Tag: democratic

  • Promote democratic ideals, IBB, Abdulsalami tell NIPSS SEC 43 participants

    Promote democratic ideals, IBB, Abdulsalami tell NIPSS SEC 43 participants

    Former Heads of State, Generals Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida and Abdulsalami Abubakar have advised participants in the Senior Executive Course (SEC) 43 of the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) at Kuru in Plateau State to promote democratic ideals.

    The former military leaders spoke at the maiden reunion of the Alumni Association of SEC 43, 2021, at the weekend in Abuja.

    The reunion, tagged: Getting Things Done: Embracing Memories, Forging Futures, Reuniting Heats and Forever Entwined with SEC43, 2021, brought participants in the course together.

    In a goodwill message read by a member of the course and Director of the Department of Development Control in the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), Mr. Mukhtar Galadima, General Babangida described the promotion of democratic ideals as a “national call”.

    The former military leader stressed the need for collective efforts in stabilising the polity and strengthening democracy in the best way possible for the good of all.

    “We only need to keep reminding ourselves of the magnitude of this national call since we are all expected to be strategic engineers of a functional socio-political, economic, and democratic order in Nigeria.

    “These benefits will be enjoyed by every Nigerian.

    “There is no doubt that you are all achievers as men and women who have made, and continue to make, immense and laudable sacrifices towards national progress,” he said.

    Babangida also enjoined members of the alumni association to sustain the call for national integrity, stressing that commitment, collective drive and strategic orientation would serve as a motivation to make Nigeria a unique nation.

    Read Also: Sanwo-Olu visits 12-year-old boy with missing intestine, promise support

    “I, therefore, commend you all on your years of service to the nation. I am convinced that you will not relent in furthering activities set to brighten our democratic ambitions as a country.

    “Congratulations on this important move of solidarity and an effort in the promotion of national integrity and cohesion,” he said.

    Also, General Abubakar noted that Nigeria is facing myriads of challenges, including poverty and insecurity, which would require a multi-disciplinary approach to tackle.

    In a message read by Brig.-Gen. Solomon Inuwa, the former Head of State urged members of the association to mainstream the sterling ideas they learnt from NIPSS to help the country get out of its current challenges.

    “I equally urge you to continue to work together as a team in adding value and utility to the Nigerian project.

    “The challenges facing Nigeria are complex and cannot be solved by one person or one organisation.

    “We need to work together, in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration to find solutions to these challenges,” he said.

    The Monitor General of the SEC 43, Col. Mustapha Anka (retd.), said the set graduated from NIPSS two years ago and decided to come together to interact and socialise.

    Anka said the reunion was also to fashion out ways to positively impact society in line with the motto of the institute: Towards a Better Society.

    He said the theme of their course was: Getting Things Done: Strategies for Policy and Programme Implementation in Nigeria, which he described as “all encompassing”.

    “We were 85 in number and our membership cut across military, security agencies, private sectors, civil servants among others,” he said.

    The Secretary General of the course, Mr. Chukwudi Oracle, described SEC 43 as a “think tank” that has all it takes to enhance national growth and development.

  • APC chieftain calls for more democratic inclusion

    APC chieftain calls for more democratic inclusion

    A chieftain of the All Progressive Congress (APC) in Akwa Ibom State, Prof. Richard King, has called for the strengthening of democratic institutions to give Nigerians more opportunities to participate in the democratic process.

    Speaking with The Nation in Uyo, the Akwa Ibom State capital, King said Nigeria will only get it right when she allows true democracy to prevail and “citizens are guaranteed a sacrosanct role in her leadership recruitment process.” He said democratic institutions are weak and frustrating because citizens are denied participatory role and the system continues to pander to the interest of a few.

    King added: “When the entire process is non-inclusive and operates at the detriment of the collective interest or general good, for so long will the governing class be aligned to the selfish ambitions of political godfathers; and never to the people’s good.”

    King said the people must be allowed to participate meaningfully in the elective process. His words: “The most critical link in the governance chain lies in peoples’ right to choose their representatives.”

    King, who is a Professor of Fisheries and Aquaculture, flayed the role of the state independent electoral commissions in conducting local government elections, saying it amounts to a travesty and mockery of democracy, “because only the ruling party in each state wins in such contest”.

    He said: “It is a mockery of democracy for state independent electoral commissions to continue organising such embarrassing roll-calls all in the name of conducting local government elections.”

    The professor of fisheries and aquaculture said popular participation in the leadership selection process, particularly at the grassroots level, is the panacea to arresting the leadership deficit currently bedeviling the nation’s development. He added the country has the potentials for tremendous growth, if human and natural resources are harnessed and utilized optimally.

    He said residents should leverage on the local government elections scheduled for December 2, 2017 in Akwa Ibom State, to help in deepening the country’s democratic process.

  • Deepening our democratic culture

    It would not have been within the contemplation of any rational thinking Nigerian that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) could have continued to preside over the affairs of Nigeria in the build-up to the 2015 Presidential and Parliamentary elections.   The State had relapsed into  such confusion and lawlessness that any person from obscurity fielded by any political party with any measure of seriousness would have defeated the PDP candidate fair and square. It was a little wonder then that All Progressive Congress (APC) that was hurriedly tinkered together swept victory at the polls.  There was therefore great expectation that APC-led government was going to bring about noticeable change in all ramifications but that was not to be.

