Shehu Sani’s “threats” to democracy

Kadu.na State Senator Shehu Sani is one of the more vocal, and if truth be told, more eloquent members of the 8th Assembly. As one who professes to believe firmly in democracy which implies recognising differences of opinion, there is no reason why he should take exception to any alternative views on his assertions. The […]

Kadu.na State Senator Shehu Sani is one of the more vocal, and if truth be told, more eloquent members of the 8th Assembly. As one who professes to believe firmly in democracy which implies recognising differences of opinion, there is no reason why he should take exception to any alternative views on his assertions.

The lawmaker says he believes that democracy is under threat in Nigeria, and recently on his Facebook page he listed fifteen supposed threats. A closer look at these “threats” shows how easy it is for Nigerian politicians to mix up issues when discussing democracy. Surprisingly Sani’s failed to categorise election rigging; failure to enact appropriate democracy strengthening legislation; political corruption, or a poorly educated electorate as threats to democracy. He first listed mass killings in the North Central and North West of Nigeria. 

It’s difficult to see how these killings represent a threat to democracy. They may represent a threat to the territorial integrity of the nation, or indeed to the popularity of any particular administration, but they cannot lead to the abandonment of the democratic processes for changing government constitutionally. Quite naturally obsessed with the seemingly intractable problems in the North where his constituency lays, Sani went on to suggest that the increasing spate of insurgent guerrilla attacks in the North East and the abductions and the plight of the abducted were also “threats” to democracy.

Very much similar to the preceding “threat” there is very little probability that these will lead to abrogation of the democratic processes. One genuine threat to democracy is the ongoing violations of freedom of speech and increasing intolerance to contrary political views, peaceful dissent and peaceful protest which Sanni identified as the third item on his list. Opposition and the right to voice contrary opinion are an integral part of democracy, yet insufferably when Nigerian political office holders make quite evident mistakes, or are discovered to have gone back on their words there is never an apology, rather the guilty parties habitually proceed with concerted attempts to rubbish their critics. 

In identifying the onslaught against the parliament and those parliamentarians perceived as opposition, it would appear as if Sani is mixing up his problems with the government of the day with the problems of Nigerian democracy. He pre-supposes that parliamentarians have been acting in a manner which enhances democracy, which of course isn’t the case in Nigeria. Democracy is about enacting the will of the people, and uplifting the status of the majority. This, our legislators have failed to do, and the consequence of this is that Nigerians in the majority are of the opinion that something needs to be done to bring them back into line. They have virtually abandoned their primary assignment of enacting socio-economically beneficial legislation. Many of Sani’s other supposed “threats to democracy” such as Religious bigotry and rise of ethnic nationalism are also threats to the territorial integrity of the nation rather than to democratic processes.

On the other hand, the habitual disobedience to Court orders and resistance to rule of law on the altar of political exigencies is definitely a major threat to democracy. It’s unfortunate that Nigerian democracy has over the years been reduced to the simple conduct of elections. Respect for fundamental Human Rights and the rights of the electorate to have input into government decision making; as well as the power to ensure that political office holders who don’t obey the rule of law are severely sanctioned, have been cast aside in the concentration on simple ballot casting which at the end of the day everyone knows has never been free or fair. Democracy never guarantees good governance, it only provides the electorate with the opportunity of removing a government which they consider to be bad.

By referring to his so called “unaddressed perception of nepotism and favouritism” Senator Sani was most likely referring to his views concerning the current government. All democratic leaders who engage in either nepotism or favouritism will face the electorate sooner or later, therefore his or her behaviour can’t possibly be a threat to democracy. It must be acknowledged that even voters prefer to cast their ballot for their own family, ethnic or religious brother.

However, this only affects good governance, it doesn’t affect the democratic process itself. Although it is certainly a hinderance to good governance, it is difficult to see how the timidity of Nigeria’s major opposition party and disorderliness of the ruling party identified by Sani can be a threat to democracy. The People’s Democratic Party which is the major opposition have every reason to be timid. It was only democracy that saved the nation from their arrogance, sheer hubris and overconfidence that they would rule for 60 years despite all their shortcomings.

They deserve to remain for some time in a transition phase where humility should be their watchword. While the disorderliness within the ruling party is worrisome, it isn’t a threat to democracy, but rather definitely a threat to their political fortunes in 2019. Sani correctly identified the public perception of credibility and moral problems of members of the parliament over corruption issues as a threat to democracy. The majority of Nigerians believe that parliamentarians and indeed all political office holders are self-serving and it is seriously affecting belief our system of government. All but the last two of remaining items on Sanni’s list also have more to do with threats to good governance rather than threats to democracy.

The public perception of a tyrannical and autocratic President contemptuous of democratic values, surrounded by a vicious cabal; the arbitrariness and increasing lawlessness of security agencies; the docile and pliant civil society; and the “deodorant and Insecticide style” anti-corruption crusade should be discounted as threats to democracy. However, Nigeria’s compromised and subservient States Assemblies and “Emperor” Governors operating above the laws, and a dubious national objection to hate speech that shields people in position of power and targets ordinary Nigerians are both the antithesis of democratic principles.