. Many people would say that such name is too negative to characterise our lawmakers while others may feel that no word is too strong to express their anger against a group of self-serving citizens who are at ease in ignoring their electors’ voice. Self-respecting senators should feel embarrassed that they are being likened by those who elected them one year ago to ‘drive-to-rob transporters.’

    One point that may be missed about the behaviour or misbehaviour of our senators elected on the manifesto of change is the character of our political elite in general. The poor moral show of the senate in particular in the last few weeks has been worse than what citizens experienced under Jonathan’s regime of impunity. Citizens have not over reacted by calling the conduct of most senators churlish, given that most of the senators were elected on the ideology of change and fight against corruption. Young people in particular must have been puzzled that the leaders they elected last year prefer to act in a more juvenile manner than under-age citizens. The readiness with which senators abandon their duties to accompany their leader to court is enough to undermine public trust in the political system. Such brazen show of support of senators for an individual who should be presumed innocent until proven guilty projects such senators as having a deficient sense of public interest. The churlishness exhibited by senators with respect to the trial of Senator Bukola Saraki is made worse by the attempts of the senate to amend the CCB/CCT laws. Despite the claim of altruism, Saraki is too wise not to know that the senators involved in amending the laws are doing so for their own sake. Senator Olujimi has revealed the motivation: ‘preventing the fire in a neighbour’s house from spreading to one’s house.’

    The 8th Senate started its tenure on the note of absence of self-discipline. Despite frantic efforts to the contrary, it became clear to citizens that the rules that supported election of officers of the 8th senate were believed to have been forged. Citizens were told by the media that the police sent a report alleging forgery of rules to the ministry of justice for review. But the ministry of justice claimed that the police did not return the final draft of the report to it, and the matter went into the silent mode ever since. However, most of the officers elected under the questionable rules kept drumming into the ears of the public that it was politicians within the same party who had their own preferred candidates that made a mountain out of the mole hill of the matter.A legislature that is unable to abide by its own rules does not seem to have done anything unrealistic when it embarks on amending laws that do not promote its interest.

    Similarly, senate leadership demonstrated gross insensitivity to public interest when it ordered SUVs for members, despite complaints by citizens that such profligacy at a time the economy is comatose is irrational. This behaviour, like the creation of the Senate rules at the first meeting of the 8th Senate, demonstrates lack of readiness on the part of senators to act like enlightened and morally capable elites. Even though representative democracy almost invariably gives power to the elite, it also expects that such elites are intellectually and morally strong enough not to take advantage of the position delegated to them at elections. That senators are unable to appreciate the complaints of the masses illustrates lack of respect for the culture of democracy.

    If anything, the sudden decision of the senate to suspend the amendment of the laws that they have sworn in the last few days to ‘amend in the interest of the larger public’ shows how vulnerable the powerful senators are. It is instructive that it has taken just a threat from the NLC and a few civil society organisations for the omniscient and omnipotent senators to realise the limit of the power put in their hands by the electorate. It is salutary that the senators have finally capitulated after a farcical show of power. Elites have to govern with sense if democracy is to survive. When they fail to do this, they incense the masses, thus threatening the democratic system needlessly. It would have been disastrous if the once recalcitrant senators had insisted to do as they wished. It takes just one chance to demystify democracy: elites raising the anger of the masses to the point of compelling them to recall senators or even occupy the senate. Nobody should allow this demystification to happen. Public-regarding civil society organisations should be congratulated for standing firm in the last few weeks on the superiority of public interest to personal interest.

    Decades of military dictatorship have influenced the political culture of citizens across the social spectrum. Many top political leaders still act two decades after demilitarisation as if democracy is just a fad, rather than a culture. And as a culture, it needs an elaborate system of socialisation. Such socialisation requires grooming citizens who respect principles and nuances of democratic culture, especially the inevitability of leaders and followers to listen to each other as they deliberate on how to solve common problems. The decades of feudalisation of the polity have to be transcended by both those who seek votes and those who give votes. Citizens have to realise at all times that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

  • Why democracy is failing in Africa – Maitama Sule

    Why democracy is failing in Africa – Maitama Sule

    Former permanent representative of Nigeria to the United Nations and elder stateman, Alhaji Maitama Sule, Wednesday said democracy was failing in Africa because the culture of the people was not being taken into consideration in shaping it.

    Speaking at the opening of the first Faculty of Arts International Conference of the University of Calabar at the Conference Centre of the institution Wednesday, Sule, said, “In Africa we have been having problems with democracy and I believe it is because we have not taken into account our cultural background in shaping our type of democracy.

