Making Democrats from Politicians
through Education in
Nigeria
By
Omo Omoruyi
africandemocracy@hotmail.com
Being a lecture delivered at the Conference on
Nigeria in Bern, Switzerland on October 23, 2004 organized by the Nigerian
Awareness Group.
At a time when the term politician seems or tends to convey some negative
connotation in Nigeria
,
Nigeria seems to have
in abundance, “politicians”, especially after 1999. But the term democrat
conveys some positive connotation.
Nigeria
seems to be short of democrats. What is the difference
between a politician and a democrat? What is responsible for this gap? How
do we bridge the gap? Can the gap be bridged through education? What kind of
education? What instrument of education should be used? This lecture will
address these questions.
Let me pay tribute to the organizers of this Conference for inviting me to this
year’s conference. You must have found something in me from what I said last
year to warrant you to invite me to this year’s conference.
Last year I devoted my presentation to the nagging problem of
“civilian-to-civilian-election” in
Nigeria
and suggested as the solution the introduction of what I
called the “ Bangladesh
Formula”. I recall that the person who reviewed my paper
said then that Nigeria
should not be made to copy from a poverty-stricken and a
corruption-ridden country like
Bangladesh
. This fellow must have forgotten to address the issue that
I tried to deal with. I was concerned with how to ensure the credibility of
elections. One method is the restoration of the “independence” of the
instrument for managing the elections. I still commend the innovation to
Nigeria
in preparation for the 2007 election.
I am glad that the former Chairman of the Governing Council of the defunct
Centre for Democratic Studies (CDS), Alhaji Yusuf Maitama Sule also raised the
same question after the 2003 election and came to the same prognosis in November
2003. According to Alhaji Maitama Sule,
An interim Government should be set up three
months before the election so that all parties would be at par.
What Alhaji Maitama spoke
from experience especially from what the country went through in the 2003
elections. What the respected nationalist was saying is that there should be
‘a level playing field’ for all political parties and for all candidates during
the period of election. This is the “
Bangladesh
Formula”, in a nutshell.
Today I hope I would not be accused of copying from other
systems. My view is that
Nigeria
is not an island unto itself. Those who criticized me last
year ought to have appreciated the fact the Nigerian Constitution makers copied
copiously from the
Bangladesh
Constitution that in turn copied from the
Pakistan
and the Indian Constitution. Those who are in doubt should
read the “Fundamental Objective nd Directive Principles of State Policy”.
Today I shall be calling attention to the classical issue of citizenship that is
based on education. This is not copying. It is universal. But we have to
deal with the ignorance that persists in certain quarters about political
education for democracy.
NIGERIAN POLITICAL CLASS
MUST OVERCOME IGNORANCE
There is a display of ignorance among some members
of the political class that persisted in the country since 1989 when President
Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida introduced the idea of politicians undergoing some
training program as part of the transition program of the time. This ignorance
is manifest in the thoughts and actions of some politicians. One and only
political theoretician of the extreme right in
Nigeria , Alhaji Uba
Ahmed will be used as a typical example. According to this theoretician,
The Centre for Democratic Studies has taken most of the
functions and works of the Presidency itself like……….the supervision of
elections and teaching people politics.
He further demonstrated his ignorance when he
stated thus:
I have
never heard of any place in the world where politicians are called to go to
school to be politicians except here.
(The Sentinel, December 19, 1994)
I am happy that the focus of this conference is on
the present generation of Nigerian political leaders. This has nothing to do
with age. My understanding of the present generation has to do with the
Nigerian politicians who took over the governance of
Nigeria at all levels
since 1999.
When I decided to pick the title “Making Democrats from
Politicians through Education” I knew that there are some politicians
represented by Uba Ahmed who strongly believe that politicians do not need to go
to school. This is unfortunate because
Nigeria
is a party to the
Vienna
Declaration of 1993 under which education is to be used to emphasize the
indivisibility and universality of human rights and the primacy of democratic
rights.
The problems that the current generation has today
should be attributed to the defect in the preparation for the task that they
have been facing since 1999. Many if not all are politicians who are not
democrats. After all those who made up the five political parties that jointly
“nominated” General Sani Abacha as their sole candidate to run on the ticket of
those political parties were “democrats”. They would have continued to be
“democrats” along with the military strongman if he had not died. The likes of
Uba Ahmed who was one of the proponents of that kind of “democracy” would have
continued to mislead his fellow politicians that what existed before 1993 was no
democracy because according to the conservative theoretician, “professors,
intellectuals exploited the good nature of IBB to create works for themselves
and make money”. This view persists in certain quarters in
Nigeria that IBB’\s
craze for education for democracy that he introduced, and which was championed
by me was responsible for the crisis over June 12. (See Uba Ahmed “I don’t
Blame Babangida” The Sentinel, December 19, 1994). I wish Nigerians
would read in full the inaccuracies, distortions and the anti-democratic
sentiments expressed in the interview by this distinguished Nigerian
politician. My view is that it is better to call that type of Nigerians (and
they are many) politicians and not democrats.
