ASSESSING NIGERIA AS A DEMOCRACY

Nigeria claims to be a democratic state, but isn’t that debatable?

Democracy, also known as ‘government by the people’, has its origins from the ancient Greek political thoughts “…as rule by the citizens in general (nevertheless excluding women and of course slaves) in contrast to government by the rich and aristocratic.” (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2005) This form of democracy in practice in the Greek state is called direct democracy because many people are involved in the decision making process that invariably affects the entire state. Aristotle in his treatise regarded democracy as the most moderate form of government, simply because it gives everyone equal rights in the face of the law.

The form of democracy in practice in major democratic states of the world today, like Britain and America, is called indirect democracy. It is a system of government where the people in the state collectively select, or in a more technical term, collectively elect those who will represent them in governance, instead of them getting involved in political matters directly like it was in the ancient Greek state. But while indirect democracy is different from direct democracy in terms of collectiveness and number, both are parallel in their mode of operation.

We know from experience and acquired knowledge that democracy, as conceived by the Greeks, has some features, or principles that are peculiar to the system, and we can use these features as criteria to assess the position of a state which claims to be practicing democracy, whether that claim is true or otherwise. So if Nigeria claims to be democratic, we can prove the validity of that claim by subjecting it to objective analysis using the characteristics of democracy as a template.

Firstly, democracy, just like any other system of government involves two parties: the people and the government. The people in the form of a social contract delegate their rights and will to the government and back it up with authority which comes from legitimacy. The power that the government wields comes from no other place than the people. That is why to complement that decision, democracy ensures the place of sovereignty of the people. This means that the people are the final authority in a democratic state, and the government in power cannot be more powerful than the people. But when we take a look at Nigeria, the reverse seems to be the case. The government has neither respect nor regard for the sovereignty of the people. Those in government act autonomously and only in their self-interests. These actions are in direct incongruity to what democracy truly represents. Thus, Nigeria is not and should not boast of being democratic.

The implication of disregarding the sovereignty of the people is that it also breaks another ingrained principle associated with democracy. That principle is the ‘Rule of law’. The rule of law stipulates that the law should be above everyone in a political system, and no one should be treated in such a way that the law seems inferior i.e. not applicable to some. The principle dictates that the law should be the master and everyone should be treated equally before it. But in Nigeria, unlike other democratic states, the law only has power on the masses, not on those in positions of authorities. That is why a citizen can be involved in a crime and get severely punished for it, but if it were to be a minister, the opposite is the case. In a country where such level of injustice and extreme disregard for the supremacy of the law is upheld and some people are masters of the law, democracy seems an unfit tag. Therefore, I reiterate, Nigeria should not boast of being democratic.

One other pivot feature of a democratic state is periodic elections. The people vote and the results of their votes are accumulated by an independent electoral body. The winners of the election are then announced by the independent electoral body and are sworn into their respective positions. That is the procedure. But take a look at Nigeria and evaluate our past and recent presidential elections. The INEC which is supposed to be independent is not dependent in its decision making. There is a lot of bribery and corruption going on behind the scene and the man who bribes the most controls the outcome of elections. This makes Nigeria to be in a very bad situation.

In conclusion, in a nation where the political landscape is dominated by the old, rich and lazy men who form a caucus and play politics as an ‘inclusion game’ by installing members into political offices one after another, such practice is not democratic. Oligarchy would have been a better claim to make by Nigeria, because what we are having is not people choosing or electing leaders into offices, what we are having is government of the few, government by some elite caucus, who determine who and who gets to where and where. With all these facts in view, I dare to hold strongly the opinion that Nigeria is not in any way democratic, and that we are democratic is the lie the fat-cats in government are telling us so as to hide their malcontent actions.