    “Is the American style of democracy the same as that of Great Britain? Is the British the same as France? Is France practicing the same as Russia? Until we take our culture into consideration in shaping our own democracy, we shall not succeed and continue to have problems. The democracy we are practicing today is not Afrocentric, but Eurocentric. We are not practicing our democracy along the lines of our culture.”

    The Conference had as its theme, Globalization and Democratic Values in Africa: Perspective in the Humanities.

    Sule also emphasized the need for justice for everyone in a democratic setting.

    He said, “I believe in democracy. At the end of the day it is justice for all. The president has to do justice to all irrespective of background. Justice should be done to whosoever deserves it. That is democracy. Justice is the only way that we can follow to achieve greatness and it should be done to all and sundry. The world should never be government by force and fear and power. Justice is what this democracy wants.”

    Vice Chancellor, Prof Zana Akpagu, said the topic for the conference was very apt, especially in view of the fact that the world was now a global village, as anything that happens in any part of the world affects every other part.

    “Nigeria is still grappling with democracy, but we will get there and we can only get there through discussions like this, and for us as an administration we are ready to encourage any efforts that are geared to enthroning the culture of intellectual discussion. We are ready to promote academic excellence through seminars and conferences like this,” he said.

    Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Prof (Mrs) Dorothy Oluwagbemi-Jacob, said democracy is a cherished value and it is particularly appealing to those whose yearnings for freedom, equality and justice are daily frustrated.

    Oluwagbemi-Jacob said genuine democracy creates space for incentives to increase the productivity of the people, make provision for social welfare services in education and health to enable people produce more, as well as make it possible for the people to choose their representatives to governmental decision-making bodies.

    The Dean said globalization studies call for an interdisciplinary approach comprehensive enough to capture the ‘big picture’, and hoped the Conference would provide answers to the link between globalization and democracy.

    Among dignitaries who attended the event as well as made contributions were former Senate President, Ken Nnamani; former Senate President, Ibrahim Mantu; former governor of Anambra State, Chief Chukwuemeka Ezeife; former governor of Akwa Ibom State, Obong Idongesit Nkanga; and Rt Hon Nduese Essien among others.

     

  • Documentary as tool to grow democracy

    Viewers were spellbound by powers of documentary films during the Sixth iRepresent (iRep) International Documentary Film Festival at the Freedom Park, Lagos. The event was themed #Change: Documentary Films as Agent Provocateur. Over 30 select films were screened.

    It was a fest of documentary films that explored its theme from an angle quite dissimilar from its erstwhile detached slant. Executive director/co-founder of Foundation for Development of Documentary Film in Africa, organisers of the iRep Film Festival, Femi Odugbemi said: “This year’s IREP festival comes at a time when it is most important to take the African storytelling experience to a new level of reckoning and celebration. The dimension of documentary as a tool for deepening experiences and mediating history makes it a powerful tool to unpack what we need to grow our nascent democracies.”

    He described documentary films as a means of expression, probably as an alternative to or a partner with art, noting that “there is a need to find an outlet to document the “truths” of our experiences for historical purposes and hopefully, the negative chapters of that history, when documented in powerful narratives, will be slow to repeat itself. Documentary today must be about engineering open and more vibrant democracies”.

    In her keynote address, Jane Mote who spoke on Documentary as Agent Provocateur at the film festival, said: “We have a responsibility to document the world honestly and to ask the questions that get us nearer to the truth. I passionately believe everyone should own their own stories”. Mote is media consultant for TV channels and digital media companies including Discovery, BBC Worldwide, London Live, The Africa Channel and One World Media

    She expressed her belief in documentaries as a real opportunity for people to take control of their stories to define their cultures.

    Meanwhile, four documentaries were screened at the opening and the first was Kenya: A Guidebook to Impunity, a 62-minute documentary by Maina Kiai. The documentary, which was about the Kenyan election that saw Uhuru Kenyatta become Kenya’s president. It is a deconstructive exposé on the election that had extraordinary consequences in Kenya. Reviewing the film, Dare Dan said: “It takes us from the grassroots to the apex of how things went down through the eyes of locals, rape victims, and those who lost limbs, property and loved ones.”

    Also on the menu were HID Awolowo; The Legend, The Legacy by Dare Akpata, Negritude: A Dialogue between Senghor and Soyinka. These documentaries, as their titles readily imply, discuss the deceased wife of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, and the well-known ideological differences between Professor Wole Soyinka and former Senegalese president, Sedar Senghor.

