Democratic Practice and Governance in Nigeria

Ebenezer Oluwole Oni, Omololu Michael Fagbadebo, Dhikru Adewale Yagboyaju

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• eBook ISBN: 9781000094176
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Democracy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book examines the challenges confronting the practice of democracy and governance in Nigeria.

The book examines the theoretical underpinnings and the procedural and institutional components of democratic practice in Nigeria, including the challenges associated with elections, the legislature, the media and gender issues. Approaching the pluralistic characteristics of the Nigerian state and how they impede democratisation through contributions by experts and scholars in the field, the book analyses the issues and nuances inherent to governance and democracy in Nigeria, as well as domestic policy process, global governance and human security.

Democratic Practice and Governance in Nigeria will be of interest to students and scholars of African politics and democratisation.

1 Introduction

An overview of democratic practice and governance

Omololu Michael Fagbadebo

Introduction

In its 2019 Democracy Report (Varieties of Democracy 2019), the V-Dem Institute noted the challenges facing democratic practice in the global system. In its assessment of democracy in 176 countries, the Institute discovered three composite challenges. The first is the attacks on freedom of expression resulting from government manipulation of the media and civil society. The consequence of this has been the systematic erosion of the rule of law and a decline in the conduct of free and fair elections (Varieties of Democracy 2019). The second challenge is the increasing rise of distrustful and antagonistic camps in political society, with the use of hate speech. “Political elites’ respect for opponents, factual reasoning, and engagement with society is declining in many more countries than it is improving” (Varieties of Democracy 2019, p. 19).

The third challenge is the constant “foreign online disinformation campaigns” that have aimed at distortion of information, especially during electoral campaign periods (Varieties of Democracies 2019, p. 34). These developments have had grave consequences for democratic practice across the globe, and have affected the quality of democratic values, especially in the developing African countries. The report added that some countries with liberal democracy have degenerated to electoral democracies while others have broken down from electoral democracies to electoral autocracies (Varieties of Democracy 2019). This trend keeps rising, as political leaders, especially in the developing democracies, seek to consolidate power at all cost.

There are three notions associated with democracy: the minimalist, the liberal and the social structuralist (Amtaika 2017; Matlosa 2017; Landman 2006; Ake 2000). The minimalist theory of democracy focuses on the primacy of competitive elections as the central element that defines democracy. This idea stems in great part from the works of Schumpeter (1942) and Przeworski (1999), as well as other scholars who have elevated elections, even though they agree these might not be perfect, as the process that exhibits the general will of the people. To this school of democracy, leaders who form the government emerge from competitive elections, which may not necessarily be fair but have expressed the consent of the people to form a government of their own volition (Bidner, Francois and Trebbi 2014). This is an indication that the citizens, as the custodians of legitimate political power, are the central factor in democracy (Amtaika 2017).

The leaders depend on the consent of the people to rule. This means that leadership replacement will be spared bloodshed and rancour. In his defence of the minimalist conception of democracy, Przeworski (1999) presents an assumption that in a bid to constitute the government, the citizens will not want it to be through bloodshed or violence. The argument here is that the possibility of a civil change of government is a direct way of avoiding violence. However, changing a government through the electoral process has its own consequences, not only for the citizens but for society at large. This notion of democracy, according to Przeworski, might not feature rational decisions because of the underlying structure of interests. The interests of the society might be harmonious or conflictual, thereby leading to good or poor democracy, respectively. Nevertheless, this kind of democracy will be successful in capitalist countries characterised by a high proportion of informed public, educated enough to understand the intricacies of leadership in governmental process.

The minimalist conceptualisation of democracy, therefore, presupposes active participation of the citizens in the electoral process. The assumption here is that the voice of the majority, expressed though their votes, will count in the administration of the state. In other words, the citizens, as the fulcrum of the governmental process, will be seen at the forefront as the custodians of power, who have delegated their authority to the selected few in the interest of all.

But electoral democracy is not sufficient for the promotion and protection of the interests of the people without functional institutional frameworks that ensure the control of power entrusted to the leaders by the citizens. Thus, the liberalist or pluralist notion of democracy stresses the need for an institutional guarantee of accountable and transparent government, which assigns leaders limited powers (Matlosa 2017; Amtaika 2017). The emphasis here is on the idea of separation of the powers of the state among different institutional structures, chiefly the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

Fragmentation of powers among independent institutions exhibits a collegial nature where no single institution has the monopoly on authorisation of the state’s values and resources. Invariably, the process of government will earn public trust if it visibly manifests an orientation towards democratic values. However, it will also be easier for the citizens to detect, wrongly or rightly, that the government is losing its democratic credentials, based on the behavioural dispositions of the political leadership. According to Mauk (2019), this type of democratic value orientation is capable of diminishing or decreasing political trust. At the same time, if the citizens view the conduct of the political leaders as democratic, political trust will increase and thus provide the necessary legitimisation for the government. This is guided by the notion of constitutionalism, whereby leaders and citizens are subject to the rule of law in governmental process. The essence is to ensure accountable government with institutional measures that guarantee effective service delivery to the citizens.

