Out of the many different systems of government including autocracy, monarchy, fascism, oligarchy, and others, the best of them all is democracy.
There are two main reasons for this being so, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. The first of the two reasons is the fact that democracy ensures the freedom and dignity of man. The second is that it attempts to give a sense of inclusiveness that encourages the economic growth of the masses of a country or society.
Many case studies have proven the fact that Africa, the second-largest continent in the world, has shown to be a continent bedeviled or littered with failures.
Leadership of sub-Saharan Africa from the early beginning has been made up of two types of emergent leaders:
Strong nationalists, who led the struggles and ended up winning political independence for their different countries. These include the Kwame Nkrumahs of Ghana, the Sekou Toures of Guinea, the Modibo Keitas of Mali, the Jomo Kenyattas of Kenya and the Kenneth Kaundas of Zambia. Others are the Houphouët-Boignys of Ivory Coast (now Côte d’Ivoire), Ahmadou Ahidjos of Cameroon, Patrice Lumumbas of the Congos, the Julius Nyereres of Tanzania, and the Sylvanus Olympios of Togo. We have not included the great trio of Azikiwe, Awolowo, and Ahmadu Bello of Nigeria for the simple reason that none of them as nationalists, led this country as Prime Minister of a united Nigeria.
Secondly, history has also been made by military men who staged coup d’états to oust the nationalist leaders who gave their countries independence. They were men like the Class of 1966 in our country’s history—military people who came as better alternatives for the good of their countries but fell prey to their own egos and in the end, became the problems they had elected themselves to solve ab initio. Among these adventurists were or are Emperor Jean Bokassa of Central African Republic, Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, Omar Bashir of Sudan, Idi Amin Dada of Uganda, Seyni Kountché of Niger and Charles Taylor of Liberia. Others are Somalia’s Said Barre and Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia. To this number of men we must add all who belonged to the “Class of 1966” in Nigeria: from Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi to Abdulsalami Abubakar, who hurriedly left in May 1999 after being in office for eleven months as Head of State.
When we write that democracy is the better option of all forms of governments, it is because effective national institutions that a nation can place its hopes on are best built under or when democracy flourishes in a given country.
All over sub-Saharan Africa, we do find that dictators in both nationalist and even military aberrations have, at different times, taken away the wealth and riches of African countries to line their own pockets in order to become Lords of their Manors.
To perpetuate their hold on power, these decimators of the collective heritage of their various nations go on to attack the fundamental rights of the people and create a climate or culture of fear among the poor people that are already so wickedly traumatised. But why and how did they get away with their scheming? It was all because the freedom they claimed to have won for the people was not anchored on institutional frameworks that could save such institutions in terms of individual interests as against that of the people.
Individual countries such as DR Congo, Uganda, Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire, and Liberia in the beginning, did hold so much promise in economic wealth. That was before their leaders’ greed and avarice made them become richer and bigger than the countries they led. This was as a result of corruption. The institutions the masses need to defend them in times of want have deliberately not been put in place.
In order to perpetuate themselves in power, we find out that many of the leaders have deliberately refused to empowered their parliaments, judiciary, anti-corruption agencies, and the central banks, among others. Nor did they allow Civil Society Organizations to bloom and get stronger to challenge the executive arm of the government. Since these institutions are deliberately made weak so as not to be able to bear their fangs at the executive dipp of hands into the common purse, it has made it much easier for their political leaders to behave the way they like and with so much impunity. The resultant effect is the insecurity, political instability, bankruptcy as a result of the unsound economic policies and management that sub-Saharan nations face.
While sound economic policies and political stability have helped nations like Namibia and Mozambique—two Southern African nations Nigeria played great roles in the struggle to make them free. These two countries have been able to anchor economic growth in their countries, reduce poverty, and have so far enjoyed sustained periods of strong growth and progress. But the same cannot be said of their “big brother” , Nigeria.
In fact, one can say when comparing them, ” big brother my foot”.
Between 2010 and 2014, Namibia, the country Sam Nujoma led to independence in 1990, enjoyed a sustained period of economic growth at an average of 5.6% per annum. The World Bank told us that growth was made possible by massive investments in extractive projects, export prices, rapid credit growth, and deficit-financed fiscal stimulus.
On its own part, Mozambique, the nation late Samora Machel led into independence in 1975, had had her democracy raised to maturity level. This has been further reinforced by strong institutions that have fully supported the democratic process in that country.
