By Douglas Anele

Successful democratic practice requires wide diffusion of two seemingly conflicting qualities in the citizens, particularly among politicians. On the one hand, the citizens must cultivate an appreciable degree of intellectual self-reliance and willingness to back their own judgment with good reasons inspite of opposition. On the other, they must be prepared to submit to the decision of the majority even when it goes against them. These two dispositions, according to Bertrand Russell, may appear inconsistent at first glance. But they are important for the degree of commitment and tolerance needed for democracy to work.

Looking at the Nigerian political ecology, there is a chronic lack of commitment to principles and deference to majority opinion. A significant percentage of our politicians are meretricious and vain: such agbata ekee carpetbaggers jump from one party to another simply because of failure to get what they wanted from a particular political party. Such despicable Machiavellian orientation and behaviour stems from ideological bankruptcy of the dominant political parties now, unlike what obtained in the First Republic when prominent political parties such as the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC), Action Group (AG) and the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) were headed by the towering figures of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Alhaji Ahmadu Bello respectively.

In agbata ekee democracy such as ours, godfatherism and sit-tight and winner-takes-all mentality play significant roles in the distribution of power and the benefits derivable therefrom. A godfather is a prominent person who uses his wealth and influence in a political party to determine the allocation of offices and benefits in the party. In the on-going primaries to select candidates across political parties for elections next year, the domineering influence of godfathers, especially in the PDP and APC, is playing out at all levels. Naturally, some godfathers successfully got their acolytes selected by delegates. For instance, Bola Tinubu, former governor of Lagos state, mobilised his foot soldiers to ensure that Akinwumi Ambode emerged as APC’s gubernatorial candidate for the state. To be candid, Ambode is a relatively unknown politician. However, that did not matter in the end, because his godfather was solidly behind him.

Of course, godfathers deploy resources to ensure that their acolytes win. And after being elected into office, the latter must pay homage to their godfathers. Godfathers recycle themselves in office indirectly by recycling their cronies. Hence, it is not surprising that after fifteen years of uninterrupted civilian rule, our experiment in democratic governance has not led to a deepening and broadening of democratic values and culture. Pacification and compensation of political godfathers entails that scarce resources, which ought to be used for providing amenities and funding employment generation programmes, are diverted into private pockets. Besides, because Nigerian politicians, in general, consider winning elections much more important than the people that elected them into office, they use every available means to ingratiate with their godfathers and seek to remain in office even when it is obvious that they have nothing to offer.

Obdurate refusal to leave office, otherwise called sit-tight, winner-takes-all mentality, has continuously denied African countries opportunities for creative leadership and innovative ideas necessary for socio-economic and political transformation. The worst instantiation of this atavistic attitude to political power is Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe who, at ninety and having led the country since independence in 1980, still clings to power. In Nigeria, former President Olusegun Obasanjo tried to elongate his tenure beyond the stipulated two terms, but the National Assembly scuttled the attempt. Illicit tenure elongation could be achieved indirectly. As we mentioned earlier, a former governor can manipulate the system so that his acolyte would be in power and do his bidding. In such a situation, there is a new governor, but actual power resides with a cabal led by the godfather. Hence, our democracy is not just an agbata ekee democracy; it is also a phantom democracy where in most cases powerful interests and individuals outside the official administrative machinery determine the direction of governance. No one can deny that presently the major power broker in most Yoruba states is Tinubu, although there are calls in certain quarters that it was time to dismantle his stranglehold on politics in the southwest.

Ethnicity and religion loom large in our agbata ekee democracy. Ethnic politics in Nigeria is coeval with the evolution of party politics in the country during the colonial period. In differing degrees, it is a recurrent feature of politics all over the world. Nevertheless, in mature democracies, the influence of ethnicity or parochial nativism tend to decrease with time; in an autistic democratic setting like ours, the opposite tendency dominates, because politicians play on fears borne of ethnic rivalries and suspicion to achieve their selfish political interests. Given strident appeals to ethnic sentiment by prominent politicians supporting President Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari, It seems to me that Nigerians have yet to learn appropriate lessons from our political history. Definitely, there is an urgent need to address imbalances in the distribution of political power at the national level in such a manner that different geopolitical zones can have a sense of belonging by producing the President one after another. Still, I believe that Nigerians should begin to look beyond ethnicity or other parochial considerations in selecting their leaders at every level. Each ethnic nationality has potential excellent leaders. Consequently, what should be uppermost in people’s minds when voting is the calibre of politicians seeking public office as determined by possession of appropriate intellectual, moral, psychological and spiritual attributes for leadership.

Nigerian politicians should be careful with religion. Irrational mix of religion and politics has had serious negative effects on political development in Nigeria, a ticking bomb that might blow the fractured country into smithereens if politicians continue to whip up religious sentiments to score cheap political points. Repercussions of the introduction of sharia in northern Nigeria, for instance, signposts the problems of allowing religion dictate political choices. Again, the understandable opposition to the idea of a muslim-muslim or christian-christian ticket in 2015 presidential contest is a good barometer for measuring the pressure religion exerts on politics. In recognition of the role religion played in triggering and escalating political crises in the past, Nigerians should start cultivating a healthy disdain for any politician that appeals to religious emotions to win an election. The most effective way this can be done is through enlightened education that promotes healthy scepticism and scientific outlook or worldview. Furthermore, civil society groups and other politically oriented non-governmental organisations should devote more of their time and resources to propagating the ideals of enlightened education based on liberal scientific principles, not on religious dogma.

The task of building a critical mass of Nigerians for whom religion is irrelevant or unimportant in politics is enormous, considering that Nigerians are among the most religion-intoxicated people in the world, living in a country where religion has inoculated an increasing number of citizens from critical thinking and reasonableness. Yet, we cannot lose hope, for as the poet quoted by the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, noted “But where danger is, grows the saving power also… .” Concluded.