AUTHORITARIANISM AND DEMOCRATIC ABUSES
UNDER OBASANJO’S LEADERSHIP:
WHAT LESSONS FOR PRESIDENT JONATHAN
1. Introduction:
At independence in 1960, Nigeria emerged as a
democratic nation under a Parliamentary arrangement headed by Prime Minister,
Tafawa Balewa of the NPC. The turbulence of the first Republic (1960-1966) led
to a coup d’etat followed by 13 years of Military rule.
In 1979, Nigeria once again ushered in the democratic
system, this time opting for the American type Presidential model. This new
experiment lasted for four years and was followed by another long era of
military dictatorship.
No doubt Nigeria’s socio-economic
and political growth was grievously retarded by these long years of Military
usurpation, thereby leading to a genuine struggle by the Nigerian people for a
new basis of political engagement whose foundation would be laid on the
democratic ideals of liberalization, openness and the rule of law.
After serious attempts by the
military to perpetuate itself, and a protracted battle with democratic elements,
Nigeria finally witnessed a new dawn with the swearing in of Chief Olusegun
Obasanjo of the PDP as Nigeria’s second Executive President on May 29th,
1999.
For the Nigerian people, there was
hope and great expectations. There was relief that the era of impunity,
arbitrariness and abuse are over. It was expected that henceforth, issues would
be approached on the basis of mutuality, accommodation and interest aggregation
within the context of the social contract.
However, Nigerians quickly woke up
to the realization that President Obasanjo had very different ideas. His
understanding and perception of leadership was based on the imperial notion of
“divine rights” where the leader “knows it all” and “could do no wrong”.
Under Obasanjo’s leadership, the
major components and institutions established by law to facilitate the
democratic process and the ideals of pluralism were undermined and deliberately
reshaped to suit the whims and preferences of Mr. President.
Six years after Obasanjo left
office, the legacy of abuse which he left behind have continued to flourish
while the principles of the rule of law and good governance continued to
deteriorate under President Jonathan whose competence and ability carries a
huge question mark. The aim of this paper is to look at the issue of presidential
dictatorship under Obasanjo and whether this legacy has lingered under President
Jonathan.
2. A
Theoretical Overview
To
further strengthen a general understanding of the subject matter, it is important
to provide an analytical basis of explanation through which the issue of
authoritarian leadership under Obasanjo’s administration and its effects on
Nigeria’s democracy would be better understood.
The power theory, which best serves
our purpose here, could be traced to the classical works of thinkers like
Thomas Hobbes, Niccollo Machiavelli, George Catlin and more modern works of
Hans Morgathan, Bethrand Russel, Harold
Lasswell, etc. These renowned thinkers see the use of power as the most
fundamental ingredient that determines relationships “in the shaping,
distribution and exercise of power”, within the political system. For Machiavelli,
an arch traditionalist, power is seen as an end in itself which, when wielded
to its maximum, facilitates the realization of the various state objectives
such as justice, peace, security, property, aggrandizement, prestige, etc.
(Adebayo, 1986).
For Lieber, (1972) power covers all
social relationships that establish the control of one man over another,
ranging from outright violence and coercion to other forms of manipulations and
psychological control. Statesmen and politicians are often obsessed with the
possession of power and political influence which, in countries with low
political culture, become essential tools in political contests. These again,
may take the form of violence, deprivation, persuasion and other more subtle
and less visible means.
To Varina, (1979), Lasswell, (1962)
and Caplan (1969), power is an instrument of coercion and has a physical effect
on both sides. They maintain that the concept of power is the most fundamental
in the whole political science since the political process has much to do with
the shaping distribution and exercise of power.
For Thomas Hobbes, (Appadorai,1974)
power is the production of intended effects or that which an actor possesses in
so far as he is able to move or alter the will of others so as to produce
results in conformity with his own.
In this context, we may look at
power as the capacity of an individual to modify the conduct of others in the
manner he desires. Generally speaking, power is the capacity to control the will
and actions of others even against their own wish or desires. Here, power is
seen as a zero-sum article. It connotes a system of relationship where a finite
quantity of power on the part of x must, by definition, accompany a diminishing
of power at the disposal of units y and z (Deutch, 1970).