SOCIAL MAN; POLITICAL MAN;
DEMOCRAT
Are politicians made or born? The answer lies in
the distinction between a social man or a man in society and a political man or
a man participating in political activities.
Another distinction is that not all people who
live in a society are in politics or could be called politicians. But one could
be both. This is empirically valid.
Not all people who live in a society or those who
become politicians are democrats. This is also empirically valid.
DEMOCRATIC LIFE AS A
LEARNED BEHAVIOR
For those who want to promote democracy in a
society like
Nigeria
, there should be an understanding that no one is born a
democrat and that democratic life is an acquired or learned behavior. This
also means that if we learn anti-democratic behavior, we can also unlearn it.
One would recall that those who were communists in
Nigeria
and in the third world countries were in a dilemma after the
fall of the Berlin
Wall in 1989. The political leaders in the
African countries who thought that the communist states were practicing their
brand of democracy had to have a second thought after the collapse of the
Soviet Union . The
old Soviet bloc could no longer serve as an alternative vision to developing
countries.
Those who read the debates over the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) would have noticed the different views about
the concept of democracy. There is virtually a consensus on the concept of
democracy; hence the UN Human Rights Commission resolved this as a right in
1999. Are we surprised that the Communist states had and still have to
unlearn communism based on one party and learn to be democrats based on
multipartism after the fall of the
Berlin
Wall? This was not an easy feat. This was done
with a lot of help from mature democracies in the West. This was through
education that many US
organizations mounted in the various new democracies, as they
were called after the collapse of the
Soviet Union .
What I am trying to demonstrate is that one would need
democrats to help those who lived too long in a non-democratic life to transit
to democracy. This is based on the assumption that only democrats can make
democrats. Nigeria
lived too long under the military to appreciate democratic
life. All these are some of the issues that are at the root of the political
education in general and education for democracy in particular.
The political education in communist states in the
past followed some rigid program that is very different from the education for
democracy. This should be my second occasion to address the questions raised by
those who are ignorant about political education in general and education for
democracy in particular. They are many among the current politicians.
The 1999 transition to civilian rule that gave
birth to the current generation of politicians could not be said to be a
transition to democratic rule for obvious reasons.
One, the politicians were no democrats. Two,
they did not believe in democracy. Three they were party to the backsliding of
democratization in the past.
In my view, all those who are shouting democracy
or 'we are in a democracy' cannot be expected to nurture what they do not
believe in and what they actually did everything to undermine in the past. We
can see this from the way they have been carrying on since 1999 especially from
the way they organize parties, seek election and run their government.
A colleague of mine once lamented that if the
400,000 'new breed' politicians that passed through the Centre for Democracy
Studies between 1989-1992 were allowed to continue (i.e. if the democratization
process were not interrupted in June 1993),
Nigeria would have
been different today. The interruption of the process in 1993 introduced new set
of Nigerians who are non-believers in democracy. Some even call themselves the
godfathers of various kinds. Why do we expect the Nigerian democratic
experiment to commence with the non-believers in democracy?
What I want to do in this conference is deal with
how to convert non-believers in democracy to believers. This is a tall order; is
it possible? I’d say yes if the present generation of politicians would humble
themselves and go to the first principle, education. This is my contribution.
FIX THE 'POLITICAL PATHOLOGIES' IN NIGERIAN
POLITICIANS
Since 1999, it should be obvious to us that in the
area of democratic rights or participatory rights we need an institution to
enhance peoples’ democratic rights. It is abundantly clear that in the area
of democratic governance, the current office holders ought to be going through
continuous civic education.
are established anti-democratic tendencies in Nigerian
politicians that we would have to correct. These are what I called 'political
pathologies' in the past in my writings and lectures. If we are in difficulty
identifying areas that need to be corrected in the current politicians, may I
state that the Centre for Democratic Studies once identified them in the past?
They are still evident today.
Nigeria
should not ignore them and think that they would go away.
