Special Issues

NigerianNews

Dozie Ikem Ezeife, Esq

Attorney-At-Law
Oakland, California

Does "Democracy" Necessarily Exclude Military Regimes?

2003 And The Illegal Use of Public Resources For Personal Political Campaign Activities.

Brain Drain - A legitimate Commercial Asset for Export

The Savanah Bank Imbroglio - A critical look!

Does "Democracy" Necessarily Exclude Military Regimes?
by Dozie Ikem Ezeife, Esq

---

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “democracy” as “government by the people… rule of the majority…a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free election”.

Democracy is commonly understood as a government of the people by the people and for the people. Because of western influence we tend to take it for granted that this definition of democracy necessarily excludes a military government. It does not. The dominant thread that spans the entire gamut of Webster’s definition is the will of the people. If the people accept the government in power because the government is fair and fulfils the expectations of the governed, such a government (by whatever nomenclature) I respectfully submit, is democratic. Because the legitimacy of a government derives from the support and approval of the governed, i.e. the people, I am inclined to define democracy in terms of efficacy of the government and its acceptability by the governed. If the government works to the satisfaction of the governed and the government enhance the quality of lives of its citizens, then it is a democratic government.

In the light of the foregoing premises the claim by some of our politicians that the worst civilian government is better than the best military government is arrant nonsense. This line of thinking ranks form ahead of substance. Speaking for myself, a good government is what I prefer to see in Nigeria. I am willing to give opportunity to anyone who has the vision and the political will to set the Nigerian train back on the right track. I do not have the luxury of defining democracy in pigeonhole terms especially because the western world defines it in such terms. A civilian government is not necessarily a panacea for Nigeria’s mountain of political, social, infrastructural and economic problems. At least the four “republics” we have had so far bear me out on that. If the truth were to be told, the best two administrations Nigeria have had since independence has been military: Muhammed/Obasanjo and Buhari/Idiagbo regimes. Conversely, the two worse governments Nigeria have had since independence has been civilian: Shagari/Ekwueme and Obasanjo/Atiku administrations.

The history of elections in Nigeria does not seem to support the assumption that because Nigerians “elect” their civilian governments, that somehow that makes the civilian government a preferable system. The truth is that “elections” in Nigeria are overrated. What we have had in Nigeria since independence have been more of “selection” rather than “elections”. Candidates are selected or pre-ordained by powerful political elites and the generality of Nigerians having been presented with a faith accompli, merely “ratify” these pre-ordained candidates in a general election.  Most of these “elections” can hardly pass for real elections because they are often preceded by violence and intimidation and are heavily rigged. They invariably result in the installation of what Mike Ikhariale aptly termed “constitutional dictatorships”. These candidates stand for nothing, run on nothing and when they assume authority, do nothing for the governed. During the 79 and 83 elections, anybody and any mammal could win “election” in the West if he was a candidate for UPN; in the East if he was a candidate for NPP; and the North if he ran under NPN. The trend has not changed. Candidates and parties had no identifiable ideologies and programs. When eventually they rigged, intimidated and bribed themselves into office, they owed no allegiance to “the people”.

It is true that most military regimes are dictatorial or autocratic. But so are a lot of “civilian” regimes, e.g., in Zimbabwe, Togo, Liberia, Kenya, and some will argue, even in Nigeria. It is also true that some democracies around the world have weaved a peculiar “democratic” system by way of a hybrid military-civilian government. It seems to be working for them. Some of these countries are Egypt, Pakistan, Cuba, and Iraq, to name a few.

Historically, two out of the three dominant tribes in Nigeria had a history of autocratic political systems. The Hausa/Fulani had a feudal aristocracy. The Yoruba Kingdoms had powerful autocratic Obas. It is only the Igbos that had a unique republican-type political set up that operated much like the present participatory democracy. Given this stark historical fact, is it any surprising that our leaders are quick to relapse to their basic autocratic instinct. Clearly a political system can only germinate and grow successfully in an environment that is suited for its cultivation. You cannot expect a bountiful yield of cotton if you are stupid enough to plant it in Anambra State. Conversely, cassava and yam are not the types of crops you would expect a Zamfara farmer to plant. The point I am making is that Nigeria cannot go out and make a wholesome importation of some alien political system without tweaking it properly and adapting it to our peculiar environment and expect it to work. Because it works perfectly well elsewhere is not a guarantee that it will work in Nigeria. Because the western world tells us that any government that is not “civilian” is undemocratic does not mean we have to take their word for it. Their definition of democracy is obviously shaped by their own history and environment.

The Presidential “civilian” system of government currently practiced in the United States, which we borrowed, is only an adaptation of political systems borrowed by the United States from Europe. They did not just borrow and start implementing the European models wily nilly. They took time to exorcise the portions that would not work for them in the new world. We ought to do the same in Nigeria.

In conclusion, Nigerians ought to have a referendum and decide what system of government they prefer. They also have to decide for themselves, what is more important: substance in the sense of a responsible and responsive government; or form, in the sense of a civilian, a military or perhaps a hybrid system of government. We cannot continue to make a wholesale purchase of the western definition of democracy without regard to what really matters: is the government acceptable to the people and are the government and its policies endorsed by the governed. All these other long grammar is just smoke.

 

[DISCLAIMER: For the avoidance of doubt, the opinion stated by me in this article is not an endorsement of or advocacy for a military coup in Nigeria. I do not encourage nor do I advocate a violent overthrow of the Nigerian government. The Nigerian people have opted for a civilian system of government and had voted for the present administration. I respect their choice and support their decision. This piece is merely an effort to have another look at the true meaning of democracy in the Nigerian context.

[back to Top News]

Let us empower ourselves so that we can be strong, Register your new Domain Name (i.e yourDomain.com) with no other company but with  MICN DOMAIN REGISTRATION SERVICE and also HOST this domain with MICN DOMAIN HOSTING SERVICE. If you are in MICN  DIAL-UP coverage area, why will you want to DIAL-UP to another company? If the price is the problem, email us and we shall see what we can do. USE OUR DIAL-UP NETWORK. We will reasonably match any price for the sake of our unity. Send personal email to admin@micn.com. Let us stop what has hitherto set us back Let this be a new day! Patronize our people today, buy in our neighborhood!

"I am inclined to define democracy in terms of efficacy of the government and its acceptability by the governed. If the government works to the satisfaction of the governed and the government enhance the quality of lives of its citizens, then it is a democratic government.

In the light of the foregoing premises the claim by some of our politicians that the worst civilian government is better than the best military government is arrant nonsense. This line of thinking ranks form ahead of substance."