There are different forms of power
which a leader can exercise. These include coercive power, economic power,
personal power, normative power and of course political power (Ake, 1996)
In the eight years of Obasanjo’s
leadership, Nigeria was suffused with a peculiar leadership style which we have
described as “divine right” Presidency. Obasanjo sees himself as the only
person who has the capacity to provide answers to these problems. In this
respect, he pursued policies and leadership style that dominated other
individuals and institutions of government, even in a federal system. He
enthroned a system of subordination of other organs of government in a way that
makes them amenable to his supreme will.
As such President Obasanjo exhibited
a well-cultivated disregard for public opinion and the rule of law. He wanted
to create a new Nigeria fashioned in his own image. (Uzoatu, 2003). This unilateralistic
approach is best shown in his several acts of disregard of court rulings and
other unorthodox measures taken to frustrate the National Assembly. When one
took a look at the eight years of Obasanjo’s Presidency, it becomes pertinent
to submit that his authoritarian attitude in matters of state made it outrightly
impossible to consolidate Nigeria’s democracy.
3. Understanding
the Real Concept of Democracy
Democracy as a concept or system has
been, at various levels, conceptualized within normative and empirical
perspectives. Scholars have criss-crossed between participatory democracy and
representative democracy in the effort to determine what actually constitutes
democratic precepts. In the process, representation rather than participatory
democracy have been identified as not only the most universal but also the most
practical form.
In a very simple language, Akindele
(1994) described it as a system that makes possible the choice of a few to do
for the majority what they could not do together.
After a comparative study of the
views of Jean Jack Rousseau, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Abraham Lincoln and
Stuart Mills on the theory and practice of democracy, Seril Bayles (2004)
concludes that democracy is simply the equality of obligations to take
decisions and to participate in carrying them out once they are made until they
are realized. The view expressed here is that in a democratic setting, the
various stake-holders have vital functions to perform and these must be done in
harmony in order to achieve the ultimate goal, which is, good governance.
Writing on the same theme, Schumpter
(1962) and Appadorai (1974) described the substance of democracy as a system of
government that guarantees people the freedom and right to exercise their
governing power either directly or though their representatives, periodically
elected by themselves. They identified three major characteristics which must
exist if democracy must retain its form. These are:
(a) Political participation
(b) Political equality
(c) Alternative choice
Caplan (1971) argues that democracy
cannot survive unless certain measures are taken to create conditions that
facilitate its growth. He identified such conditions as a wide-spread habit of
tolerance and accommodation, a sense of give and take and the need to relate
with each participating member on the level of mutual respect and strict
adherence to the rules of the game.
Mbachu (1995) saw democracy as not
only a way of life that allows people the freedom to make choices through the
exercise of their free will but as a system that provides for and allows
conflicts in the society to be resolved by rational argument and reason rather
than coercion or other manipulative or violent means.
4. Influences
of Military Culture on Nigerian Democracy
As noted in the earlier part of this
work, the Nigerian armed forces have played very major roles in shaping the
political destiny of the Nigerian State. From the first Coup (1966) to the last
disengagement (1999), the military have overwhelmingly charted the tempo and
focus of Nigeria’s political life. Dudley (1982) and Ojo (1998) hold the view
that democratic cultures in Nigeria have been dismantled by incessant military
rule through the displacement and destruction of the democratic or governmental
institutions which uphold these democratic values and principles. They identify
low political culture as one of the effects of military involvement in the
political life of any society. The military culture has the tendency to
permeate all segments of the civil society and restructure the content and
output of socio-political institutions within the state.
The Nigerian military have become
less of a professional organization and more of a political one as their
presence and participation in the political process became more and more
entrenched. As a result of coups and counter coups, the Nigerian military
become more of a political group meant to fill a certain quota or political
space either on geo-ethnic terms or on the basis of ideological content. The
military’s professionalism and patriotic spirit largely became mere facades
behind which they shield their social and political values. (Hoffman and
Waldmier 1992), (Gboyega 1992).
Oyediran (1984) assessed the matter
from the angle of vulnerability of the Nigerian state and the fragile nature of
its institutions, particularly the political and legal ones. This vulnerability
makes it possible for the military to intervene at its whim, and in the process
create new socio-political instruments of society and recreate old ones to suit
their image and sympathy.
