Neoliberalism…destroyed the material bases of the masses of people, making it difficult for them to organise and resist undemocratic, non-democratic and anti-democratic forces and practices. All these, in turn, fertilised the ground for the nourishing, flowering and flourishing of lumpen politics and victory. So, Nigeria today, is a lumpen democracy.
There is some assumption that when a ballot box is present, there is democracy. But a democracy is not a democracy because it is assumed to be a democracy. In Nigeria, we have a lumpen democracy.
|
|
“Lumpen” is the German word for a ragamuffin. In Hausa, lumpen means “dan-iska”; in Yoruba, “agbero”; Igbo, “agaracha”; Bini, “omoibe”; and in Afemai, “uzza.” Lumpens are hooligans; unprincipled, directionless, heartless, terrible, vicious, and destructive people.
Therefore, lumpen democracy is an unprincipled, deceptive, retrogressive, valueless, directionless, people-less, mendacious, anachronistic, abracadabra, and witchcraft democracy. A democracy of the gutters.
|
|
|
|---|
But how come we have such a democracy in Nigeria?
Some will argue that the lumpen democracy was planted during colonialism. Most colonial officials, as Arnold Temu and Bonaventure Swai correctly observe in their book, Historians and Africanist History: A Critique, “were ‘sweepings from the metropolitan gutter’; people who were prepared to commit murder at the slightest provocation, but were restrained from doing so in the metropolis because of the prevailing ‘civilised ethics’.”
But colonial officials had accountability in their dictionaries, even if not to the colonised people. They reported to their superior officers in Nigeria, who, in turn, were accountable to the British Secretary of State for Colonies, who, in turn, was answerable to the Parliament, which, in turn, was responsible to the British people.
So, while they wanted the entire Nigerian human and natural resources for Britain, they were equally afraid not to spark mass uprisings! This was largely why the British bequeathed Nigeria with a solid public service, projects delivery system, public accounts system, and the independence constitution, which, despite its limitations, allowed for the flowering of liberal democracy.
Others will maintain that the nationalist politicians of the First Republic watered the current lumpen democracy. But these politicians recognised and operated a constitution, which compelled them to build alliances with others, to give-and-take, and to take development seriously. It allowed ethnic majorities and minorities, traditional and modern elites, the professionals and working peoples, to fully and actively participate in politics.
…the regime’s greatest injustice to Nigeria and democracy was the imposition of a constitution, borrowed and framed after the United States’ (US) constitution. In so doing, it ignored the fact that Nigeria belongs to its indigenous peoples, who have a rich history, tradition, culture, and value of politics and governance. That leaders were accountable to the people and the ancestors, as well as answerable to the land, the gods, and ALMIGHTY GOD HIMSELF!
Mokwugo Okoyo, a militant youth leader of the era, wrote in his Storms on the Niger, that the political forces, “not only spread political consciousness into their areas but also helped preserve democracy by hammering on local discontent and checking the tyrannical abuses of power by the majority parties.”
Also, that trade unions equally confronted the exploitation of workers, while peasant associations rebelled against excessive taxation, and oppression by feudal forces. Academics and students, despite their political vacillations, repeatedly opposed and challenged politicians. In such a situation, lumpen democracy could not flower or flourish, even if it was on the ground.
Yet, others will argue that military politicians (or militicians), through coups and counter coups, lay the foundation for the entrenchment of lumpen democracy. In fact, this is indisputable. Military regimes combined the worst of colonial and civilian politicians. One of Nigeria’s outstanding political scientists, Okwudiba Nnoli, made this point in his paper on “The 1983 Elections: Voting for Austerity.”
As Nnoli put it, military rule “represents a harkening of the undemocratic rule of the early colonial period when the people were objects rather than subject of rule. It contradicts the democratic struggles of Nigerians for political independence and the rights of individuals to equality before the law, freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of speech… Military rule not only diverts attention from further progress in the struggle for full democracy; it abolishes democracy itself and, with it the historical gains of the people in the field of political relations.”
