Nigeria is marking 18 years of uninterrupted civilian rule with mixed feelings. Indices from all sectors suggest that the political leadership has not risen up to the challenge of getting the country where it should be. But observers say despite hiccups in leadership, this country is making progress, writes Deputy Political Editor RAYMOND MORDI.
THE reactions trailing Chief of Army Staff Lt-Gen. Tukur Buratai’s claim that some officers were hobnobbing with politicians suggest that Nigerians are tired of military rule. To most of the people, the rumour of a possible military coup is disturbing. Such Nigerians have also vowed never to give the military a chance to rule the country again, saying if dissident elements within the military go ahead to stage a coup, they will be resisted by the people.
The mood of Nigerians as the country marks 18 years of uninterrupted civil rule is instructive. Nigerians are marking the anniversary with mixed feelings. They are not happy with the state of affairs in the country. Nevertheless, everyone is in agreement that the democratic system of government cannot be compared with military dictatorship.
The military had reduced the country’s federal structure to that of a unitary state, because the Generals in power characteristically infused a command culture into governance, created dozens of states that are not viable, removed the principle of derivation from revenue allocation and decreed that governors should go cap in hand to the centre for a share of the oil earnings to sustain their administrations. It is generally believed that the rot in the society today gradually crept in during the military era, with the enthronement of indolence, indiscipline and corruption.
The return of civilian rule in 1999 was received with so much hope and enthusiasm by Nigerians from all walks of life. But, 18 years after, critics said the political leadership has not risen up to the challenge. The return of democracy in 1999 presented Nigeria with an opportunity to catch up with the rest of the world. After the prolonged military rule, the country was a pariah state. Between the first military coup in 1966 and 1999, when the men in uniform finally disengaged from politics, the country had lost 33 valuable years that could have been used to nurture and deepen democracy.
Observers were optimistic that the country has made progress with the number of years that civilian rule has lasted so far. This is by far the longest since independence in 1960. In the First Republic, civil rule lasted for less than six years. The Second Republic was even shorter –- a mere four years, notwithstanding the advancement in technology, knowledge and political sophistication. Worse was the giddy and experimental Third Republic, which endured for one year and a few months.
One of such observers, the National Chairman of the United Progressives Party (UPP), Chief Chekwas Okorie, said Nigerians have many reasons to celebrate. His words: “Military rule is an aberration and should not be contemplated under any circumstances; it is like returning to Egypt. The years we spent under military dictatorship were like being in the dungeon. Since 1999, we have enjoyed our rights as Nigerians, particularly freedom of expression and freedom of association. These are things we take for granted. But, for those of us who experienced military rule, we know that our rights were infringed upon prior to 1999, when we were under military dictatorship. This is very commendable.”
Elder statesman and Second Republic politician, Alhaji Tanko Yakassai, is optimistic that sooner or later the problems besetting the country would be tackled. He said: “What I can say outright is that we have succeeded in the continuation of unbroken democratic rule since 1999. For the first time in our history, we have succeeded in remaining under civil rule for 18 years; we had not been under civil rule for this long period at any other time. It is a very good thing. Sooner or later, like every other democracy, the problem of development would be tackled, because of the competition inherent in the system.”
The Dean of the Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, Federal University, Wukari, Taraba State, Prof. Philip Olanrewaju, said Nigerians have fared better under civilian rule. He said: “To me, it’s so far, so good. Although we have not gotten it right, it has been fair. At least, we have consolidated democracy and sustained the civil rule in the last 18 years.” He listed the consolidation of democracy, distribution of dividends of democracy, the enthronement of the rule of law, freedom of speech, separation of powers, with the judiciary acting as a watchdog and the sustained infrastructural development during the period as some of the achievements.
But, in terms of governance, observers say the country has not made much progress. Okorie said those that have had the opportunity of presiding over the affairs of the country since 1999 did not discharge their duties creditably well. He said: “The amount of resources that have come into this country between 1999 and now are enormous and the fact that Nigeria is still tottering as a struggling Third World country is very scandalous. Our democracy has not grown at all; what we have been experiencing for most part is manipulations and this is aided by security agencies, including the military that reluctantly handed over power. Ironically, they are now called in to participate in one way or the other, such as asking them to come and man our elections.
