Democracy Now: Laboratories, Incubators and Nurseries of Democracy—the Party Primaries Rolling Off

Heavens know Africa needs democracy real bad in order to help bring the benefits of economic developments to her suffering masses. But it’s looking very much like the continent is gradually sliding back to its inglorious past with what is currently happening in Ivory Coast, not to talk of Kenya, Somalia, and Sudan. Yet it should be recalled that Africa had gone through this rough path before and wound up in the dead end of military dictatorships that unleashed a reign of terror on the continent for decades on end. Some cynics might conclude that it has always been like this with no respite at any time and they would probably be right on the money. However, we must not forget nor minimize the fact that Africa has moved away from military dictatorships to embrace democracy even though her crisis level has hardly abated. I hate to think that the African soil much like that in the Middle-East is proving itself inhospitable to democracy. Like biological species, it is acting like it has received a foreign implant, which it is rejecting and therefore requires some heavy doses of medication to perhaps neutralize its hyperactive immune system. But such medication may or not work or may wind up paralyzing the patient at the end of the day. However, the fruits of democracy are so self-evident; from Malaysia to South Korea, India to Indonesia, Taiwan to Singapore; and from Poland to tiny Namibia, that it should compel African leaders and the intelligentsia to continue to work harder at it until the resistance is finally overcome. To take one example: India is only 13 years older than Nigeria having gained her independence from the same Britain in 1947, but it is light years ahead of Nigeria today. And that is because it has never tasted military dictatorship and has consistently remained a democratic nation all along even though it suffered a break up with Pakistan going its way and also has Kashmir troubles to deal with. Yet it has remained true to democracy and the results are there for all to see.  

One of the ways that could prove useful and effective in overcoming this apparent resistance to western-style democracy is to, as much as possible seek out ways and means of indigenizing democracy to suit the African environment. It makes little practical sense to implant European-style democracy on African soil, warts and all, without regards to pre-existing native conditions. If Christianity and Islam could be indigenized, there is no reason why democracy can’t. This is not to suggest even remotely that rigging and other forms of malpractices should be overlooked or condoned. It is not to suggest either, that power brokers and patriarchs should be allowed to hijack democracy and impose their candidates on their people. Rather, it is to suggest the merging, incorporation, and/or accommodation of traditional political institutions with the dictates of democracy. It is to suggest the elimination of the winner-takes-all paradigm from democracy which is at the roots of the debacle. It is to suggest the weeding out completely the influences of corrupt judicial officers from manipulating election results after the facts as happened recently both in Nigeria and Ivory Coast. It is to suggest the elimination of second term tenure-ships altogether and in their place the institution of just one term of between 5-6 years for both governorship and presidential offices. It is to suggest the staggering of elections at least 1-2 years apart to enable electoral agencies ample time to prepare and deliver without spreading themselves thin and thus unable to effectively deliver on their mandates. And furthermore, it is to suggest the elimination of the notion of “opposition” altogether from the body politic. If I might ask: Opposition against what or against whom? Who are they opposing, anyway? The people who voted the government in power in their millions or the government itself that was voted into power in a landslide? Is it opposition on the basis of ideological or mere personality differences? Or, is it as we have seen in Africa on the basis of geographical or ethnic differences? What is the real difference between the opposition and the ruling parties in all the democratic states? What, for instance, is the material and substantive difference between the Democrats and Republicans in the United States or between the Conservative and Labor Parties in Britain? Is it on ideology? What ideology? Is it on variants of capitalism and free market or about communism, socialism, capitalism and free market? 

