Democracy, Good Governance and Corruption In Nigeria   

       

By; Jerome-Mario Utomi

 

In Nigeria as well as the global stage, many comments, remarks (or is it observations) have been made in the past about democracy. To some, it is simply a government by the people and rule of the majority. To others, it is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. To the rest, it is a political unit that has a democratic government and absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.

 

Closely related to the above conversation is the accompanying belief that for democracy to thrive, good governance must not only be considered an essential ingredient but be situated in all its process of making and enforcing decisions and interactions between government and the governed through the laws, social norms, power or language as structured in communication of an organized society over a social system. 

 

 

To further underscore the imperatives of the above principle, the United Nations document on Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, categorically underlined eight (8) major characteristics of good governance, to include; participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law.

These characteristics, the report added, are targeted at ensuring that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society.

Sadly, when these characteristics are juxtaposed with democratic experience in Nigeria, it reveals something new and different.

 

First, it seamlessly throws more light to the fact that Nigeria’s   protracted inabilities to achieve good governance as a nation or achieve leadership imbedded with accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law has nothing to do with democracy as a governmental type but largely a function of elected officials’ vision and agendas that are persistently reputed for being at odds with the general inspirations expectation and motivations of the population.

 

As noted by a commentator, Nigerians tend to think that they have not been lucky with good leaders. That is, people who pilot the affairs of the nation at the three levels of government, lack good leadership qualities, therefore, they fall short in delivering the fruits of good leadership. The general feeling is that this set of people in government is clueless. On the contrary, no administration in Nigeria history, including the present one, is clueless. Clueless suggests lack of any vision or agenda. This is clearly not the case with those who have led and are leading Nigeria. Every administration at the federal and state levels have always come into office with specific vision and agendas. This is correct for both the military and civilian governments. 

 

The civilians always had their set agendas before assuming power, even if they present a different one to the electorate during their campaigns for election. Because Nigerian governments have their own visions and agendas, they are not clueless. But their vision and agendas are at odds with the general inspirations and motivations of the population.

 

 

The inspiration and motivations of the leadership and people of Nigeria have never been in alignment, instead, they are always at odds. Sometimes the odds are so great they result in chaos, which tethers dangerously on the brink of armed conflict. This is the leadership crisis that has bedeviled Nigeria and is plaguing her now. There is disharmony in what the government desires and is doing, and what the people desire and wish to see accomplished.

In a democracy, it is almost inevitable to avoid a governance crisis when a leadership crisis exists. Only in an absolute dictatorship can a governance crisis be prevented amidst glaring leadership crises – disharmony in the inspirations and motivations of the government and the people. Nigeria has never had an absolute dictatorship. So, leadership and governance crises have bedeviled her, even before her independence: the agitations for independence stem from the leadership crisis; the pro-independence activities were manifestations of governance crises spurred by leadership crises.

 

 

The aspirations of the colonialists were certainly at odds with the desires and expectations of the general African-Nigerian populace.

 

Even absolute dictatorship can prevent governance crises. Yet, it cannot prevent or eliminate leadership crises because the latter emanates from the will of people, which is their mindset and natural tendency. A viable alternative is a leadership style that allows the natural tendency of any people to flourish, by availing them with means to express their legitimate inspirations and manifest their reasonable motivations. 

 

The current democracy has devolved to a pathetic state: prospective elected public servants seek office merely for the sake of politics. They are motivated by power and politics only. They campaign on lofty ideals to get the vote of their constituents, but when they are elected, they renege on their promises to their constituents. Instead, they tow the tired routine paths of their party in particular, and politics in general.

 

Closely related to the above failure and of course fully explains why democracy as governmental practice in Nigeria has neither promoted social mobility nor favored social justice or minimize corruption in the country is lack of political will on the part of the public office holders to properly understood power as nothing but the ability to achieve a purpose and strength required to bring about social, economic, political, cultural and religious changes.

 

With fairness to past and present and present leaderships in Nigeria, this piece must admit that corruption is not Nigeria-specific. It is as old as human civilization.

 

 

Adding context to the discourse, the word corruption going by reports comes from the Latin word corruptus, which “means to break or to destroy.” Corruption according to AL-Gore, a former Vice President of the United States (USA), destroys and breaks that trust which is absolutely essential for the delicate alchemy at the heart of representative democracy.