They will not go away because we wish they would. We can not leave this
defect in the political life of
Nigeria
to all sorts of international do-gooders who would organize
ad hoc programs called workshops for elected officers or for organizers of
elections. Nigeria
needs a permanent institution.
I can point out some of the defects in the
Nigerian political life, the political pathologies from the anti-democratic
behavior of Nigerian politicians since 1999. Consider these:
(1) The Nigerian politicians generally do not have
faith in the ballot box.
(2) The Nigerian politicians do not believe that
they could lose an election.
(3) The Nigerian politicians who glaringly lost an
election or were rejected by the voters in their various communities still go to
the tribunal and cry foul that their opponents or the managers of election or
the government or police robbed them of victory fortheir opponents.
(4) The Nigerian politicians believe that winning
is the only option in an election even if it is very obvious that the voters do
not want them.
(5) The Nigerian politicians believe that all is
fair in elections.
(6) The Nigerian politicians believe that the
election officers are purchasable and could be bought to deliver victory to the
losing party.
(7) The Nigerian politicians do not believe that
there would be another election.
(8) The Nigerian politicians believe that they are
only involved in the last election.
(9) The Nigerian politicians do not believe that
one could work for and actually earn votes in an election based on one's vision
and appeal.
(10) The Nigerian politicians do not believe that
democracy is anchored on a series of elections.
(11) Nigerians, especially those who call on Allah
and God to show them the way do not seem to have faith in tomorrow and in
subsequent elections.
The first task of education for democracy today in
Nigeria
is to address these pathologies. They are the sources of
anti-democratic attitudes and behavior (mind set) in Nigerians. The next task
is to devise training programs to combat the discovered political pathologies
through workshops, seminars, conferences etc.
The blame game should end. We blame the
Independent National Election Commission INEC; we blame the security agents; we
blame the ruling political party.
We fail to blame ourselves. More critically we
fail to address the issue of incumbency during period of election where office
holders are also candidates in the election. One would recall that I first
raised this issue in 2001 at an academic conference at
Houston
, TX
in the
US
. This was at the annual Conference of the African Studies
Association where I argued that an office holder cannot preside over a free,
fair and credible election in which he is also a candidate. I cited the
experience of 1964 and 1983.
Later during the crisis over the electoral law, I
called the attention of the country's politicians to the political consequences
of an electoral law. One would recall that at Vienna (2002) and Zurich (2003), I
went so far as to dig up the unique case of Bangladesh where an office holder
must vacate his office at the end of the term leaving the election of a
successor to an interim government. With the best will in the world, INEC cannot
be independent as long as the President that appoints it is also a candidate. So
too one should not expect the police during an election to be even handed as
long as the President is a candidate.
This is an opportunity to respond to the issue
raised by the former Chairman of the Governing Council of CDS, Alhaji Yusuf
Maitama Sule that the current government should have no hand with the 2007
election. He, in fact, called on the use of an interim government during the
election. It is too late to make this proposal; I wish he had made this point in
2002 before the commencement of the process leading to the self-succession
election. In 2007, there would have been what the Americans call "open seat" in
Aso Rock (Presidency). The incumbent would not be a candidate. 2007 is more
open because the President and most Governors by the Constitution cannot run for
the third time. Enough to this digression that should properly be a
constitutional matter and we should focus on the issue of political education
for politicians.
It is high time we focused on the individual
candidate. Is he prepared for the election? Does he have the right democratic
attitude? Is he a democratic man or just a political man? These are questions
that individual candidates itching to seek political office should answer.
Many of them are ill-prepared for election; many if not all of them do not
possess the democratic attitude and all of them are just politicians.
NEEDED, INSTITUTION FOR EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY
Nigerian politicians do not believe that the
Nigerian politicians and would-be politicians should be sent to school to learn
to be democrats. You train for other jobs; but in politics every Nigerian
believes that it is a profession of anything goes.
Trade unionism and journalism used to be like that
in the past for misfits and school dropouts. It was fashionable that as soon as
one could be an agitator or provocative writer, he was called a trade unionist
or a journalist. Has that not changed today? Unfortunately, politics has
become one trade where politicians think that there is no need for education.
Can we use this forum to advice the Nigerian political class that they need
reorientation?. This should be obvious from what
Nigeria went through
in the hands of the military. Should we not have made some effort to deal with
the aftermath/
A commentator once took me on that I should
consciously search for and support a Nigerian with no military background for an
elective office. I wrote back that he should show me one. He fired back that
it is a tragedy of our time that no Nigerian of civilian background has faith in
himself when placed side by side with a retired General.
