TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA:

TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA:
LESSONS FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Discussion paper in a public lecture for students on exchange programme from University of Illinois United States of America

By

Ma’azu Mohammed Yusif
Department of Political Science
Bayero University, Kano

March, 1990


Introduction
The current trend towards the democratisation of political regimes in Africa is creating openings which inspite of everything, may result in economic and political changes which will empower and strengthen the capacities of the lower classes. In all cases, the tendency has been forced upon the dominant power bloc. In Nigeria, during the regime of Major General (rt.) Muhammadu Buhari the call for democracy and for democratic rights prevented the full implementation of IMF/World Bank Economic and political programmes, which the people rightly perceived as an agenda against the majority people of Nigeria. The present administration of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida came on that ticket.

However, does Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida sustain the democratic aspirations of the people. The fact is that the democratic opinions and pressures of the people under the regime of Babangida is seized and control by IMF/World Bank, giant multinational corporations and their domestic allies in Nigeria. Theoretically, this democratic trend is connected with development of market forces which is intended to liberalise social, political and economic lives to give superiority to private property.

The central political principle and engineering of market forces is undermined by the government of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida. Two-party system is decreed by the government. The parties are formed by the government which has written their constitutions, manifestoes and programmes. Some people are denied to be members of the parties. The National Assembly can legislate only on some largely unimportant matters. In short, a lot of other restrictions are imposed by the transition programme.

Those who have been assessing the programme, even in the perspective of any choice of any scientific theory uphold that the transition programme is no democratic. What are the possibilities of drawing some lessons from United States of America. However, before referring to lessons from the democratic tradition of United States of America, we can posed the question what is this American democratic tradition.

The Tradition of American Democracy
The tradition of American democracy can best be understood in the framework of Liberal democratic theory. The concept of democracy is used here to mean “competition among individuals and organised groups (especially political parties) for all effective positions of government power, at regular intervals and excluding the use of force; a highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies, at least through regular and fair elections, such that no major social group is excluded; and a level of civil and political liberties – freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom to form and join organisations – sufficient to ensure the integrity of political competition and participation1. The above are components of ideal liberal democracy

The development of democracy in United States of America is not decreed by government. The development of American democracy has not been that very simple and given from the top. It has gone through two transitional processes. First is the struggles of democratic forces which were mainly directed against pre-capitalist formations and national liberation from foreign control of America’s economy. This phase came with restrictions on political freedoms of the people. Therefore, the second stage which is a popular mass movement of the people, still under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, which shaped the present liberal democratic practices.

Lessons from United States of America
The first lesson that could be learnt from the democratic tradition of United States of America is that all tendencies of democratic forces should consolidate formidable mass movement which has to engage the state in order to effect changes towards ‘true democratisation’ of Nigeria. Our colleagues from Illinois may indeed inform us on the history that the present tradition of American democracy, with its most refined liberal contents, emerged on course of mass movements for democracy which both Jefferson and Lincoln participated to perfect the development of Liberal Economy and Politics.
The second lesson to be learnt from United States democratic tradition is that there is no need to ban some citizens from participating in the democratic process and not to project radicals as ‘extremists’ who could not be tolerated in the democratic process. George Novack cited C. Wright Mills saying that: “… the power elite of the United States has not needed to create any special conservative ideology to sanction its domination. Its defenders have continued to use the liberal rhetoric which is the common denominator of all proper and successful spokesmanship…”. They have not had to confront any opposition based upon ideas which stand in challenging contrast to the liberal rhetoric which they employ as standard public relations2. Or is it that the Nigeria’s ruling-class lacks any sophistication of liberal democracy.

The third lesson to be learnt from the liberal democratic experience of United States of America is that the party system is not to be imposed by decree and the political parties are not to be formed by government for people to join. In United States of America the two dominant parties – the Democrats and the Republican emerged as the dominant electoral political groups over long period of time. The parties, in their origin, were not floated by the government of United States of America, but owed much to the earlier ideological cleavages among various political and business interest groups of Southern and Northern United States of America. But adherence to liberal political practices has reduced the cleavages between the parties to the extent that there is a temptation in the United States of America to say that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. In Nigeria, people say there is no real difference between the National Republican Convention and the Social Democratic Party, because it is the same government, people do not like which has drafted the constitutions, programmes and manifestoes of the parties.

The fourth lesson that could be learnt from the democratic experience of United States of America is that of freedom of speech and freedom of Association. These are the most important grounds of any democratic process. In United States of America, freedom of speech and freedom of association are not restricted by law. They are allowed to guide the choice of the citizens within the framework and rules of the tradition of American democracy. But in the on-going democratisation (sic) in Nigeria, freedom of speech and freedom of association are not guaranteed. The transition to Civil Rule (political parties registration and activities). Decreed No. 27 of 1989 recognised only the two parties formed by government and forbids any group of people to join any of the parties under the name of any Association. People who speak against the transition process are called subversives and can be convicted under the provisions of another decree. What name can we give this type of democracy?

The Limits of American Democracy: What Lesson for Nigeria
America’s democracy has its own abuses. The major one is that it is democracy based on capitalism. Only the rich are in the mainstream of power and decision making. In view of this, the question is posed: what relevant lessons Nigeria’s experience can draw from the America and Europe be useful in meeting the democratic aspirations of Nigerian people. Indeed, Nigerian people, especially going by the present programme of transition to third republic, have reasons to express lack of confidence on liberal democracy. Every element of the transition programme is designed to protect the IMF/World Bank Economic Recovery programme which has created hardship for majority Nigerians. In short it is bourgeoisie in the class sense.

Conclusion
The above shows that in Nigeria’s transition to democracy, the ruling-class has no respect of all the ideals of America’s liberal democratic experience. On the other hand America’s democratic practise has a lot of limitations which will not guarantee the democratic aspirations of Nigerian people. However, the best consolation is not to shed tears and develop an attitude of apathy towards the experiences. The present Nigeria’s experience whether reaches its target or collapse along the way will be a lesson for the development and consolidation of popular democracy or of the ideal liberal democratic system of the type in United States of America.

Footnotes
1. Diamond, L.; Linz J. S. Lipset, S. M. (eds), Democracy in Developing Countries Vol. II. Africa Boulder Lynne Rienner, 1988, p. xvi George Novack

2. Cernge Novack, Democracy and Revolution, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1970 pg. 182.