It is hard not to think that Nigeria is walking, half conscious of implications of her move, into a military model of governance.
Just as the military governments used to do, leaders in a post-military polity are appear inured to linking any criticism or dissent to lack of unity. Military dictators used to premise their coming to power and staying in it on fighting corruption and keeping the country united. Even now, almost sixteen years after the exit of military autocracy, political and cultural leaders have almost turned national unity into a bogey. From former President Olusegun Obasanjo to current President Jonathan, governors from various political parties, and all manners of traditional and religious leaders, the theme of every speech has become how to protect and promote national unity. Everybody thinks and talks as if Nigeria has disintegrated or is disintegrating. This attitude, if not checked, can be dangerous to democracy in the country. Average Nigerians need to be allowed for now to believe they live in a country that is not at war. Fear mongering is capable of encouraging autocracy and diminishing democratic thinking and practice.
This obsession with the discourse of uniformity in preference to the discourse of plurality of perspective is now being imported frantically by those in leadership positions into the realm of what should be a market of ideas. Only recently, the APC directed its members in the national assembly to frustrate passing of bills and budgets proposed by the ruling party in order to get the president to respond to festering political paralysis in Rivers State. Almost without thinking about the nuances of separation of powers in both parliamentary and presidential systems of democratic governance, political and cultural leaders started to shout foul, asking the APC to disown its directive to its members in the national legislature. In which country is separation of powers designed to ensure that the legislature is always friendly to the executive? The system by design calls for contentiousness between these two bodies, should the need arise for disputatiousness.
In the parliamentary system used until the coming of the military in 1966, it was periodic contentious relationship between members of the opposition and the party in power that sharpened debates, improved conception and implementation of policies, and even prevented the ruling party from taking decisions that could have been injurious to the sovereignty of the country. Awolowo’s Action Group government benefited immensely from overt disagreement with the NCNC opposition members from Adelabu to TOS Benson. Even the government of Tafawa Balewa was saved from signing a defence treaty that would have yielded the country’s sovereignty to former colonial overlords in the talked-to-death Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact. The position of opposition party members saved the country at that time. Even in the days of the first experiment with presidential system, the periodically adversarial relationship between the NPN and the UPN drew attention to the signs of economic collapse that the president and his then minister of economic planning were trying to hide from the citizenry.
In what ways is the effort of the APC to ensure that democracy is not destroyed in Rivers State on the altar of winner-takes-all politics different from attempts by opposition party members to rein in ruling parties in other countries? Even in the United States, the Republican Party has not failed to use this checking and balancing aspect of American presidential system to shut down the government under the leadership of Barack Obama, yet the country did not need to run to the gods to beg them to save America’s unity. Currently, in Ukraine, the opposition party is challenging the government’s oppressive acts with the support of ordinary citizens, yet nobody is worrying about the unity of the country. Political paralysis in Rivers State portends serious problems for democracy everywhere else in Nigeria. The crisis in Rivers State may not be at the instance of President Jonathan. There is little doubt that the molestation of the elected government of the state has the hands of those in the service of those in power. Is the commissioner of police in Rivers State responsible to the governor or the president?
Nigerians that are already calling for the heads of APC leaders for stalling the passing of the 2014 budget need to pay more attention to the risks involved in democratic rule, especially the system of separation of powers. There is even nothing wrong with PDP men and women of conscience in the legislature to disagree openly with the ruling party by joining forces with the opposition if they perceive that direct or indirect actions of the ruling party diminish democratic rule in any part of the country. People who are afraid that democracy will come to an end if opposition party members employ their legislative tools to resist the manifestation of tyranny, such as has been evident in the behaviour of the commissioner of police in Rivers State since the face-off between Governor Amaechi and President Jonathan, are crying wolves unnecessarily. Nigerians who feel uneasy and scared that democracy is being threatened because opposition legislators are invoking their constitutional powers must remember that it was even members of Obasanjo’s ruling party that shot down the tenure elongation bid. For the legislature to keep the executive on its toes and nudge him in the direction of needed compromise is part of the rule of the game of democratic rule.
The thinking that Nigeria is not fully democratic yet but only in transition to democracy should not be used to silence or demobilise the opposition party. It is only recently that the sitting governor of Rivers State, the state that has been under siege for months, acquired membership of the APC. It must be remembered that the APC had been calling for fairness, equity, and justice in the handling of the political crisis in Rivers State, long before Amaechi crossed the carpet to the APC from the PDP or the new-PDP. Those that are around when dissidents are being hounded had better spoken up. Otherwise it could be their turn to be hounded when the lust for absolute power so demands. APC may not be a perfect party, like all other human constructions, but the party is not doing anything undemocratic by attempting to shock the presidency back into consciousness and reminding the ruling party that impunity anywhere in Nigeria is impunity everywhere in the country.
Those who were in the country in the 1960s when federal power failed to prevent avoidable political crisis in Western Nigeria cannot but remember how many opportunities Nigeria had lost because the crisis in Western region was allowed to fester by those in federal power. Citizens who were of age when federal power under General Sani Abacha was used to terrorise sections of the country would not want their parents to go back to the barricades over political disagreements that can still be brought under control.
Whichever political parties or individuals have the courage to warn of a long stick that can poke the eyes of Nigeria need not be demonised. Condoning impunity at the hands of folks in the service of those in power may be tantamount to agreeing to sacrifice the testis of the father in order to assure the survival of his sons. Such attitude includes the risk of bringing destruction to the entire family. Power in every democracy has a limit; Nigeria should not be an exception. The culture of occluding threats to stability belongs to autocratic rule. Our leaders and political pundits need to come to terms with the dynamics of pluralism in a democracy: it requires readiness to listen to the other side, in order to keep the place safe for struggle for power by all parties.