Mehden (2001) contends that when the
military takes political action, officers position themselves as
“constitutional caretakers” determined to serve the interest of democracy and
constitutionalism. The military use such opportunity to carry out political
reform and establish conditions under which political power may eventually
return to a civilian regime. Such civilian administrations, being the by-product
of the military, lack the essential character and focus of genuine democratic
government. It continues instead to imbibe the trappings of dictatorship and
plain militarism.
Nnanna (1999) blames the incidence
of military influences and culture on Nigerian democracy on the faulty
transition to civil rule programmes which successive military regimes in
Nigeria have created. He holds that military rulers sponsor transition
programmes which, though sound on paper, often fail woefully in producing the
desired results. These programmes fail because their conception, direction,
implementation and successes suffer the delirious, influences emanating from
purely authoritarian military culture. The militarization of Nigerian democracy
is a further proof of the military contempt for the civilian way of governance,
which to them is slow and unproductive. This attitude seems to have
far-reaching consequences on the nation’s political make-up considering the
fragile nature and newness of our democratic apparatuses.
In 1999, a good number of retired
military officers entered the political area and were elected into various
positions. Others were appointed into the executive council or assigned various
important state functions. Inherently, such retired military officers, of whom
Obasanjo was at the helm, continue to show greater effervescence to the
military trappings of intolerance, impunity, arbitrariness and unilateral
action.
5. Authoritarianism
and the Negation of Democratic Ethics.
The concept of authoritarianism is
the advocation, or demand of total and complete obedience and subjection to a
leadership position, the occupant or occupants without regard or concern for
other imputs. Authoritarianism demands absolute and total obedience to the
hierarchy such that the views and ideas emanating from that source can neither
be questioned nor subjected to amendments.
Biakolo (1997) holds the view that
military rulers, particularly those who had attained the rank of generals can
no longer operate successfully as civilian leaders. The thrust of his argument
is that such men are so used to the command and obedience structure of the army
that they can no longer be amenable to the restraints and encumbrances that
exert themselves on executive authority under a democratic arrangement.
As was typified in the case of
Olusegun Obasanjo, Oyewumi (2006) expressed the view that civilianized soldiers
remain at heart military men. He said that no matter what opposition or the
constitution says, the men in power will always use extraordinary means to get
their way. Gidoen (2002) also identified the danger of treating the opposition
and other forms of dissent as enemies. He regrets that those whose views run
contrary to that expressed by the rulers are treated as dissidents that ought
to be emasculated and subdued with all available means and resources.
Throughout his eight years as
President, Obasanjo’s relationship with the National Assembly was characterized
with intrigues, maneuverings and tension. For a man used to unquestionable
obedience from his citizens and colleagues, he could never feel comfortable in
a situation that requires him to submit his decisions and actions to the scrutiny
of parliament or any other constitutional opposition. This was the root of the
frosty relationship between President Obasanjo and the National Assembly.
Eguavon (2006) observed that
similarities abound between the leadership style of President Obasanjo
(1999-2003) and the past military regime of General Obasanjo, (1976)-1979).
Both regimes, he said were anti labour, anti people, and pro-imperialist in
ideas, vis a vis the World Bank and IMF. Obasanjo once accused the NLC of
running a parallel government and introduced a bill in the National Assembly
aimed at decapitating the NLC.
It is apparent that Nigeria’s democracy
was gravely endangered under the Obasanjo’s administration partly because of
his domineering personality and his military background. This has made him
traditionally unresponsive to some basic tenets of democracy – tolerance,
accommodation, negotiation, reconciliation, compromise and the generous spirit
of give and take.
For democracy to be successful and
firmly rooted in any society, participants in the political process must adhere
strictly and legitimately to the basic factors that differentiate democracy from
other forms of political interaction. There includes the supremacy of the law
and constitution, strict adherence to due process, equal opportunity, the right
of the people to choose between two or more alternatives, the right to choose
who should lead them and to change the leadership when it becomes necessary to
do so.
6. What
Lessons for Mr. Jonathan
The death of President Yar’adua
after a prolonged illness and scandalous attempts to obfuscate the state of
things within the hierarchy led to the emergence of vice president, Goodluck
Jonathan as the President and Commander in Chief. The election that brought Yar’adua
and Jonathan to power in April 2007 had been recklessly manipulated by
President Obasanjo to produce a premeditated outcome. While receiving the Secretary
General of the United Nations, Ban-ki Moon in June 2007, President Yar’adua
openly admitted this anomaly when he stated that “The April elections had flaws
and shortcomings”. He promised however to carry out fundamental reforms of the
Nigerian electoral system, his death, there years into the presidency, left Mr.