    Before the euphoria of victory ebbed, it became obvious that the APC could not manage its success and victory as it failed the first test over   the leadership of the National Assembly.  The party has still not recovered from those faltering steps.  From the beginning, individuals and groups within the party started acting out their personal and factional ambitions as against group interest.  This exposed the party as a coalition of strange bedfellows lacking in discipline and party loyalty without cohesion.  This further exposed the party as lacking a charismatic leadership that could husband personal ambitions without massaging the ego of any person.

    The members of the National Assembly have never hidden the fact by their acts and omission that they do not represent the yearning of the people that elected them to make laws for the good of the nation and the citizenry.  The quality of representation since inception of the 8th National Assembly has been an unmitigated disaster.  The reason is not unconnected with the quality and competence of members who do not have any ideological persuasion of altruistic act and understanding of democratic nuances. They are mere political jobbers and merchants who see their position as employment to earn a living above everyone else.

    Anything that appears to conflict with their personal interest, pay and allowances are perceived as feud against the National Assembly as an organ of government.  They also see the National Assembly as a seal of authority and immunity for acts of malfeasance by individual members.  Rather than engage the Federal Executive Council to deliver on key democratic dividends like creating jobs, improving on infrastructure like road and electricity, they are fighting for Principal Officers of the National Assembly to become members of National Council of State.  The 8th assembly has become only self-serving and self-protective to the annoyance of right thinking members of the public as shown when the leadership of the Senate in a derogatory manner insinuated that the move to recall a certain senator would not see the light of day before the House.

    The histrionics of our lawmakers came to a level of absurdity when the acting President sent some nominees for confirmation.  The colour and temper of members of the Senate came to the fore when one of them rose up on a point of order that the Federal Executive Council having refused to drop the name of Ibrahim Magu as the chair of EFCC having been rejected by the Senate should not consider further screening of nominees from the executive. The same element went further that indeed, any person summoned by the EFCC should not honour such invitation.  That was a lawmaker; infantile and puerile to the ovation of his colleagues to our misfortune as giants of Africa.

    The President and indeed the Federal Executive Council may have given the jesters in the National Assembly ammunition in the manner it has gone about the Magu’s nomination and confirmation brouhaha.  The problem of APC started when the President preferred a kitchen cabinet without reflection as to national unity and the demand of the time.   It is no wonder therefore that even agencies of government and extra-ministerial departments and their leadership are not on the same page with their principal.  This is the reason why the Directorate of State Services acted like a parallel government and could not compare or share note with the Presidency before writing to the Senate indicting the President’s nominee for an office.  If the party and indeed the government is sure-footed, all the individuals involved in such act of sabotage should have been shown the way out.

    I am not sure we are looking for a saint in the chair of the EFCC but I know we need someone with tolerable baggage that can reinvigorate the fight against corruption. Like many other issues before it, the National Assembly has acted in a manner to show personal interest in the confirmation drama of Magu; period.

    The situation in Nigeria to a keen observer is worrisome; whether it is the economy and purchasing power of the people or security.  This is not to mention statistics of unemployment and decrepit infrastructure that is collapsing on our heads as we watch helplessly while we are fed with propaganda that is in contradistinction to the reality on ground. In the face of the challenging situations and struggle to eke out a living, our elected representatives are fighting over huge allowances and budget to buy SUV in this biting recession that refuses to go away.   If we are able to get to 2019, it is going to be a greater dilemma as the electorate still find it difficult to make their votes count; no thanks to electoral manipulation and violence by the gladiators.  The task facing Nigerian today is our inability to zero on the National Assembly and make demand on deliverance of democratic dividend.  I am yet to see one distinguished honourable member of the National Assembly that has displayed the temper and candour of a statesman in words and in deed that would help deepen our democratic culture.  The people should wake up and take up their gauntlet and begin to set agenda for 2019.

     

    • Kebonkwu Esq writes from Abuja.
  • How democratic is the 1999 Constitution?4

    Constitutions operate as constraints on the governing ability of majorities; they are naturally taken as antidemocratic. But constitutional provisions serve many different interests. They may be liberal or illiberal; different constitutions, and different parts of the same constitution, protect different interests. We may distinguish, for example, between structural provisions and rights provisions. Structural provisions are usually intended to minimize the pathologies associated with one or another conception of democracy. Thus, for example, a system of separation of powers is typically intended either to limit the power of factions—or to reduce the likelihood that representatives will pursue their own interest rather than those of the public generally. The two fears of factional tyranny and self-interested representation have often been important motivating forces behind structural provisions. . . . Rights provisions are designed to fence off certain areas from majoritarian control.—Cass R. Sunstein

    To borrow a method of debate from Robert Dahl in his book What is democratic about theAmerican Constitution?, particularly his decision to emphasize changing how  Americans think about their constitution, the rest of this series will focus on some of the concepts that drive the 1999 Constitution, with the hope of illustrating provisions that are more likely than not to militate against stability, harmony, and unity.

    The epigraph above raises two important issues about efforts by constitutions to constrain the governing group: structural provisions and rights provisions. These are issues that are discussed in different ways by pundits who complain about the 1999 Constitution. With respect to structural provisions, the current constitution adheres partially to the principle of separation of powers. Like the 1979 before it, it copies the principle of horizontal distribution of power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. But it overlooks the fact that in a federal system, power sharing between national and subnational government—region or state—is also an indispensable part of separation of powers.

