By Tunji Ajibade
We knew what years of soldiers in power did to arrest the development of
democracy in Nigeria. Now that a comment comes out on a social media platform to say that military government is better than democratic governance, one begins to scratch the head. Of course, anyone will want to defend where they’re coming from. As far as I’m concerned though, defending soldiers in power for any reason amounts to saying whatever plate of ‘pottage’ they offer is preferable to fundamental freedom.
Not too long ago, Former military President General Ibrahim Babangida (retd.), in less than four months, spoke twice in TV interviews; the first of which I responded to on this page. But for the second interview, I decided to let be, because he used soldiery means to get to power so it was natural that he would always justify it. But a recent comment made on X, with the handle @General_Ibbro, which is a parody account with the name Gen. Ibrahim B. Babangida, stated thus: “Some of the best years Nigerians ever experienced all came from the military system of government; jobs, security, affordable cost of living, good roads and education. Accessing the democratic system of government over the years has took (sic) us back to a much worse dilapidated state.” Even though this handle is a parody account, this comment on X is close to some of the arguments the elder statesman had made in the past.
More importantly, at this crucial time, we shouldn’t watch anyone mislead citizens into believing soldiers are alternatives to democratically elected governments. I could have chosen to not interrogate the X comment on governance but I did for two reasons. This X comment was made on the day the latest street protest started. Two, this comment was justifying military rule at a time when President Bola Tinubu, also the ECOWAS Chairman, and other leaders are trying to curtail the incidence of soldiers overthrowing elected governments. On seeing this X comment, I wondered if it was meant to spur protesters to demand the termination of democracy. Anyone would think this since the comment was now blaming democratic rule for all of Nigeria’s challenges. But does democratic practice bear the entire fault? Meanwhile, what the comment had as the basis of his submission were “jobs, security, affordable cost of living, good roads and education.” Is this all there is to governance?
Now, history has shown that after citizens are filled with pottage, their next demand is for freedom. Many readers know that after soldiers in Babangida’s administration had provided a ‘stainless’ Nigeria, which picture was now being painted, a certain lawyer who demanded freedom was jailed countless times by the government – Gani Fawehinmi. It’s because of Fawehinmi I’ve stated the following online: “So, what fascinates you about boys in khaki who shoot their way into power; is it their uniform or their unitary command structure? Give an answer a day after the day your voice to say what you wish when you wish suddenly vanishes.” I understood that Fawehinmi was ever prepared with his bag, complete with his medication, whenever soldiers came to pick him up and put him in jail.
Babangida set him free whenever he wished only to have him picked up again. We knew health complications contributed to Fawehinmi’s death in the end, out of jail. The aggravation caused by soldiers in power who wouldn’t let him have the freedom to express his view as he wished was certainly a contributor. For the X comment, jobs, security, affordable cost of living, good roads and education trump citizens’ freedom. Actually, none of these things was an outcome of the fact that soldiers seized power; fundamental factors that ensured any shade of each that was available were in place at that time compared to this time.
Note that the ‘pottage’ the X comment refers to is perfunctorily provided by elected governments in western nations. So, how could the same be the outcome of some magic wand that only soldiers had, and wielded, in Nigeria at the time? When Gen. Babangida praised soldiers in power in the past on Channels TV, I responded on this page. Much of what I explained – including how soldiers terminated the regional system that was working fine under elected government – doesn’t need to be repeated here. Suffice it to state that elected regional governments had made available to Nigerians at the time the same things the X comment claimed as credit for soldiers. After the 1966 coup, soldiers terminated the regional arrangement. They nationalised private companies that could have been the engine room of economic growth and employment for the youth. Not to be forgotten is that the population in 1966 was less than 60 million. Now it’s over 200 million.
After 1966, soldiers in power ensured Nigeria sleepwalked into a civil war. Politicians would have avoided it. In the 1970s, a concrete foundation wasn’t laid for industrialisation with the petro-dollar we earned. As dollars flowed in, agriculture which sustained us initially, was forgotten. So when outside influences impacted the price of oil in the years that followed, the nation’s revenue experienced crisis. More complications followed in the area of employment, security and the rest of it. Religious militants weren’t like this
at the time soldiers were in power here. The X comment overlooks these issues but projects a glorious view of soldiers who have done wonders in Nigeria. The comment presents issues that don’t form the foundation for growth in a nation as the achievement of soldiers in power.
I think the parody account mistakes necessary challenges of governance in every nation where certain fundamentals aren’t favourable for challenges of democracy. Then it deploys this to justify its view concerning Nigeria. If an essay making this argument was submitted in a political science class, I wouldn’t score him one out of 10. The reason is that this view isn’t in line with what political science is about, as it’s engaged in anti-party activity. A closer assessment of the issues the comment raises will show that, given the same circumstances, challenges that confront democratic governments will confront soldiers in power. In a recent report on Niger Republic, Yahoo News stated this: “When soldiers seized power in Niger one year ago they said ‘they deposed the West African nation’s elected government for two key reasons: its security, and economic crises. But those challenges have persisted, even worsened.’”
What kind of magic can a military or civilian government perform when the circumstances and relevant indices are against it on security and economic issues? Soldiers first overthrew democracy in Nigeria at a time when revenue and security matters were less challenging. Thereafter, their policies didn’t lay a proper foundation for economic development. We’re still recovering loot from officials in governments of soldiers. If those funds weren’t looted they might have been invested in areas that would make indices which democratic governments later met a better one. Yet, on Channels TV, Babangida praised soldiers in power. I expect at this stage that the elder statesman should be candid. One doesn’t say he should rubbish his own footprint. But he should be saying the removal of elected governments by soldiers isn’t a good idea.
I expect the person behind the parody account to join Tinubu, the current ECOWAS chairman, to condemn soldiers taking over power anywhere. The person should support the notion that people should choose their leaders, also that the development of democracy in order to make available results of good governance should be intensified. Generally, in our political space, when I expect submissions that are rigorously thought through, what I often see is different. I know there are many in our polity who say what they say, and one can read in it their desire to tiptoe so as to not offend anyone. It’s understandable, bearable.
But when anyone makes a submission and one reads as basically lacking in-depth analysis they come across differently. It makes one wonder – is this how they’ve dissected the challenges in our nation? If the X comment praising the military over democratic governance truly represents the analysis and convictions of past military heads of state, then Nigeria has more difficult issues than I have the space to explain here. But I state that scapegoating democratic governance is basically
an effort to rubbish the current government, another revisionist endeavour to justify soldiers’ adventure in politics which led Nigeria to this spot.
In this article
