Civil rule was restored in Nigeria on May 29, 1999, after many years of military rule. But 14 years after, the country is still far from democracy, reports Group Political Editor, EMMANUEL OLADESU.
wasted expectation
Fourteen years after, there is little to cheer. The economy is on its knee. The standard of living is declining. Social infrastructure is comatose. Unemployment, especially among the graduates, is soaring. Corruption in high places is alarming. Security is at a low ebb. The sanctity of the ballot box is not fully guaranteed. The ship of state, analysts warn, may hit the rock, if drastic measures to avert the catastrophe is not properly applied by the rulers.
It is a story of wasted hope. Nigeria achieved civil rule, but it appears that democracy is still illusory. According to observers, the bane is poor leadership.
Expectations were high in 1999, when the military bowed out, following a long and tedious pro-democracy struggle. It was evident that the military rule was old-fashioned because the soldier failed woefully in their self-imposed duty of running the affairs of the country without the people’s mandate. This pervading feeling contrasted sharply with the endorsement of the army rule in 1966, following the tension that enveloped the beleaguered country because of bad governance by the first crop of civilian rulers. But military rule also wreck worse havoc. Up to now, some critics have continued to attribute the slow journey to recovery to the prolonged military rule and its far-reaching negative effects national life.
Faulty foundation
Many have also argued that the journey to the difficult future had its root in the mistake of 1914 and the crisis of nation-building it has unleashed. Putting this into perspective, a political scientist, Prof. John Rourke, pointed out that, in Europe and America, while nations generally came together first and only coalesced into states, it is different in Africa and Asia. It is an understatement. For example, Nigeria evolved from the earlier boundaries drawn by the colonial power and does not contain a single, cohesive nation. As Rourke argues, the people of this former colonial state are of different tribal and ethnic backgrounds and find little to bind them once independence was achieved and the common enemy, the colonial power, has left. “This lack of cohesion often results in civil discord and causes regime instability and the resulting internal discord often invites outside intervention and thus, becomes a source of international conflict”, he added.
Instructively, the colonial edifice erected on the porous foundation has been shaking because the builders never subscribed to the building project on any agreed term. When independence day broke on October 1, 1960, the political leaders turned up for the lowering of the British flag as ethnic barons without emotional attachment to the evolving nation-state. Nigeria, which, right from the onset, was an amalgam of the incompatible social formations, produced tribal leaders from the distraught regions in hot competition for federal power and resources. Ethnic parties; the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC), Action Group (AG) and National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC); maintained their holds on the antagonistic regions, the North, West and East, thereby frustrating the development of national outlook germane to nation-building, cohesion and harmony.
Motivation for power
Greed, avarice and the perception of the corridor of power as an avenue for private accumulation may have motivated many people to enter politics. This may be a simplistic and generalised view. In resolving the puzzle: ‘What motivated the members of the political elite to go into politics’, especially in the decolonising period, renowned historian, Dr. Nna Mba, posited that “some fought for the control of political power in order to have access to government funds, commercial opportunities and jobs from which they had been denied by the colonial government and firms. Although she acknowledged that some were also motivated by nationalism, power and prestige of potential government, inducement of the office as a career and ideological convictions, historical evidences suggest that they were in the minority.
Mba, in the bibliography, ‘Ayo Rosiji: Man with vision’, also pointed out that, although corruption, which maniffested in the abuse of political and government office, preceded independence, Balewa Government, which took over from the British, failed to check the practice. But what became the waterloo of the first indigenous government its mishandling of the electoral process and partisan involvement in the Western Regional crisis. Although the First Republic marked the era of true federalism, which permitted the four regions; West, North, East and Midwest; to run their affairs in an atmosphere of healthy competition, political instability and tension still engulfed the polity because of the recurrent conflicts between the ceremonial President and Head of Government, the lopsided balance of federal/regional power, ethnic rivalry, the crisis in the wild wild West which was fueled by the crisis of legitimacy and soaring corruption.
Crisis of legitimacy
When the military came into power on January 15, 1966, the first casualty of the Unifying Decree 34, 1966, which aptly effected radical, but strange federal/regional relations and unified the civil service, was true federalism. After the death, of the first military, Head of State, Gen Moses Auguiyi Ironsi, General Yakubu Gowon who succeeded him he reneged on his administration’s promise to hand over to the civilians. He described 1973 as unrealistic, proposing to exit from power in 1976. The civilians were disillusioned. Gowon Government has also been chided for corruption and lack of clear direction. On July 29, 1975, he was toppled in a military putsch led by his cousin, Col. Joe Garba. His successor, Murtala announced a transition programme, which his successor, General Olusegun Obasanjo, implemented with tactical, strategic and partisan military guidance. This feat was described by the political scientist, Prof. Bayo Adekanye, as the liquidation of a self-acquired power. But the evidence of residual partisan interest by the departing soldiers was twofold. After the Constituent Assembly submitted its report, the military injected some clauses into it without consultation with the representatives of the people the 1979 Constitution was meant to serve. Also, the Head of State declared that the best presidential material may not get to the Presidency.