There, Institutions have been made to function and be seen as being more important than individual personalities whose political life time is only ephemeral. Joaquim Chissano, that country’s second president, has been referenced all over simply for his decision not to seek a third term in office. When leaving office, that man left behind a country whose economic growth averaged 7% for a couple of years. Not only that, Mozambique continues to bloat and also gloat, if you like it, in the United Nations Human Development Index.
Unfortunately, Nigeria, the supposed giant of Africa by population, has not lived up to such roles that Mozambique, Namibia, Botswana, and others like Rwanda have. No we have not.
While institutions that would protect democracy are being built over there, here in Nigeria, we weaken or decimate them. Successive Nigerian governments in the last 26 years have unfortunately continued the “weaken them process”. This is rather regrettable.
We cannot say our judiciary is still as strong as it was in the days when the Kayode Eshos, the Bola Babalakins, the Mohammed Uwaises, the Emmanuel Ayoolas, Muktar Alomas, and the Chukudi Oputas held sway. l don’t think we can.
The short-lived diarchy years of 1992–93 that lbrahim Babangida introduced had very bold and courageous legislators in the National Assembly. Senator Bola Tinubu now president was one of them.
The Civil Society Organizations and other such human rights activities dotted the landscape more than they do now.
Like the man, Muhammadu Buhari, before him, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in two years of leading Nigeria has had not less than eight things named after him. This week a ninth one came up in Kaduna.They include an airport, an army facility, a barrack, a library, a road a hospital etc,etc.
One may not be burdened about some of these edifices that have been named after the president because they are nothing beyond the grand illusion of those who name these places after the president to massage his ego just to assure him of their loyalty. But the Abuja International Conference Centre named after President Tinubu is not it at all. The reason is that the edifice is a national asset. It is for the whole of Nigeria so one appointee of the president hasn’t got the right to name the place after the president, unless perhaps the president himself told him to do so. This is our position on the renaming of the conference center after Mr. President as of today.
We also feel that if it were not an ego trip the president should have declined the request by the FCT Minister to name the conference center after him. Wike could not have done the renaming as a surprise ambushing of the Commander-in-Chief.
On this matter, he and all of us adult Nigerians have a reference. In his lifetime the great Zik of Africa, political tactician, orator, nationalist and publisher, Nnamdi Azikwe prevented possible future orchestrators of such, from naming the University of Nigeria, Nsukka after him after he would have gone the place elders go. His reason was that “University of Nigeria” as an entity was bigger than himself. It belonged to Nigeria. That was very statesman-like, wasn’t it? Mr President still has the opportunity of towing the ,’Zik path of honour’ and revert to the original International Conference Center, Abuja name of the building complex.
After all that was the place where the National Assembly he was known to be very vocal in, used as the venue for all its sittings.
If he does not do it during his term, “a king, (Pharaoh) will come in the future who may not know Joseph” as the bible tells us. I can assure that will happen in less than ten years time. The president is the strongest individual in Nigeria today. In a maximum of six years time there will come another version ( or is it edition) of Nyesom Wike who would do the reversal act as FCT Minister.
It is these and such individual acts by favour seekers that contribute in massaging the egos of our leaders to keep taking actions or steps that gradually lead them to what happened to another king who once said: ‘ C’est moi l’estate’ meaning:
” I am the state and the state is me.” That king was Louis the 16th, an 18th century monarch of France. The name of his wife and queen was Antoinette Marie. The consequence of that arrogantly made statement was more than harsh on him and his wife. It was brutal.
Nigeria and many sub-Saharan countries having tasted different types of governments before such as autocracy, monarch feudalism and even carchistocracy must have come to reason along that “it makes sense for them all ” to try something else and that thing is undoubtedly Democracy.”
The reason as author Chude Jideonwo suggests is that it is the one type of government “we have not experimented with as a group of nations, for a consistent, sustained period of time “. That author was also right when he opined that” Africa is not a dark continent, yet it has more blackouts than any continent”. Therefore, to stop or make a bold effort to prevent the process of making our national institutions weaker and weaker while over strengthening individual political office holders, we have got to a point where the country would need to stop all this by making laws that will out law public office holders from having edifices, major roads institutions and such national or state assets being named after them while still in office. If it must at all, such persons must have left office for more than 5 years.
It is our position that no longer must Nigerians, because of the need for political correctness”, allow strong individuals to be made so powerful at the expense of strong institutions that we need so badly for our internal defence mechanism.
Smolette Adetoyese Shittu-Alamu writes from Osogbo.
