PEOPLE PERCEPTION OF THE ABUSE OF DEMOCRACY IN THE SOCIO-POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Concept of Democracy
The term “democracy” like most concepts in social sciences lacks a precise single definition rather; it is generally a matter of intellectual supposition. There are various meanings, opinions, perceptions and definitions of the term by scholars and philosophers like Rousseau, Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln and Mills (Akindele, 1987). According to Elaigwu cited in Leo (2019), the concept of democracy is alien to Africa and needs to be domesticated to Nigeria’s local conditions and targeted to her peculiar problems. He went further to define democracy as;
A system of government based on the acquisition of authority from the people; the institutionalization of the rule of law; the emphasis on the legitimacy of rules; the availability of choices and cherished values (including freedom); and accountability in governance (p. 62.)
This definition brings out the principles of democracy and the core one being the residence of sovereignty with the people. As Yio (2019) had argued, from its Athenian origin, democracy is viewed as “Government by the people with full and direct participation of the people”. But democracy in practice even in Athens was not inclusive in the absolute sense as it excluded women and slaves who were integral components of the Greek city states.
Huntington (1996) argued that a political system is democratic; if the most powerful collective decision makers are chosen through fair, honest and periodic elections in which candidates freely compete for votes and in which virtually all the adult population is eligible to vote. It also implies the existence of all those civil and political freedoms to speak, publish, assemble and organize that are necessary for political debate and the conduct of electoral campaign. Also, Cohen (1971) noted that democracy is a system of community government in which by and large the members of the community participate or may participate directly or indirectly in making decisions, which affect them. This means that democracy could be seen as any system of government that is rooted in the notion that ultimate authority in the governance of the people rightly belongs to the people; that everyone is entitled to an equitable participation and share in the equal rights; and where equitable social and economic justice are the inalienable rights of individual citizens in the society.
Chafe (1994) on the other hand, opined that democracy means the involvement of the people in the running of the political, socio-economic and cultural affairs of their polity. Schumpeter cited in Ukase (2014) sees democracy as a method by which decision-making is transferred to individuals who have gained power in a competitive struggle for the votes of citizens. It is a situation in which people have the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the men who are to rule them. Also, Sand brooks cited in Ukase (2014), captures the concept thus:
Democracy is a political system characterized by regular and free elections in which politicians organized into political parties; compete for power by right of the virtue of all adults to vote and by the guarantee of a range of political and civil rights (2014, p.29)
Abraham Lincoln offered one of the simplest definitions of democracy as “government of the people by the people and for the people”. In this wise, democracy is first and foremost people-centered. It also involves mass participation and basic individual freedom as its hallmark. Ukase (2014) stressed that democracy demands that people should be governed on the basis of their consent and mandate; freely given to establish a government which is elected, responsive and accountable to the people.
In spite of the differences in conceptualization and practice, all the versions of defining democracy share one fundamental objective, which is how to govern society in such a way that power, actually belongs to the people.
2.2 The Concept of Democratisation
Source and nature of democratisation in Nigeria
Ordinarily, democratisation process does not exist in a vacuum; it is a process of evolving an enduring democracy. Democratisation is a process directed towards democratic consolidation. This process is naturally characterised by competition, struggle, agitation and conflict. It is therefore expected essentially to subsist within a legal framework, a set of rules designed to coordinate and impinge on individual’s behaviour in the society. Arising from the incompatibility of interests inherent in political and power relations, behaviour of actors needs to be regulated, coordinated, shaped and made to be in line with the existing rules in order to ensure fairness, equity, justice and transparency which, in turn, guarantee peace and harmonious relationship among the political actors (Arowolo and Lawal, 2010).
Any democratisation process that is characterised by political violence may be fraught with three weaknesses: poorly designed rules; poverty of political leadership and weak judicial administration. Flowing from this, the study hypothesizes thus: the weaker the rules designed, the more the incident of political violence; and the more irresponsible and irresponsive the government is (Arowolo and Lawal, 2010).Struggle in politics is a normal phenomenon since it has to do with competition, what is abnormal is the violence that has engrossed political struggle and power relations in Nigeria. Political violence is motivated by political actors who see politics not only as do or die affairs, but also as an extension of birth rights of individuals or groups and so real or imagined opposition is silenced, or worse still, eliminated. For the purpose of political recognition and relevance, well-placed individuals and groups continue to enjoy tenacity of office at the detriment of other ‘disadvantaged’ groups and individuals. Politics and political relations become stressed and strained. Intolerance ensues rather than accommodation; rancour rather than harmony and conflict in place of cooperation. Political violence is gradually becoming a permanent feature of democratisation in Nigeria. This is because every campaign ground is soaked with violence and killings. It is capable of truncating Nigeria’s democracy if not curtailed. Democratisation process in Nigeria is growing at a very sluggish trend, thus threatening the basis of political stability, deepening the root of political gerontocracy and strengthening sectional political hegemony (Arowolo and Aluko, 2010).
