Michael Irene: What really is it? Democracy? Nigerian Democracy? Cabalocracy?

John Dunn, Emeritus Professor of Political theory at King’s College, London, posits: “democracy is not synonymous with good governance.” In other words, the fancy use of the term “democracy” simply doesn’t birth the practice of accountability and fairness in democratic nations. In his seminal book, Breaking Democracy’s Spell (2014), Dunn argues, in clear terms, why this oft praised system of government is replete with “unstable, vulnerable […] and continuing danger” in the so-called democratic countries.
The general failure to “comprehend” the concept of democracy, he states, amplifies deep “instability” in governance. His assessment holds certain truths; democracy thrives on, most times, racial/tribal divisions, malicious capitalism and widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Yet, many third world countries exercise this borrowed system of government without proper analysis, and often times, espouse the monstrous characteristics of democracy.
This is not to suggest that democracy is not laden with its advantages but the system as used in most African nations, for instance, in a country like Nigeria, shows that the system is used to defraud and oppress the hoi polloi.

Okoye in an essay, “Election Administration in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: A Guide for Election Managers and Students” claims that “history of elections in Nigeria shows that it has been characterized by massive frauds, the intimidation and even assassination of political opponents.” These characteristics enumerated by Okoye have its historical precedence.
In 1959, the last Governor-General before Nigeria gained independence, Sir James Robertson, orchestrated a stunning electoral process, which, according to Akintola, a Nigerian historian, was created to “thwart Nigeria’s progress and undermine the authority of the new [political] elites”. That is, the newly elected Governor-General and later president, Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe, and the Prime Minister, Tafawa Balewa, were both set-up to govern a nation characterized by various cultural differences. The politicians were tools in the hands of the colonialists. Nothing worked.

Deyan, another scholar of Nigerian literature and history, argues that the newly imposed independence gifted to Nigeria by colonialists set the country “into a cycle of pathos.” Arguably, the historical pathos still haunts Nigeria in contemporary times. The leaders have not learnt from history. They’ve not been able to move away from the colonial trap.
Of course, total democratization of nation states takes time and works with consistent dialogue, positive practical approach and implementation of policies. Are Nigerians, however, having these dialogues? Are Nigerians asking the right questions about democracy as practiced in their country? International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) proposes that for democracy to work accurately in Nigeria, democracy must include a broad section of the society, embody the aspirations of all Nigerians, and it must fight against the culture of the elites’ attachment to power. IDEA’s proposition sounds good but it is what it is, an idea, which the political elites are not willing to put into consideration.