We’ve been bombarded with sermons on tax cuts by the Republicans so much so that President Obama had to give in to their demands for retaining the Bush tax cuts that would have expired about the end of last year with Obama describing tax cuts as the “core”, as it were, the soul of the Republican Party that the party was not prepared to compromise on in the deal struck at the White House. Is that the ideological differences with the Democrats?  Is tax cutting now categorized as an ideology? Or is it about “family values”, spats or about “public assistance” to the needy, deregulation or about fiscal responsibility to curb the burgeoning US budget deficits? Is that the big deal why the roofs must be brought down on all of us? Is that what we you now call ideology? Paying down the debts and reducing deficits? Please give me a break! Give me a break!! It’s not adding up at all. But wait a minute: The last time I checked the Republicans who controlled both houses of Congress and the White House under President GW Bush gleefully ballooned the US budget deficits to over a trillion dollars before the Democrats took over and would have continued running up the deficits if they were still in power today with their fraudulent war in Iraq. Yet they’re the ones talking about “change” to reduce budget deficits. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see much of a difference in their ideologies except in rhetoric and grandstanding. Both the so-called left and the so-called right are on the same page ideologically. The rhetoric is superficial embellishments with little or no substance to it because the hood does not make the monk. The same is true in Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa and elsewhere. They’re different sides of the same coin pretending to be something else in order to acquire power.

Let’s face it: How is Abubakar Atiku in the PDP different from the Abubakar Atiku in the AC? Or, put in reverse order, how is the Abubakar Atiku in the AC different from the Abubakar Atiku now in the PDP? It is certain that had Atiku remained in the AC, he would have undoubtedly become the indisputable and de-facto leader of the opposition in Nigeria. And maybe he should with the benefit of hindsight. At the end of the OBJ administration nobody commanded as much popularity as Atiku in the political circles as the leader of AC. AC was AC because of Atiku and by now Atiku would have become such a political colossus to be feared by the PDP with the entire opposition lined up behind him rather than the beggarly prodigal son he has become in the party. Yet he is the same Atiku who was in the PDP and now back in the PDP. What has changed? Nothing! Is he different? No, he’s not. Have his ideological beliefs or his personality changed? No, it has not. For all I know AC only changed its name to ACN with its ideology and membership intact except of course for Atiku who bolted back to PDP. So if nothing has changed ideologically both at personal and party levels, what then is the difference between his former party and the PDP? The answer is: No difference. And in the unlikely event that he is to become president today through the PDP, the same opposition which he headed will be first to call him names and attack his government like one headed by Satan himself. Here is another one: Tom Ikimi, the Abacha man and former Minister of External Affairs who went abroad at the Commonwealth Summit in Auckland, Australia lauding the hanging and mutilation of the body of the environmental rights activist, Ken Saro Wiwa by his boss, was the one who presided over the PDP primaries in 2003 and declared OBJ as the winner and PDP candidate for the presidential elections of that year. But you know something: this same Ikimi is now a chieftain of the opposition who is viciously attacking the PDP as the Devil’s own party, all because he was forced out of the party. PDP was a party led by the Devil? Maybe it was I don’t know because I don’t belong there. Ikimi should know better. But would he agree he was serving under the Devil while he was in the PDP? He probably would tell you PDP was a party of angels during his time until it was taken over by Satan—the Satan being the very man he installed who had been there with him all along as president and leader of his party. When he fell out of favor with him the man became Satan. When he was in his good books the man was the best thing to have happen to Nigeria at whose feet he worshiped. And, at least good enough to have been installed president of Nigeria by Chief Tom Ikimi himself via the PDP primaries! Again a certain Dr. Chris Ngige former Governor of Anamabra State of the “Okija Shrine” fame, no doubt a popular administrator, who had been judicially certified as having rigged himself to power in his state under his former party PDP was forced to quit the party for the opposition party AC. And today we are receiving lectures from the same man and his new party about electoral integrity and “change”. By simply flipping parties he has become the Messiah.  

That is what opposition means. It’s what it has always meant from time immemorial. And that is one of the weaknesses and perhaps paradoxically strengths too, of democracy. It means overheating the polity unnecessarily, deliberately distorting facts and manufacturing realities just to make the other guy look terribly and awfully bad. How that benefits society as a whole I don’t know. Constructive engagement (apology to Ronald Reagan’s estate) is a different kettle of fish altogether. Maybe someone has the answers I don’t have and I’ll be happy to learn. Opposition means distortion of realities and it’s not worth our national time. It is a destructive luxury Africa cannot afford because she is too politically fragile and uncertain. Even well established democracies like the US are being threatened with instability by the viral load of the opposition epidemic. People were openly arming themselves and literarily raiding gun shops during the last midterm elections in the US to guard against any eventuality all because of the uncertainties spawned by Tea Party opposition rhetoric. You would think Armageddon was not too far away and would make landfall in the US like a hurricane 50 times the size and ferocity of Katrina. When we get right down to it, we will find that there is opposition only in form and style not in substance. And all politicians are essentially alike in their ways. There is nothing or little the Democrats have done that the Republicans haven’t done and vice versa. The same is equally true of the Conservative and the Labor Parties. The so-called opposition should be part and parcel of the government. The idea of opposition is antithetical to political stability. It is currently renting the American society apart with some openly calling for the assassination of the US president. Incendiary rhetoric from the opposition have been blamed in this week’s (last Saturday) mass killings in Tuscon, Arizona, that claimed the lives of six including a judge and put a congresswoman on an ICU having received gunshot in her head.

