By Emeka Umeagbalasi
Our choice of Political Rights as the theme for this year (2010)’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR anniversary is significant for some important reasons.

First, Nigeria had on October 1, 2010 celebrated her golden jubilee or 50th anniversary as an independent nation. Secondly, Nigeria and eight other nations in Africa are preparing for their national elections to be held between 2011 and 2012.

Thirdly, it is our finding that political rights are a pivot around which other community of human rights rotate. And fourthly, it is also our finding that authoritarianism, dictatorship and white-collar criminality are on the increase in Africa, Asia (Southeast Asia and Middle East), South America and former

Soviet Republics and these are the deadliest rivals to the political rights.
Political Rights are those parts of human rights, incorporated in the United Nation’s  “International Bill of Human Rights” and enacted in 1966, which were opened for ratification in 1976 ( Nigeria ratified them in 1993). They are granted to individual citizens in realization of their political freedoms.

This set of rights can also be found in other municipal, regional and international human rights instruments such as the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights of 1981.

Such rights may include the right of the equality of all persons before the courts and for guarantees before the criminal and civil procedures; the right to recognition as a person before the law; the right to freedom of expression; the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs in one’s country or society; the right to vote and be voted for; the right to equality of access to public services in one’s country or State; the right to self determination (African Charter); the right to sue and be sued (section 46 of Nigeria 1999 Constitution); and the right to non-ethnic discrimination (section 42 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.

In Nigeria, this important set of rights is still observed in breach in spite of its justiciability by virtue of Chapter Four (Fundamental Human Rights) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement Act of 1983) (now an Act of 2004).

It is important to point out that another name for political rights is Democracy and Good Governance,   which also embodies Civil, Social, Economic, Cultural and Environmental rights. These sets of rights are interwoven. Apart from the fact that political rights (democracy) are grossly disrespected in Nigeria, they also lack local contents, which conform to international standards.

To ensure this, there is need to critically address the internal imbalances especially in revenue sharing formulae, top political appointments, allocation of federal infrastructures, and allocation and creation of States and Local Government Areas. For instance, it is totally wrong to allocate 186 LGAs to the Northwest geopolitical zone of Nigeria and give mere 95 LGAs to the entire South East geopolitical zone.

It is also wrong to allocate seven States to Northwest zone and five to Southeast. The allocations of federal infrastructures, top political appointments and federally collectible revenues are also grossly lopsided.

Another major impediment hampering the smooth operation of political rights in
Nigeria is the lopsided zoning of the Nigeria’s Presidency into “North and South”. This colonially created formular is very destructive. It has made few partners in Nigerian Project to perpetually believe that Nigeria’s Presidency is their “birth right”.

The so_called “old Western Region” presently dominated by Yoruba Ethnic Group and the “Old Northern Region”, dominated by Fulani (Hausa) and the Hausa ethnic groups   are  in this school of thought. There are two main regional concentrations of ethnic minorities in Nigeria, those found in the Middle-belt and those in the Niger River belt, which are now largely accommodated in the North_central and South-south geopolitical zones respectively.

The best formular that will ensure equity and credible localization of the Nigeria’s presidential zoning ought to have been predicated on the six zonal arrangements of the Southeast, South-south, Southwest, Northeast, Northwest and North-central and not the grossly lopsided “North” and “South” formular. The sad events unfolding in the Republic of Ivory Coast are examples of the lopsidedness in the presidential zoning.

Therefore, the consequences of undermining the smooth operation of political rights in Nigeria are far_reaching. Because of this, Nigeria’s two main sources of survival, politics and economy are in deep crisis. Nigeria’s Presidency must be made to rotate among the six geopolitical zones.

Unfortunately, the mindsets of our modern-day Nigerian civil society community are centered on habitual criticisms and “medicine-after-death” postures. The concept of laptop activism has compounded the problems of the Nigerian civil society community.

Apart from busying themselves with seminars, workshops, expert_written concept notes and proposals, many civil society groups in Nigeria prefer crisis situations than peacetimes so as to attract hard currency funds for the production of solution papers and organization of conflict management and transformation seminars and workshops.

The scratch-on-its-surface concept of activism in Nigeria is partly responsible for Nigeria’s socio-political doldrums or stagnancy.

It may be correct to say that the nowadays civil society community in Nigeria has moved from non-profitable ventures to profitable ventures. Some professional NGO leaders in Nigeria are reportedly richer than some successful business persons.

The operational pace   of these NGOs is dictated by where Whiteman’s dollar goes (area of interest). If the interests are in the areas of animal  rights, lesbianism, homosexuality and abortion, these NGOs will rush to the Corporate Affairs Commission with amendments in their articles of incorporation so as to accommodate these new areas of interest.

In Nigeria today, it may be correct to say that there are “billionaire-pastors”, “billionaire-judges” and “billionaire NGO EDs” (Executive Directors). The universal concept of the  non-governmental organisation is to work assiduously for a better society.

This is done through effective checks on government and individual conducts and partnership with government where necessary. The notion of NGO is not to be in a state of war with government. Today, there are a lot of government agencies such as British Council, USAID, DFID, Norwegian Council, etc, through which the activities of NGOs are funded, but in Nigeria, there are none established for the operations of  the Nigerian NGOs.

Therefore, our concept must change. We must constructively engage the powers that be by challenging their anti-public policies and proffering better solutions. The time of sitting on the fence and allow electoral armed robbers to shoot their way to top elective offices before criticizing them habitually is over.

We must start from the beginning by ensuring that people with electoral values are allowed access through the consent of the voters. Human Rights fare better under credibly elected political leaderships than the contrary. Human Rights Defenders also feel less threatened under the same atmosphere.

It is an incontestable fact that the deadliest rivals to the political rights are authoritarianism and dictatorship which are accompanied by corruption and poverty. A dictator is an absolute ruler of a land whose source of emergence is other than the right to vote or be voted for exercised by majority of eligible/registered voters.

An autocrat is a ruler with unlimited power and authority. An authoritarian ruler is one who ensures by force that the ruled obey authority and rules, even when such authority and rules are unfair and even if it means that they lose their personal freedoms. Globally, Africa has the highest concentration of authoritarian and dictatorial regimes, followed by Asia (Middle-East and ASEAN), former Soviet Republics and the South America. Europe (west), North America and Oceania are most democratic.

There are three main forms of democratic leaderships that are universally accepted. These are: those with minimum tenure of office of three to five years (single term) and those with maximum tenure of six to 10 years (two tenures).

The third one is where there is a ceremonial monarch or president with executive powers exercised by the parliament that is product of periodic credible elections.

Where a monarch or a president assumes executive powers and hires and fires his or her prime minister with his or her cabinet, he or she is deemed a dictator or an authoritarian except if he or she is strictly regulated by a credible tenure of office within a minimum of three to five years and maximum of six to 10 years.

Another exception is where a legislator is credibly found irreplaceable so long as his or her tenure is strictly regulated by periodic credible elections. Such practices could be found in USA, UK, Canada, and Botswana among others.