 

In its contemporary form, corruption almost always involves an incestuous coupling of power and money and describes the exchange of money for the misuse of public power. “It matters not whether the exchange is initiated by the person with the money or the person with the power; it is the exchange itself that is the essence of the corruption. It matters not if the private enrichment is with cash or with its equivalent in influence, prestige, status, or power; the harm is done by the fraudulent substitution of wealth for reason in the determination of how the power is used.  It matters not if the purchase of power is seen as beneficial by some or even by many; it is the dishonesty of the transaction that carries the poison”.

 

In the same vein, efforts to have it eradicated  in Nigeria also dates back to Colonial governments as they (Colonial Overlords) sufficiently legislated against it in the first criminal code ordinance of 1916(No15 of 1916) which elaborately made provisions prohibiting official bribery and corruption by persons in the public service and in the judiciary. Also at independence on October 1, 1960, the criminal code against corruption and abuse of office in Nigeria were in section 98 to 116 and 404 of the code.

 

It however remains a very sad commentary that despite its long sojourn on our land and having acted as an impediment to achieving good governance in Nigeria, successive public office holders in Nigeria still see no reason to, or deemed it necessary to view corruption as a national calamity that should be collectively stamped out. If they did, Nigerians need not go far to see the result. All Nigerians have witnessed in these years were mere declaration of intent and not pragmatic effort.

 

Take as an illustration,  Major Chukuma Kaduna, who led the abortive coup of January 15, 1966, remarked; the country’s enemies are the political profiteers, swindlers, the men in high and low places that seek bribes and demand 10%, those that seek to keep the country divided permanently so that they can remain in office as ministers or VIPs at least, the tribalists, nepotists, those that make the country look for nothing before international setting, those that corrupted our society and put the national political calendar back to their words and deeds.

 

 

No one bothered to investigate this claim.

 

As the most senior military officer after the Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu aborted coup, in 1966, General Thomas Johnson Umunakwe Aguiyi-Ironsi, the first military Head of State in his resolve to curb corruption among other comments declared that ‘the military Government will stamp out corruption and dishonesty in our public offices with ruthless efficiency and restore integrity and self-respect in our public affairs’. That statement only existed in the frames as he was later killed on July 29, 1966, by the bloody revenge coup.

 

 

Yakubu Gowon who took over from General Thomas Johnson Umunakwe Aguiyi-Ironsi designed five main issues that his administration will handle with the fourth focusing on ending corruption in the country- It however, turned out to be a paradox of the sort as he was later accused of corruption while in office.

 

 

On the other hands, what appeared as a departure from the old order came the way of Nigerians in 1975, when Brigadier Muritala Mohammed upon  ascending the mantle of leadership, forfeited to the nation the property he acquired with the public funds as well as constituted the Pedro Martins Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau to among other responsibilities probe Gowon’s administration. Regrettably, this ‘revolution’ came to an abrupt end with his assassination.

 

After Mohammed’s assassination the following year, the military appointed Obasanjo, who ‘against his will’ took over the mantle of the nation’s leadership as the head of the government. Following the 1979 election, Obasanjo handed over control of Nigeria to the newly elected civilian president, Shehu Shagari.

 

In my views, the impact of President Shehu Shagari, fight against corruption was like others not seriously felt.  Apart from his call on Nigerians to support his administration fight against corruption, he created the Ethical Re-orientation Committee and the Code of Conduct Bureau. These notwithstanding, his administration was reputed in the anal of our national history as a period when incompetence and absence of rigorous accountability flourished and dishonesty encouraged and rewarded. 

 

After the truncation of a democratically elected government on the 31^st December, 1983, General Muhammadu Buhari, as the new military president while unfolding his plans to tackle social ills in the country stated; ‘corruption and indiscipline have been associated with our state of underdevelopment, this evil in our body politics have attained unprecedented heights in the past four years.  We deplore corruption in all its facets –this government will not tolerate, inflation of contracts and over-invoicing of imports etc nor will it condone forgery, embezzlement,  misuse, and abuse of office and illegal dealing in foreign exchange and smuggling’’

 

It is not as if General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida did not make any effort to rid the nation of corruption but such record remains sketchy as he said little, and Nigerians are yet to stumble at a documented account of his achievements in this direction.

