Impact of Democracy In Nigeria: Democratization - Term Paper Example

Running Head: DEMOCRATISATION Democratisation and its Impact in Nigeria’s Political Structure and Civil Society Introduction Nigeria’s political story may perhaps be simply described as an account of violence, fraud, and corruption coupled with the powerlessness of the administration and the nation’s social groups to resolve the economic, social and political conflicts of religion, race and civilization. Nigeria, even with enormous petroleum wealth and regardless of being the world’s fourth largest democracy and the biggest in the African continent, still struggles against mass poverty caused by the poor and corruptive management of its leaders and the unjustified wealth of the more privileged ones. Due to the unfulfilled pledges of politicians, the citizenry is defeated in their optimism of an economic improvement, whilst several have questioned their hopes of a seemingly unworkable democracy. The majority’s share of the so-called democracy escaped Nigeria for the previous eleven years of civilian headship (Ighagbon, 2010). This paper discusses the democratisation in Nigeria and its impact in the country’s political structure and civil society. Moreover, this paper details the country’s democratic transition from military dictatorship, and as well examines the effectiveness, possibilities, realities, and challenges of participatory governance and deliberative governance in Nigeria as it attempts to deliver “democracy.” Transition from Military Rule to Civilian Rule The country’s existing civil rule is produced from two unsuccessful endeavors by two military officials, namely General Ibrahim Babangida and General Sanni Abacha, to transfer to civilian governance. General Abudulsami Abubakar charted the political transition and effectively switched power from the military dictatorship to the present democratic civilian administration (Momoh & Thovoethin, 2001). General Abubakar laid down a new schema for the political and economic reconstruction of Nigeria, primarily focusing on getting the country back to national unity. Attributable to the previous bold leaderships which gained sanctions from the international society for violations of human rights, abuse of judicial powers, violations of procedural laws, and extended military rule, the nation’s economy was gravely distressed. To return the nation to civil governance subsequent to numerous wasted efforts by the past regimes, General Abubakar journeyed to the west to petition for support for his administration and for the country’s economic rejuvenation. He started on negotiations and discussions with the diverse masses and social assemblies throughout the nation and confessed the democratisation mistakes and failures. Then he disbanded the five political parties under the Abacha rule and sequestered their ill-gotten assets by the duly appointed government commissioners. The final stride to Nigeria’s civilian rule was the presidential election in 1999, which enthroned General Olusegun Obasanjo, an ex-military official from 1979 to 1983, to the presidential seat (Momoh & Thovoethin, 2001). During the third wave of democracy (Huntington, 1991) or Nigeria’s return to democracy in 1999, the country’s democratisation became the focus of forceful disputes in some societies (Nwankwo, 2003; Saliu, 2004; Durotoye, 2006). The mounting issue on Nigeria’s democratic transition elucidated conflicts in ethnicity, religion, socio-economy, and politics that have been the curse of the country. Godfatherism took the place of citizen participation in decision-making. Nigerians began to wonder if their country is truly democratising or merely surviving democratisation (Alumona, 2010). Because the 1999 Nigerian Constitution is uncertain and conflicting in several aspects, it became a vehicle of excuses for both the manipulative legislative and executive branches, thus corruption issues mounted and consequentially disintegrated the National Assembly. An agenda of restructure, redirection and recovery to supervise and guarantee responsibility in Nigeria’s capacity to deliver democracy to the public was pledged (Jega, 2001, p.14). The 2003 Nigerian presidential and gubernatorial elections once more instated General Obasanjo as president. Although he and his party were obvious favourites by the Nigerian populace, General Obasanjo was accused of possible electoral fraud due to the elections’ alleged irregularities, extensive rigging, blatant manipulation, and counterfeited results (Onike, 2009). In April 2007, the highly controversial Nigerian elections proclaimed Umaru Yar’Adua as the new president. However, the elections was described by the European Union as "the worst they had ever seen anywhere in the world", with "rampant vote rigging, violence, theft of ballot boxes and intimidation" (Nigerian election pushed back a week, 2011). Since the inception of democracy in Nigeria, the nation’s political history has been marred with violence, corruption, fraudulent practices, and electoral malpractices. Hence, any effort