Capture and privatisation of democracy

There is anxiety regarding the sustainability of democratic rule, not just here, but across Africa. Last week, stakeholders again gathered in Abuja, to seek assurances and interrogate a system that promises so much but delivers so little.

The meeting was organised by the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Foundation, in partnership with the Olusegun Obasanjo Library, to deliberate on the state of democracy in Africa. As the keynote speaker, former President Obasanjo warned that democracy in Africa is breeding dictatorial tendencies and disregard for the interests of the majority. According to him, democracy is not a “static phenomenon” but needs rethinking and reworking to reflect realities of the people.

He added: “Africa’s past and current attempts at democratic governance prove that Western liberal democracy, lock, stock and barrel, cannot resolve Africa’s governance challenge. There is a great need to conceptualise a democracy that adapts to Africa’s historical, cultural and current realities; a modality that works for African people.

“Perhaps the first step in achieving this is to prevent the privatisation or capturing of the state by our power elites. Yes, liberal democracy prescribes elections, but what difference does it make when the power elite rigs the electoral process through policies that make it impossible for the people to choose wisely even in a free and fair election…”

Let’s think together. Many will testify that democracy in Africa has shown itself to be the very opposite of a rule by the people for the people. It has become a rule by a few for the few. In some countries, opposition parties struggle to survive, especially in places where sit-tight rulers have appropriated the machinery of government to themselves, including the electoral process.

Once they get into office by any means, they use every means to sustain a chokehold. As the former president observed, there is now no difference between democracy and the other form of government that does not waste huge budgets at periodic elections. Once the component of free and fair elections is abridged, democracy loses value. This is why citizens become momentarily cheerful in places where democracy is grounded; they can’t see the difference.

As previously observed, what adds to the failure of democracy is the manner some have adjusted their constitutions to tamper with what is a generally acceptable principle of two terms of four, at most five years for presidents.

Constitutional term limits give the opposition hope that the failures of a particularly government could be rewarded with a vote of no confidence at elections, just a matter of time. But when the notion of term limit is revised as is the case with 16 African countries, such democracies are not only weak, they also court chaos and extend invitation to military adventurers. Eight countries are said not to have term limits while nine others have it only in their constitutions, but have refused to test it.

The story is repeatedly told and denied of the tenure elongation bid launched once upon a time in Nigeria’s National Assembly. Whatever the facts of that misadventure were, it was resisted by the parliament. Nigeria knew she could not export such perfidy to the rest of Africa and the world. Kudos to lawmakers of that era, whatever fired their imagination recommends them for commendation.

Another worry for democracy in Africa is the failure of legislatures to assert their independence. The Nigerian Constitution (1999) provides for three co-equal arms of government. Most times, the Legislature prefers to surrender their powers to the executive. At Section 50 (1) and (b), the Constitution provides for the legislative houses to elect their own leaders from among them. But since 1999, legislatures wait for the executive to nominate for them pliable individuals that would rubber-stamp executive dictations.

The brilliant exception was in the 8th Assembly, when Bukola Saraki and his group outsmarted the newly constituted government of the All Progressives Congress (APC), to install the leadership of the Senate. A similar feat was achieved in the House. Meanwhile, newly minted and uninterested President Buhari had no idea what his government could achieve with a pliant Assembly. He went to sleep.

And it turned out that the 8th Assembly has been about the best, in terms of independence and lawmaking. Four years after, the APC got smarter and plotted the crowning of Ahmad Lawan as Senate President. It did the same in the House. Their tenure was nicknamed the rubber-stamp Assembly. Ahmad Lawal boasted about it and the result was that together with the executive, they gave to Nigerians the most clueless leadership since 1999.

After President Buhari frittered N22.7 trillion Ways & Means credit from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), without appropriation, the papers were brought to Lawan and his team to rubber-stamp and they approved it retroactively. And nothing happened to them, executive and legislature. In more accountable jurisdictions, explanations would be demanded to strengthen the democratic process. Talk about capture.