Some would say that it is money that makes iron to
float in politics. Unfortunately, no one ever mentioned “vision” as one
attribute that politicians should cultivate. Maybe this is what General Ibrahim
Badamasi Babangida was referring to when he said recently that Nigerian
politicians aspiring to elective office should stop playing the ethnic card and
deal with ideas and programs. Is this not a factor in the political pathology to
rely solely on money and ethnic or zone as the bases of politics? Could this not
be dealt with through political education?
My view is that
Nigeria
since 1993 should have embarked on the fundamental
reconstruction of society and the fundamental reorientation of attitude to
politics as the German and the Japanese did after the WW II. Is it late?
What Nigerians passed through in the hands of the military from 1966-79 and from
1983-99 should have convinced Nigerians that
Nigeria
passed through war.
The issue today in an era when all politicians are all
knowing is who would push for this in
Nigeria
. Maybe a mere resolution from this conference can do the
trick. Can this conference convince the political class that they need
education?
One would not expect the Nigerian politicians to be
knowledgeable in the philosophy behind political education, which is a special
field with many authorities behind it. What one would have expected of them is
to allow those who are trained in the area of political reconstruction to
reconstruct Nigeria
’s political culture. There are many books on the
reconstruction of the political culture of
Germany
and
Japan
after the WW II. There are many books
on how the West took on the fundamental reconstruction of political culture of
the former Eastern Europe
after the fall of the
Berlin
Wall. Africa in general and Nigeria in particular is yet to undergo a
fundamental reconstruction that could be compared with what happened in Germany
and Japan after the WW II and in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin
Wall. The question is why?
ADOPT UNIVERSAL PRACTICE
There is nothing unique in my proposal. The
experiment of President Babangida that I pioneered in the past was not unique to
Nigeria
. It is a requirement in all democracies today. As a matter
of deliberate policy, Government should set up an institution for education for
democracy. This innovation belongs to a body of like-minded institutions in
developed democracies. May I call attention to the Centre for Democratic Studies
(CDS)?
Some would dismiss it as a military thing; it is
not. Others would dismiss it as Omo Omoruyi looking for job. And so what! I am
not; but I can advise under this auspices. There are many Nigerians who can
handle what I am preaching at home. Quite seriously, an institution for
education in democracy really should have been embraced by a democratically
elected political order since 1999.
The
US
Vice President, Dan Quayle who led a
team of US officials to
Nigeria
in 1991 had this to say about the CDS:
"Marilyn and I would like to extend our most
sincere thanks to you and your staff for our extremely informative and
useful visit to the Center for Democratic Studies. In addition to the tour
of your fine facilities, we found the discussion of the transition to
civilian rule very valuable. We leave
Nigeria
with greater understanding both of the challenges the
transition program must overcome and the great promise it offers. I assure
you that the
United States
supports your efforts on behalf of democracy in
Nigeria
, and I congratulate you on what is clearly an
institution making a difference in shaping
Nigeria
's political future".
This was the first institution that General Sani
Abacha killed as soon as he became the military strongman in 1993. He later
brought the
Nigerian
Law
School
from Lagos
to occupy its site at
Abuja
. Those who knew of the beauty of the campus (what
the US
VP called fine facilities) should visit
it today. I had opportunity to visit it in August 2004 and I wept with what I
saw.
The CDS idea should have been the first institution that a
democratically elected President Obasanjo should have set up after May 1999. It
would have complemented his anti-corruption campaign. It should have had a
pride of place under his reform agenda on my strong belief that no meaningful
reform can take place that would not fundamentally start from the Nigerian
attitude to politics. Again we could use the examples in post WW II
Germany
and
Japan
and in the period after the fall of the
Berlin
Wall in
Europe .
If I were President Obasanjo’s adviser, I would
have counseled him that the reform of the attitude to politics should have been
seen as the key to other reforms. It should have commenced with the
President. This was what he should have done under one term of six years and
no more.
I am afraid we cannot deal with corruption in
Nigeria
when the various office holders especially among the elected
ones have no faith in tomorrow. Many of them believe that they are one-term
officers. There are even cases at the federal level where Ministers are made to
sign undated letters of resignation on assumption of office. Did we see the turn
over in the National Assembly? Some are victims of zoning. How do you zone a
Senatorial seat?
All the mistakes we noticed in 1999 and repeated
many folds in 2003 would be multiplied many times in 2007 unless we embark on
fundamental reorientation of the Nigerian politician to adopt a democratic
habit.