at democratisation has always been unsuccessful and doubtful in Nigeria (Luqman, 2009). Corruption After Nigeria’s return to democracy from several years of military dictatorship, corruption has been at the center of the nation’s problem of management and authority, democratic stability, law conformities, national improvement and the wellbeing of the populace. The country confronts a spiteful economic crisis and socio-political retardation due to endemic corruption and outrageous spending by its leaders. Corruption in politics has continued to thwart the progress of Nigeria. Whilst political dishonesty is the foremost reason for the apparently unworkable dilemma of scarcity, sickness, starvation and discontinued economic growth in Nigeria; it has likewise critically delayed the development and effectual use of human and material reserves in the entire Africa (Egbue, 2007). Several government leaders were found accountable for mishandling and embezzlement of public finances and the millions of naira drained from the local and national treasury. After years of military mismanagement, corruption eventually became a tradition and attacked all aspects of Nigeria’s social, economic, and political existence. The encompassing and greedy nature of corruption led to the flourish of military revolutions and dictatorial conquests in the country. The succeeding administrations, supposed to counteract political corruption, ironically became tangled in corruption — the same motive for running the position. Corruption became a big time business from the local to the national levels of the government. Anticorruption strategies were ineffective and discontinued because of the worsening political and government volatility. The strategies became a political pretense for obtaining political backing and public commitment (Ogundiya, 2009). Participatory Democracy In Nigeria: Are Nigerians Really Involved? According to John Ackerman (2003, p.447), co-governance which calls for citizen participation in the nation’s central activities is the greatest approach to tap into the power of society. In participatory governance, civilians ought to partake in public choices or in any case, seriously connect with crucial political matters and be guaranteed that leaders will be open to their concerns and opinions (Cohen & Fung, 2004). Issues on Political Participation Each citizen’s right to political participation is a fundamental factor of democratic administration because it offers the populace the voluntary involvement in selecting leaders and the direct or indirect contribution in forming public policies (McClosky, 1972). Democratisation legitimately permits citizens the right to participate in politics. The interchange of authority and force in Nigeria’s attempt to democratise raises several more issues concerning the current political participation. Issues consist of the following queries: 1. Are Nigerians free to choose rulers in the elections? Are Nigerian elections free, fair and open? 2. How are people categorised in the diverse political parties? Is the nature of each party’s political principles beneficial for Nigeria’s democratisation? 3. Will the elected officials be accountable to the populace? 4. Is political authority, which customarily belongs to the civilians, institutionalised or personalised (Alumona, 2010)? Anywhere in the world, there are procedural problems linked in declaring free and fair elections (Alumona, 2007). To uphold democracy, elections should be free and fair. However, the electoral law in Nigeria which is supposedly a guide to voters’ registration and election conducts was, in contrary, observed to be a denial of the people’s right to participate in politics (Alumona, 2010). President Obasanjo, during the 2001 elections, was accused of smuggling some personal conditions into the electoral act. Voters’ registration was delayed; registration materials were insufficient in regions where the administration supposed that the ruling party has no grassroots support; cases of enormous rigging were reported; some candidates who did not run in the elections won; a prisoner who was convicted of murder and never campaigned even once won a senatorial seat; and in the state of Anambra, candidates won their preferred seats manipulated by an influential godfather (Nwanegbo, 2005). Again, in the 2003 elections, extensive rigging and irregularities, such as bold maneuver and falsification of election results by Obasanjo’s administration prevailed. The 2007 elections marked an elemental defining moment in the country’s political history as it influenced the struggle for authority transition from the south to the north; on the other hand, it was furthermore a colossal violation of the complete design of a democratic election and an obvious disruption of the democratic process. Hopeful participants were barred and major candidates were assassinated by the ruling party. However, President Obasanjo did not succeed in his do-or-die third presidential term. The new Nigerian president, Umaru Yar’Adua was instated upon the decision of the