    Until 1914, Nigeria was governed as two regions: Northern and Southern protectorates. After amalgamation in 1914, it was governed as one country in a unitary way. The constitutional conference of 1946 came to terms that a multinational country required a different governance model and by 1951, Nigeria embarked on a federal system, such that it was possible for southern regions to obtain self-government two years before the Northern region. The argument of Richards and  particularly Macpherson, as well as of those Nigerian leaders who participated in the constitutional conference was that there was need for separation of powers between the central government and the regional governments. By investing all the powers in the central government, the 1999 Constitution sacrificed the principle of separation of powers in terms of division of powers between two levels of government through adding more functions to the Exclusive list and nominally sharing functions on the concurrent list with states with one hand and compromising such sharing on the other through the power of the national assembly to override the choice of states on any issue on the concurrent list. What is the logic for omitting vertical separation of powers that is integral to federal governance while keeping horizontal separation of government into its three arms? Vertical separation of powers is a bedrock  principle of federal governance, and a reliable checking and balancing mechanism in  federal systems.

    What choice of structural provisions in the 1999 Constitution has done is to knowingly or unknowingly increase the possibility of factional tyranny, the type that regions and later states experienced in the hands of military dictators andnow under elected governments. One question is whether citizens in all parts of the country would have consented to this if they had been consulted before the crafting of the 1999 Constitution, given the circumstances that smashed MKO Abiola’s 1993 victory of the presidential election? The answer to this question is NO, and the departing military dictatorship of AbdulsalaamAbubakar and his coterie of military advisers were fully aware that the election after the death of Abiola would have taken a back seat to constitutional negotiation.

    Another area that is overlooked by critics of the current constitution is the concept and practice of majoritarian rule in a country in which citizens have different cultural and value systems and do not have a hand in the constitution that circumscribes those that govern them. Under the “winner-take-all” electoral system, there seems to be an attempt by the constitution to promote a ‘triumphalist majoritarianism’ in the country. In a recent interview of AngoAbdullahi about the contribution of the Southwest to General Buhari’s victory at the presidential election, he argued that the North had the votes to give Buhari victory. He said if Buhari had failed to get southwest votes, he still would have been qualified for a second ballot and that he would have won a simple majority even if the only votes he got were just from the north. This kind of majoritarian rule is dangerous for multiethnic nations, as it is capable of engendering distrust among federating units.

    Until we are clear about under what conditions all sections of the country want to participate in the Nigerian Union, it is better to just have unicameral legislature that is constituted the same way that the current senate is: equal representation from each state or region. This will save the country from the triumphalism suggested in the claim that oneregion has the power to determine who governs the country, but this must accompany reduction in the functions of the central government. In addition, it will also encourage decision-making by consensus, rather than the possibility of factional tyranny inherent in a winner-take-all system in which votes from non-northern states are not crucial to determination of who becomes president or which region constitutes the ruling majority in both presidential and the legislative elections.

    Another contradiction in the constitution is in respect of Sec214-(1): “There shall be a Police Force for Nigeria, which shall be known as the Nigeria Police Force, and subject to the provisions of this section no other police force shall be established for the Federation or any part thereof.” Although the same constitution recognizes distinctions between Federal and State crimes, and the existence of state courts to adjudicate state crimes, it sees no contradiction in preventing states from creating law enforcement institutions to curb crime. Isn’t the noise about the police handling of the recent Ife crisis an illustration of tensions that can arise from built-in contradictions in a document that should ordinarily not harbor any ambiguity?

    It seems that those who are opposed to sovereign or constitutional conference believe that the 1999 Constitution protects their special interests in ways that they are not ready to admit openly. No country can claim to have a constitution, if significant portions of the population complain that such constitution was crafted behind their backs and against their interests. No country that requires national unity can afford to ward off calls for a people’s constitution. Those trying to label demands for a new constitution (as indirect attempt to destroy the unity of the country)may have joy in playing the ostrich, but the reality worldwide is that traces of domination of others in a federal system often leads to self-help on the part of federating units. The Soviet Union is a case in point.

    If anything, a constitution that says one of its chapters is not binding or euphemistically calls it non-justiciable should worry all democrats. A constitution that foists imperial presidency on the people even when many clamor for parliamentary system, all in the name of majoritarianism appears not to be genuinely concerned about unity. Any constitution that comes into force through a process that avoids to ‘hear’ from many of its citizens and federating units is taking a great risk with its shelf life. That the National Assembly has chosen to privilege legislative sovereignty above sovereignty of the people by seemingly making a career of constitutional amendment may give impressions of legislative activity, the type that may make such activity perpetual. Demands for a properly negotiated and ratified constitution by the people are not likely to go away, for as long as citizens feel (as many currently do)prevented from having a chance to sit down to determine the provisions which they prefer to constrain all ruling groups at the federal and state or regional levels, as was the case when Nigerians went into nationhood voluntarily in 1960.

     

    • Roposek@msn.com
    • Concluded
  • How democratic is the 1999 constitution? (1)

    How democratic is the 1999 constitution? (1)

    Having a properly negotiated constitution remains, even in the 21st century, the core of democracy. 

    A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution…. A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution, is power without a right.—Tom Paine
    A documentary constitution normally reflects the beliefs and political aspirations of those who have framed it.—Nicholas Sunday
    We need to bring these nationalities around a conference table to discuss how we are going to live together as one country. As it is today, we are not a nation yet; we are a state.—Ben Nwabueze
    There are basic issues if we want a strong Federal Government. The earlier we restructure the stronger we will be, and if we don’t restructure, or wait for too long, we are attempting disintegration.—Chukwuemeka Ezeife

    The recent announcement that the 8th NASS is about to round up on its efforts to amend the country’s constitution has motivated a return to a topic that this column had discussed extensively in the past, especially during the era of Umaru Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan. But the essays under this title are slightly different in style, and perhaps, in substance from those that appeared six years ago on this page. The controlling thesis for the series is that, given the historical, philosophical, political, and sociological evolution of the peoples that constitute today’s Nigeria, the 1999 Constitution bequeathed to the country by the last of the country’s military dictator in 1999 is not democratic enough to make the multination republic realise its huge potential.