QUANGO
The kind of institution that I am proposing like
the CDS of the past fits into the category called, Quasi-Non-Governmental
Organization (QUANGO). This will be in the tradition of such
democracy-promoting institutions like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
of the
U.S.
, the various German Foundations and the
newly established Westminster
Foundation for Democracy of the
United Kingdom
. What is common among all these organizations and the CDS
are as follows:
(1)
They are not non-governmental
organizations (NGO).
(2)
They are creations of statute.
(3)
They receive continuous government
funding.
(4)
They have bi-partisan control.
(5)
They have bipartisan policy making organs,
(6)
They are committed to the twin
mission of research and training.
(7)
They enjoy autonomy in the policy
formulation and execution.
Those who raised questions about the use of the
CDS in the democratic transition in the past ought to have taken up these
points. They should have ticked each of the foregoing issues as to whether the
CDS met any or all of them.
The CDS in its short life met all in varying
degrees and could have done more but for the uncertainties that engulfed the
transition program after 1992. One would recall that after 1992, the CDS twin
mission of training and research was subordinated to a firefighting function in
its attempt to rescue the democratic transition from collapse. It should be
noted that rescuing the transition program was not part of the original mission
of the CDS. To name a few, the CDS came to the aid of the military government in
resolving the log jam in the implementation of the program of democratic
transition after the botched presidential primaries in November 1992.
Like the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy
(NED) that was created by the U.S. Congress and funded by the Congress annually
or the Westminster Foundation for Democracy of the United Kingdom that was
created by an Act of Parliament and funded by the Parliament annually, the CDS
was created by a Decree and under the same Decree it was to get subvention from
the annual budgetary allocation.
The first recommendation that I will propose here
is for this august body to call on the Nigerian political class to propose a
legislation like the Decree 60 that set up the CDS in the past. There is still
something else that we could learn from the CDS experiment.
SOMETHING TO LEARN FROM THE
CDS EXPERIMENT
For the mission of the CDS one should call
attention to Decree 60 of 1993. The CDS role in the area of education for
democratic political behavior can be found in Decree 26 of 1989 and Decree 52 of
1992 where CDS was specifically named as the instrument for organizing training,
workshops and seminars for politicians. We need this kind of law today in
Nigeria
.
The CDS was also assigned more roles in major
policy pronouncements by the President. As I said above, the CDS assumed new
roles after 1992 when the transition program ran into difficulty and was on the
verge of virtual collapse. The CDS had to be used to (a) ensure the take off of
the National Assembly on December 5, 1992
; and (b) assure the credibility of the process leading to
the June 12,
1993 Presidential Election.
On (b) here again the CDS served as the "Game
Commissioner" while the National Electoral Commission (NEC) served as the "Game
Referee". In
Nigeria
, it should have been obvious that it would be unusual for
one body to do both. This was what INEC was made to do in 1999 and 2003. This
was why INEC was over exposed.
No nation leaves its election to another nation to pronounce
on after a one-day safari as international observers. Again that was what we had
in 1999 and 2003. The issue of credibility of an election is more than that.
The international observers and domestic observers or monitors only functioned
on the Election Day in 1999 and 2003. It is empirically valid that most
elections are won and lost from the pre-election day activities. International
observation should have commenced with the pre-Election Day activities and
extend to the Election Day and beyond. It had to take the
Florida
event of 2000 to impress on the
US
election managers that they should
invite international observers to the pre-Election Day activities, a practice
that EU adopted since the fall of the
Berlin
Wall.
BI-PARTISAN CONTROL OF THE CENTRE
There should be a bipartisan control and policy
making measure in these institutions to guarantee the support and confidence of
all the parties.
The
U.S.
Endowment besides having equal number of
members from both parties, rotates its Chairmanship. The
US
by practice and NOT by law operates as a
two-party system. If one party produces the Chairman, the other party produces
the Vice-Chairman. It has nothing to do with the party that controls the White
House.
The
UK
variant has members in proportion to
their strength in the House of Commons in the governing board. The number of
parties is never more than three in the history of the
UK
. The number is manageable.
But in
Nigeria
, the Decree 60 that set up the CDS provided for equal number
of representation for the two political parties in the Governing Council.
Today, can we have a body made up of equal representation of thirty political
parties like in the US
? Today, can we limit the composition
to the parties in the National Assembly? The later is plausible.
Speaking seriously can we not bring some order to
the chaotic situation where political parties simply function in the living room
of some so-called politicians? One does not want to name names; those who are
functioning under the auspices of Conference or Coalition of Nigerian Political
Parties (CNPP) are not democrats. They are taking the certificate and the
initial grant given them by INEC as the means to make themselves heard in
Nigeria
.