nation’s Supreme Court (Alumona, 2010). Political participation in Nigeria has spoiled its democratisation course. Whereas democratisation ought to be supported and strengthened by political parties, the entire process is menaced by the misbehaviours of the governing political parties. Electoral rivalry has been typified with extreme aggression, rancor, and war (Adejumobi & Kehinde, 2007). It is public knowledge that some influential personalities could buy political positions in their preferred political party all for godfatherism. Prior to the 2007 elections, during the re-registration, party cards were purposely not distributed to party members presumed to be non-supporters of President Obasanjo. They were forbidden to join in party assemblies from the local to the national level and thus were excluded from the voting of party leaders. The newly elected leaders would then operate like gods, suspending and ousting their rivals (Durotoye, 2006). The political parties have been seized by some units of the ruling party at the cost of the law of the right to political participation. Political parties composed of powerful retired militia men generally dictate Nigeria politics (Omotola, 2007). Deceit, lack of transparency, electoral malpractice, violence, and partiality have persistently tarnished Nigerian elections in all tiers of the federal system (Alumona, 2010). The Leaders’ Accountability to the People In Nigeria, democratic accountability of its government officials to the citizens who elected them to positions of power is still questionable. Ever since the country returned to democracy, the public’s approval, welfare and concerns were disconnected from the regime’s actions and decisions. The superior demonstration of supremacy by the elected leaders and their chosen affiliates is upsetting. The non-performing elected government officials hold offices and inexplicably use public funds for private interests. The lack of correspondence between the officials and their electorate; disregard for the citizens’ opinions on major national issues; failure to bring development; and good governance to the people constitute a heavy toll on the welfare of every Nigerian (Alumona, 2010). In a democratic nation, the formulation and employment of public policies are influenced by public opinions. The citizenry participates directly or indirectly through proposals in the process of policy making. However, this is not the case in Nigeria. Since 1999, there has been a total disregard for public opinion in making and implementing public policies (Alumona, 2010). In Obasanjo’s regime, the price deregulation of petroleum products have caused indignation among the masses, particularly in Lagos and Abuja. Prices were increased without conferring with the oil sector. The public’s complaints were countered by repressions from the militia. Moreover, in a national broadcast on October 8, 2003, President Obasanjo arrogantly warned that protesters and labour leaders will be dealt with if they bring menace to the country (Alumona, 2010). Personalisation of Power and the Reign of Godfatherism Nigeria’s democratisation course is confronting grave challenges. The gravest of which is the personalisation of power, which has denied the citizens’ participation. This problem has severely ruined the behaviour of political parties, the process of policy formation, and political responsibility (Alumona, 2010). Nwabueze (1993) recommends a meticulous provision for the country’s democratization — an absolute change of security and poll watchers and the prohibition of some uncategorised persons from participation in self-governing politics and government. Powerful political godfathers, such as retired military bureaucrats, policemen, military agencies, and government officials, inhibit popular participation in the democratisation process. These godfathers bribe and buy political positions where the masses are supposedly to partake in the administrative procedures. Participation is exposed to abuse, effortlessly taken by the selected few, and consequentially led to a new form of dictatorship (Alumona, 2010). The notion of Godfatherism originated from Christianity. Godparents are especially selected by parents to help in raising a righteous, morally-healthy, and God-fearing child. Unfortunately today, its sacredness has diminished (Anakwenze, 2004). Godfatherism, as defined in the current political setup in Nigeria, is a political sponsorship, or a relationship between a supporter and his subordinate. Today, godfatherism has become a socio-political plague in Nigeria, as well as in the whole African continent. The influential godfather makes sure his subordinate seats in a powerful political position and in return, the subordinate rewards his sponsor. However, when the godson fall short of his godfather’s expectations or when the godson fail to adequately repay his godfather in terms of appointments and a share of financial and material assets, the godfather terminates the relationship and political support. Godfatherism has damaged political security and