It is sad that many Nigerians
today talk glibly about the possibility of a coup or of military intervention
in politics. They make it seem as if this democracy is something we can
exchange for something else. We need to be reminded, as we celebrate democracy
day 2017, how we got to this very moment, and how precious democracy is to us
as a sovereign people. From 1966 to 1999 (with the short break of civilian rule
from 1979 – 1983) the military dominated the political landscape in Nigeria. It
was eighteen years ago yesterday when our country returned to civilian rule.
The military practically
overstayed their welcome. The first military coup in Nigeria was in January
1966, followed by the counter-coup of July 1966, and then the civil war of
1967-70 which turned Nigeria into a military theatre more or less as the
Federal forces engaged the Biafran secessionists in a fratricidal war that
resulted in the loss of more than a million lives, starvation and the tearing
apart of the Nigerian fabric. The military would remain in charge of Nigeria
and its affairs for more than 30 years in total, and it is worth remembering
that virtually every successful coup was welcome by the people.
It was thought particularly in
the 70s that the military had a role to play in many developing countries in
Africa to ensure stability and national discipline. The civilians who took over
from the colonialists in Nigeria and Ghana, to cite two close examples, proved
worse than their predecessors, and hence the usual argument for military
intervention was corruption, and the need to keep the country together, and
check the excesses of the civilian rulers. Military rule was perhaps closer to
what the people had known traditionally and also under the colonialists. Kings
or feudalists who did not tolerate any form of opposition, or free expression
governed the traditional communities and likewise, the colonial masters were
dictators. The military continued in that tradition. In-fighting among the
emergent military elite and the competition for power eroded discipline, and
resulted over the years in more coups.
To be fair, military intervention
in Nigerian politics yielded some positive dividends, and created a leadership
cadre, and indeed till date, the influence of the military in Nigerian
politics, as seen in the transmutation of many military officers into
professional politicians, remains a strong factor in the making and unmaking of
Nigeria. But by 1990, with the global wave of democratization, glasnost and
perestroika, the collapse of the Berlin wall, and the greater emphasis on human
rights, and the rise of civil society, the Nigerian public began to subject the
military to greater scrutiny than was hitherto the case.
After a fashion, every military
government presented itself as a corrective regime, with the promise to hand
over power in a short while to civilians. By 1986, the Babangida administration
after a year in office had launched a political transition programme, beginning
with the establishment of a 17-man Political Bureau. In 1989, the ban on
political activities was lifted. The military junta would later ban these
existing political parties and create its own parties, the Social Democratic
Party and the National Republican Convention.
This seemingly endless transition
programme and increased civil society activism merely drew more attention to
the military and its record in the public sphere. The people began to demand an
inevitable return to civilian rule. They complained about the human rights
abuses of the military, the apparent domination of power by the Northern elite,
the marginalization of other groups in Nigeria, and the spread of injustice and
inequities.
When a Presidential election was
held on June 12, 1993, and the SDP candidate, Chief MKO Abiola won the
election- an election that was adjudged to be free and fair, Nigerians felt
that the hour of their liberation from military rule had come. But the
Babangida administration refused to announce the final results and
subsequently, it annulled the election. It was a disastrous moment for the
Nigerian military and the administration. It also marked the beginning of a
national crisis that dragged on for six years. The Nigerian people were
inconsolable. In the course of the crisis, General Ibrahim Babangida had to
“step aside”, handing over power to an Interim national Government (ING), which
was soon shoved aside by General Abacha. Between 1993 and 1999, Nigeria had
three different leaders: Chief Ernest Shonekan, General Sani Abacha and General
Abdusalami Abubakar.
The ensuing struggle for
democracy was long and momentous. Progressive Nigerians and the civil society
turned against the military. The South West declared that it had been robbed.
MKO Abiola fought for his mandate. The international community ostracized the
Abacha government. Nigeria became a pariah nation. The media was in the
forefront of the struggle, and many journalists were jailed, hounded into
exile, publishing houses were set ablaze. Anyone who criticized the soldiers
was framed for one offence or the other and thrown behind bars.
The progressive forces insisted
that the military must go. “Never Again”, the people chorused. There had been
no other moment like that in contemporary Nigeria. The martyrs of that people’s
revolution were the ones that died, including Chief MKO Abiola who died in
Abacha’s detention camp, the many innocent persons who were shot by the
military, and everyone who suffered one major loss or the other. The heroes
were the valiant men and women who stood up for democracy and justice and
opposed military tyranny. The villains were the soldiers who trampled upon the
people’s rights, and their opportunistic agents in civil society. On May 29,
1999, Nigeria returned to civilian rule. It was the day of our country’s second
liberation, liberation from the “years that the locusts ate.”