You have cases where so-called politicians simply
walked out of one party and became presidential candidates of other parties
within 24 hours! Are these democrats?
TRAINING AND RESEARH AS ISSUE OF AUTONOMY
On the twin issue of research and training, like
the CDS in the past, this should not come under the control of the governing
council. From experience, the CDS did not have to go to the Government on the
method to use for its training and research. Herein lies the issue of autonomy,
which the CDS enjoyed in the past. How many Nigerians knew that it was in
furtherance of this, that the CDS entered into a link arrangement with the
University of
Michigan
,
Institute of
Social Research
(ISR),
Ann Arbor ,
in 1991?
The CDS sourced for funds. It did not have to rely
on subvention from Government. One still recalls how the two institutions
jointly wrote a Grant Proposal and competed for and won a Research Grant of over
a quarter million dollars from the
US
Government to mount a research program on Political
Participation and Electoral Behavior in
Nigeria
. Nigerians have never reported this issue in any book on
Nigeria
.
The
June 12, 1993
Presidential Election was to be the beginning of the four-yearly election circle
to be covered by the Grant. This would have followed the pattern of the American
Voter Project at Michigan
, which follows the four-yearly Presidential
Elections. This was part of the Democracy Initiative of the
U.S.
government administered by the United
States Information Agency.
What is important in the episode is that the two
institutions, CDS in
Nigeria and ISR in
the U.S.
were relating to one another as "autonomous research
institutions" to secure grants from the
U.S.
government to conduct research on democratization in
Nigeria
This was my concept of autonomy for the Centre for
Democratic Studies. The Centre did not have to seek permission from the Federal
Military Government to enter into this bilateral agreement. The Centre did not
have to clear with the military government on the joint research plan.
The CDS staff visited ISR and the ISR staff visited CDS
between 1991 and 1992 in preparation for the June 12, 1993
Presidential election. The full research team from the
US
with their Nigerian counterparts had
assembled in Nigeria
before the June 12 election. They were to work through the
election and post election period.
At no time did the CDS have to seek clearance from
the Federal Military Government on the implementation of the research effort.
This is not to say that President Babangida did not know about the link. He
encouraged it in many ways, the discussion of which I will leave to other
occasions.
AREAS OF POLITICAL LIFE THAT NEED TRAINING
The political class at all levels need
training program.
(1) for the party functionaries (ward local, state
and national);
(2) for elected government officials (local, state
and national);
(3) for the policy briefings for elected party
officials and elected government officials;
(4) for the various groups in society such as the
press, labor;
(5) for the political empowerment of the
marginalized groups such as the young, women.
On what should be included in the program, let me
use the examples from the CDS. The training program of CDS covered:
(1) The notion of democracy;
(2) The value basis of the Nigerian Constitution;
(3) The democratic features of the party
Constitution;
(4) The Party Finance and Accountability;
(5) The Language and Rhetoric of Political
Campaign;
(6) The Constraints of Party Programming.
For the competence enhancement program for
government officials elected on party platforms at the local government, state
and national levels, let me use the CDS examples from the local government
levels. The Councilors all over the country should be exposed to such issues
as:
(1) The Meaning and Purpose of Grassroots
Democracy;
(2) The Status of Local Government under the
Nigerian Constitution;
(3) The Local Government Autonomy and
Intergovernmental Relations;
(4) The Powers of Local Government;
(5) The Local Government Administrations;
(6) The Local Government Finance; and
(7) The Financial Control and Accounting
Procedure.
The elected councilors today should have availed themselves
of the kind of program that the CDS did in the past. It is sad that the
constitutional position of the local government system as the basis of
grassroots democracy is dead today. Who is at fault, the President or the
Governors or the National Assembly? The three of them are. They are doing away
with the genesis of grassroots democracy in
Nigeria
. In most democracies local government is a training ground
for higher offices.
The CDS divided training at the State level into
three parts:
(1) the Governors and their Deputies;
(2) the political leaders in the State
Legislatures and
(3) the State Assemblymen and women.
The state governors today like in the past
should be exposed to or be briefed on such issues as
(1) National Security (internal and external)
(2) National Defense;
(3) Police;
(4) National Economy;
(5) Petroleum;
(6) Social Sector (Education and Health).