stability and has threatened democratic peace and solidity and political participation of the public (Abdul-Jelil, 2008). The personalization of power in Nigeria has threatened the democratic process. The most powerful godfathers make decisions for the public, thus denying their right to participate. These godfathers, with the aid of the authorities and militia, have turned their chosen states into their private empires (Alumona, 2010). In Anambra, godfather Chris Uba ordered the kidnap of governor Ngige. In Oyo, godfather Lamidi Adedibu took the state hostage due to a conflict with governor Rasheed Ladoja over non-compliance to the agreed monthly allowance to be stolen from the state assets. In Kwara, the son and daughter of an influential godfather were placed in their desired positions of power. In every state, godfatherism reigns. In order to save Nigeria’s emerging democracy, it needs institutionalisation of its democratic organisation (Alumona, 2010). Deliberative Democracy The model of “deliberative democracy” was created by theorist Joseph M. Bessette in 1980 and later expanded and accepted by other political thinkers to represent a system of political decisions grounded on some exchanges of compromised decision-making and  diplomatic democracy. The concept of deliberative governance both questions and further reinforces the conventional idea of equal opportunity among people. Philosophers believe that lawful governance exists fundamentally in the public deliberation of the populace. It identifies the subsistence of a conflict of ideas and interests between lawmakers and the general public, and the negotiation of this conflict extensively engages the marginalised, secluded, unnoticed groups in the country’s process of decision-making. It centers more on the decision-making than on the end results that materialise from it (Albert, 2010). A deliberative democracy is one through which civilians deal with public concerns by mutual reasoning on solutions. Deliberative democracy is a move towards negotiating, combined interests, and the influence to the general and equal rationale among citizens (Cohen & Fung, 2004). While deliberation aspires for a reasonable verdict, it takes no assumptions that the resolution will actually be validated and that the present solution may not be sufficient for the future. A continuous discourse is open wherein every participant can freely give criticisms on past conclusions (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004). Nigeria’s Need for a Deliberative Democracy In Nigeria, the government is controlled by a group of undemocratic powers — the president and his executive committee, the ruling political parties, and the godfathers. The government is deficient in sovereignty or the determination to hold any critical-rational debate concerning the dilemma of the general populace (Albert, 2010). The following will explain why Nigeria has no accessibility or capacity for a democratic debate and why the nation needs a deliberative democracy. In a public discourse by Chris Uba, the previous political godfather of Anambra, he said: “I am the greatest of all godfathers in Nigeria because this is the first time one single individual has single handedly put in position every politician in a state. I also have the power to remove any of them who does not perform up to my expectations anytime I like” (quoted in Albert, 2010). And in an open speech by the late Lamidi Adedibu, the godfather of politics in Oyo, he stated: “I put Ladoja  in office; he started his political career in my house and will end it in my house. I knew he was going to be a bad child, that’s why I put in a deputy that is loyal to me” and “Ladoja is too greedy. He was collecting N65million as security vote every month. You know that governors don’t account for security votes. He was to give me N15million of that every month. He reneged. Later it was reduced to N10 million, yet he did not give me. I put him there. So, if I demand money, will it be wrong? He is not the first governor and he is not going to be the last. Other people who are going to take over from him have lined up now. There is nothing like ideology in Nigerian politics. Everybody only wants his daily bread” (quoted in Albert, 2010). The declarations by the two godfathers evidently reveal that an ordinary Nigerian is totally disconnected from democracy. With this kind of political situation in Nigeria, it is expected that the political group would not take interest in pursuing any critical-rational discussion regarding the worsening situations of the minority group (Albert, 2010). Nigerian parliamentarians abuse their constitutional functions of lawmaking for personal interests, such as a raise in their stipends, price increase of allocation budgets which partially go to their personal accounts, gratification claims even before bills and budgets receive approval from the executive branch, and assertion of their rights to choose contractors and suppliers for government projects and infrastructure. Constituency Development Funds are usually deposited