    The Democrats by Camilla Neilsson is probably most engaging of all. A 100-minute documentary shot in politically unstable Zimbabwe where a new constitution was being put together by the ruling party of Robert Mugabe, ZANU-PF and the divided opposition party, MDC. It invites the audience to observe the entire process a la motion picture.

    Reviewing the film, Agnes Atsuah said: “Any documentary, short film and such about Zimbabwe and her 30-plus years under the dictatorship of her president Robert Mugabe is bound to draw considerable interest and this 100-minute documentary is no exception. From the opening archival scenes where a small look into Zimbabwe’s past state of affairs is shown to the almost flawless transition to the film itself, it is almost impossible not to be drawn in.”

    On the pace of the film, she said: “Pacing is done almost perfectly as each scene seems on the verge of an impending, inevitable finale of the failed system that the two often warring political parties so desperately tried to put into place. Desperation, frustration, disappointment and laudable hope are major emotions that mostly close-up shots translate so well.”

    Among the guests present at the opening included Nobel laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka; veteran filmmaker, Tunde Kelani as well as other scholars and film enthusiasts.

  • Religion as dilemma for liberal democracy

    Religion as dilemma for liberal democracy

    On the one hand, for the liberalism in liberal democracy, with its undiluted commitment to freedom of thought, conscience and action, takes religious freedom as a fundamental freedom. The freedom of religion in liberal democracy connotes the right and the capability of an individual to practise a religion of his or her choice without fear of persecution or molestation. This freedom is unquestionable and it is not subject to social or political constraint.

    On the other hand, the democracy component of liberal democracy captures the collective character of the political community and its implication for common action and governance. Liberalism can accommodate a loner without any problem though it’s unclear why a loner would need a liberal theory in the first place. Where there is a multitude, however, there’s an assurance of a clash of freedoms and the need for a means of resolving those conflicts. Democracy is the choice of many modern societies, including Nigeria. Thus, liberalism, with its commitment to individual freedoms combines with democracy with its commitment to the sovereignty of the people as the foundation of government.

    The freedom of religion or freedom of conscience which liberalism affirms unequivocally for the individual, like other freedoms, must now have to be reconciled with or accommodated in a whole gamut of freedoms claimed by other individuals in a democracy. It soon becomes clear then that the freedom considered absolute for a loner is anything but in a democratic society where there is a clash of multitudes of individual freedoms at stake.

    Herein lies the dilemma for a progressive committed to the sanctity and advancement of liberal democracy. On the one hand, that commitment requires an unequivocal respect for the individual freedoms recognised by liberalism including freedom of religion. On the other hand, that commitment also requires a pragmatic approach that recognises the destructive nature of absolutist conceptions of freedoms, including freedom of religion in a pluralistic setting. It requires an understanding that there have to be restrictions of freedom of religion.The mark of statesmanship is the ability to navigate the two horns of this cruel dilemma.

    Fortunately, we are not in an uncharted territory. From liberal democratic theorists and constitutional provisions, we have the outlines of a compelling approach to resolving the dilemma.

    Thus, we only need to be reminded of the dictum of the apostle of liberalism with regard to the liberty of thought and action. The only reason why a person can be punished for an action, according to John Stuart Mill, is that it harms other people. From this it is clear that a defence of individual freedom will not fly where a person’s action or speech affects others.

    But if we can punish an individual after the fact that his or her action adversely affects others, we can or at least should act to prevent the performance of that action to the extent that it is possible. Prevention, after all, is always better than cure.It is this preventative approach that constitutional provisions, statutes and policies are designed to pursue in clear statements and enforceable codes.

    Constitutions vary in terms of such provisions with some as ultra-liberals favouring as much liberty as possible and some as ultra conservatives with as much restrictions as possible. The US is an example of the former. Iran is an example of the latter.

    With our multiplicity of religions, our constitution pragmatically steers the middle course between unconstrained freedom and unbridled regulation in the matter of religion. It endorses the secularity of the state with a freedom clause that grants the freedom to choose and practise one’s religion without persecution or molestation and an establishment clause that prohibits the state from adopting a religion.

    Despite the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, however, nations have witnessed varieties of violations including the persecution and harassment of citizens on the basis of religious differences. Indeed, religious conflict has become one the most virulent in our contemporary world.Nigeria has had its disproportionate share of this malady with Maitatsine sect in the 1980s and now Boko Haram, both confined to the North.When the constitution fails to protect, what does a leader do? In particular, what does a progressive government do to prevent religious bigotry and protect its citizens?

