By Oseloka H. Obaze
DEMOCRACY remains the universally preferred form of government. Yet, Nigeria’s nascent democracy continues to throw challenges that underline problems and paradoxes of democracy. Present Nigerian leaders, are simply not living up to the lore of being democrats by upholding constitutional dictates. They also contribute to an amalgam of frustrations, vulnerabilities, including the diminution of due process and ordered liberties. Such realities impact adversely on Nigeria’s democracy.
As Nigerians experience recidivism of social stresses and ethnic tensions, many question the limits of President Muhammadu Buhari’s promise of ‘change’. After all, “Buhari’s coming (had) raised so much hope that the aspirations of the common people… would be met almost seamlessly.” That change not materializing is not the president’s fault. Yet, one year on, it is a forceful fact that such expectations are unmet. Hence, the question on most Nigerian lips: Is this the change we voted for?
Some poignant analyses have grappled with challenges that make Nigeria’s democracy less than ideal. To Nigerians, for whom pessimism is borne with stoicism, the ring of falsity to the touted change has thinned the veneer of hope. The reality is gloomy. The economy continues to regress and the national rut is systemic, endemic and almost neurotic. In the governance, the distrust gap widens.
While some policy challenges are excusable, some are simply, inexplicable. This includes our persisting unfamiliarity with democratic processes, after more than one-and-half decades in the fray. The second set of challenges relate to how Nigerians grapple with a potpourri of governance modalities drawn from parliamentary and presidential systems. Nigerians seem utterly uncertain, which political form should hold sway. The third cluster of challenges relate to policy options used frame executive and legislative fiats that truncate due process and erode ordered liberties.
Our systemic dysfunction aside, a two-track problem has manifested. Nigerians are increasingly dubious of their confidence in public officials entrusted to run our democratic institutions. Most elected officials now engage in fiefdom-building and self-promotion, with touted accomplishments being merely paid propaganda. Neither governance nor the anti-corruption crusade is yielding discernible ‘change’ results. So Nigerians aren’t averse to demurring publicly about unacceptable conducts of the government.
Yet, Buhari’s policy advisers, who should warn of the risks of not carrying the national population along, seem reticent on pressing national issues. Ironically, it’s such disposition that gives convenient cover for mischievous and trenchant critics of the Buhari government. Incidentally, such circumstances are not peculiar to Nigeria and pertain to both legitimate and rogue governments. Since Nigeria’s broadly elected democratic government fits this descriptive mold; it makes certain criticisms of the Buhari government seem legitimate.
The second cause for concern relates to the rising disregard for due process and ordered liberties by constituted authorities and those sworn to uphold the Constitution. Such acts amount to utter contempt for constitutional dictates. Some border on impunity, while others are clearly illiberal. It’s inconceivable that some precipitate governmental actions are deliberate. Still, it is possible, even probable, that such challenges arise not inadvertently, but from the leadership being misadvised. After all, in the past eleven months Nigerians have witnessed a welter of confusing policy pronouncements and reversals, realities that hardly induce confidence. President Buhari even spoke of possible policy sabotage. The budget padding saga, remains fresh in many minds, as the culprits are still unidentified and not censured.
In Kaduna State, a constitutional debate is raging over Governor Nasir El-Rufai’s attempt to regulate religious thought, conduct and assembly, under the warped pretext of preempting and minimizing radicalization. El-Rufai`s draft law, titled, “A Bill for a law to substitute the Kaduna State Religious Preaching Law, 1984” is in its intent and scope, greatly at odds with Sections 38 of and 39 the 1999 Constitution. Such happening in a democracy is mind boggling. While security considerations might be at play, the Federal Government by not speaking up against such a bill conveys its tacit support for the law. Still El-Rufai’s venture into such warped legislative agenda can’t be adjudged as transformative policy ideas.
Then there is the Ese Oruru and Ifesinachi Ani girl-child abduction and forced marriage saga. Such acts, which violate national and international laws, constitute a moral outrage. They create perceptible mistrust and dichotomy and are revelatory. As Obi Nwakanma observed, “Nigerians apparently live in two countries, where parallel governments exist – one traditional and shadowy, the other a “pretend republic.” Nigeria’s handling of such sensitive cases is sadly telling of our preference for precepts over constitutional dictates.
If Nigeria lack precedents that guide respect for constitutional dictates, her policymakers should cue in on the recent case between the U.S. Government and Apple over the unlocking of an iPhone used possibly, in committing a crime. Apple took the position that constitutional protection of opinion and belief as subsumed in the protection of the freedom of expression is sacrosanct. The question remains: How would this scenario have played out in Nigeria’s present day political environment?
Other challenges also come to mind. First, Nigeria continues to encounter dismissals from and appointments to statutory positions without recourse to extant laws. President Buhari’s sweeping dissolution of statutory boards and dismissal of university vice-chancellors are stark examples. The egregious gravity of the latter led President Buhari to apologize for the mistake and the decisions he made in a less accountable manner. Secondly, Nigerian security agencies continually breach due process by detaining individuals beyond the constitutionally stipulated timeframes, and ignoring court writs on bail or habeas corpus. The danger in such conduct, is not so much the harm done to individuals or to the courts, but in the unfettered undermining the Constitution from where the government and its agencies derive their powers and legitimacy.
Many state governments are opting not to hold local government elections, choosing instead to use other means to control the third tier of government. Some states are also infringing on individuals rights to privacy, including unauthorized monitoring of personal phone conversations, all in the name of security. NGOs and CSOs continue to campaign against other known governmental excesses. And Police and DSS excesses in Ekiti, Ogun, and Rivers States have been widely reported in the national media.Electoral challenges rage with INEC ignoring court orders. Several electoral matters remain in abeyance despite subsisting court orders. Together, these cases provide disturbing insights to what lays ahead. Such challenges are only possible due to executive fiats and acts of omission or commission. Indeed, certain breaches have become tolerable norms because policymakers and advisers are reluctant to speak up against such acts. As Sam Omatseye averred; “The rage of impunity implies the atrophy of the rule of law.”
•Obaze is immediate past Secretary to the Anambra State Government