Jonathan in the saddle. In 2011, Jonathan sought and obtained a fresh mandate
despite stringent opposition from the Northern political establishment which
felt that power should return to the North (Abimbola, 2013).
The commonly held view in Nigeria
today is that the presidency, bedeviled by a myriad of problems is desperately
fighting for its political life, and by so doing, have resorted to illegitimate
and authoritarian methods. The problems facing president Jonathan include the
stiff opposition from the Northern bloc which insists that power should return
to it, booming corruption at the highest levels of government, the G7 Governors
and the combustible fracas in the ruling party, the PDP. Not to be taken
lightly is the widely held view that president Jonathan is weak, incompetent
and ineffectual. To fight back and to establish his authority, the president
has resorted to methods increasingly perceived as undemocratic and authoritarian.
Many have expressed the fear that fascism is gradually creeping in. Odusile,
(2013) notes that governance is drifting and that,
…Nigeria is
being turned into a police state where opponents of government are either
haunted into submission or punished for cooked up offences using the apparatus
and agents of state. This is the way of fascists…
It is a commonly held view in
Nigeria that late President Yar’adua had greater respect for the rule of law
and due process than his predecessor (Obasajo) and his successor (Jonathan). Under
Yar’adua, the courts enjoyed greater robustness and independence in judicial
output. This was evidenced in the reversal of several policies of Obasanjo,
particularly the privatization of certain key public enterprises, believed not
to have been done in a completely transparent manner. Several frandulent
election results, announced by INEC were also overturned by the courts. Under
Jonathan, the status quo have returned and impunity seem to have become a
better yardstick for political competition as was hugely demonstrated in the
Anambra election of November 16, 2013.
Like Obasanjo before him, President Jonathan
appears to be averse to public opinion and criticism. This may not be the best
way to nurture our democracy and ensure political growth. The democratic ethic
demands that when issues are at stake, those involved are expected to engage
each other in a healthy exchange of ideas in pursuant of positive results, and
result here is whatever serves “the greatest interest of the greatest number”
not the interest of a few oligarchs.
Nwankwo (2006) regrets that
Obasanjo’s attitude of contempt for public opinion alienated many well
intentioned contributions to the national question. A similar scenario is
playing out under the Jonathan Presidency. What lesson then has he learnt?
In
governing Nigeria; Obasanjo did not adhere to the rules of engagement as
established in the laws of the land. He circumvented these laid down rules and
at other times created his own personal rules in order to facilitate his
motives. He saw himself as a leader of extraordinary capabilities and
potentials who not only knew what was best for Nigeria but also as one who had
all the answers at his fingertips. To follow due process would impede his progress
and derail his results. For Obasanjo, the rules are nothing but unnecessary
impediments designed to frustrate him and sabotage his efforts. The factors of
Obasanjo’s failure and the sequences that brought him there are the lessons
which Jonathan must learn if he desires to make a positive difference.
7. Conclusion
and Recommendations
This study has examined the issue of
authoritarianism under Obasanjo’s presidency and how the lessons from it would
help in creating a better democratic culture for Nigeria. Our conclusions are
that leaders who disregard public opinion, abuse the rule of law and tend to
constrict the political space do not promote democracy and when democracy is
restricted, the society loses.
Based on these findings and
conclusions, the study is obliged to make some recommendations which are
considered pertinent to the search for democracy and development in Nigeria.
1. Democracy
has become the most acceptable form of government almost all over the world.
This acceptance is based on the in-built mechanisms which facilitates the ideals
of the social contract. The Nigerian leadership has a responsibility to ensure
that the political system is open on the basis of pluralism and accommodation.
This must be based on the clear understanding that without this openness, the
goals of development, stability and growth cannot be achieved.
2. Nigeria’s
democracy and leadership style has to move away from the confines of the
praetorian syndrome. In developed countries, civilianized soldiers make positive
contributions to the political system, having purged themselves of all
trappings of militarism and despotism. If Nigeria must join the league of
progressive nations, all participants irrespective of socio-economic status or
professional background must be willing to play the game according to the rule.