The idea of Policy briefing was devised in the
past as a forum for a mutually beneficial dialogue and an exchange between the
current managers at the Federal level and the State level. Some may call this
a form of an exercise in brain washing. It is not. But from the assessment of
State Governors when the CDS ran it in 1991, some wanted the matter to be
repeated on an annual basis. Many of the Governors that assumed office in 1999
did not know what they were getting into.
This is an exercise that the new President and the
new Governors should have been led through by the outgoing military before they
assumed office. That would have served them well in their first year.
Recently President Obasanjo told the Nigerian
people that he underestimated the enormous problem that he would face in his
first term. What about the Governors! Is it not sad that the President is
issuing what he called the Executive Order to decide on the allocation of
revenue among the three tiers of government?
THE LEGISLATURE
President Babangida rightly diagnosed the
underdevelopment of the legislature in the Presidential System caused by many
years of military rule and asked the CDS to fix it. The situation has not
changed since1999. In fact it is worse with the President and the Governors
calling themselves EXECUTIVE this or that. Who can fix it today? A training
program for both the Executive and the legislature is desirable to emphasize the
power of and the relationship between the two elective arms of government.
President Babangida called the Assemblies the
weakest link in the democratization program in 1992; but the situation is worse
today. There is a dire need for a variety of training programs for the
legislators (national and state). Let me cite what the CDS in the past that
can still be done today with the legislature.
From the CDS experience, the training program
should take two forms: the political leaders of the legislatures covering the
Chief Executive of the legislative arm of the Government including other
political leaders such as the Majority and the Minority leaders and key
Committee Chairmen. We noticed in the past that most legislators were not sure
of their roles and some were scared of the enormous power of the President and
the Governors. This is still the situation today. Generally most Assemblymen
and women did not know of their powers
Vis
a Vis
the President and the Governors. Has this changed since
1999? It is in fact worse.
If democracy is to survive in
Nigeria (which we
believe it should) we must deal with the "status insecurity" problems that
affect the Assemblies in the face of the powerful President and the state
governors. Who is to fix this?
My experience in the past was that the legislative arm was
neglected in the past at all levels of government, which arose from the
interruption of democratic life in
Nigeria
. The military did not help with the way they converted State
Assemblies into offices or Community Centers for wedding receptions.
This program should be repeated at the national
level. The situation is even worse as the National Assembly men and women do not
know how to deal with a President who just feels that the National Assembly is a
mere debating club and nothing more.
It is a pity and a tragedy that the notion of the
Presidential System of Government means that only the President or the Governor
is the government since only the President or the Governor governs. The
Executive arrogates to itself the power to decide on how money would be spent.
What is sad in this claim of the Executive is that various Assemblies believe
that to be so.
If the legislature suffers from status insecurity, it is
suffering from serious procedural problems arising from the grafting of the
Standing Order of the Westminster
Model on the Congressional System. This is a serious
problem because the unwritten enormous power of the President/Governor is a
carry over from the Parliamentary System where the Premier (with his Ministers)
was an integral part of the Legislature and he served as the Legislative
Leader. But even though the advent of the Congressional system under the
Presidential system gives enhanced power to the legislature, the Nigerian
legislators are still not able to take advantage of the Constitution.
The Assemblies at all levels need to revert to the
Committee System. Who can tell them to discard the Standing Order that is a
carryover from the House of Representatives of the
First
Republic
modeled after the House of Commons in the
United Kingdom
? Who can make them change? Since the legislatures have
power under the Constitution to change it, one would recommend to this body that
there should be a workshop to educate the various Assemblies as to their power
over the Standing Order that should be based on the Committee System.
It should be noted that the Committees in the National
Assembly since 1999 only function in name. They have no power to summon the
Ministers to answer to questions about their Ministries. The situation is even
worse during the confirmation of Ministers and Ambassadors. Here the Senate had
since 1999 not been able to adopt a procedure that would subject the nominees to
rigorous questions as to their suitability in respect of their assignment. How
can they do this anyway when the President is never asked to name Ministers to
offices and Ambassadors to countries? It is sad that the Senate only approves a
list of nominees and the President does what he likes with the list. On what
basis do the Senators adjudge the nominees suitable? This is the same practice
at the State level where the Assembly only approves a list sent to it by the
Governor. This practice should change. They go to the
US
, but the
US
does not go through them. They see what
nominees of the President go through as part of the rigorous process in order to
fulfill the function of "advice and consent".
The Assemblies ought to be educated on the status of the
State/national finances and the bill submitted by the Governors/President. This
is one area where the legislators need a thorough understanding of their powers.
