“Dividends of democracy” is a frequently misused political parlance. Those in government claim they are delivering “dividends” in response to people’s expectations in a democratic dispensation. So when a government constructs one-kilometre road even without a drainage system, it proudly proclaims delivery of “dividends of democracy”. The same claims are even made when the government changes the louvres of a 50-year old secondary school or when the building of a health centre is repainted and a generating set is purchased to power the system. Indices of development are routinely trivialised, yet they call the joke “dividends of democracy”.
When both the government and the governed talk of provision of infrastructure as “dividends of democracy”, they often overlook the fact that some of the major roads and bridges in different parts of the federation were constructed when the governments in power never made any claim to civil rule, much less democracy. Quite a lot of things that the people now expect in vain as benefits of democracy were even achieved under military dictatorship.
Whereas between 1976 and 1979 the military government of General Olusegun Obasanjo could build two refineries, the elected government of the same Obasanjo as President could not ensure proper functioning of the same facilities in eight years of civil rule. If you explore this issue beyond our shores, you would also discover that you actually don’t require liberal democracy to achieve some of the things they attribute to democracy here. For instance, China runs the fastest growing economy in the world and the whole country is virtually a huge construction site, yet China cannot be accused of flirting with liberal democracy. So much for democracy and its dividends!
The point at issue is that far more than physical projects, the benefits of democracy are to be found in the freedoms enjoyed by the people and other intangible indices of human progress such as happiness and fulfilment of life purpose. The dividends can be measured by how much the frontier of human freedom is extended. Freedom is the primary benefit of democracy. Roads and culverts are not necessarily benefits of democracy.
For instance, the Obasanjo administration might have failed to make refineries work and thereby stop the national shame of fuel importation. Some would say he failed to deliver “dividends of democracy” in that respect. However, almost imperceptibly, the frontier of freedom was widened by the successful mass protests led by the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) against hiking of fuel price so as to pay for the official incompetence and corruption.
Much as the government tried, it could not send to jail the leaders of the strikes unlike what happened during the regime of General Ibrahim Babangida when 11 NEPA striking senior workers were jailed. Here we can talk of perceptible benefits of democracy. That is why those interested in savouring the real benefits of democracy should keep watch over the frontier of freedom.
So when legislators propose laws that would limit the frontier of freedom, we should begin to worry. The antennae of genuine democrats should be sharpened against any attempt to constrict freedom. From the onset of civilisation, human progress has always had its enemies. Freedom is central to human progress. Therefore, it has always been the duty of those who genuinely seek progress to fight for freedom.
The debate in the House of Representatives about limiting the number of political parties to two is in reality a debate on wiping out the gains of democratic struggles. The proposal came up in the process of amending the 2006 Electoral Act. It was Honourable Mohammed Ali Ndume (ANPP Borno) who proposed the insertion into Section 80 of the Electoral Act that: "there shall be two political parties and independent candidacy” to the acclaim of his supporters pointing two fingers. Honourable Uche Ekwunife (PDP Anambra) promptly opposed the motion. It is gratifying that a lot of resistance has been generated on the floor of the House against such a warped proposition.
Now, the proponents of the imposition of a two-party structure are missing quite a lot points in their arguments. They need to be reminded that the political space has not always been as wide as we now have. The present space is the gain of spirited struggles for democracy. Since the colonial days, the Nigerian people have fought to associate freely and organise for political and social purposes. The military regime of General Sani Abacha registered five political parties and made it illegal for any other party to operate. Led by Gani Fawehinmi, the National Conscience Party (NCP) was formed in defiance of the jackboot regulation of political activities.
The party has survived. In this civil dispensation, the Independent National Electoral Commission (NEC) has also sought to limit the political space by making the process of party registration almost impossible. Again, Fawehinmi was the lawyer when Balarabe Musa and others went to court to challenge the commission’s attempt to limit the number of parties. The court ruled in favour of the liberalisation of the political space. Some now glibly talk of the political structure being unwieldy with 59 parties. They easily forget that some lovers of freedom fought a hard battle to achieve the gains.
There are political systems where two parties happen to be dominant in terms of wining elections. But such dominance is never legislated. Apart from the Conservatives, Labour Party and the Liberal Party, there are dozens of other parties operating legally in the United Kingdom. By the way, these include the Official Raving Loony Party and the Pirate Party. There are parties operating only in England while some others are limited to Scotland. In the United States, besides the Democrats and the Republicans, there are several other parties existing lawfully.
The extreme right Tea Party peacefully co-exists with the Communist Party of the United States of America. Nobody contemplates a legislation outlawing either of them. Nearer home, many parties contested recent elections in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Senegal and Ghana. South Africa operates a robust multi-party system with the political space made constitutionally liberal.
If two parties eventually become dominant, that would be a product of political evolution as we have in other lands. It should not be a result of mechanical legislation, which is a hangover of military political engineering.
It is part of the military legacy of monetisation of politics that political parties in this dispensation remain poorly organised in general terms. Even the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which provides the platforms for most of the elected political office holders today, is anything but an organic party. One of its several former national chairmen once described it as the “largest rally in Africa”. Members relate to the party just as a vehicle to board while seeking power and nothing more. Therefore, those who cannot find space in the PDP vehicle should not have just an alternative, but also several options. Only that would make for a fair democratic competition.
Contrary to the impression given by our politicians, political parties do not exist just for “do-or-die” elections. Other functions of a political party include political education and mobilisation as well as providing alternative platforms to the government in power. In other places, political parties exist to popularise some ideas and organise even single-issue campaigns. They engage the government in the debate of policies.
They promote divergent ideologies. Green Parties make the environment their battle cry. For instance, here the NCP has gone to court over issues of rights to protest, freedom of association and education of children of school age. There are issues that merit structured national debate, but the parties are not coming up with opposing ideas to make such debates vigorous. If the political sphere is dormant the solution would not be weeding out parties through anti-democratic legislations. Just as Nigeria is bedevilled with socio-economic underdevelopment, the poor organisational state of the parties is a symptom of political underdevelopment too. The solution lies in reorientation and organisation.
Parties should be developed as institutions of democracy. It would require enormous moral and material resources to achieve such a purpose.
There is the legitimate worry that with mushroom parties it would be difficult to generate a formidable opposition to the party in power. The idea of the Mega Party rose out of this anxiety. To provide a counterpoise to any party in power, other parties can form alliances and develop working relationships based on proximity of ideas.
They can even merge organisationally. Such a process of political intercourse among parties is already in motion in the talks among the AC, DPP, ANPP and others. The exercise could draw a lot of lessons from Nigeria’s political history. If some parties are destined to die, let them do so naturally. Don’t kill them with illiberal laws.
The Horizon By Kayode komolafe
email:kayodekomlafe@thisdayonline.com, 05.19.2010