"I think the tone of rhetoric that's occurred in this country over the past couple of years affects troubled personalities," Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, was reported to have said. And given the heated rhetoric from the Republican Tea Party opposition, who would disagree with him but Sara Palin, who thinks railing unguardedly against President Obama will hand her the US presidency on the cheap?  And don’t you think similar rhetoric oozing out of the camp of the opposition within the PDP itself is any less combustible and therefore dangerous to the polity. Psychos are roaming everywhere not just in the United States and could pull the trigger just as well like the loner mass murderer, Jared Lee Loughner. Or, what do we call those who are chopping off people’s heads and limbs in Jos and Bauchi? Even so, with all its destabilizing effects, opposition serves one useful purpose: the human natural craving for change even if it is only of personalities without substance and having the same ideological learning. And merely flipping parties would appear to serve that particular purpose quite remarkably. It is absolutely clear that change is a constant in nature and people simply do not want to see the same set of faces all the time they turn on their television sets or flip the pages of newspapers, except of course, if they are their political idols or celebrities of sorts; more so when such individuals have been or perceived to have been denying them the basic social services to which they’re ordinarily entitled as citizens. The utility of opposition therefore lies essentially in satisfying this basic human craving. That is not to say there are no changes that bring qualitative differences in the lives of the people. To be candid certain changes are quite impactful and revolutionary and they leave positive lasting effects in the polity as have occurred throughout human history and there is no reason why such should be discouraged from taking place. If anything such should and must be encouraged.

However, the power of opposition must be harnessed positively not negatively for destabilization plots or other destructive purposes for the benefits of the people not individuals masquerading as Messiahs. And the people themselves must be able to distinguish the wheat from the chaffs through intensive political education of the masses to understand the rudiments of politics and democracy because the people are the ultimate judges and many atrocities could be committed in their names behind them. Change must come not through the barrels of the gun or through unnecessary bloodletting but through democratic processes as happened, for instance, in Germany and also in Ukraine, I might add. Herr Adolf Hitler tried to bring changes through some other means in Germany but failed until he did it successfully through the democratic process. Yes, even Hitler subjected himself to democracy and got to power to carry out his evil agenda through democracy. The Germans put him in power via their ballots in a free and fair election! Anyone who wants to bring changes is free to do so but there are lines politicians must not cross whether in government or in opposition. Such an individual must subject himself thoroughly and completely to the democratic process and obey the rules of the game because no athlete is allowed into the field of play and remain on the field if he or she would not subject him or herself to the rules of the game. However popular, charismatic or powerful a candidate may be, on no account should he be allowed to operate above the laws of the land. And if it is not condoned in sports there is absolutely no reasons why it should in democracy, which is even more important than ordinary sports for pleasure. What that means in effect is that politicians and candidates have no rights to self-help in any circumstances whatsoever.  No individual has the right to self-help in a civilized society unless we want to go back to the jungles. Calls for “violent change” as we are hearing from some disgruntled elements are seditious and treasonable and therefore cannot be condoned under whatever guises or pretexts. Candidates who are dissatisfied with elections results at any stage of the democratic process may protest alright but they have no right whatsoever to self help by calling out and instigating people to violent protests, maiming, killing, burning and looting, but subject themselves to the existing adjudicatory processes in the land. We must therefore commend the opposition in Nigeria which has done just that and they have not been altogether disappointed even though many of us had issues with certain judicial pronouncements that seemed to deliberately reward the opposition in specific instances. It would appear then that the masses in Nigeria, not the politicians who are still instigating violence, are gradually coming of age by ignoring incitements to violence, post elections. The war has shifted from the streets to the courtrooms and that’s an encouraging development, even though her elections are still acutely problematic and massively manipulated by politicians and other actors on the field which has remained her Achilles Heel to date.   