    If you are expecting to hear legal arguments in the following sentences, you should not bother to read them. Constitutional legalism is just one aspect of any country’s constitution. It has relevance after a documentary constitution has been duly established, not before it. In short, the series is not about constitutionalism but ‘constitutionalisation,’ the making of constitutions. Several sharper minds had written ad nauseam from the perspective of lawyers about the 1999 constitution. One argument that undergirds the series is that Nigeria has not had a settled or agreed constitution in the 1999 one that has guided operations of government since the advent of the 4th Republic. Consequently, there is still a lot of space for discussion of politics of constitution making, such as the one that will preoccupy this column for the next few weeks.

    I know that it will sound bizarre to many readers that this column has chosen to interrogate the 1999 Constitution, even after many citizens had accepted it as a given. Of course, members of the current National Assembly now getting ready to finalise discussion on amendments to the constitution are likely to find this piece and others to follow cheeky for several reasons. One, it attempts to derogate from their concept of legislative sovereignty. Second, it seeks to draw the hand of their own legislative clock back. Since sovereignty rests ultimately with the people of any nation-space, it is fit and proper for any citizen who feels that a constitution that circumscribes his or her life to complain about a constitution that purports to represent his or her views without adequate consultation between representatives and citizens.

    Other citizens in the last few weeks have been problematising the constitution in different ways. Some have been calling for disintegration of the country, to allow their regions develop much more than it could under a suffocating constitution or endless complaints about the structure of the polity that the 1999 constitution creates, promotes, and protects. This in a way summarises the perspective of Professor Ango Abdullahi of the Northern Elders Forum. Others, like the Emir of Kano, have warned their colleagues about the danger for the North in allowing Nigeria to break by continuing to increase the number of illiterate and disempowered citizens in the country. Even many legislators have boasted that they the only authority that is charged with improving the constitution and in an attempt to silence those calling for a people’s constitution.

    Even the Senator Ken Nnamani 24-man Constitutional/Electoral Reform Committee or panel established by President Buhari has been acting as if citizens should be kept at a distance from its efforts. This observation was confirmed by the poorly publicised manner the Nnamani Committee conducted hearings a few weeks ago when it advertised invitation to public hearings on the constitution on the very day the committee was meeting in Abeokuta to receive memoranda from Ekiti, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, and Oyo States.

    The Buhari presidency will be the second administration during which members of the National Assembly have preoccupied themselves with constitutional amendment. Under Jonathan, they assembled some amendments that did not get Jonathan’s assent. And in the last two years, returning and new lawmakers have been working at amendments which they now claim are nearing completion. Many citizens have observed that, with little interaction between lawmakers and citizens across the country on what type of constitution citizens prefer, legislators preoccupied with amendment may not be doing this for any reason other than to ensure that they upstage citizens calling for a people’s constitution or restructuring.

    Furthermore, apart from those who would rather have Nigeria go into fragments than countenance any form of restructuring, top members of the executive shy away from countenancing any demand for replacement of the constitution by General Abdusalaam Abubakar with a properly negotiated constitution by all the constituents of the federation. It will be recalled that the 1999 Constitution was an outcome of debates largely by 24 hand-picked citizens under the leadership of Justice Niki Tobi. The establishment of Senator Nnamani Panel on constitutional/electoral reform seems to have added to the culture that this column once described as Arodan (making citizens dissipate energy while giving the impression of doing something purposive). Shouldn’t the activities of the House, Senate, and the Nnamani Panel in relation to the 1999 Constitution not be enough to make it superfluous for any other group to demand creation of a new constitution? This question will find answers when details of the amendments carried out by legislators are unearthed and made available to citizens to compare with the duly negotiated constitution agreed to in 1960 and 1963.

    The controversy about turning the local governments into autonomous units that are not answerable to the states suggests that limiting ratification of constitutional amendments to states and the president, without calling for people’s referendum on the amendments will amount to creating another elite document. The original document was created largely in camera and only became public after the general elections of 1999. Citizens, particularly professional politicians in their rush to get out of military rule wound up inheriting a constitution the military had developed during the many decades of their rule. But not many people ever believe that the claim in the preamble to the 1999 Constitution: “WE THE PEOPLE of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: Having firmly and solemnly resolved….” is a statement of fact. It was for this reason, among others, that late Abiodun Oki spent the last months of his life pursuing his litigation on the falseness of this claim.

    The most basic element in the making of constitutions was absent in the assemblage of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution. Any effort to amend a constitution based on a false premise may not be enough to silence calls for restructuring, constitutional conference, constituent assembly, people’s constitution, etc. Any effort to amend the current constitution without referring it to a referendum will be tantamount to giving further legitimacy to a document that was designed by military dictators bent on saddling citizens with a constitution marked by military identity—unitary, command-style system.