Political violence seems to be institutionalised since it emanates from the corridor of power and so politics and political activities become exclusive rights of the ‘dirty’ politicians who make politics dirty in the first place. The fact that the game of politics in Nigeria is played at the variance with set rules makes it a dirty game. Politics is a clean game outside the shores of Africa and it becomes dirty at its importation to Africa. Politics must have been infested with greed, tribalism, intolerance, injustice and parochial instinct of political leadership (Arowolo and Aluko, 2010).
Aside the fact that political violence leads to politically motivated killings, it also stares away responsible, intelligent and credible individuals from contesting elective positions. The cumulative effect is bad governance arising from bad leadership. Nigeria's democracy is being manipulated by those in power. State machinery is being employed to maintain their hold on power. The Obasanjo's administration was noted for its selective judgement and flagrant disrespect and disobedience for the rule of law; this is also a function of ineffective rules. The administration hunted its opponents with the awe of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).It is only natural and expected, therefore, that in a situation where political opponents are clamped down upon, the political space becomes heated and tension-soaked as the opponents strive to 'balance the terror'. During the period under review (especially between 2007 and 2011), election into political offices was constantly secured by those who had the monopoly of weaponry and thuggery, as violence, rather than the electorate determined who occupied what position.
Political violence inhibits free competition and cripples political participation. In this case, there is latent and potential disaffection, rancour and acrimony that heat up the political system. The effects of politicalviolence on democracy are many: First, it disenfranchises qualified Nigerian voters. Second, it leads to the election of irresponsible political leadership. Third, political violence destroys the future of the Nigerian youths by enlisting them into thuggery and consequently turning them to armed robbers and hired assassins. Fourth, it contributes to the dearth of responsible and responsive future leaders as youths of today have been taught the act of violence rather than compromise, negotiation, conciliation and sportsmanship (Arowolo and Lawal, 2010).
The major obstacle to credible electoral process during the period under review was that the party in power did not have respect for the rule of law. The law was so weak such that the former president Obasanjo felt he was above the law. He chose the court orders to obey. He only obeyed court orders that were favourable to him and his party. Example of this was the forceful ejection of the Vice President, AtikuAbubarkar, from his official quarters of Aguda House and the withdrawal of his allowances because the Vice President decided to join another party and Obsanjo subsequently declared his seat vacant. AbubarkarAtiku went to court and the court declared the action of the President unconstitutional but Obasanjo refused to comply with the court orders. Another example is the withholding of monthly allocations of the twenty (20) Local Governments in Lagos State even in contravention of the court orders.
2.3 Component and Importance of Democratization in the Society
The issue of democratization has been the most topical in recent times as regards Nigeria’s development. Democratization simply connotes the process of installing a democratic system of administration. This, of course, involves an enhancement of the social condition necessary for the facilitation of a democratization process, characterized by a robust political atmosphere which ultimately engenders socio-economic and socio-cultural development of society. A democratic system of government is that political system in which everybody has equal opportunity to participate in the political process in whatever capacity that is deemed fit. A government, in this regard, derives its authority from the people who, in essence, choose those in government. An important feature of this system is the supremacy of the national or common interest, which must supersede personal interest (Ibagere and Omoera, 2010).
Gunther et al. (1995) contend that the democratization process has three phases: the fall of the authoritarian regime, consolidation, and enduring democracy. Obviously, the foregoing opinion and similar others do not specify a time frame for the actualization of the three highlighted phases. It, therefore, means that the peculiarities in each system would play a profound role in the process of actualization. In the case of Nigeria, the slow pace of the process raises doubt in the minds of the generality of the people who, for instance, are confounded as to why such basic aspects of democracy as elections and legislative duties still lack significant purposiveness, twelve years after the Fourth Republic commenced.
Basically, democratization connotes a process of movement from authoritarianism to a stable democracy. Democratization is the process of establishing, strengthening, or extending the principles, mechanism, and institutions that define a democratic regime (Osaghae, 2007). In his elaboration on this definition, Osaghae opines that two points could be inferred. One, that democratization is relative, incremental and phased. Two, that democratization is variegated in nature, calling for caution not to analyze it as a blanket process. It was Osaghae (1995), who equates democratization with transition to democracy; he explains it as a political process because it basically has to do with the transformation of the state and the political society. Golden, (2010), therefore conceptualizes democracy to incorporate the exploitative and alliterative tendencies often demonstrated by the capitalists against the downtrodden. According to him, democracy, empirically speaking could mean a socio-economic and political formation that grants the hoi polloi the irreducible instrument of determining and participatingeffectively in the day-to-day smooth governance of their country. That is, the general transformative and re-structuring powers of that state are vested in the hands of the electorates.