Africa must therefore re-examine the substance and style of her democracies to avoid running into troubled waters the second time around. Wholesale adoption of foreign systems without indigenous intellectual or philosophical inputs stands the risks of systemic rejections. That’s what is happening right now and that’s what happened before such that even the little progress made so far in a handful of countries is entirely reversible. We watched with unbelievable certitude with an acute sense of helplessness the crude annulment of the freest and fairest elections ever conducted on the face of Africa in Nigeria on June the 12^th 1993, only to be followed by disastrous elections thereafter with all the democratic gains totally wiped out. And that was possible because democracy has only adventitious roots in Africa. It is time to give it some tap roots to stand in the hostile African soil. Therefore, the idea should and must be: Adopt but Adapt (AbA), because it is not about re-inventing the wheel but about making the wheel running smoothly. This is the second wave of democratic transitions hitting the continent in less than a century. The first was post colonial. And it was occasioned by the wave of independence from colonial overlords to local overlords. It crashed with the first generation of African leaders. A continent that was first introduced to democracy in the late 50s with Kwame Krummah of the former Gold Coast, now Ghana, admirably leading the charge for independence together with the first set of post independence Pan African statesmen like Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, Tafawa Balewa and  Nnamdi Azikiwe of Nigeria, Leopold Senghor of Senegal, Houphuet Boigny of Ivory Coast, Ahmadu Ahidjo of Cameroon, William Tolbert of Liberia, Dauda Jawara of Zambia, Milton Obote of Uganda, Siad Barre of Somalia, Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, and a host of other first generation leaders, soon turned their respective countries into fiefdoms. In their unquenchable desires to remain in power in perpetuity, they turned democracy on its head by refusing to quit when the ovation was loudest. Each and every one of those leaders became “the state” itself and in many instances even larger than the state itself in their respective domains. One of them, Jean Bedel Bokassa of Equitorial Guinea declared himself an Emperor without an empire. In all these countries and many others, only one party was allowed to exist as one-party rule was imposed, headed by these leaders in perpetuity and, in the event of death to be succeeded by their sons or in absence thereof, by their hand-picked successors. No disrespect intended because I was myself an ardent fan of the late sage when he was alive and I still respect him posthumously for his uncommon visionary leadership qualities. But it is fair to say that those of them who never had the opportunity of operating at the center as Heads of State or government such as, for example, Obafemi Awolowo and Ahmadu Bello in Nigeria, who nevertheless were heads of regional governments that were bigger than several African countries in their own rights were invested with larger-than-life images and acquired godly attributes of omnipotence and omniscience in their respective domains; routinely demanding and receiving absolute and unalloyed loyalties from their political subordinates and constituents alike. For as long as they lived, so long they remained Numero Uno in their domains so much so that their words were law, and their breathes were the breathes of life for their captive political subjects. They became constants like the Northern Star in whose place no other was allowed to take.

