|
 Daily Independent Online.
* Friday, July 23, 2004.
Nigeria's fractured values (1)
BEN
OGUNTUASE
[email protected]
Let me
start with a claim that the current house of democracy under construction
would end up a failed enterprise. It woul�d collapse given the faulty
foundation on which it is being erected. It would collapse not because
Nigerians do not understand democracy and how to make it work for them.
It would also not be because Nigerians are not prepared for the necessary
sacrifice required in evolving a workable form of democratic governance.
It would fail because we continue to be led by people who have only a
hypocritical commitment to the values and norms of democracy. Deep inside
them, these are people who have no real commitment to moving Nigeria
forward along the path of democracy and development based on equity,
justice, the inalienable right of every man to freedom and full liberty
in pursuit of noble objectives. Rather, these are men who are determined
to consolidate on their past tragic errors of governance and move Nigeria
back to the primitive mediaeval feudal existence. What we continue to see
is old contaminated wine in old fractured bottle being wrapped in
worn-out labels. This is what determines their choice of values and which
underlines their hypocrisy towards genuine national rebirth.
In the days
of truer federalism when we had the regional governments, Nigeria's
problems were mainly three of fundamental importance - religion,
ethnicity and feudalism. What we have seen over the years is a most
insensitive exploitation of these potent elements of conflict to finally
make permanent Nigeria's road to social and political fracture and
eventual destruction. It all derives from the core values our successive
leaders have embraced in real terms as their guiding principle. Greed,
deceit, lack of transparency, hypocrisy, ungodliness, myopia, and all the
vices that are inimical to true national development are bad traits that
have been discernible in all rulers of this country.
What one
expected was a situation whereby these rulers would think first of
Nigeria and what is good for her in all ramifications and move forward in
that direction. That has not been the case. Instead they all continue to
destroy all the fabrics of nationhood and the core values that underline
the development of any nation. This is why looking at this government;
one cannot but be perplexed at some events that took place, which would
have given the government all the credit if things had been done
differently. Let us review some of them.
First is
the leadership's disdain for multi-party approach to our democracy. A
very liberal attitude towards party formation as compelled by our
pluralism would have enhanced the prestige of this government and would
have helped, not hurt, our democracy. All that was really necessary was a
simple provision in the law that allows government subvention subject to
a minimum performance at the polls. All our past and present leaders
would claim they have spent all their energy for the unity of Nigeria,
yet up till now, they are not willing to put this unity to test and are
equally unwilling to admit they have failed and continue to fail in this
endeavour. Now they want to deregister parties. That should not be their
headache.
Our leaders
are unable to snap out of their maximum-ruler-winner-takes-all paradigm
of the military era. So we have all sorts of crisis between the Executive
and the Legislature. The mindset originates partly from the simple
reference to anything that comes from the Executive as coming from the
Government even before the Legislature has had any input. We are yet
unable to distinguish between the Executive and the Legislature as
separate but equal arms of government along with the Judiciary. Would it
not be more appropriate if we simply understand that the alternative
reference to the Executive is simply The Administration? We can talk of
the administration of General Obasanjo, but certainly not the government
of Obasanjo. This simple modification in our political language would go
a long way in letting some governors know that the Houses of Assembly are
not mere extensions of the state executive arm of government.
Let us
compare briefly with the United States, our model copy. In nowhere in the
U.S. would one hear such talks as the Government of George Bush. Instead,
what one would hear is the Bush Administration. Such other absurdities as
the Speaker or Senate President representing the President in a social
function are unheard of even in the U.S. where the Vice President is also
the President of the Senate. If our intention was to adapt this form of
democracy, how come our adaptation is in the direction of autocracy and
not a more liberal approach? How can the President set up committees on
issues using serving members of the National Assembly without at the same
time compromising the integrity of the National Assembly and its
oversight functions? If legislative flavour is what is desired in
conceiving an issue, the option is always open to use past members of the
Assembly and not serving ones, otherwise the notion of subservience and
subordination is reinforced.
I suspect
part of the problem derives from the differences in the way we got to
where we are. Whereas the American Presidency was a creation of Congress
(Congress had existed some four years before the Executive was
introduced), here the legislature came behind the Executive. This
notwithstanding, if we must copy the model, we ought to do it very well
and modify based only on our experience with it. These little nuances are
responsible for the continuing drift to imperial Presidency and the
legislature is seemingly impotent to check it.
African
culture, they often say, requires that we do not speak ill of the dead:
fair enough. So I will not speak ill of the late Chief Sunday Afolabi. We
would recall that the government had put him on trial over the national
ID card scam. The man was in police custody, then released on bail. He
took ill and was admitted into OAU Teaching Hospital. Somewhere along the
line he was reported to have joined General Oyinlola on the campaign
trail. Then he was flown abroad for medical treatment where he eventually
died with the case against him yet to be resolved at the time he died.
Meanwhile, PDP agents and government officials fell over heels to apologise
apparently for embarrassing him with a suit. PDP top officials even
apologised to his family for the embarrassment of the legal action. He
was accorded a state funeral! How can this be good for democracy and the
required level of morality that is required to entrench the core values
of transparency and integrity in governance? With all the drama, can this
administration honestly claim to be sincere with its anti-corruption
crusade? The answer is obvious.
Sometime
ago, some large sum of money in “Ghana-must-go” bags was openly displayed
by the then Speaker, Mr. Ghali N'Abba as money intended for corrupting
the members of the House. Till now, nothing ever happened to the display
and the accompanying obscenity and defalcation of the hallowed chambers
of our nation's legislature. Instead, money has been raised to the level
of a god given the role money played in the last elections. Elsewhere,
someone somewhere would have faced the music for the national disgrace
and the debilitating blow the entire drama had on the integrity of our
democracy. So much for the transparency in the fight against corruption!
Riots and
inter-ethnic violence continue to ravage the land. In 2000, the Kaduna
riot consumed no less than 5,000 people and millions of Naira worth of
properties. I witnessed it. I was a victim. Up till today, no one has
been formally punished for instigating the violence. Those that died just
did so in vain. This has been the trend for all other inter-ethnic
violence across the country. One must wonder if this government is really
capable of bringing justice and equity to bear on our socio-political
system. Yet the macabre dance continues. The more convenient approach
seems to be to annihilate entire communities and settlements if the
ringleaders become too hot to handle. We are here reminded of the Odi and
the Zaki Biam approach to justice.
What really
is the proper place for all former Heads of State and Presidents of this
country, a place that would not comprise our value options and the goal
we desire and at the same time pay the appropriate tribute to their
tenure? Those that came in through coup d'etat committed a crime even
though they may not yet have been tried. It is morally worse for those of
them that killed those who committed the same offence in a perverted
doctrine of punishing failure without any consideration that the entire
enterprise was in itself illegal. Then we have one that the court even
declared illegal on top of the illegality of its origin. All parade
themselves as former Heads of State and enjoy a lot of privileges and
belong to a government body. Should we be locked into the mindset of
accepting the surreptitious validation of illegality as an acceptable
national norm?
•To be continued
next Friday
|