 

Also, in his short stay as the Head of the Interim National Government (ING), Chief Ernest Shonekan stated;’’ I am serving notice here and now of the determination of the Interim National Government to launch a crusade against corruption in public life.  To this end, I shall strive to lead by personal example. The ING will also ensure that laws against corruption are enforced without fear or favor. Each and everyone must be ready to expose corruption wherever it exists’’.  That comment like every other ended as a gospel without the truth as his government was sooner than expected declared illegal.

 

 

General Abacha, another military President, in 1995, like his predecessors , raised a strong voice against corruption and other social ills saying; ‘the twin evils of indiscipline and corruption have severely affected the social integrity of our society and have frustrated the great hopes of our people to genuine development’. However, Nigerians after his demise were shell-shocked to learn that monumental corruption flourished under the same man.

For General Abdulsalami Abubakar, his administration is often always described by Nigerians with critical minds as a regime without strategic insight or will to ending corruption in the country.

At the dawn of Democracy in May 1999, President Olusegun Obasanjo that recorded a vague result in corruption fight as a military President in the late 1970s suddenly became an anti-corruption crusader creating two anti-craft bodies- Economic And Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC).  The two bodies have at different points performed to the admiration of the global community. However, OBJ was later accused by the political class and the media of using the anti-craft bodies as an instrument for witch-hunt/ and political vendetta.

 

Not to say anything about President Umoru Yaradua’s effort will render this piece a one side-narrative as his short stay as president of the federal Republic witnessed some steps adjudged as transparent by Nigerians and earned him goodwill.

 

Conversely, while Yaradua enjoyed goodwill, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan’s administration faced more credibility burden than goodwill as he was perceived as not resolute in fighting corruption- a factor largely responsible for his failure in his 2015 general election.

 

Personally, why the anti-corruption watchdog may not be blamed in this latest report is that, the present administration has allowed the country’s economy  manifest  its inability to sustain any kind of meaningful growth that promotes the social welfare of the people, And corruption  has become even more entrenched as scandal upon scandal has completely laid bare the anti-corruption stance of this administration and those who were initially deceived by the present government’s alleged fight against corruption has come to the conclusion that nothing has changed.

This situation is even made worse when one remembers that the list of actions not taken by this administration to confront corruption which has made Nigerians face actual and potential difficulties remains lengthy and worrisome. Chiefly among these is Mr. President’s failure to objectively make corruption fight a personal priority for him or those who report directly to him.

Without any shadow of the doubt, this has fittingly presented the President as one that started off with high moral standards, strong conviction and determination to beat down corruption but has neither lived up to that good intention nor dealt with all transgressors without exception.

To change this narrative, Mr. President must be ready to come up with frameworks that will ensure that every naira in revenue will be properly accounted for and would reach the beneficiaries at the grassroots as one dollar, without being siphoned off along the way. To achieve this, special attention must be given to the areas where discretionary powers has been exploited for personal gain and sharpened the instrument that could prevent, detect, or deter such practices.

The second important action expected of the government if the nation is to make appreciable progress in curbing corruption, is to rework the nation’s electoral system which is considered brazenly expensive. We must not forget that internationally, a precondition for an honest government is that candidate must not need large sums to get elected, or it must trigger off the circle of corruption. Having spent a lot of money to get elected, winners must recover their costs and possibly accumulate funds for the next election as the system is self-perpetuating’.

To completely stamp out both nepotistic and supportive corruption, it calls for  a sincere and selfless leadership, a politically and economically restructured policy brought by the national consciousness that  can unleash the social, economic and political transformation of the country while  rejecting the present socio-economic system that has bred corruption, inefficiency, primitive capital accumulation that socially excluded the vast majority of our people.

Finally, Government at levels must recognize, and position Nigeria to be a society of equal citizens where opportunities are equal and personal contribution is recognized and rewarded on merit regardless of language, culture, religion or political affiliations. If we are able to achieve this, it will once again, announce the arrival of a brand new and corruption-free great nation where peace and love shall reign supreme as no nation enjoys durable peace without justice and stability, without fairness and equity!