Tag: June 12

By DAN AMOR

Whatever one’s reservation about it, the recognition of June 12 as the authentic Democracy Day in Nigeria, and honour for Chief MKO Abiola with the title of Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR), specifically reserved for presidents and heads of State, is a most salutary development since 2018. For that singular act of magnanimity and statesmanship, President Muhammadu Buhari merits my commendation. On June 12, 1993, Nigeria held a presidential election, which was annulled by the military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida. It was presumed to have been won by the late Chief MKO Abiola, who was the flag bearer of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), one of the two political parties decreed into existence by the military. Goaded by pro-democracy organizations and activists such as the National Democratic Coalition, Abiola went out of his way to challenge the annulment of the election considered to be the freest and fairest in the history of the country.

A series of events took place including the arrest and detention of Abiola, culminating in the death of the man and his wife, Kudirat. This was an injustice taken too far. The belief then was that the North annulled the election in order to hold on to power in perpetuity. The South West supported by some individuals and professional groups from other parts of the country made the country partially ungovernable. As God would have it, Gen. Sani Abacha, the real beneficiary of that injustice died on June 8, 1998. To compensate the South West for the June 12, 1993 loss, General Olusegun Obasanjo who was in Abacha’s gulag, was released and voted President and was sworn in on May 29, 1999. For eight years he was in the saddle, Obasanjo never deemed it fit to acknowledge the injustice meted out to Abiola, his kinsman let alone addressing it.

The administration of President Goodluck Jonathan actually attempted to honour Abiola by naming the prestigious University of Lagos after him. But his gesture was resisted by the university community and alumni of the institution. Yet, what President Buhari did in 2018, given the fact that Abiola was also fingered as having had a hand in the palace coup that toppled the 20 month military administration of Buhari in 1985 led by General Babangida, is the height of political correctness and magnanimity. Extending the recognition to Abiola’s running mate in that election and the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi, the diehard activist and legal luminary who led the civil society groups in the fight for the actualisation of Abiola’s mandate, is also most commendable. But President Buhari’s kind gesture would have gone beyond mere proclamation and pantomime for it to be meaningful. Unfortunately, Buhari has done the opposite. Nigeria is not a democracy, three years after that proclamation. Under Buhari, the country has gone totally totalitarian.

The hope Nigerians manifested in the June 12 presidential election was to enthrone a truly democratic civilian administration which would remedy the suffocation and arbitrariness they suffered in the hands of the military. In the spirit of June 12, the Federal Government of President Buhari must eliminate all the residues of military hangover and dictatorship and imbibe all the ethos of democratic culture in the country. There must be total adherence to all the tenets of the rule of law and constitutionalism in all its ramifications. On no account should a section of the country be seen to have dominion over other sections of the country. There must be a level-playing field in all facets of our national life including top sensitive positions like service chiefs, board membership and cabinet appointments. Buhari has failed in all these as Nigeria is now so badly divided more than even the civil war era.

Recent developments in the polity represent a frightening attestation that Nigerian politicians are yet to reconcile themselves to the sterling principles of democratic governance twenty-two (22) years into civil rule. Indeed, at all times, the freedom of Nigerians to express themselves and assert their preferences in the polity should command the unreserved respect of the government of the day. But when the government begins to erect brick walls before an aggrieved population, deploying the machinery of state to muffle dissenting voices, it must be clear to it that it is only putting forward an appointment with the inevitable; it can be voted out. For instance, the suspension of Twitter by Buhari two weeks ago, in a so-called democratic dispensation, is a nightmare. Given the fact that the country is almost stagnant economically, and that biting hardship in the land has assumed such a choking proportion, the people at the receiving end should be allowed to express themselves.

Little wonder then that Nigerians of decent disposition are rudely jolted by our politicians’ most revolting attitude to the practice of politics in the country. Is this really a democratic dispensation? This is the question many Nigerians seem to be asking! Why is President Buhari afraid of democracy? It is true that the nation transited to civil rule after a prolonged disruption during which the military held sway. Sadly, we cannot in all honesty say that transition to genuine democratic practice has taken place. This, perhaps, is not surprising, as the decades of military imposition stalled the evolution of a truly democratic culture. Like any other form of societal activity, inducing the acceptance of norms, attitudes and behaviour compatible with the functioning of a democratic culture is bound to take time. But 22 years is quite a long time for even a pupil to graduate from primary school to the university.

Those whose formative years took place under military dictatorship might perhaps be forgiven for not knowing how a democratic environment is supposed to play out. Unfortunately, natural wastage, the infirmities of old age and loss of interest and relevance have prevented those who could be described as “trainers” from providing the sort of guidance and advisory role which they could normally have been expected to have. Not surprisingly, it becomes a turf war over territorial control or in the worst kind of circumstances, a matter of life and death. That the political process is just another form of economic activity is a reflection of the constrictions in the productive/income generating sphere.

Those who have been at the helm at all levels – Federal, State and Local Government – since the return to civil rule have not helped matters. Indeed, most of them have been irresponsible by recklessly flaunting the appurtenances of power, privileges and perks, which were unknown or forbidden in our previous democratic experiments. Some of the emoluments attached to political office and the bounties to be gained by access to the corridors of power are clearly unknown and will not be tolerated in any genuine democratic arrangement. Political office in Nigeria has become unnaturally attractive as an investment, hence the desperation of politicians.

The decline in standards in our political terrain can only be arrested by going back to the basics. We have to build proper political parties anchored on structure and discipline, funded by the generality of its membership and bound together by a coherent philosophical or ideological thrust. There is nothing new about this as we have had proper political parties in the past. Secondly, a national agreement on democratic principles needs to be fashioned by all key stakeholders, setting out in clear, unambiguous terms, the way and manner in which the democratic process is to be operated.

There is no longstanding democracy in which such an agreement, sometimes unwritten, does not guide the democratic system. Again, our foreign reserves must be used to develop our economy to combat mass unemployment and excruciating poverty. Democracy is not all about election, and winning election is not an end in itself but a means to an end. It is only in Nigeria that the Executive can order the Army to occupy parts of the country without inputs from the National Assembly even without declaration of a state of emergency in those zones. It is unfortunate that advisers to the president themselves do not know that their principal is operating under a democratic dispensation.

Yet, elections are the linchpins of all democratic societies world-wide. Elections are the primary means citizens of a free nation use to choose their prospective political leaders, and they give those who have been elected the authority to govern effectively. The difference free and fair elections make in public policy in a given country has been demonstrated vividly in the shift in political power that resulted from the 1992 general elections and 1994 United States Congressional elections. The 1992 election of Bill Clinton, the first post-Cold War President, along with a democratic Congress , brought unified party government for two years. It has also recorded some measure of success in some African countries like Zambia, Ghana and Kenya.

It was also achieved in the March 28, 2015 presidential election in Nigeria. The Western regional election crisis of the 1960s culminated in the first military coup and the concomitant Nigerian Civil War arose from our inability to conduct a successful civilian transitional election. It was also for this reason that the Second Republic was needlessly terminated by the military on December 31, 1983.

This shows how central elections are to the political development or otherwise of any given country. Buhari, if he is truly serious about his actions for June 12, should have embarked on sincere democratic reforms to leave behind a legacy of free and fair elections in the country. Before he leaves office in 2023, the Justice Mohammed Uwais report on electoral reforms must be dusted and implemented immediately. As we write, there is no democratic or electoral reform in Nigeria by Buhari since the past six years. He refused to sign the Electoral Act twice. Is this truly a democratic dispensation?