One would not be surprised that the President and the Governors would consider
such training program as subversive so it would seem. Both elective arms should
be brought together and educated on their respective roles
There should be a training program geared to the
understanding of the complex issues of (a) the separation of powers and (b) the
divided government. Where the voters exercise their right and give power to
different parties at the executive and legislative arms, the voters expect the
two elective arms to compromise. What that shows is that the voters are not
comfortable handing over power to one party. This is what is called a
‘divided government’.
How the CDS dealt with this case in
Lagos
,
Cross
River
and
Kano in
1991/2 has not been discussed in any book. This will be in my forthcoming
memoir.
One would recall that the only known case of a divided
government in Kaduna
during the
Second
Republic
led to the only successful impeachment of a governor in
Nigerian history. Both the Governor and the State Assembly did not know what
the voters wanted when they voted that way and refused to entrust the two arms
to one party.
The operation of 'a divided government' requires
the highest form of democratic behavior that was absent in the conduct of the
various actors during the
Kaduna
episode. It should be noted that even President
elect Alhaji Shehu Shagari was in difficulty as to how to handle the clear case
of 'a divided government' at the federal level after the 1979 election. Of
course, the one he knew was the experience of the 1959 when the NPC that did not
have a single member from the south went into alliance with the NCNC with
members from the south in order to form the Federal government.
What should be noted is that the NPC-NCNC alliance
was possible under a system of government where the Executive and Legislative
arms of government were fused. But under the Presidential System where both
elective arms were separated, different parties could control the two elective
arms. This was what happened after the 1979 election. Shagari's party (NPN) won
the Presidential election and a combination of four parties (UPN, NPP, GNPP and
PRP) had a majority in the National Assembly. They could control the National
Assembly if they had chosen to work together. In my view, President-elect
Shagari did not need a formal accord of the NPN-NPP type in order to function,
if he properly understood the Presidential System of Government.
But for
the NPN-NPP Accord that was brought about by forces outside the two parties in
the accord, the beginning of the Second Republic was in trouble if the
four-party plan of the 12 Governors had materialized. How the Accord came
about was discussed in my book, Beyond the Tripod and in Shagari's
memoirs, Beckoned to Serve.
Another area requiring some education has to do
with the nagging issue of oversight and investigative powers of the
legislatures. If the President really wants a solution to all cases of
corruption the power of the National Assembly with respect to the power of
oversight should be emphasized. Oversight is part of the notion of checks and
balances. This is a unique characteristic of the system. This still remains the
least understood by the legislatures and the Executive today.
Again the legislators need a lot of support from
varieties of workshops to give them the confidence and knowledge to enable them
to check the excesses of the executive. The legislators need to be prodded to be
bold enough to implement the relevant section of the Constitution, which gives
the Assemblymen and women power to conduct investigation on:
Any matter or thing which it has power to make laws; and
the conduct of affairs of any person, authority, Ministry or Government
Department charged, or intended to be charged with the duty of or responsibility
for executing for administering laws enacted by that House of Assembly, and
disbursing or administering moneys appropriated or to be appropriated by such
House.
This is the least developed aspect of the function
of the Legislature in
Nigeria
. This is an enormous power that the Assemblies should wield.
Who can educate them on how to use that power?
CAMPAIGN MANAGEMENT IS NEEDED
The last and certainly not the least is how to
make the candidates adopt modern campaign techniques. This was an area that CDS
pioneered in the past. I strongly recommend it to this audience.
On the influx of retired military officers into politics, we
need to revive the program I called from Khaki to Agbada that I commenced in
1991. That program was meant to serve as the conversion program for the
retiring military officers who were planning to go into partisan politics. It is
obvious that the many retired generals jumping into politics in
Nigeria
need some form of conversion program.
Finally
one would like to end this short presentation with what I kept telling the new
breed politicians between 1989 and 1993 during the various training sessions
that "no one is born a democrat; only learning makes one a democrat". It should
have been obvious by now that democracy being an acquired or learned behavior
should have been amenable to the rules governing learning.
One hopes that this Conference would be able to
prevail on the President of
Nigeria
in particular and the political class in general that
Nigeria
needs an institution devoted to enhancing political education
for democracy. They should immediately send a Bill to the National Assembly like
the anti- Corruption Bill. This should be modeled on the Act setting up the
National Endowment for Democracy in the US, the Westminster Foundation for
Democracy in the UK and the various Foundations in Germany and the CDS in
Nigeria.
I rest my case and thank you for giving me the
opportunity to make my case for how to make democrats from the politicians
through education in
Nigeria
.
Thanks for listening to me.