Yahaya (2007) sees democratization as both a procedural and institutional aspect of liberalizing a previously authoritarian political environment. It would consist of opening up a previously closed authoritarian political system and deepening and expanding of values thought to be necessary for the entrenchment and sustenance of democracy. In essence, it is about the construction of a system that allows for the bulk of the populace to participate in the decision making process that has direct bearings upon their lives.
In his own view Potter (2000: p.368) conceptualised democratization thus:
a political movement from less accountable to more accountable government, from less competitive (or non-existent) elections to fuller and fairer predicted civil and political rights, from weak (or non-existent) autonomous associations to more numerous associations in civil society.
Nwabueze (1993) conceives democratization as not just concerned with the form of government known as democracy nor being synonymous with multi-partyism, but as a process of experimentation during which certain basic conditions have to be put in place. He also makes many salient points about democratization. First, is that the listing of things required by democratization does not carry the implication of preconditions or prerequisites without which democratization cannot, and must not, be embarked upon and that they can be created or developed in the process of experimentation. Second is that the infusing of the spirit of liberty, democracy, justice, the rule of law, and the order among the people remains the most crucial to democratization.
Onyeoziri (1989) argued that democratization needed to be situated within the following poles:
1) The domain of individual and group rights and freedoms;
2) The domain of popular and equal participation in collective decision;
3) The dimensions of accountability of government to mass publics and constituent minorities; and
4) The dimension of the application of the principles of equal citizenship in all spheres of life - social, economic and political.
He further opined that a system that recognizes more of these rights has democratized more than one that recognizes only few of these rights (Onyeoziri, 1989).
Democratization is more appropriately viewed as the institutionalization of democratic principles as part of everyday culture in a society. It finds expression in the channeling of behavioural patterns towards democratic ideals. It permeates all facets of community life from religion through the economy, marriage family to politics. These institutions legitimize the activities of those who exercise authority. If these institutions are absent militarism might be misconstrued for democratization (Ifeanacho and Nwagwu, 2009).
Be that as it may, it should be noted that democratization has generally been seen as the solution to Nigeria's multifaceted problems. This is what Ottaway (1995) called the 'democratic solution', which he considers as "certainly the most desirable and probably the only viable one in the long run". The validity of this claim only remains to be supported by empirical realities across the continent. May be a little more time is needed before a comprehensive assessment could be undertaken. Yet, a preliminary evaluation is desirable (Omotola, 2007).
From the above explanations, it is important to state that democratization is a process that takes place over a period of time and that in the process of democratization, the state and the general populace are the major actors who must show commitment to the whole process of trying to allow democracy to take a strong hold of the entire society.
2.4 The Nexus between Democracy and Development
The interface between democracy and development has long engaged the sustained interest of scholars and researchers across the globe. However, much as it has generated enormous interest, no universal evidence seems to be shared that one is more important than the other. The debate on the relationship between democracy and development has equally been on the front burner of scholarly discourse over the years. The debate therefore remains one of the hotly debated issues, today as yesterday; and may continue to be (Omotola, 2006). Feng (2001) noted that, “Democracy and Development remains one of the most important topics – perhaps even the single most important in the field of international and comparative political economy for years to come”. These debates were aptly summarized by Olufemi (2000) thus; one school of thought argued that democracy was unrealizable And unsustainable without a requisite dose of economic development.
Democracy and development share certain basic virtues such as popular participation, capacity expansion as well as freedom (Mazrui, 2002). Democracy is an independent variable that explains the level of economic development of any society. As observed by Osaghae (1995), it is important to emphasize the point that while democracy may engender development, much of it depends to some extent on the context within which the analysis is carried out. Moreover, the impact of democracy on development could be a reflection of its time-spell as well as the depth of the democracy process itself. It could also be a spectral, especially in the short run, giving the fact that development is a multidimensional concept. Development in a given aspect, say for example at the political level, may in the long run induce development in other aspects. That being the case, caution must be exercised in making generalized statements about their relationship. This explains why a contextual analysis would be of high utility having been reputed for its ability to account for differences in the same phenomenon in different systems.