    The current constitution fails to meet the basic conditions identified by Tom Paine in the epigraph overleaf: “A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution.” In the case of the 1999 Constitution under amendment by lawmakers, a government happens to be a thing antecedent to a constitution and a constitution is the creature of a military government that should not have existed in the first place, because it was never endorsed by the people. For as long as the most important rules governing government-citizen relations remains questionable, as the 1999 Constitution has been since it first came out into the open, there is the likelihood that so much energy will continue to be dissipated on debates about what type of Union the nationalities that constitute Nigeria prefer. Having a properly negotiated constitution remains, even in the 21st century, the core of democracy.

    To be continued

     

  • People’s expectations from democratic govt at state level

    People’s expectations from democratic govt at state level

    Lagos State University (LASU) History teacher Dr Dapo Thomas highlights the expectations of Nigerians from the respective state governments in this era of democracy.

    Let me begin this paper with a rhetorical question: Who are the people? Without delving into the dialectics of political theories, let me simply say that the people are those outside the formal authority or government that has been established through a democratic process. The people are those who are being ruled, led, governed and controlled by a democratically elected government constituted by the people themselves to take care of their needs, wants and desires. The people are those who are dependent on those in authority for the basic things of life like security, welfare, shelter, food, education, health, infrastructure and other good things of life. The people are the helpless or better still, in some cases, hopeless citizens of the state, who naturally are recipients or beneficiaries of what government has to give to its citizens. The people are the main reason every government is in power.

    In his book, principles of social and political theories, Ernest Barker explains that “functions of government cannot be separated from rights of persons, except in the sense in which the reverse of a Coin can be distinguished from the obverse”. According to Barker, “…..the functions of government are a condition of the rights of persons, because they are necessary to the enjoyment of those rights and because they exist in order to secure them…. The rights of persons are a condition of the functions of government, because they are the source and the cause of the existence and action of government”.

    Having been able to identify who the people are, I think the next step is to dissect the word “expectation”. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines expectation  as a “belief that something will happen because it is likely; a hope that something good will happen. A strong belief about the way something should happen or how somebody should behave”.

    Better still, expectation is the vision of action. It is the illustration of reality. It is the link between what one feels and what the other should do. It is the connector between “thought” and “activity”. We can also call it “an elevated hope” contingent on what other people should do as a matter of necessity, right or obligation. Expectation is what I think you should do for me. Expectation is what man thinks GOD should do for him as His creation. It can also be what GOD thinks man should do for Him as his creator. For instance, Adam expected GOD to protect him (from the unseen or unknown enemy). He expected GOD to provide him food (for his survival) and he expected GOD to promote him to perfection (having been made in the image of GOD, the perfectionist).

    On the other hand, GOD expected Adam to be Obedient (as his superior and his creator). He expected Adam to be faithful to Him (as his only Benefactor) and GOD also expected Adam to be productive (being the head of His work force).

    In the context of our own discussion, we need to know or identify what the expectations of the people are and who they expect to meet, satisfy, fulfill and actualize their expectations. Naturally, the people expect the government, their government, as a right or even as an obligation, to meet, satisfy, fulfill and actualize their expectations. Their hope that the government will satisfy their expectations is hinged on the fact that since they have fulfilled their own civic responsibility by voting the government of their choice into power, it is now the duty of the government they have voted into office to fulfill its own obligations to them. This is the expectation in a democratic setting. A government that is voted into office by the people is morally and constitutionally bound to live up to the people’s expectations in terms of returning to them the dividends of democracy. This in itself needs to be defined for the purpose of elucidation.

    What then is Democracy? Democracy is a government for all. The rich, the poor, the weak, the strong, all make the system tick. The system gives the people the freedom to participate and choose those that will rule them. It also gives them the liberty to associate freely and talk freely against or about their leaders. In a democracy, there should be justice for all citizens regardless of social status, economic power or political leverage. These are the theoretical foundations of democracy. They are the sacrosanct elements of democracy and the bedrock of participatory governance.

    It is this participatory governance that creates the enablement for every citizen to be active in the choice and selection of their leaders particularly leaders who, in their estimation, can live up to expectation. The method through which such leaders emerge is seen as a democratic process. Thus a government that emerges through this process is called a democratic government. Therefore, a democratic government is a government that has been chosen and elected by the people through a process that is seen to be transparent, free, constitutional and democratic. A democratic government is a popular government elected by the people through a credible process that guarantees freedom of choice to the people. A democratic government is a government which the people believe possesses the capacity and moral credibility to help them in the realization of their aspirations and expectations. A democratic government is a government with the political and moral obligation towards the people who have elected it into office with their votes.

    There are three major layers of government: the federal government, the state government and the local government. In a democratic society, all these three governments must emerge through a democratic process, that is, through an electoral process which enables citizens of the country to exercise their franchise to elect government of their choice.

    For the purpose of this discussion, we are going to restrict our appraisal to just the state government. Needless to say, that all these three layers of government are under moral and political obligations to ensure that their citizens benefit immensely from the dividends of democracy. This is the major reason they were voted into office. It is this voting power which connects the people to the government and the government to the people. This symbiotic relationship is the attachment between those in power and those outside power. It comes with some emotions and empathy without which those in power may not connect to the aspirations and expectations of the people. That is why it is important for both the government and the people to have a relationship of active and practical mutuality. Any government that distances itself from the people; any government that is emotionally indifferent to the needs of the people, obviously, cannot help in the realization of their aspirations nor can it meet up with their expectations.