3. There
is need for a healthy perception of democracy dividends which go beyond the
mundane attributes of governance. The notion of dividends of democracy is a
behavioral phenomenon. It is not quantitative. The dividends of democracy have
to do with character moulding, attitudinal differentiations, perfections and
permutations in approach between individuals and groups in their relationship
with one another. Democracy dividends has to do with imbibing the ethics of
tolerance and accommodation in dealing with opponents no matter how high the
stakes are. The spirit of give and take is what separates the modern human
society form the Hobbesian state of nature where might is right.
4. Politicians
should learn to respect the rule of the game. Election manipulations to achieve
victory at all cost is a negation of our collective humanity. Since 2003, the
ruling Party, the PDP, have been accused of playing underhand games in election
matters. With the vast resources of the state at its disposal, it is tempting
to fiddle with the process in order to have a premeditated outcome. This temptation,
if not resisted with courage and firmness, could lead to disaster. A fraudulent
mandate is an illegitimate one. The Anambra election fiasco should not be
allowed to condition the road map of what 2015 would be. The onus lies on the
Presidency and the PDP to prove that they are faithful partners in the Nigerian
project.
5. President
Jonathan must prove in deed and in truth that he has an agenda to transform
Nigeria positively. He has to convince the world that he is not an appendage of
the old order. He must strive to make a clean break from the impunity and
arbitrariness of Obasanjo. In view of the myriad of accusations and challenges
confronting him, he must wake up and show ability, decisiveness and leadership.
He has to do this with tolerance and template. It is only when these are done
that Nigerian democracy would begin to breathe the breath of life.
BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCES
Abimbola,
E., Creeping Fascism, The Nation,
November 28, 2013.
Adebayo, Angustus (1986), Power in Politics, Ibadan, Sectrum
Books.
Ake, Clande, (1996), Democracy and Development in Africa,
Ibadan,
Spectrum Books.
Akindele S.T. (1994). Democracy and Imaginary Thinking in
Nigeria (in) Omoniyi O., Democratisation in Africa,
Benin
City, Hima and Hima.
Appadorai, A. (1974). A substance of Politics, Madias, Oxford
University Press.
Bayles S. (1994). Travails
of Democracy in Africa, (in) Omoruyi, O.
op cit.
Biakolo, H.S. (2002) Democracy in Retreat (in) Egbo, Steve,
Nigeria and the World: A treatise in Foreign Policy,
Enugu, John Jacobs.
Caplan, Charles. (1971) Democracy, Athens, Georgia University
Press.
Deutch, Kare, (1970). Politics and Government: How
people
decide their fate, Bosten, Houghton Mifflin.
Dudley, Billy, (1982) Introduction to Nigerian Government and
Politics, Miami, Ilan and Basing-stoke.
Eguavon, Benson, Farewell
to Peace, Tell, July 24.
Gboyega, Alex, (ed) (1996) Corruption and Democracy in Nigeria,
Ibadan, Agbo
Areo.
Gideon, Anthony (2002) Democratic Discourse, Lagos, Civil Liberty
Organisation.
Ibrahim Jibrin, (1997) Expanding the Democratic space in Nigeria,
Dakar, CODESRIA.
Hoffman, John, (1988) State Power and Democracy, Sussex, wheat
Sheaf Books.
Mbachu, Odoemelam, (1995)Democracy and the Rule of Law,
Indian Journal
of Political Science,
Mehden Homs (in) Uzoatu, Maxim, (2003) An Encroaching
Authoritarianism,
Democratic
Review, Lagos, civil Liberty
organization.
Momoh Abubakar, (1999) The legacy of the Military over the
democratization
process in Nigeria,
Dakar, CODESRIA.
Nwankwor, Richard, The Burning Train, Vanguard May 30, 2006.
Ojo, Olatunde, Limping
Along, The Independent, July 20, 2006.
Oyeleye, Oyediran, Democratic Electoral Process: Can
Nigeria
make it? Nigerian Journal of electoral and
Political Behaviour, vol. 1 No 1, Sept 1990.
AUTHORITARIANISM
AND DEMOCRATIC ABUSES UNDER OBASANJO’S LEADERSHIP:
WHAT
LESSONS FOR PRESIDENT JONATHAN
DEPARTMENT
OF POLITICAL SCIENCE