Thirteen years after the first military intervention, President Sheu Shagari assumed the reins on October 1, 1979. The country had jettisoned the parliamentary system for multi-party presidential democracy. But the Second Republic was also short-lived. The Federal Government was weak and it failed to embraced the challenges of socio-economic and political development. Many politicians who featured in the earlier dispensation resumed their corrupt activities. The critical sectors were down. Leaders only swarmed in opulence to the detriment of the ordinary people. Alarmed at the economic upheavals, one of the opposition leaders, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, warned that the ship of the state would soon hit the rock. Shagari was overthrowned on December 31, 1983. After him came four Heads of State; Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (1984-85), Gen. Ibrahim Babangida (1985-93), Chief ernest Shonekan (1993), Gen. Sani Abacha (1993-98) and Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar (1998-99).
Between 1985 and 1999, the country was in tumoil. Crisis had escalated in the aborted Third Republic when the historic June 12, 1993 presidential election won by the late Chief Moshood Abiola was annulled by Gen. Babangida.
Following Abacha’s demise, Gen. Abubakar hurriedly implemented a transition programme. But the new civilian administration had to work with a constitution that lied against itself. With the flawed 1999 Constitution as the compass, the Fourth Republic took off on a wrong note.
Tales of three Presidents
The Fourth Republic started on May 29, 1999. In the last 14 years, Nigeria has produced three Presidents-Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo (May 29, 1999-May 29, 2007), the late President Umaru Yar’Adua (May 29, 2007-May 6, 2010), and President Goodluck Jonathan (May 6, 2010 toll date).
The military was a factor in 1999. The retired soldiers collaborated with the PDP leaders in the search for a presidential flag bearer. But for the new President, the necessary adjustment from dictatorship to popular participation was difficult. Gen. Obasanjo, has experience. But many have argued that he was ill-prepared for the challenges of civil rule and transformation required after a long years of military rule. It is debatable. On the assumption of power, he took measures to stabilise the polity. The ovation was laud. But when he was leaving office after a two term of eight years, he had mocked his antecedent as a leader who voluntarily handed over power and statesman in the post-1979 period.
Under Obasanjo, the Presidency became a national burden. Assessed against the criteria of the resolution of the national question, anti-corruption war, electoral reforms, respect for the rule of law, and general democratic credential, observers would score the administration low.
Early in the life of the administration, a constitution review committee was set up. Some political leaders drawn from the different political parties were members. Their opinion was that the lopsided federal structure should be redesigned. They also called for the decentralisation of power. The committee’s work did not see the light of the day. As laudable as the setting up of the ICPC and EFCC were at their inception, the two agencies became tools of repression and oppression during Obasanjo’s second term. They were used to hunt the perceived foes, ahead of the 2007 elections.
The hand of the Federal Government was also heavy on the states. For example, the creation of additional local councils by the Lagos State government was met with stiff federal opposition. For 14 months, the allocations to the Lagos local governments were seized by the President. Although the Supreme Court acknowledged the constitutional powers of the state to create councils, it noted that the new councils were incohate, until they were listed in the constitution. When the Federal Government hesitated to obey court rulings, when Odi was wiped out by soldiers and the President thundered that 2007 was a do or die affair, civilian dictatorship was let loose.
Following repeated calls by the ethnic nationalities for a national conference, Obasanjo agreed to set up the Abuja Political reforms Conference in 2005. But he identified some no-go areas. For a year, the delegates were busy fashioning out a new constitution for the country. At the end of the day, it was clear that the motivation for the conference was the alleged third term gamble. When it was introduced, the conference collapsed. The laudable efforts of many patriotic delegates were in vain.
Between 2000 and 2007, it can be said that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) operated in the President’s bedroom. The 2003 electoral fraud submerged the Southwest geo-political zone. In 2007, the same scenario was repeated under the leadership of the INEC Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu. The electoral contest shifted to the court where the stolen mandates were later restored to the winners of the polls.
When the late Yar’Adua assumed the reins, he acknowledged the rot in the electoral process. He observed that the election that brought him onto power was flawed. He proposed electoral reforms. The deceased President promised to abide by the rule of law and pursue the principles of good governance. In furtherance of his commitment, he set up the Electoral Reforms Committee led by Justice Muhammadu Uwais to make recommendations. The President released the outstanding Lagos council allocations. He also set examples by obeying court judgments. Yar’Adua unfolded a seven-point agenda to revive the ailing sectors. However, he was slowed down by prolonged illness. He passed on in 2010.
President Jonathan, who was Yar’Adua’s deputy, was immediately sworn in as the President. He inherited many challenges, especially insecurity and comatose economy. To reposition the country, he proposed a Transformation Agenda, which encompasses the infrastructure battle, provision of electricity, and protection of life and property.
Dr. Jonathan was elected the President in 2011. Three years after he became the leader, there has been no significant improvement. Corruption is striving in the national life. The security of life has not been guaranteed. Foreign investors are skeptical because of the un-conducive environment. Roads are death traps. Unemployment has persisted. What seems to preoccupy the leaders are the 2015 elections.
As it was 14 years ago, the challenge is the same-lopsided federalism, insecurity, corruption, poor economy, battered judiciary, electoral challenges, Norh/South dichotomy, rotational Presidency, militancy, lack of internal democracy in the parties, and undemocratic structures in many local governments. Although Nigeria may not have become a failed state, it is already a fragile federation.