I guess one could argue and with some justifications too that they deserved the adulation and reverence showered on them by their peoples. In truth these political titans put their lives on the line to bring us independence and needed to reap the fruits of their labors. But so was Mandela of South Africa who had suffered the most and who quit the stage when the ovation was loudest and promptly handed over to his deputy who fought Apartheid side by side with him and did not seek to remain the Alpha and Omega in South Africa. Mandela did just one term and called it quits. Perhaps he had learnt his lessons from the others who refused to go and lost their names in the end. The issue here is more than the accomplishments of an individual. It is about the collective. No individual can be so good in any society as to deny others the chance for them to blossom and showcase their talents and geniuses politically and otherwise or the chance to succeed the front runners or mentors, if you like, in their chosen fields. And no individual star can be so bright as to seek to deem the light from other stars in his firmament. All stars should and must be allowed to shine and bring forth their illuminating power. And that’s what the Olympics, World Cup and other major global sports tournaments are meant to achieve for the enrichment of the human experience. And that’s what is indicated also in anti-trust laws in all jurisdictions that seek to prevent monopolies. It shouldn’t be any less in politics. While he was undoubtedly a peerless administrator and sound economic manager with outstanding accomplishments to his eternal credit just like Nkrumah of Ghana his ideological soul-mate, Awolowo brooked no challenge to his authority in the Western Region of Nigeria and that was carried far into the Second Republic in the eighties with his Unity Party of Nigeria which he headed, that ruled from Lagos to Bendel States in the South—the so-called LOOBO states of Lagos, Oyo, Ogun, Bendel and Ondo. And the attempt by Chief Akintola to break Awolowo’s stranglehold on the region resulted in what could be described as a civil war that dovetailed into the Nigerian Civil War. But the chief was not alone. That was the prevailing attitude back then and some might say even today and he had company in the North and East. Nobody dared to challenge “Zik of Africa”, as he was fondly called and Ahmadu Bello, respectively in the Eastern and Northern regions.  In fairness to their Nigerian counterparts mentioned above they did not enjoy the fruits of their labors as much as their peers in Ghana, Tanzania, Benin Republic, Gambia, Ivory Coast, Zamabia, Somalia, Uganda, and many others who were life presidents for decades. The founding fathers of Nigeria only ruled for just about half a decade at the very most post independence. Even so their political attitudes to succession didn’t differ much from their sit tight peers in other parts of Africa. We must not forget that these were the founding fathers of Nigeria and they produced political graduates of their respective schools that are now in charge of affairs in the country. The Adama Ciromas and the Abubakar Atikus in the North, the Bisi Akandes and Bola Tinubus of the West as well as the Okwesilieze Nwodos and Alex Ekwemes of the East; and the Otobos and Clarks of the South are their graduates who are following on their footsteps.

The common thread that tied these first generation leaders was sitting tight and refusing to groom younger generation of leaders to take over from them when the ovation was loudest. They regarded their thrones as their own political inheritance from the colonial masters who had ruled their peoples unchallenged and who were themselves not elected but appointed by monarchs in their home countries and therefore not subject to democratic strictures themselves. In other words, these leaders took over from undemocratic colonial administrations imposed on them through force of arms that had unleashed nothing but tyranny on their peoples and brooked no challenges to their authority. Although these leaders had railed endlessly against tyrannical colonial rule during their anti-colonial struggles with all the vehemence they could muster, tyranny was the environment in which they were groomed to take over political powers and they imbibed the ways of tyranny and authoritarianism from the departing colonial overlords while colonial rule lasted. And as leaders, they were no longer victims but now in the position of dispensers of tyranny like their former colonial tormentors into whose shoes they had gingerly and proudly stepped as liberators of their enslaved peoples. And what is more, they knew no real democracy throughout their political struggles but a caricature of democracy imposed on them by colonial overlords not practiced by the colonial administrations themselves to set the right examples of political and democratic conduct for their native successors.

Were colonial administrations democratic in forms and contents complete with all the rituals of party primaries, electioneering campaigns, elections, declaration of results, graceful acceptance of defeats by the losers and congratulations of the winners in all its civility, succeeding African leaders would have had no difficulties imbibing those democratic virtues and passed same to their successors. And Africa would have been in a much better shape today. But they had none of that. Those who superintended over elections in the colonial era were themselves autocrats not democrats with license to banish, incarcerate, kill and maim all those who challenged their colonial authority. How in the world were autocrats supposed to produce democrats? That would be tantamount to wolves giving birth to lambs! Such things don’t happen in nature and it’s no surprise therefore that the departing colonial wolves gave birth to their kinds in obedience to nature. As the legal maxim puts, “Nemo dat quo non habet”, meaning, you cannot give what you don’t have. You can only give what you have. At the time of the Berlin Conference of 1845 when Africa was carved into colonial territories and shared amongst European powers, the entire Europe was under brutal and dictatorial monarchical rule and knew no democracy at all and so was the rest of the world. How then was it supposed to give what it didn’t have? How are their colonial administrators supposed to be different from their European kings who sent them to subjugate and govern conquered peoples? And how then are the first generation of African leaders supposed to be any different from their colonial predecessors who treated them like rags in terms of political tolerance and accommodation of the opposition? How are they supposed to give democracy a free reign under their rule when doing so would amount to possible or even certain loss of political power to the opposition which they viewed as the enemy much like they themselves were viewed by colonial lords? That would have sounded to their ears like political suicide and Africans are not particularly imbued with suicidal instincts.