into their personal bank accounts. The executive branch of the administration is forced to release huge funds to the parliamentarians for community projects and improvements that are supposed to benefit the Nigerian citizenry as their “shares of democracy” (Albert, 2010). Clearly, the moral values of lawmakers in Nigeria have eroded together with the concept of an ideal democratic government. The outraged populace is thus obliged to find its own way of seeking democracy, that is, through the media (Albert, 2010). Deliberative Democracy through Online Public Spheres Deliberative democracy supports the voice and involvement of the public sphere. Computer-intervened communication through online public spheres may effectively employ deliberative democracy by allowing ordinary citizens to be social participants in the social and political decision-making at the local and national levels. The media, being a dependable channel for guaranteeing and invigorating the public sphere, enables different social factions to express their observations and draw replacement actions; lends a hand to social groups in the promotion of their causes and search for mass support; and encourages feedbacks from social participants (Curran, 1991). The internet has considerably magnified the 21st century public sphere by serving as a resource of fresh array of voices in discussions and debates, although not every free online dialogue can form a public sphere (Albert, 2010). A public sphere, according to Dahlberg (2001), has to meet the following criteria: independence from state and economic rule; exchange and assessment of ethical and realistic legal arguments; spontaneous response; calm accountability for actions; sincerity; and deliberative inclusion and impartiality. Nigerian websites have been launched to promote deliberative democracy throughout the country and worldwide. The following are some Nigerian websites that have been inspected as to their effectiveness in delivering democracy (Albert, 2010). The Sahara Reports website is one of the most popular in Nigeria and specifically highlights on corruption. It gives access to important information about government officials and their lifestyle. It sends emails to individuals and groups of possible political sabotages. Sahara Reports offers an e-library where anyone can download various official documents, such as human rights reports; accounts of survey panels; interviews; private correspondences between government officials; and a photo exhibit of a few Nigerian officials caught in their most controversial moments (Albert, 2010). The Economic Confidential website offers Nigerians with the nation’s detailed economic pulses, local economic and financial prospects, and behind-the-scenes economic investigation that may never be read in ordinary media. (Albert, 2010). The Against Babangida website, as its name obviously implies, mainly targets the downfall of Nigeria president, Babangida. It reports a collection of humiliating news about Babangida and his administration officials, gathered from circulating newspapers and magazines in Nigeria and from Yahoo, Google, CNN and BBC. Moreover, the site fights dictatorship and preserves the democratic culture of Nigeria (Albert, 2010). The Nigeria Village Square is the most civilised and academically appealing site linked to all Nigerian newspapers. It offers informative exchange of reliable information, and sound ideas and opinions. Prominent Nigerian writers are regular contributors to this website (Albert, 2010). Analysis of the Nigerian Websites The websites greatly contributed to Nigeria and the entire Africa’s deliberative democracy and the public sphere. The sites’ ownership and control are independent of the state; however, their deliberative inclusion and impartiality are questionable. Despite the substance of the concerns raised in each website and its enormous role to the growth of Nigeria’s democratic freedom, some contents are defiant of democratic standards and decorum of a public sphere. As predictable in a common group discussion, some exchanges are scientifically unfounded; ideas are not interconnected; opinions are incoherent; and comments are insensitive (Albert, 2010). A public sphere should summarize a course of coherent views. It is not a simple ventilation of an individual’s partialities, aspirations and beliefs. For democracy to be truthfully effective, there must be an objective group of jointly agreeing participants fit and prepared to hold balanced and serious deliberation (Habermas, 1989, p.236). Nonetheless, a practice that only seeks out personal view as in an open opinion survey would not represent a public sphere most particularly when not structured in a way that presents option for discursive resolve formation. The public sphere is basically made when personal opinion is honestly subjected to balanced and critical debate controlled in a genuine environment that is mindful of the public and not of a single entity alone (Albert, 2010). Conclusion Today, despite the so-called “democratised Nigeria,” the country