Madunagu: Contemporary problems of democracy (5)

IT is now time to conclude this appreciation. Anthony Akinola's
Democracy in Nigeria is appearing at a particularly depressing period
in the history of the country: It is a period in which many sincere
patriotsare frightened and pessimistic about the future of their
nation. And to be frank with myself, as well as with my readers, the
current appreciation is, ina sense, a statement of faith and hope, a
statement of optimism about the survival of Nigeria as a corporate
political entity. I try to banish all thoughts about Somalia, Rwanda
and former Yugoslavia.
Even then, I would not have embarked on this appreciation, let alone
utilizing that opportunity to restate my faith, hope and optimism, if
Akinola's book had not been an intellectual product that exudes not
only honest patriotism and optimism, but also creativity, freshness
and boldness as well as strong and resilient conviction - from the
first page. Each day that breaks witnesses literally uncountable
number of productions, in various literary forms, on the same subject
engaged by Akinola in his book - democracy in ourcountry, Nigeria.
But I would say with every sense of responsibility and moderation that
most of these productions - or, more strictly, those that I see - are
simply manifestoes of opportunism, cynicism and hypocrisy.
Although Akinola and I belong to different "ideological camps" with
different sets of ideas on how (the route to take) to attain a
genuinely human and humane Nigeria, I can affirm, also responsibly,
that Akinola's Democracy in Nigeria is not one of themass productions
on "democracy" I have just characterized. Each of the 55 essays in
this book presents us with propositions or assertions for debate or
reflection.
Beyond all this, however, is another attribute of Democracy in
Nigeria: there are several ideas in the book that I can propose for
inclusion in the radical left programme for a new Nigeria. These are
ideas I had earlier described as "flashes of beauty" and "deep
thought;" and if I may adapt a formulation in Andre Gorz's Socialism
and Revolution, I would call the ideas "humanist constants." These
relate toelements that a national programme of whatever general
ideological orientation must embody to deserve consideration at all.
These include education, health, empowerment of human hands to work
and create (not to be stretched in supplication to other humans for
survival), fundamental human rights, political democracy as well as
equitocracy. Thelast is a concept of democracy, which goes beyond "one
person, one vote". Collegiality, zoning and rotation - currently being
bastardised in Nigeria-are all elements of equitocracy.
What I wish to do in the space that is left for me is to repeat one
particular clarification, and then pull out some key propositions in
Democracy in Nigeria for readers to reflect on. These I would take
away as I close thebook and place it back on the shelf. First, the
clarification. Democracy in Nigeria had proposed in several of its
constituent essays that there are no serious or substantive
ideological differences in contemporary Nigerian politics. This
proposition I had alreadyrefuted. But I had also proceeded to propose
that two or more political groups with ideological differences can
combine to pursue a specific political objective or a small number of
specific political objectives. If the objective of the combination is
general, rather than specific, then the combination is essentially a
merger and Akinola would be right - in that particular instance - that
there were no serious ideological differences separating the groups in
the first place.
Now, to the propositions. In the essay Beyond mere grumbling under The
monster of corruption (Part 6), Akinolahad said: "If we are genuinely
concerned about our plights and rights, may be it is time we organize
ourselves into a non-partisan group, subscribed to by patriotic
Nigerians across the various divides. The trouble with Nigeria is
significantly that of a followership that would rather grumble than
act collectively in pursuit of desired objectives" (emphasis mine)
(page 152). He quotes his friend, the late Tajudeen Abdul - Raheem:
"Organize, not agonise". (page 152). This is an explicit "call to
action", arguably the most explicit in the book. The "various
divides" mentioned in the "call" are obviously "ethnic" and
"religious" and the unstated commonplatform for action is the
popular-democratic platform, or the "humanistconstants".
In the fourth essay titled Presidency is the issue, the author says:
"The argument that a potential president should be intelligent,
competent and patriotic cannot, in any way, be faulted. However,
those with such qualities can be found in all the geo-political zones
of the Nigerian federation. The time will come, and it may not be
long, when we see conventional wisdom in a remodeled presidency that
is made up of an elected leader from each of the geo-political zones.
The position of President who combines thefunctions of Head of State
with that of the Chairmanship of the Collegiate can be based on
rotation" (page 35). To this proposition, as I said in an earlier
segment of this appreciation, I give a hundred percent "yes" vote. My
only footnote is to the effect that the proposal should take effect
now, for tomorrow may be too late.
In the second paragraph of the 5th essay, Democracy and structures of
governance, Akinola says: "I begin my comment by summarizing democracy
as an idea which, among other things,is about respect for the rule of
law, free and fair elections and the freedom of the individual within
the confines of the law. A nation may choose to put in place political
structures which accord with its realities. What makes such a nation
democratic or not is the extent to which the principles of democracy
areupheld in the society. Structures of political governance differ
and vary inwestern countries. What we lack, and must seek to learn, is
the primacy they accord to the principles of their chosen political
systems" (page 37). My vote is "yes."
In the 6th essay, Ethnicity as a permanent phenomenon, he says:
"Ethnicity is one phenomenon we arenot going to be able to wish away,
no matter how much we try. Accepting ethnicity as a reality to be
confronted is the way forward to achieving a stable, democratic
nation. The magnitude of the problem posed by ethnicity in our society
emanates from its centralized nature. While it is perhaps
inconceivable that a nation like the United States of America would
disintegrate because of its ethnic components, the same can hardly be
said about Nigeria. The ethnic population in America is dispersed, and
that explains the major difference between that nationand ours" (page
41). My vote is again "yes" except that I would change "themajor
difference" to "one major difference."
The following proposition is in the 33rd essay, The iniquity of greed:
"TheNigerian politician wins regular lottery in corrupt practices or
shady deals. The saving grace for democracyof today, if one must be
honest, has been the distrust Nigerians have for the military. The
experiences of governance between 1985 and 1998 do not recommend
further military involvement in politics" (page 139). Historically
true, although it can happen again without "recommendation."
In the synopsis to Part 8, Religion and religiosity, the author says:
"Nigeria isone nation where a supposedly well-educated person could
blame the breakdown of their vehicle on theevil machinations of
witches, believing there would be need for prayers. The pastor or
imam or priest feeds on this type of irrationality for their own
economic advantages. However, the stability of Nigeria is hardly
troubled by eccentric or excessive religiosity of the majority but by
the determination of a very tiny minority to impose its values on the
rest of society. Nigeria has suffered from all sorts of religious
extremism in the past and is currentlyengaged in the battle with an
extremist group whose sophisticationin unleashing savagery has been
unprecedented" (page 161). True, except that I would change
"Nigeria...........is currently engaged in..." to "The Nigerian state
is currently engaged in....."
In the 54th essay, Still on rotational presidency, Akinola says: "We
do not do not have a "rotational presidency" yet, what we do have is
"zoning" by individual political parties. Once there is a rotational
presidency, the rules guiding the principle will be elegantly stated
in the national constitution with all political parties mandated to
follow them." (page 212). This is closely followed by: "Rotational
presidency, if included in the constitution as contemporary realities
suggest it should, it may not be a permanent feature no matter how
lofty an idea we think it is. It is customary practice in democratic
nations with written constitutions to periodically review and possibly
amend any provision of the constitution only when it may be deemed to
have served its purpose. The idea of a rotational presidency cannot be
an exemption. There is no doubt that a future generation will have
its say in all of this, ridicule us if they so desire, but the duty we
owe that future is to save the present" (page 215).