    A mischievous person can ask the question: why must the people be expectant or why should the people build their expectations on a democratic government. At the level of our own discussion, which is the state, (and I want to believe that at any level at all), the people have a natural and moral right to “cast their burdens” (if one can substitute that for expectation) on a government they have elected into office. The first reason they have for doing this is the fact that, it is the moral and political responsibility of the government which is under constitutional obligation to ensure the safety, welfare and well-being of all the citizens under its authority. Second, irrespective of party affiliations or memberships; irrespective of how the people cast their votes; irrespective of the disposition or attitude of the people to the government, the government must show concern and interest in how the people it is leading or ruling live their lives.

    Therefore, for the very fact that there is a moral nexus between the government and the people in terms of responsibilities and obligations; in terms of expectations and aspirations, in terms of performance and service delivery, the government cannot decline or shirk its responsibility to the people under its authority. In the same vein, the people expect the government to stimulate the process that will assist in the realization of their aspirations and expectations. The people expect the government to be active in their lives because this is one of the reasons they have voted it into office. This is the link or connection between democracy and expectation. Democracy or democratic system enables the people to reap the benefits of their loyalty, commitment and patriotism to their nation first and foremost, and to the government in the second instance. In essence, people’s expectations from a democratic government at the state level could be regarded as valid aspirations of the people expected to be borne by the democratic government which they have elected into office. People’s expectations may be high or low depending on the confidence the people have in the government they have voted into power. If it is a government that came into office with massive votes and high number of popular votes, such a government will be expected to perform at an optimum level. But if it is a government that has rigged itself into office, such a moral deficit has created credibility problem for the government and by extension, the people’s confidence and morale will be very low.

    Aside from the issue of security which is a fundamental function of any government to its citizens, the people expect any democratic government to enhance their human value and dignity by showing so much concern in their welfare, education, health, infrastructure and shelter. These are the basic requirements that the citizens of any state can expect their government to take care of.

    I wish to state clearly that security is a cardinal expectation of the people from the government. A government that cannot guarantee the security of lives and properties has lost the moral authority to govern. The need to make security a priority in the state cannot be discountenanced. For instance, in his promise to the people of Lagos State in his first year in office, the Governor of the State, Mr. Akinwunmi Ambode assured the citizens: “We will boost the State Security fund to scale up the successes recorded to date. We will continue with the city lighting project by expanding the Independent Power Project (IPP) to enhance the security of lives and property across the state. In addition, the government will embark on the acquisition of the latest advanced security communication technology that will track and monitor the daily activities of the State”.

    Consequently, the government went ahead to purchase the following items to boost the security of the  state: it procured 100 brand new power bikes, 100 4-door salon cars, 55 Ford Ranger Pick-Ups, 10 Toyota Land Cruiser Pick-Ups and 15 BMW Power  Bikes. In addition, the government acquired 10 armoured tanks, Isuzu trucks, 3 helicopters for aerial surveillance of policing the state, 2 Gun boats and 15 Armoured Personnel Carriers.

    The issue of welfare is equally sacrosanct. The people expect their government to show compassion towards them in terms of their well-being generally. They want to live quality lives and have access to the good things of life. They want good jobs, good salary, good education, affordable housing, good health care system and some bits of “kind and cash” assistance from their government. When citizens have access to good jobs that fetch them good pay at the end of the month, it means they can make provision for their own feeding and their shelter and possibly some other necessities of life.

    But once a man is unemployed or has retired from work, it becomes difficult for such a person to cope with his domestic responsibilities. Though, the Lagos state government has not come up with any comprehensive welfare scheme for the unemployed, it has provision for those who have vocational skill that can be developed.

    In the area of pension, the state government, I mean Lagos State, has been wonderful. As part of efforts put in place  by the government of Akinwunmi Ambode to find a holistic solution to the issue of payment of pension entitlements to retirees under the Pay As You Go Pension Scheme which was discontinued in April 2007 as well as outstanding  accrued pension rights due to retirees under the contributory Pension  Scheme, the Governor approved N11 billion to offset arrears owed since 2000, not only for Lagos State Government Mainstream retirees but also retirees in the Local Governments and Parastatals.

    Paying pension entitlements promptly is good for the government and the people because the retirees will not constitute a major problem to the government once their pensions are paid on time. It enables the government to focus on other critical sectors of the polity that require urgent attention.

    The provision of infrastructure is a major expectation of the people from the government. The roads should be motorable at all times,  and efforts should be made to reduce traffic congestion through creative and re-designing of some complex gridlocks. Good roads help motorists to maximise the time they spend on the road and invariably, enhance economic activities. According to Governor Akinwunmi Ambode, most of the roads in the State will go through radical upgrading to stimulate poverty eradication and sustainable economic growth. Hence, the administration embarked on aggressive road construction projects which have resulted in the state-wide general rehabilitation of roads particularly the non-elite areas.

    The Aboru-Abesan Link Bridge which was commissioned recently was a major project which the people had expected would bring the two communities together having stayed apart for decades without any connecting road between them. These two communities had hoped that one day, a responsive and responsible government will come to their rescue. When Governor Ambode now decided to connect the two communities through the Aboru-Abesan link bridge, he was simply fulfilling a dream that was as old as the two communities. These are just few of the expectations the people have of their government.

    In order to live up to the expectation of the people, especially in meeting up with their basic needs, the government needs to embark on aggressive revenue generation to shore up its resources. In most cases, it is not practically possible for the government to satisfy all the needs of the people hence the need to prioritize these needs and attend to them in order of importance. As much as it is the responsibility of government to create conducive atmosphere for its citizens to thrive, the citizens  are also under obligation to perform their civic rights by electing good leaders into office, by paying their tax and by supporting government policies and programmes.