“It is as if we are deliberately walking back to the very military that we celebrated their exit. So, I would like to see a situation where the military is limited to their primary role of defending the territorial integrity of the nation and remain in their barracks when there is no war and not to be seen performing the duties of the other security agencies like the police.”
The UPP chairman said the country is at a brink. He said: “The meagre amount of power that is being generated for a country as large as ours is a national scandal, considering the amount of money that has been invested in that sector. National unity has suffered a lot of reverses, because leaders have tended to use the opportunity to lead Nigeria to take care of their own side of the country; thereby introducing more divisions, instead of uniting the country.
“The clamour for the restructuring of the country is evidence that Nigerians are not happy with the situation. But, it appears that some people are happy to hold others down, so that they can catch up with them. It doesn’t work like that, because if you hold somebody down, you are also down and you can’t move, so long as you are holding him down. Nigeria is not developing; we are almost at a standstill.”
On the positive side, the Buhari administration has been commended for some of its policies. Okorie said there were signs in recent times that agriculture may be revamped and that the country may be self-sufficient in food production in the near future.
Similarly, a finance and investment consultant, Mr. Akintunde Maberu, said the administration has not done badly in its fight against corruption. He said: “They have taken us to another level. The administration has started looking at the direction of economic saboteurs, by recovering wealth looted from the treasury. They have not stopped there; they are taking it further beyond the political terrain, to those in the ministries, departments and agencies, who are now increasingly under the administration’s searchlight. I think that is a step in the right direction.
“At the end of four years, even if another person takes over, there is the likelihood that the fight against corruption may continue. That is a revolutionary development in the annals of Nigerian history.”
Maberu said the last government frittered away so much wealth from the proceeds of crude oil export, which ought to have been saved for the rainy day. He added: “They were supposed to earmark a portion as savings, but they did not do so. It was the noise about the lack of savings that brought about the Sovereign Wealth Fund, but the amount set aside was too small. Nevertheless, it was a good thing it was set up at all.”
Other observers say President Buhari inherited a bad situation, but made it worse, because of his slow pace of taking crucial decisions. For instance, it took him eight months to appoint his cabinet and 22 months for the government to finally unveil its medium-term economic strategy, the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP). In addition, the now-customary practice of delayed budget presentations and approvals has worsened under his watch.
Africa Development Bank former Vice President and lead partner, McFeley Development Associates, Chief Bisi Ogunjobi, said, despite the hiccups in leadership within the period, Nigeria managed to triumph over its challenges. He said: “Looking at the entire period, I think it’s a big success, because the country has continued to make appreciable progress, even though it is not the pace we expect. Naturally, we have had our ups and downs, but overall it has been positive, because the democratic process has continued. Despite the hiccups that we have had in leadership, Nigeria has managed to triumph over its challenges.”
Ogunjobi said the biggest factor that marred the country’s economic growth and progress is lack of continuity. He said: “If you look at the economy, we have also had hiccups, but overall we have a pass mark, in the sense that we managed to overcome some of the difficulties that occurred as a result of the fluctuation in the international market price of our primary product, oil.
“Nonetheless, the pace of diversification that we should have had that would have helped to stabilise the economic growth has not taken place. This could be explained partly by frequent changes in government policies in the last 18 years. One would have expected a more suitable performance, if policies had been sustained. Take Lagos State, for instance, I believe the performances of the successive leaderships were largely influenced by the stability and continuity of the governorship management of the state. This ensured that policies remained in the same direction; whereas, when you go to other states you will find that subsequent or succeeding governors usually abandon the policies of their predecessors, by starting all over again.