still faces the old challenges of the military era — poverty, corruption, government illegitimacy, electoral crisis, infrastructural perish, social threats, immense unemployment, desecration of basic human rights, political assassination, and massive violence. Thus explains the large-scale emigration, particularly among the young generation, to countries that present more constructive social conditions. Nigerians are saddened with what democracy has granted them after over a decade of its application. The economic recovery promised by the country’s leaders was never felt by the majority. The labouring Nigerians are impatient and apprehensive. Hopes are very high, whilst public delivery is very low. References Abdul-Jelil, A. G. (2008). Godfatherism and Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: Violence and Political Insecurity in Ibadan. Peace & Conflict Studies Programme, Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan. Retrieved May 9, 2012 from http://www.ifra-nigeria.org/IMG/pdf/Animasawun_Gbemisola_ABDUL-JELIL_-_God fatherism_and_Nigeria_Fourth_Republic_Violence_and_Political_Insecurity_in_Ibadan.pdf Ackerman, J. (2004). Co-Governance for Accountability: Beyond "Exit" and "Voice". World Development, 32(3): 447 – 463. Adejumobi, S. & Kehinde, M. (2007). Building Democracy without Democrats? Political Parties and Threats of Democratic Reversal in Nigeria. Journal of Africa Elections, 6(2). Albert, I. O. (2010). Whose Deliberative Democracy? A Critique of Online Public Discourses in Africa. Nigerian Village Square. Retrieved April 13, 2012 from http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/guest-articles/whose-deliberative-democracy-a-critique-of-online-public-discourses-in-africa.html Alumona, I. M. (2007). The 2007 General Elections and the future of Democracy in Nigeria. Journal of International Politics and Development Studies, 3(1). Alumona, I. M. (2010). The Politics of Democratization in Nigeria: Are the People Involved? Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 12(7). Anakwenze, N. (2004). Godfatherism. Kwenu. Retrieved May 9, 2012 from http://www.kwenu.com/lectures/anakwenze_godfatherism.htm Cohen, J. & Fung, A. (2004). Radical Democracy. Swiss Political Science Review 10(4): 23-34. Curran, J. (1991). Mass Media and Democracy. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.). Mass Communication and Society. London: Edward Arnold. Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer-Mediated Communication and the Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1). Durotoye, A. (2006). Democratic Transition in Africa since the 1990s. African Update. 13(3). Egbue, N. G. (2006). Africa: Cultural Dimensions of Corruption and Possibilities for Change. Journal of Social Sciences, 12(2): 83-91. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press. Huntington, S. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Okalahoma Press. Ighagbon, M. (2010). Remodelling Democracy in Nigeria to Deliver. The African Executive, 292. Retrieved April 13, 2012 from http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/ magazine/articles.php?article=5565&magazine=310 Jega, A.M. (2001). The Impact of Military Rule on Governance and its Implications in Nigeria. Paper presented at the Conference on Democracy and Democratization in Nigeria, 1999-2001, May 28-30, 2001. Luqman, S. (2009). Electoral Institution and the Management of the Democratization Process: The Nigeria Experience. Journal of Social Science, 21(11): 59-65. McClosky, H. (1972). Political Participation. In D. L. Sills (Ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 12: 252-253 Momoh, A. & Thovoethin, P. (2001). Republic of Nigeria: An Overview of the 1998 – 1999 Democratization Process. Retrieved April 13, 2012 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/cafrad/unpan009286.pdf Nigerian election pushed back a week (April 4, 2011). CNN. Retrieved April 13, 2012 from http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/03/nigeria.election/index.html?eref=ft Nwabueze, B. (1993). Democratization. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd. Nwanegbo, C. J. (2005). Crisis and Conflict Management in Nigeria since 1980, Volume Two. Kaduna: Nigeria Defence Academy. Nwankwo, A. (2003). The Nigerian Experiment: Is it working? Ogoni National Day Annual Lecture. Ogundiya, I. S. (2009). Political Corruption in Nigeria: Theoretical Perspectives and Some Explanations. Department of Political Science, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, Sokoto State. Kamla-Raj 2009 Anthropologist , 11(4) : 281-292. Omotola, J.S. (2007). Godfathers and the 2007 Nigerian General Election. Journal of African Elections, 16(2). Onike, R. (2009). Electoral Malpractices and Democratization Process in Nigeria. Wryte Stuff. Retrieved April 13, 2012 from http://rahaman.wrytestuff.com/swa556150-Electoral-Malpractices-And-Democratization-Process-In-Nigeria.htm Saliu, H. (2004). Nigeria under Democratic Rule 1999-2003: Volume One. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press Ltd. Read More