    This is presumably the question that Governor El-Rufai of Kaduna State was compelled to ask himself. The answer that he came up with in the form of a new legislation to combat the cancer of religious intolerance has been the subject of media interpretation with commentators breaking for or against him. A few in the latter group, including a Christian cleric, has pronounced a death sentence on the governor unless he withdraws the bill. What more evidence does one need for the vitality of religious extremism?

    Incidentally, El-Rufai’s bill is not totally original. It is a rehash of a 1984 bill that sought to serve the same purpose, but which had not received the kind of scrutiny that the new bill has received and had not been effectively enforced over the years.

    A key provision of the bill requires the licensing of preachers in the state. This is to be done by the Inter-Faith Ministerial Committee to be set up by the governor and which is to have a supervisory control over the two Committees of Jama’atu Nasir Islam (JNI) and Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) respectively. These committees are to keep records of churches and mosques as well as the data of preachers in the state. Local Government Area Committees are to keep a register of preachers in their localities and screen their applications for preaching licences with recommendations to the Ministerial Committee. The latter may reject or approve and where it approves, the committees of the major religions are to issue the licences to their respective preachers.

    There is restriction on the playing of cassettes, CDs and other religious recordings (which must not contain any abusive language against persons or religions) to the privacy of individual homes or places of worship. Provision is also made for punishment for infraction of any of the provisions.

    There is little if any doubt with respect to the good intentions of the governor. In any case, it is difficult if not impossible to discern the motive of any individual talk less of a politician. However, one must always give the benefit of the doubt especially in a case such as this when we are confronted at every point of our national life with violent extremism. A leader has an obligation to think clearly and initiate ideas and policies that respond effectively to the challenge. I want to believe that this is what has motivated Governor El-Rufai in the direction of a new or rehashed legislation.

    Is it constitutional? Will it work? Some have argued that the bill violates the constitution because it restricts the freedom of religion that the constitution guarantees. This is not a valid argument because the constitution itself provides for the restriction of the freedom that it grants “in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, etc. and for the protection of “the rights and freedoms of other persons.”

    The major worry is whether and how the law will work if and when passed by the legislators and signed by the governor. It is unclear if the two major religions whose leaders are already up in arms against the bill will cooperate in its implementation. But it is equally unclear why these bodies are assigned the role of registrars when they do not represent every Christian or Islamic organisation or sect.

    Assume, however, that the issue of requisite committees is resolved, how are culprits to be apprehended and punished? The bill charges the Local Government Committee with the function of ensuring compliance with the terms of the licence issued. Presumably the same committees are responsible for apprehending violators and prosecuting them. The matter of enforcement will make or mar the bill if and when it becomes law. It is important, therefore, to be as clear as possible on the locus of responsibility for enforcement.

  • ‘Fayose a disgrace to democracy’

    ‘Fayose a disgrace to democracy’

    A chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Kaduna State, Yusuf Ali (Raba Gardama) has described Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose as an embarrassment to democratic ethos.

    He said in a statement in Abuja that the governor’s utterances in recent time have crossed the boundary of free speech.

    “His frequent insults and vituperations against the President have crossed the boundary of free speech. It is the height of indiscipline and typical of someone who is plagued with hangover.

    “Fayose’s outburst does not help the polity in anyway because it portrays him as someone still weighed down with the fever of electoral defeat when the whole nation has united behind President Muhammadu Buhari to deliver Nigeria from the mess of the 16-year misrule of the PDP.

    “If Fayose is suffering from verbal diarrhoea, I think it is time he goes for cure rather than abusing our president. This is unacceptable.

    “Loyalty to the president is not a matter of choice but it’s an obligation by all citizens, including Fayose, who always throws caution to the wind and runs his mouth as if there are no laws in the land.

    “Fayose is a whimsically eccentric person who shouldn’t have been a prefect in secondary school not to talk of governing the highly educated and urbane people of Ekiti.”

  • Fayose’s detractors, enemies of democracy

    SIR: I wish to disabuse the mind of the general public of the erroneous and maligning comments being made about the governor of Ekiti State, Ayodele Fayose. Every student of political history knows that there is no democracy where there is no opposition. It appears that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is bent on stifling the voice of the Ekiti governor, who, undoubtedly, is the remaining voice of opposition in the country.

