By Azuka Onwuka
Last week, Nigeria’s former president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, reiterated what some Nigerians tend to say when they are frustrated about the way democracy has progressed in the country. That point is that since democracy has not favoured Nigeria, Nigeria should fashion out the type of democracy that will suit it. Sometimes, those who defend whatever the ruling party does also make this suggestion. In their case, they usually argue that each country should be allowed to practise democracy how it deems fit, because “this is Africa, and we should not copy and paste whatever we see the Whites doing.”
It is a lame and hollow suggestion. There is nothing wrong with democracy as practised by Western countries. There is nothing peculiar about Nigeria that will make that brand of democracy not to work in Nigeria. The Western world was not born with democracy. They had kings who beheaded or burnt people alive for opposing them or having a contrary view. They operated a discriminatory system that divided the people into the nobles and peasants based on the accident of which family people were born into.
It took centuries before they evolved into the democracy we see today. Despite that, there are still many countries in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe, where democracy still looks like a joke. In these countries, one person decides who wins any election and how long the person’s tenure can last. The reason is that many countries of Eastern Europe used to practise non-democratic systems of government like communism. Many of them also emerged from bigger countries- some peacefully, some through wars. Therefore, they are either trying to stabilise or trying to learn the ropes.
When the British were leaving Nigeria in 1960, they handed their parliamentary system of government to Nigerians. The parliamentary system is seen as more inclusive, as power can be shared by different parties, unlike the presidential system where the winner takes everything while the loser is sidelined until the end of the next election. It also has the tendency to provide smoother governance, as the government has majority support in the legislature, which makes it easier to pass bills and change policies. But by 1960 – only two years after Nigeria’s independence – the Western Region was already embroiled in crisis, which led to the declaration of a state of emergency and the arrest and imprisonment of key figures of the Action Group, including its leader, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, for treasonable felony and conspiracy to overthrow the Federal Government. Members of the Action Group called it political victimisation.
After the imprisonment of some leaders of AG, the crisis in the Western Region did not abate. Rather, by October 1965 when election was conducted in the Western Region – which was described as massively rigged – the situation was exacerbated. Violence erupted in the Western Region, with arson and lynching of politicians and their supporters by opposing camps. The violence was tagged Operation Wetie, coined from the Yoruba expression “wet him/her” (that is, “wet him/her with petrol and set him/her ablaze”).
By January 1966, the military struck and truncated democracy. A countercoup occurred in July 1966. Ethnic killings started in the North against people of Igbo ethnicity over the January 1966 coup for the killing of the Prime Minister, Sir Tafawa Balewa, and Premier of the Northern Region, Sir Ahmadu Bello, both of whom were from the North. Indigenes of the Eastern Region fled from other parts of Nigeria and said they were no longer safe in Nigeria.
Talks held in Aburi, Ghana between the Eastern Region and Federal Government ended with an agreement signed before General Joseph Ankrah of Ghana. The agreement was later breached by the government of General Yakubu Gowon, making the East to secede from Nigeria in 1967. The Federal Government of Nigeria announced the action to bring the East back, and the Nigeria Civil War – better known as Biafran War – ensued. In January 1970 the war ended and the Eastern Region was brought back to Nigeria. But military rule continued until 1979.
While the military was returning power to civilians in 1979, it was decided that the system of government should be changed to the presidential system of the United States of America. In 1967, the military had earlier jettisoned the regional structure for the state structure in line with the US style. For the 1979 transition to civil rule, the military also changed the name of the electoral body to the Federal Electoral Commission.
But the Second Republic lasted only four years. The people complained that the second election of 1983 was fraudulent and that there was too much corruption by the politicians. The military struck again on the last day of 1983. Between 1984 and 1998, the military ruled Nigeria. This time around, the military was seen as more corrupt and more vicious than the civilians. Before the military eventually returned power to civilians in 1999, it first changed the name of the electoral body to the National Electoral Commission and later to the Independent National Electoral Commission. It also created more states – from 19 in 1979 to 36 in 1996. In addition, it created six zones – three in the North and three in the South. But it retained the presidential system. However, based on what Nigerians passed through during military rule, most of them felt that the military should not be allowed in power anymore.
For the first time in Nigeria’s history, it has had unbroken civilian rule for 24 years. However, rather than that democracy maturing like wine, politicians seem to have devised means to cleverly exploit the loopholes in the system to make democracy look undemocratic and unproductive, leading to some Nigerians calling for a review of the type of democracy practised in Nigeria. Some have called for the Africanisation of the democracy. Some have even called for the return of the military, believing that the military will turn things aright. But past experiences have shown otherwise.
Canada has been practising the parliamentary system of government since the exit of the UK. Same as India. It has been working for them. South Korea and France have been practising the presidential system of government, and it has been working for them. Therefore, the problem is not with the system practised but with the way it is practised. The problem lies in Nigeria and with Nigerians. For example, if Donald Trump were a Nigerian president, he would not have relinquished power in 2021. In fact, as an incumbent president shouting that the opponents were planning to rig the election, he would not have allowed himself to be declared the loser of that election. He would have ensured that he was declared the winner by any means necessary and challenged the opponents to go to court. And because of his powers, no court would have nullified his election. But in spite of all his powers as the most powerful president in the world in 2021, Trump could not change the system that declared him the loser.
That is what is missing in Nigeria. The Nigerian leaders are still more powerful than the democracy in Nigeria. They are more powerful than the system – the judiciary, legislature, electoral body, military, police, etc. Unlike in true democratic countries where the court is independent and its decision is obeyed, Nigerian leaders still decide which court ruling to obey and which to disobey. The police also take instructions from the president or governor.
The second leg of the problem is the fact that Nigerians still have not grown out of the primitivity of attachment to their ethnicity and religion. Most Nigerians who pretend to want the transformation of Nigeria will resist any attempt to have such a transformation if the candidate that has the probability to create that change is not from their ethnicity or religion. Many Nigerians would rather cause themselves hardship by supporting the wrong candidate from their ethnic group and religion than the good candidate from outside their religion and ethnicity. That is why in other democracies, people disagree on candidates based on policies but Nigerians disagree based on ethnicity and religion.
These are the issues that Nigerians need to work on and rectify instead of being fixated on creating a peculiar type of democracy for Nigeria. Like the bad workman, Nigerians should stop blaming the tools and focus on their inadequacies.
In this article