    Between the government and the people, there must be a synergy of convenience and cooperation. The people’s expectations from a democratic government can only be actualised when there are complementary efforts on both sides.  When the government is re-inventing the engineering of its operations, the people should be engaging in a re-awakening exercise that will make both sides understand their roles in a democratic setting.

    In concluding this paper, the people can expect anything from their government while the government can select or prioritize its projects if it has limited funds to execute them.

  • Olanipekun calls for strong democratic institutions

    Former Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) President Wole Olanipekun has called for  strong institutions to strengthen the nation’s democracy.

    He said Nigeria found itself in its present sorry state because it lacked enduring institutions, which are independent, impartial, properly structured, manned and funded to enjoy the people’s confidence.

    Olanipekun spoke yesterday while delivering the 22nd Convocation Lecture of Ekiti State University, (EKSU), Ado-Ekiti.

    The lecture was titled: “Breaking the Jinx-the Cyclical Nature of Nigeria’s Problems.”

    The former pro chancellor and chairman of council, University of Ibadan, called for decentralisation of policing in Nigeria.

    He said the country had the capacity to break the jinx of leadership and development if leaders and followers were sincere.

    “They (institutions) are creations of the constitution. They  should be made to survive all governments.

    “The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), for example, should not be turned into Automated Teller Machine (ATM) of any government in power.

    “The police and allied institutions should not be subjected to the whims and caprices of whosoever is/are in power.

    “They should be able to investigate any person or persons, no matter his position and not wait until after they leave office before blowing whistles.”

    Olanipekun argued that political offices in Nigeria should be made less attractive and the allure of elective offices be reduced to engender the culture of selfless service.

    “I see no reason why our lawmakers should take up the mandate on a full time basis.

    “This is why they turn elections into do-and-die affairs, because they have ceased to have a life.

    “Nigeria is now suffused with an unlimited number of ‘your excellencies’ that are far less than excellent.

    “Mr Vice Chancellor, you should earn more than a governor.

    “In the United States, university presidents earn more than the president.

    “No ward councillor should earn more than a primary school teacher or a secondary school teacher.

    “Nobody can be Alpha and Omega. We should respect and honour our leaders.

    “We should not worship our leaders because that amounts to sycophancy. Nobody is indispensable.”

  • Sanders: Democratic convention could be ‘messy’

    Sanders: Democratic convention could be ‘messy’

    Democratic presidential aspirant Bernie Sanders says the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia and his push to make the party more inclusive could get “messy” but asserts in an interview with The Associated Press: “Democracy is not always nice and quiet and gentle.”

    The Vermont senator, campaigning Monday ahead of California’s primary against Hillary Clinton, said his supporters hope the party will adopt a platform at the summer convention that reflects the needs of working families, the poor and young people, not Wall Street and corporate America.

    Sanders said he will “condemn any and all forms of violence” but his campaign was welcoming political newcomers and first-time attendees of party conventions.

    He said the Democratic Party faces a choice of becoming more inclusive or maintaining the status quo.

    ”I think if they make the right choice and open the doors to working-class people and young people and create the kind of dynamism that the Democratic Party needs, it’s going to be messy,” Sanders said.

    ”Democracy is not always nice and quiet and gentle but that is where the Democratic Party should go.”

    Asked if the convention could be problematical, Sanders said: “So what? Democracy is messy. Everyday my life is messy. But if you want everything to be quiet and orderly and allow, you know, just things to proceed without vigorous debate, that is not what democracy is about.”

    Sanders is vying for support ahead of California’s June 7 primary, a day that also includes contests in Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota. Clinton has 271 more pledged delegates than Sanders and is just 90 delegates shy of clinching the nomination when the total includes superdelegates, the party officials and elected leaders who can support the candidate of their choice.

  • Bayelsa: Shark in democratic waters

    When elections are afoot, it is the wrong time to contemplate a shark. Especially in a riverine area. A shark in democratic waters? That is how Seriake Dickson has characterised himself in the Bayelsa State governorship sweepstakes billed to be concluded Saturday. If, that is, the self-confessed shark does not tumble into the serenity of the proceedings.

    Remember what Dickson did in the elections the last time. The Shark was uncharacteristically shivering during the polls. He rode in a boat to the contentious Southern Ijaw Local Government Area, campaigning that the elections should not take place. He started to constitute himself into the paragon of the Ijaw nation.

    He contended that violence was going to stop the election in southern Ijaw. So, when the elections took place in other local governments, he campaigned that it be cancelled only in Southern Ijaw. But violence ravaged Nembe and Ekeremor local government areas. He was silent over those because he was declared winner. He did not see anything wrong when video showed how thugs barreled into the home of the chairman of the All Progressives Congress in Ekeremor. Heineken Lokpobri is also the minister of state for agriculture. Walls cracked and fell. Windows were broken. Pockmarks defaced the façade of the house. But elections were not cancelled there.

    In southern Ijaw that warehouses the great chunk of the votes in the state, the election was seen as ominous. Dickson saw to it that it was cancelled, while other polls held. The rescheduled elections continued, and Dickson defied the electoral law and began to campaign not as a governorship candidate, but as an Ijaw nationalist. He became an Nnamdi Kanu of Yenagoa. He went on radio to rally the citizens to go to the streets to protest. His party denizens organised themselves and obeyed the clarion call of subversion, in spite of the police counter-statement. He had constituted himself into a law. He disdained the constitution. Sharks, of, course, have no respect for any territory.