But General Yakubu Gowon governed Nigeria for nine years during which he implemented Development Plans, and allowed the public service to develop according to its General Order, without gross interference. To a large extent, he related to Nigerians on their own rights.
Not so the Murtala-Obasanjo regime. It destroyed the public service by, amongst others, senselessly sacking grounded public servants with “immediate effect,” under the guise of combating corruption. The regime crudely prohibited some union leaders from participating in trade unionism. It forcefully centralised and bureaucratised the trade union movement. Under the regime, government invaded universities, shot, injured, maimed, and killed students and other citizens, as well as dismissed and sacked academics and university administrators.
But the regime’s greatest injustice to Nigeria and democracy was the imposition of a constitution, borrowed and framed after the United States’ (US) constitution. In so doing, it ignored the fact that Nigeria belongs to its indigenous peoples, who have a rich history, tradition, culture, and value of politics and governance. That leaders were accountable to the people and the ancestors, as well as answerable to the land, the gods, and ALMIGHTY GOD HIMSELF!
In contrast, the US needed a powerful president to protect and consolidate the settlers’ hold over the country, which was stolen from the indigenous peoples by virtually exterminating them. The settlers also needed a powerful presidency to protect them from the rightful demands of African-Americans that they are more entitled to benefit from US because they built, modernised, developed, enriched, and made the US what it is.
Three factors helped enthrone and empower lumpen elements in Nigeria. First, the militicians, in their endless transition to ‘civil rule’ programmes, discouraged many principled and ideologically-minded forces from participating in the process. The gross violation of human rights, the killing of critics, the repeated dissolutions and imposition of political parties, the constant shifting of the goal posts of the transition programme, the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, amongst others, irritated and kept principled forces out of mainstream politics.
Also, the Murtala-Obasanjo junta forcefully imposed a unitary system of government on the country, and deceptively labeled it a “federal system”. Worst still, when it handed over power to Alhaji Shehu Shagari in 1979, the military regime deliberately refused to retire coup plotters and the beneficiaries of military rule.
This group of people, including Generals Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida, and Sani Abacha, not only terminated the Second Republic, but further developed, consolidated and solidified the powerful presidency into an imperial presidency. They concentrated political, economic, military, security and social powers at the centre, at the expense of state governments.
Whereas during the Second Republic, principled, ideologically-minded, and politically visionary Nigerians founded and led the political parties, in the Third Republic, lumpen politicians, largely drawn from the idlest, desperate, opportunistic, corrupt, and anachronistic elements of the different professions in the country, dominated the political scene.
Three factors helped enthrone and empower lumpen elements in Nigeria. First, the militicians, in their endless transition to ‘civil rule’ programmes, discouraged many principled and ideologically-minded forces from participating in the process. The gross violation of human rights, the killing of critics, the repeated dissolutions and imposition of political parties, the constant shifting of the goal posts of the transition programme, the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, amongst others, irritated and kept principled forces out of mainstream politics.
Secondly, many principled forces kept out of the transition programme, not out of fear, but to concentrate their efforts in the struggle to terminate military rule. They, for instance, tirelessly organised and led popular struggles for the democratisation of the political arena throughout the 1990s. But, while they struggled, lumpen politicians collaborated, organised, prepared, and succeeded in taking over power from the military.
Thirdly, the IMF and World Bank neoliberalism led to the legalised looting of the nation’s resources and wealth through commercialisation and privatisation. It extremely weakened state capacity to deliver services, instill discipline, and enforce orderliness.
Neoliberalism equally destroyed the material bases of the masses of people, making it difficult for them to organise and resist undemocratic, non-democratic and anti-democratic forces and practices. All these, in turn, fertilised the ground for the nourishing, flowering and flourishing of lumpen politics and victory. So, Nigeria today, is a lumpen democracy.
Ahmed Aminu-Ramatu Yusuf worked as deputy director, Cabinet Affairs Office, The Presidency, and retired as General Manager (Administration), Nigerian Meteorological Agency, (NiMet). Email: [email protected]