The idea of popular participation as noted by Adedeji (1997) is crucial to both democracy and development. In its comprehensive usage, popular participation is the empowerment of the people to involve themselves in the regulating structures and in designing policies and program that serve the interest of all, and contribute optimally to the development process.
This prompted Zack-Williams (2001) to conclude that “no democracy, no development”. According to him, an essential weapon of democracy that makes it a requisite for economic development is that democracy empowers the general population to control decision-making. As such, the governed are presumed to have all it takes to hold governments accountable by insisting on transparency, openness and other measures of control. The absence of these virtues is considered as very inimical to the pursuit of economic development. Democracyaccording to this school has been found to facilitate economic development with little or no political or social exaction from the people.
2.5 The Concept of Good Governance
The concept of good governance defies a precise single definition that commands universal acceptability. This has given rise to different meanings of the concept. The World Bank (2003) provided a simple definition of good governance and an extensive detailed analysis of its major components. Here the Bank contends that governance consists in the exercise of authority in the name of the people while good governance is doing so in ways that respect the integrity and needs of everyone within the state. Good governance, according to this conception, is said to rest on two important core values, namely: inclusiveness and accountability.
Madhav (2007) contends that good governance is tied to the ethical grounding of governance and must be evaluated with reference to specific norms and objectives as may be laid down. Ozigbo (2000) cited in Okpaga (2007) opined that before one discusses good governance, it is first necessary to examine the context of the term governance. According to him, governance denotes how people are ruled and how the affairs of the state are administered and regulated. Governance refers therefore, to how the politics of a nation is carried out. Public authority is expected to play an important role in creating conducive environment to enhance development. On this premise, Ansah (2007) viewed governance as encompassing a state’s institutional and structural arrangements, decision-making process and implementation capacity and the relationship between government officials and the public.Governance can therefore, be good or bad depending on whether or not it has the basic ingredients of what makes a system acceptable to the generality of the people. The ingredients of good governance include freedom, accountability, and participation (Sen, 1990).
The basic features of good governance include the conduct of an inclusive management wherein all the critical stakeholders are allowed to have a say in the decision-making process. Accordingly, good governance is the process through which a state’s affairs are managed effectively in the areas of public accountability, financial accountability, administrative and political accountability, responsiveness and transparency, all of which must show in the interest of the governed and the leaders. It, thus, means that good governance thrives in a democratic setting; hence to achieve good governance, there must be a democratic system in place. By this, it means where there is no democracy there cannot be good governance, which explains why democracy as a system of government commands such popular appeal among the countries of the world today. Although, the concept of good governance lacks any precise single definition that commands universal acceptability, there is little disagreement over its defining elements, which include accountability, transparency, predictability, the rule of law, and participation.
The concept of governance is not new. It is as old human civilization. According to the World Bank Institute (2003), governance is the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2007) see governance as the exercise of power through a country’s economic, social, and political institutions in which institutions represent the organizational rules and routines, formal laws, and informal norms that together shape the incentives of public policy-makers, overseers, and providers of public services. The United Nation Human Development Report (2004) further pointed out that governance has two faces: first, the leadership which has responsibilities derived from the principles of effective governmental organizations. Second, the governed, that isthe citizens, who are responsible for making relevant inputs to the socio-economic and political affairs of their society. In other words, governance is a relationship between rulers and the ruled, the state and society, the governors, and the governed. It is important that the two principal actors be as close as possible to ensure the legitimacy, accountability, credibility and responsiveness of the rulers and the effective participation, and responsiveness of the ruled is achieved. All these elements or attributes are the instruments of effective governance in the sense that they provide the necessary anchor and legal/moral justifications to the government. Hence, governance has social, economic, administrative and political dimensions (World Bank Institute, 2003). Economic governance includes processes of decision-making that directly or indirectly affect a country’s economic activities or its relationships with other economies. It has a major influence on societal issues, such as equity, poverty and quality of life. Political governance refers to decision making and policy implementation of a legitimate and authoritative state. The state should consist of separate legislative, executive and judicial branches, represent the interests of a pluralist polity, and allow citizens to freely elect their representatives. Administrative governance is a system of policy implementation carried out through an efficient, independent, accountable and open public sector. Systemic governance encompasses the processes and structures of society that guide political and socioeconomic relationships to protect cultural and religious beliefs and values, create and maintain an environment of health, freedom, security and with the opportunity to exercise personal capabilities that lead to a better life for all people (World Bank Institute, 2003). Therefore, simply put, Coleman (1965), governance means the process of decision making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). It is the manner in which power is exercised by governments in the management and distribution of a country’s social and economic resources. The nature and manner of this distribution makes governance a bad or a good one (Arisi &Ukadike, 2011: 413).