    Yet, Dickson had his way. The elections were cancelled again. The video beamed on television showed a bedlam of jubilation in Dickson’s home. Without his vintage hat and walking stick, and sitting in morose expectation, the news leapt into the room. And baldhead and new excitement became Dickson as his supporters besieged him on his table of despondency. He rose with his supporters and voices clashed with voices as the crowd turned giddy first with relief and then exhilaration.

    Why? Because they knew it was bad news if the election results were announced. The shark was suddenly coy and afraid to roam the waters in its predatory majesty. This week, though, he has turned himself into the viceroy of Ijaw. He started a website called savetheijawnation.com. He sees himself as the father and the successor of Alams, as if Timipre Sylva and other contestants come from somewhere else.

    We hope the shark will not be allowed by the security forces this time to obstruct proceedings on Saturday. The Resident Electoral Commissioner has shown enough partisanship, and he must not be allowed to act with impunity again. We want the election results to be the right one. Neither sharks nor former president’s votaries should be allowed to interfere with the inviolate purity of the people’s voice.

  • Muhammadu Buhari’s democratic rebirth

    Muhammadu Buhari’s democratic rebirth

    Pulling Nigerians together at a time of intensifying regional, religious and ethnic friction will be a daunting task for President-elect  Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, writes William Wallis in the Financial Times.

    Nigerians with a grounding in British history have found their analogy for General Muhammadu Buhari’s epic struggle to regain power in the legend of Robert the Bruce.

    Before inflicting a humiliating defeat on the British at the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, the Scottish king drew courage from a spider, grappling to spin its web across the roof of a cave. The spider only succeeded after three attempts, inspiring the maxim: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try, again.”

    Buhari, who is among a clutch of former generals who rose to prominence in the turbulent aftermath of Independence in 1960, first came to power in a coup in 1983. Professing himself a born-again democrat, he made three previous attempts to win it back at the ballot box, each time gaining only about half the votes he needed.

    His resounding victory last week, in the face of bounteous skulduggery, is an object lesson in perseverance and arguably one of the most significant political events on the continent since the 1994 election in South Africa brought an end to white minority rule. For the first time in Nigeria’s history, an incumbent president has been unseated by the electorate, along with the party that has governed (and often misgoverned) Nigeria since military rule ended in 1999.

    For the first time also, a sitting Nigerian President accepted with humility that he was obliged to go. Elated by the positive implications for the country’s fledgling democracy, Olusegun Obasanjo, a former president, said last week that if he were to live another life, he would choose to be a Nigerian a second time. The country, he said, had surmounted many crises since Independence. “Some people in Africa believe an incumbent government cannot be removed by the will of the people,” he added. “We have done it.”

    Obasanjo, with whom the incoming president has not always seen eye to eye, said he believed Buhari was “intelligent enough” to move Africa’s most-populous state forward. “He is a man who lives a modest life and I believe he will manage the affairs of Nigeria by and large the way he manages his own affairs.”

    Although last week’s events are unique, there is also a sense of deja vu about the general’s march to power, 30 years after he first took it in a coup. In 1983, as now, Africa’s leading oil producer was in the throes of an oil shock. A collapse in state revenues revealed how bloated government had become. Austerity beckoned, and Buhari imposed it with a “war on indiscipline” in the 20 months before he was overthrown by rival officers.

    That period, when hundreds were locked up on the mildest suspicion of fraud, earned him an image of uncompromising ruthlessness that still unsettles many. But it also earned him admirers, who believe he was overthrown by corrupt elements of his own regime just as his policies began to yield results. “If I had had another two years in office then Nigeria might be a different place today,” he says. His ousting led to a prolonged period of detention after which he divorced his first wife Safinatu, with whom he has five children.

    His second wife, Aisha, with whom he also has five children, is now the First Lady-in-waiting. The statuesque beauty of one of his daughters proved to be an electoral asset; when a photograph of her went viral, one social media commentator observed that “anyone who can produce her can produce the change we need.”

    In 2011, when Buhari last tried and failed to win power at the polls, change did not seem so attractive. Each of his previous campaigns came at a time when oil prices — on which Nigeria still depends for about 70 per cent of state revenues — were either recovering or close to their peak. His ascetic reputation was a bit of a damp squib when the country was enjoying an oil boom.

    Curbing the excesses of the political class — the centrepiece of the lean, 72-year-old’s campaign — has a more urgent ring now the oil price has fallen. So has his pledge to tackle the spread of Boko Haram terrorists in the North.

    Buhari is something of a throwback, one of a group of generals and coup plotters from yester-year who have remained influential ever since. Their concern, when they joined the army as young men in the 1960s, was to find a way for the predominately Muslim North to catch up with the much more developed and mostly Christian south. That quandary persists today.

    Born in the northern state of Katsina, in the dusty brush of the Sahel, Buhari now sits atop a complex coalition that helped win him support in the South, where in the last election, he garnered almost none. He has softened and developed a twinkling sense of humour, as transpired in a recent interview I ran out of paper. “Not ideal for a journalist,” he quipped.

    Despite the broad alliance he has built, pulling Nigerians together at a time of intensifying regional, religious and ethnic friction will be a daunting task. Some southern Christians, conscious of how pockets of their region have modernised and taken off in recent years, remain uneasy that the presidency is shifting back north.

    “This is a major northern revival which will take a while for the others to wake up and recognise,” says a contemporary of Buhari’s who served in several governments. “When they do they are going to feel very uncomfortable. Much will depend on how he exercises power and how sensitive he is to national unity.”

                                                                                                    •Culled from Financial Times