“This was also reflected at the national level, when the policies enunciated by former President Olusegun Obasanjo were not followed by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua. Similarly, all the policies put in place by Yar’Adua were also abandoned by the succeeding administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan, while those of the latter were also not followed by President Muhammadu Buhari. So, I think the issue of continuity of policies, not the individuals, not the parties, is very crucial in the performance of the economy.”
Be that as it may, one of the seamy sides of the journey since 1999 is the slow evolvement of the democratic culture. Many observers say the country has elected governments at different levels, but they were run more or less in a military fashion. Critics say a very bad precedent was laid when the Presidency was delivered to Chief Olusegun Obasanjo on a platter of gold, ostensibly to placate the Southwest region for the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election and for the death of the presumed winner of that election, Chief Moshood Abiola.
After serving his tenure of two terms, Obasanjo engineered the emergence of the late Yar’Adua, who was terminally ill, as his successor, in a manner that ensured that power remained in the South after his exit. This precedent, it is said, has ensured that the leadership of the country remains in the hands of people who were not adequately prepared for the task beforehand. In deciding who gets a political party’s ticket for one position or the other, much emphasis are usually placed on the political correctness of the aspirant’s ethnic nationality, religion or the part of the country where the aspirant in question hails from; rather than competence.
Yakassai puts it this way: “What brought this about is that the military under Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar decided to back a political party; they decided which party to hand over power to. As a result, they did not allow people to freely compete. So, they decided not only the party to hand over power to, but also the candidate that would succeed them. For whatever reason, they decided that one of them – a retired military officer – should succeed them. This affected the building of a democratic culture.
“Even the person they imposed on Nigerians could not help to build democracy. After completing his eight-year tenure, he manipulated the choice of the persons that would succeed him (Yar’Adua/Jonathan). After Jonathan, another military man, Buhari, came back. So, while we have elected governments in place, such governments are not run on a democratic basis. Only a man with a military mentality will refuse to obey a court order, as we have witnessed in Nigeria in the last 18 years, particularly under Obasanjo and Buhari. Obasanjo refused to obey the court order to release local government funds to Lagos State, because of ego or personal reasons. A true democrat at heart would not refuse to obey a court order.”
Besides, there is no much difference in the political parties, in terms of ideological orientation and therefore the electorates have no choice. In almost all the parties, money plays a significant role; individuals with deep pockets are invariably the ones that call the shots, particularly when it comes to determining who gets the party’s tickets for elective positions and manning of important positions.
The Board Chairman of International Society for Civil Liberties & the Rule of Law (Intersociety), Mr. Emeka Umeagbalasi, said most of the parties do not see politics as a call to serve. He said: “One of their two main stocks in trade is to capture political office at all cost. Another is their mercantile attitude towards politics; whereby they see politics not as a call to serve, but as business enterprise or an avenue for primitive accumulation of wealth.”
Nigeria’s democracy since 1999 has been marred by a record of allegations of mass rigging and electoral misconduct. There are usually accusations of ballot boxes being stuffed in beer parlours, police stations or homes of local politicians. When he came to power in May 2007, the late President YarAdua acknowledged that there were, indeed, problems with Nigeria’s electoral process. He promised to embark on a reform; and with that he launched a committee under the chairmanship of former chief justice, Mohammed Uwais. The Uwais committee toured Nigeria and came up with some recommendations that stakeholders believe would clean up the country’s electoral process.
But the Yar’Adua-led administration took out some clauses in the Uwais report. For instance, the committee recommended that the head of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) should be appointed by the judiciary, rather than by the President. But this recommendation was one of those rejected by the administration. Political analysts like Dr. Junaid Mohammed noted that it was precisely those clauses that were “most needed if any positive change was to be brought” that were expunged.
Nevertheless, there are indications that further changes may be witnessed soon in the country’s electoral code. The 23-member Ken Nnamani-led Constitution and Electoral Reform Committee, which was inaugurated last October 4, recently submitted its report to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN).
The committee recommended the unbundling of INEC and the establishment of new agencies to enable the commission to focus on its core mandate. It made provisions for the participation of independent candidates, Diaspora voting and the use of technology for elections.