Closely related to this perspective is the social-structuralist conception of democracy, which emphasises the process that facilitates the guarantee of the socio-economic rights of the citizens (Amtaika 2017; Matlosa 2017). The idea here is that the ultimate goal of democratic process through electoral activities and institutional accountability is to ensure the promotion of the development of the citizens. Thus, the emergence of pragmatic leadership through the procedural electoral process presupposes adherence to the principles associated with the objectives of the institutions of government. Central to the purpose of the state is the promotion of the interest of the citizens. In other words, leaders, elected by the citizens, exhibit a measure of commitment and dedication to implementing policies and programmes that will benefit the citizens maximally.

Central to these variations of democracy is the promotion of the interest of the citizens. The minimalist procedural ideation presupposes the participation of the citizens in the composition of the government with the expectation of effective service delivery. Similarly, the institutional accountability of the liberalist democracy assumes the composition of government in separated but shared power relationships among the principal branches of the government. Again, the purpose is to avert the danger of concentration of power in an individual or group of individuals, to the detriment of the interest of the members of the public. These expectations will, invariably, transform the lives and the living conditions of the citizens through a guaranteed social right. In essence, democratic principles are developed as measures to ensure the maximisation of the power of the state by the citizens for the promotion of their basic needs and welfare.

This implies the organisation of the state in a manner that will provide a wider space for citizens to explore the opportunities associated with the government in a world of interconnectivity. Thus, the ultimate goal of democracy is to induce governance. Rotberg (2014) and de Graaf and Paanakker (2015) have associated governance with performance of governments. It is the capacity of the government to steer and regulate social behaviour and activities in the society (Fukuyama 2013; 2016). It is the “ability to make and enforce rules, and to deliver services, regardless of whether that government is democratic or not” (Fukuyama 2013, p. 3). In this regard, Fukuyama identifies four measures to evaluate the quality of governance: procedural measures, input, output and bureaucratic autonomy. These are not limited to democracy but also apply to all sorts of government. Thus, governance is not necessarily to be associated with democracy, even though adherence to governance in a democracy is a sine qua non because of the centrality of the public interest.

In the international arena, governance connotes the capacity of the state to control activities within its domestic environment in relation to the outside world (Fukuyama 2016). This means states should be able to manage their affairs in a manner such as to explore the opportunities of the “increasing movement of capital, people, and ideas across borders” (Fukuyama 2016, p. 91). This also includes the ability of the state to leverage international cooperation that could result in greater opportunities for its citizens in a globalised world system. Domestically, governance means implementation of the policies of the government in a manner that will induce provision and availability of public goods (Fukuyama 2013; 2016).

Thus, the totality of democratic practice is to add value to the quality of life of the citizens, whose power authorises the composition of the government. This presumption establishes the democracy–governance nexus, placing the public interest at the centre of the activities of the government for the fulfilment of the purpose of the state. By all standards, in terms of structure and presentation, the Nigerian state, since independence on October 1, 1960, has been oscillating between democratic practice and authoritarian military dictatorship. Nevertheless, since 1999, Nigeria has witnessed a continuous process of democratic practice, that has exhibited the assumptions of the minimalist procedural components, the liberalist institutional accountability measures and the social-structuralist presumptions of social development. To what extent has democratic practice in Nigeria conformed to the assumptions of these theoretical standpoints? There is no doubt that the Nigerian state is faced with challenges of democracy and good governance. And this is the thrust of the contributions of the authors in this volume.

Democracy in contemporary Nigeria

The euphoria of Nigeria’s political independence of October 1, 1960 was truncated with the coup of January 15, 1966, when the military intervened in the simmering political violence coupled with rising ethnic conflicts. The acute ethnic differences played a significant role in the ensuing political crisis. Rather than developing a sustainable democratic culture, praetorian military culture became the prevailing political phenomenon. Even after the end of military rule in 1979, the succeeding civilian regime lasted for just four years. The unwholesome democratic practice, characterised by violence and arson, especially after the 1983 general elections, heralded another military intervention that lasted until 1999. Thus, the presumption of electoral democracies actually was an albatross, as manipulation of election results paved the way for political instability. The 1966 and 1983 military coups were predicated upon the political violence that characterised the 1964 and 1965 elections, and the 1983 general election, respectively. The institutional accountability was also a failure as allegations of corruption became rife, with the attendant consequences for human development.

The consequence of this phenomenon was the debasement of democratic culture and a worsening crisis of governance in an ethnically differentiated polity. This phenomenon extended beyond the domestic political environment, to Nigeria’s external relations. The domestic political developments drew the attention of the international community to the socio-economic and political issues that impinged upon the welfare of the citizens as well as on the overall wellbeing of the nation’s development. Since May 29, 1999, there has not been significant improvement in this crisis of governance. Successive administrations have left Nigeria with different socio-economic and political problems, aggravating tensions with different dimensions of criminal activities affecting human security. In spite of these years of democratic practice, the Nigerian state has been faced with the challenges of realising the objectives of democracy. Electoral process since 1999 has been characterised by manipulations and other malpractices, while the various institutions of government have been unable to exhibit their democratic responsibility of accountability, thereby engendering insecurity.