Nigeria has never been closer to one-man rule than now. President Tinubu single-handedly appointed the leadership of the Legislature and every day, members come to the chambers, wearing Tinubu designer cap for effect. After the keenly contested 2023 elections, the Assembly was envisaged to be diverse and analytic. At the Senate, APC won 59 seats, the Peoples Democratic (PDP), had 37, Labour Party (LP) had seven, with the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) winning two. The Social Democratic Party (SDP) won two and one each to All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and Action Democratic Party (ADP).

The Assembly was envisaged to be a more rainbowed parliament with eight political parties engaged in critical disputations, such that the ruling party does not have easy ride during debates. Citizens expected robust sessions if the opposition parties were to coalesce their numbers for a common cause. So, far, the legislature looks more like a one-party coalition. Debates are hurried and dissent is hardly encouraged.

The output so far is that citizens have endured the harshest of policies in history, undefended by their representatives. The fuel tax that Tinubu imposed on May 29, 2023 and the impact it is having on citizens’ wellbeing was not contemplated in the Legislature. The contentious increase in electricity tariff and the segmentation of consumers into different Bands was not put before the lawmakers prior to implementation, despite provisions of the Electricity Act 2023.

The Lagos-Calabar highway project that is pushed at breakneck speed by Works Minister, David Umahi, was not fully appropriated for and was not subjected to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). That road project is a glaring example of impunity, with the implication that this government is running at full throttle without checks by the legislature.

The failure of this version of democracy to deliver critical dividends has opened up conversations on the parliamentary system as possible replacement for the winner-takes-all presidential system. Not less than 60 members of the House of Representatives have proposed a bill to amend the 1999 Constitution to return the country to a parliamentary system. The lawmakers cited the need to reduce costs of government and to have robust policy debates.

Besides high cost of governance, the present system confers absolute authority on the winning party, leading to the capture of government. Even though the winning numbers of the ruling party are just a fraction of the total votes cast, other parties with appreciable showing are left in the margins, out and dry.

Take the 2023 presidential election for instance, the combined votes of the PDP and the LP were far more than what the ruling party recorded. In a parliamentary system, the likely outcome would be to have a coalition government in which the three major parties would share the seats and agree on terms to form government with quality representation.

What happens in democracies in Africa is that ruling parties use every apparatus of government to muzzle the opposition. Sometimes, opposition parties are infiltrated and depopulated. The recent meeting of Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, made headlines and caused stirs in some quarters. Atiku and Obi were the candidates of the PDP in 2019. In 2023, the two went their separate ways, as Obi picked the ticket of the LP.

It is now clear to both men and others that 2023 could have produced a different result if the strategies deployed by the opposition were different. It’s of no use lamenting the mishaps that happened to 2023. There are certainly prospects in combined efforts towards 2027. That was the strategy adopted by the legacy parties that collapsed into APC in 2015. The Vulture is a patient bird, James Hadley Chase once wrote. But the mistake many opposition and smaller parties make in Africa is their unfounded over-confidence and sometimes, arrogance. A different understanding between Obi and Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso in 2023, could have yielded a better outcome, if the talks were really about the country.

Come 2027, politicians should plot their strategies to give voters a more assuring alternative to the ruling party. The APC and the Presidency have reacted to the meetings by opposition parties. In their tradition, they have very harsh words for these efforts, which is expected for a ruling party that did not win in Lagos and Abuja. They’re reminded and scared of their inherent weakness. A more organised and united opposition will give Nigerians hope, that democracy is not the rule of one man. It will assure voters that there is reward for bad governance.

When Nigeria begins to perfect these acts, other African countries that look up to her will take note and begin to mend their ways.

Not the least threat to democracy in Africa is the privatisation of judiciaries and election management bodies. Those silent killers of democracy cannot escape mention. Let election umpire and judiciary refuse to be captured!