Therefore, much as we are naturally inclined to criticizing them for their sit tight attitudes and despotism and rightly so too, it is hard to imagine how first generation African leaders could have behaved differently from what they exhibited in power. While making no excuses for dictatorships, whether colonial or indigenous, we must understand and place it in historical context. Loathsome as it is, it was nonetheless the governing paradigm of that era especially in colonial territories throughout the world not just Africa. In this regard, it is worthy of note that what was happening in Africa at the time with regard to colonialism and its succeeding civilian and military dictatorships was equally happening in other parts of the world notably in Asia and Latin America, including the Caribbean and parts of the Middle East; in Indonesia, The Philippines, Chile, Venezuela, Malaysia, Singapore, Cuba, Korea, Pakistan, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and many others. This political virus was indicated wherever colonialism was the order of the day throughout the world and, therefore, by no means an African political disease even though it appears to have become incurable in Africa when other continents have put it behind them. It was a political pandemic that engulfed more than three quarters of the world. In fact, regionally, only Europe which happened to be the colonial power then was spared. If we were to put ourselves in the shoes of political forebears few, if any, would have behaved differently as we have seen even in the attitudes of present generation of leaders.

Dictatorship was embedded in colonialism and it was simply passed on to successive leaders everywhere in the world not just Africa that had the misfortune of colonial rule. And there you had the early foundations of oppressive, dictatorial regimes in Africa and other parts of the world in post colonial era till this day. The all pervasive atmosphere of political intolerance that ruled post colonial Africa is therefore directly traceable to the systemic conditioning African leaders and Africans themselves were exposed to for more than a century. Succeeding African leaders simply stepped into the shoes of their former colonial masters and did exactly as their masters had done as dictators over their peoples. That was the only lesson they learned—authoritarianism and complete subjugation of their own peoples with unchallenged authority with the aid of security apparatuses they inherited from their colonial masters which were used for similar purposes to subdue their peoples. It didn’t matter to them that they had themselves railed against these same inherited security forces as agents of oppressions and repression in their own anti-colonial struggles only a few years back. All of that experience meant nothing to them because they were no longer victims but beneficiaries of power. They were now masters and therefore not subject to democratic strictures. As such, democracy was forbidden from coming between them and their thrones and would be allowed to exist only in form not in substance just to fulfill all righteousness. And that was in tandem with pre-colonial indigenous political systems of kingships that had no place for opposition as amply espoused in the doctrine of “The King does no wrong” which animated British monarchical and therefore its colonial rule. This doctrine, it must be noted, had universal application not just in Britain and it is totally at odds with the doctrine of the rule of law, which democracy fosters. And so like their kings before them who were overthrown by advancing colonialists their thrones were their thrones until death did them part. Therefore, the very idea of some impudent political opponents challenging them in a political contest was somewhat of an insult if not outright treasonable felony. In fact, some of them had suffered terrible times in the hands of colonial administrators in their anti-colonial struggles for daring to challenge colonial rule. Many suffered imprisonment for raising their voices against colonial rule. If the price for challenging their predecessors was imprisonment, why should anyone challenging them get anything less? In Nigeria, Chief Awolowo’s attempt to challenge Abukabar Tafawa Balewa to rule Nigeria landed him in jail with a charge of treasonable felony prompted clamped on him together with the late Chief Anthony Enahoro who was extradited from the UK to face trial with Awo. But they were lucky to be alive because the leadership in Nigeria was more benign than elsewhere on the continent. Similar contrived charges were clamped on political opponents in other African countries with some even disappearing altogether from the face of the earth in mysterious circumstances in countries like Niger, Ivory Coast and Uganda and, of course, Gold Coast, the grand daddy of them all.