Context and contents

The authors in this volume discuss these issues, taking cognisance of the various impediments to the realisation of the expectations of Nigerian citizens. Fagbadebo opens the analysis of the various issues relating to the practice of democracy in contemporary Nigeria. In Chapter 2, titled The theory and practice of democracy and governance in contemporary Nigeria, he presents a theoretical overview of democracy and governance, with an identification of the variables and components associated with democracy and governance. This comprehensive discussion provides the template for the analysis of the practice of democracy and governance in Nigeria, within the broader contemplation of a presidential system.

The author then applies these components in a discussion of democracy and governance in the country, presenting the nature and the behavioural patterns of the stakeholders. The author notes that while the political elites were aware of the principles associated with democratic practice as a means of promoting good governance, they were not ready to adhere to its values because it ran contrary to their pecuniary desires – hence the cycle of crisis of governance. While the political elites pretended to be nationalistic in their quest for power, for the promotion of the public good, their methods of acquiring power through unethical conduct betrayed their intentions. The author notes that a major obstacle to democratic consolidation and the quest for good governance is the high rate of political illiteracy among members of the public. An uninformed public will not be able to harness the various democratic mechanisms to enforce accountability, a core component of democratic governance. This has largely generated political apathy among members of the public, who have resigned themselves to the debased truism that “stomach infrastructure” has been the hallmark of democratic governance in Nigeria. The author argues that the political elites often take advantage of this lacuna to further entrench the culture of impunity in governmental process.

The first major manifestation of this political manipulation in favour of the political elites is the electoral process, which Fagbadebo describes as a charade. Adeleke and Oni follow up this discussion in their chapter, Chapter 3, on Election litigation and democratic governance in Nigeria. Arising from the deluge of malpractices that often characterise electoral process in Nigeria, the authors discuss the scourge of electoral litigation and its impact on democratic governance. They note that democracy is a major path to national development in modern times. Nevertheless, the foundation of competitive elections for the purpose of acquiring political power was bereft of competition. With a brief excursion into the pseudo democratic practice during the colonial era, they note that the nurturing of a democratic culture of competitive elections has been defective, hence the usual greed associated with electoral process, thereby creating a judicial conundrum. Thus, the post-colonial era entrenched neopatrimonialism, and this became a characteristic feature of the democratic process in Nigeria. Consequently, patron–client relationships, or what is popularly called godfatherism, has dominated the electoral process. Patrons, with overbearing influence in the political process, seek to manipulate the electoral processes in what is now a common feature of elections in Nigeria.

The aftermath of this is the legal skirmishes that have seemed endless in the Nigerian polity. The authors examine the effect of non-adherence to the democratic principles that govern electoral contests on election litigation processes and democratic governance in contemporary Nigeria. Using the case study analysis approach of the qualitative research method, the authors discuss the locus classicus on election petitions in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic and argue that while the posture of the judiciary might not be entirely angelic, there have been concerted efforts from the Bench to entrench the rule of law and the democratic ethos. The authors conclude that when Nigerian political elites imbibe the spirit of sportsmanship in electoral victory and defeat, and the judiciary remain upright, democratic consolidation will be entrenched.

When the political elites assume state power through fraudulent electoral process, their expected constitutional role is compromised, as they seek to please their benefactors rather than adhering to their constitutional responsibilities. This becomes more profoundly negative when the membership of the core institutional structure assigned responsibility for oversight lacks integrity in ensuring adherence to the rule of law. This is the central theme addressed by Muheeb in Chapter 4 on The legislature and the upsurge in the governance crisis in Nigeria. The author identifies the legislature as the central political institution that defines democracy, locating its centrality in governance process. He notes that the primary responsibility of the legislature, as the heartbeat of the public, is to monitor the implementation of public policy initiatives in a manner that will ensure effective delivery of public goods. The author argues that the essence of government is to establish the mechanisms to promote justice and the general wellbeing of the citizens. The effective deployment of governmental institutions to advance this cause is crucial to contemporary governance discourse.

The author notes that the legislative institutions, in particular, are desirable subjects of analysis for their expected statutory roles, essence and significance. Sadly, the author notes that Nigeria’s Fourth Republic legislature fell short of the democratic responsibility of promoting an...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: an overview of democratic practice and governance
• 2 The theory and practice of democracy and governance in contemporary Nigeria
• 3 Election litigation and democratic governance in Nigeria
• 4 The legislature and the upsurge in the governance crisis in Nigeria
• 5 The media, politics and governance in Nigeria
• 6 Democratic governance and women’s political participation in Nigeria
• 7 Ethnicity and the challenge of nation-building in Nigeria
• 8 Federal structure and intergovernmental relations in Nigeria
• 9 Local government administration and grassroots development in Nigeria
• 10 Public policy making and performance in Nigeria
• 11 Budgeting process, budget performance and economic development in Nigeria
• 12 Security institutions and democratic governance in Nigeria
• 13 Border management and Nigeria’s national security
• 14 Nigeria’s quest for UN Security Council permanent seat: possibilities and limitations
• 15 Foreign direct investment, governance and development in Nigeria
• 16 The future of democracy and governance in Nigeria
• Index