In the month of June, there would
be another historic date for Nigerians, that is June 12, a definite milestone
in Nigerian democracy even if the Federal Government has been largely in denial
since 1999. MKO Abiola deserves to be honoured post-humously not just
selectively by states in the South-West but by the Nigerian Government as a
kind of restitution, and by this, I mean a formal declaration, for record
purposes, that he was indeed the winner of that June 12, 1993 election.
This brief excursion to the
recent past is important because it is so easy to forget. I have met young
Nigerians who have never heard of Chief MKO Abiola. In a country where history
is no longer taught in schools, that should not be surprising. The Nigerians
who were born in 1993 are today out of university, and many of them may never
have experienced military rule. They were still children when their parents
fought for this democracy. Whoever makes the mistake of even remotely
suggesting any form of return to military rule is an enemy of the Nigerian
people. Such persons would be taking this country back to 18 years ago and
beyond.
Whatever may be the shortcomings
of our democracy, this system of government has served the Nigerian people
well. We may worry about the form or the shape, or the character of our
democracy, the opportunism and imperfections of the professional political
class, or the weakness of certain institutions but all told, this is a much
better country. The best place for the military is to function under a
constitutional order and to discharge its duties as the protector of national sovereignty.
Any soldier who is interested in politics should resign his commission, and
join a political party, politics being an open field for all categories of
persons, including ex-convicts, prostitutes and armed robbers. I find the
auto-suggestion of military intervention gross and odious. It is regrettable
that those whose duty should never in any shape include scare-mongering were
the ones who started that nonsensical discussion in the first place.
For the benefit of those who do
not know or who may have forgotten, we once lived in a certain country called
Nigeria, ruled by the military, where the rights of citizens meant nothing. The
soldiers were our rulers. They were above the laws of the land. The people were
their subordinates. They called us “bloody civilians.” The media was not free.
Your insistence on free speech could land you in jail. Under the guise of
enforcing discipline, the military treated the people as if they were slaves.
Everything was done “with immediate effect!”, including the suspension of human
rights.
Today, democracy has given the
Nigerian people, voice. There is a greater consciousness of the power of the
people, as well as the need to hold persons in power accountable. The electoral
process is still imperfect, but the people are now supremely confident of their
right to choose. But not all our problems have been solved. For example,
exactly 50 years ago today, the late Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, hero of the Biafran
Revolution, led the people of the Bight of Biafra on a secession move out of
Nigeria.
He said: “…you, the people of
Eastern Nigeria, Conscious of the Supreme Authority of Almighty God over all
mankind, of your duty to yourselves and prosperity; Aware that you can no
longer be protected in your lives and in your property by any Government based
outside Eastern Nigeria/Believing that you are born free and have certain
inalienable rights which can best be protected by yourselves. Unwilling to be
unfree partners in any association of a political or economic nature… Now, therefore,
I, Lieutenant-Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, by virtue of the authority
and pursuant to the principles recited above, do hereby solemnly proclaim that
the territory and region known as and called Eastern Nigeria together with her
Continental Shelf and territorial waters shall henceforth be an independent
sovereign state of the name and title of The Republic of Biafra…”
In other words, the people of
Eastern Nigeria no longer felt free or protected or respected inside Nigeria.
They opted out. In the Ahiara Declaration of 1969, Ojukwu summed it all up as
follows: “When the Nigerians violated our basic human rights and liberties, we
decided reluctantly but bravely to found our own state, to exercise our
inalienable right to self-determination as our only remaining hope for survival
as a people.”
The civil war ended on January
12, 1970 but 50 years since the declaration of secession by the people of
Eastern Nigeria, Igbos are still protesting about their relationship with the
rest of Nigeria. But significantly, they are not the only ones complaining.
Farmers are complaining about pastoralists, indigenes about settlers,
Christians about Muslims and vice versa, women about men, men about women,
youths about the older generation, the people of Southern Kaduna are unhappy,
other Northern minorities too, the people of the Niger Delta have been unhappy
since the Willink Commission of 1957/58, the other over 400 ethnic
nationalities that are not recognized in Section 55 of the 1999 Constitution
are also wondering whether they are truly part of this union…Basic human rights
and liberties are still being violated.
Nigeria remains a yet unanswered
question. Democratic rule may have opened up the space, but our country still
suffers from a kind of hang-over. The people are free, but they are today
everywhere in chains: politically, economically and ethnically. This is the sad
part of our democracy, but the best part are the many lessons that the people
are learning about the meaning, the nature and the cost of the choices that
they make or that they have made.
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
This is an interesting and rich write up. God bless you Dr. Abati.
ReplyDeleteReuben Abati, an unbeaten writer. we need more of these. keep it up, Sir.
ReplyDelete