Reflections on Nigeria’s democratic space

Without meaning to be drawn into definitional controversies, we can explain ‘liberal democracy’ as a form of representative government with protection of individual liberties and rights   such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly – subject to the usual legal derogations. One of the hallmarks of representative democracy is the […]

Without meaning to be drawn into definitional controversies, we can explain ‘liberal democracy’ as a form of representative government with protection of individual liberties and rights   such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly – subject to the usual legal derogations. One of the hallmarks of representative democracy is the periodic holding of elections.
But are we really running a democracy in this country as some cynics will ask? The definitive answer is, “Yes, we are”.  The qualifier to the answer though is that there are varieties and moods of ‘liberal democracy’ and that ours belong to the variant called ‘newly democratizing societies’. In newly democratizing societies, democratic norms and ethos remain in a state of flux and the society retains the authoritarian impulses from its dictatorial past.
With the current challenges facing the country, especially the problem of ‘de-Nigerianization’ and the  palpable tension resulting from the electioneering campaigns for the top political post in the country, it may be germane to reflect  on three fundamental questions: Is (liberal) democracy antithetical to nation-building? Should politicians and public officials sue for libel? What should be the ideal number of ‘major’ political parties in states like ours?
Is liberal democracy antithetical to nation-building?
Like most African states, Nigeria is an agglomeration of different nationalities, most of which were, before colonialism, independent and performed the functions of any modern nation-state. Since the agglomeration of these previously independent entities into the ‘geographical expression’ called ‘Nigeria’, various schemes have been put in place to help ‘create unity in diversity’ among them or to use our politicians’ favourite expression, to give  the constituent nationalities ‘a sense of belonging’.  These include the introduction of federalism, the constitutional provision that the distribution of key resources must reflect the ‘federal character’ of the country, the introduction of the National Youth Service Corps Scheme (NYSC) and the introduction of zoning and power rotation arrangements by some political parties. Ironically most of the schemes aimed at creating ‘unity in diversity’ have become part of the country’s problems.
A relevant question here is the weight one should attach to the fault lines of ethnicity, regionalism and religion in the analysis of Nigerian politics.  My opinion is that while it is true that ethnicity, religion and regionalism are merely masks worn by the different factions of the elites in their intra-elite competition for societal resources and privileges, these masks have over time acquired the character of an ideology. This is another way of saying that over time ethnicity, religion and regionalism have acquired objective existence of their own, meaning that even without intra-elite struggle for societal resources, they have become a reality of national life for the generality of the citizens. One can therefore ignore their potency in any political analysis at one’s own perils.
Ethnicity, regionalism and religion influence the character of politics and political power and are in turn influenced by the latter. For instance given the pervasive belief that political power is the most critical means of wealth accumulation and for redressing perceived historical injustices  as well as  in allaying fears  that the ethnic group that wields political power may use it to disadvantage others, politics in African states tend to be very anarchic. It is largely because of this that some people fear that liberal democracy can aggravate the structures of conflicts in Africa.   A contrarian perspective is that liberal democracy can also allow ideas that are glamorized underground or discussed in hush-hush tones to be subjected to aggressive scrutiny in the marketplace of political ideas. The argument here is that the purveyors of such centrifugal ideas will not be made unnecessary heroes and heroines unless the ideas they espouse can withstand the competition of the political marketplace of ideas.
Another argument that democracy is not incompatible with nation-building is the belief that the freedom of expressions in liberal democracy is not only an aspect of self-fulfilment but also that an almost unfettered competition of ideas will aid the citizens to discover the truth themselves. In essence, liberal democracy embodies both opportunities and threats to nation-building. I believe that our country is going through a severe crisis in our nation-building process but one cannot say this was caused by our liberal democracy since most of the seeds of our current challenges were actually sown during the periods of prolonged military dictatorship.
Should politicians sue for libel/slander?
Spins, hypes, grandstanding and efforts to appropriate the moral high ground are to electioneering campaigns what palm oil is to roasted yam. They come with the territory of politics. Recently we have seen key politicians from the two main parties – PDP and APC – feigning injury to their reputations and threatening pompous libel suits.
For instance the Vice Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, Professor Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), threatened a two billion naira libel suit against the spokesman of the President Goodluck Jonathan Campaign Organisation, Femi Fani-kayode, for alleging that he took a secret oath with APC’s national leader, Bola Tinubu, to hand over power as the vice president to Tinubu after six months in office. Similarly, Bola Tinubu is threatening to sue AIT for N20 billion for alleged defamatory content of a documentary it aired against the former Lagos State Governor. In the same vein, Femi Fani-Kayode is threatening a N5 billion defamatory lawsuit against the APC’s National Publicity Secretary Alhaji Lai Mohammed over statements made by the latter questioning Fani Kayode’s mental health.
The question here is whether public figures, especially politicians can actually sue for libel? Obviously anyone can sue for anything and there are no shortage of cowboy lawyers who, like babalawos, will give their clients hopes that victory is almost guaranteed for them. The real question is “do public figures, including politicians, have any chance of winning a libel case”?  The truth is that in most jurisdictions, including England which is regarded as the defamation capital of the world, it is extremely difficult for public figures, to win defamatory proceedings. In the USA, a major reason for this is the Actual Malice standard set in the landmark New York Times v Sullivan (1964). Under this standard, public figures (a broader term than public officials) have to prove that not only was the alleged defamatory statement false, but also that the speaker or writer either knew the statement was false or published the statement with “reckless disregard” for whether the statement was true or false.  Under this therefore, the plaintiff is the one who ends up on trial, because he or she has to prove that the accusations against him or her are false.
Defamation cases are not only expensive; they also take too long to be resolved. In Nigeria, most of the politicians threatening those pompous sums in defamatory proceedings have actually no intention of carrying out their threats. It is all shenanigans, the real intention of which may be to have it on record that they vigorously contested certain statements made against them or to ‘chill’ speech by frightening others from repeating same lines. Defamatory lawsuits or threats of such suits – just as prior restraints by governments (such as censorship) – could be used to chill free speech.
Ideal number of political parties
Another important question is the ideal number of ‘major’ political parties in a plural and polarized society like ours?   For a long time many Nigerians had canvassed for a two party system, (or two dominant party system). The key argument has been that it will simplify the choice for voters and make the election truly competitive. However the tension that has characterized the campaigns between the APC and the PDP reminds one of the tensions that characterized the Cold War era and its bipolar order. It seems there is something inherent in bipolarity (and two party dominant systems) – perhaps the idea of two parties of almost equal strength contending for power – that makes it tension-ridden. With the north-south tension heightened since 2010 over the fallouts from the PDP’s zoning controversy and the two presidential candidates having their backgrounds in the two contentious fault lines, the tensions have been palpable.  I am among those who regarded the six-week shift in the electoral time table as a big relief. Today an increasing number of people appear not to mind who wins. They simply want the election to come and go so that life will return to ‘normalcy’.
From our experiences in the dagger-throat campaign between the APC and the PDP and the resulting tension, I am no longer (if I ever was) a supporter of a two party or two dominant party system.  I now feel that a two party system will inevitably accentuate the north-south, Christian-Muslim dichotomy and that when the two parties are truly competitive, our politics will become tension-filled, widening in the process the social distance among Nigerians.  I now feel that a truly multiparty arrangement – of roughly five to six relatively strong parties – as we had in the second Republic – will be preferable. I don’t see anything wrong in some of these parties being regionally based, with the possibility of forming a government of national unity (a coalition of two or more of the major parties) as we had in the First and Second Republics.