    Since the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lost the general election last year, even the vocal publicity secretary of the party, Olisa Metuh, appears to have been cowed to silence. But Governor Fayose has remained undaunted in criticizing perceived anti-people policies of the Muhammadu Buhari-led APC government. There still are many PDP leaders whose voices should be heard as active opposition to the APC government. But lull is the word within the rank of the party leaders. I personally believe that Fayose has remained unbending in the face of harassment by federal government agencies, perhaps, because he has no skeleton in his cupboard.

    Moreover, despite his visible contribution to national politics, paucity of funds and federal government harassment, Fayose is doing a yeoman’s job in the state he was elected to govern. The dual-carriage way he constructed from Ado-Ekiti, the state capital, to Ikere-Ekiti during his first stint as governor had been left by successive governments to deteriorate. Fayose is back on the site of the road now, reconstructing the road and even extending it further. He has completed the dualisation of the Awedele – Textile road with street lights. This is apart from a new road from Pathfinder area to Police headquarters. All these were done within his first one year in office.

    Fayose has demolished the old Erekesan (oja oba) market. Construction of an ultramodern market has since begun at the site. He recently flagged off the construction of a flyover starting from High Court to Okeyinmi area. All these are testimonies that despite his participation in national politics, governance in his state has not suffered neglect.

    It is evident that Fayose’s detractors are merely playing to the gallery. Theirs is not politics of objectivity and development. They seem at best to be federal government’s paid agents whose sole aim is to stifle the remaining voice of opposition. If they are not stopped immediately, Nigeria might be heading towards autocracy in a supposedly democratic environment.

     

    • Adeola Oloko,

     Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State.

  • Super Tuesday and American democracy

    SIR: It is an incontestable fact that America parades the best and most effective presidential democracy in the world. The origin of this democracy began almost with the emergence of United States of America with the declaration of independence in 1776. After the initial challenges associated with nation building, and after a several trials and errors in fashioning out the best political system for the new nation, the continental congress of 12 consenting states agreed to adopt Presidential Democracy. Since then until now, United States political system had endured a lot of political, social and economic thick and thorns. Beginning with the first president, George Washington, the nation had continued to grow and expand in all aspects of nation building.

    As at today, it has had 44 Presidents, endured war of revolution, civil war, several years of segregation against blacks, social inadequacies and major economic down turn and up turns. Yet, the country had continued to absorb and assimilate every social, political and racial upheaval and has grown from strength to strength in its 240 years, it has never had any violent regime change i.e. coup de tat, rather every democratic regime had been through democratic process as outlined in the country’s constitution and its amendments. The kernel of America’s democratic processes lies in the rule of law and the people’s adherence to political process for the election of their presidents and other political offices.

    For example, American presidential election takes place on first Tuesday of every November in every four years. Every presidential election is preceded by what is known as party primaries and caucuses. This is a process through which party presidential candidates are selected. The process sometime is highly complicated but once understood, is smooth and peaceful. In each case, each of the two main political parties: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party conducts its primaries in accordance with the laid down procedures.

    In the past few months, these two political parties have been engaged in their party primaries.  The climax of American party primaries comes up first Tuesday in March of election year known as “Super Tuesday.” It is referred to as a Super Tuesday because it is the only period that a large number of convention delegates are selected. It is a deciding moment for such presidential aspirants to bow out of the race if they have not done fairly reasonable, because Super Tuesday to many aspirants is the most effective acid test as to whether an aspirant should continue the race or not. For example, after the last Super Tuesday primaries, it has become evident that on the Republican Party side, Donald Trump is the front runner while on the Democratic side; Hillary Clinton is the person to beat.

    From the beginning of the party primaries exercises last January, some aspirants have bowed out, including Jeff Bush, the younger brother of a former US President, George W. Walker Bush. In fact, American presidential party primaries must be seen as a gradual elimination process for all the presidential aspirants because this process is spread across the country over about a period of six months. So by the end of the party primaries in June, each of the presidential candidates must have known the prospects of their electability depending on the number of convention delegates each must have garnered.

    It is very different from party conventions in Nigeria where presidential aspirants usually go to conventions with trailer load of currencies and cash with agents to buy convention delegates. We can remember the show of shame in PDP convention at Jos where retired generals acted as purchasing agents to buy delegates for Obasanjo to defeat Ekwueme. That was the beginning of the downfall of today’s downturn in PDP fortune. Therefore, for the party to bounce back, it must adopt free and fair congresses and conventions. There is no alternative to this.

     

    • Dr. Chuks Osuji,

    <researchcom3@gmail.com>