Democracy Development in Nigeria: A Global Vision on the Last Ten Years
Introduction
To give a talk to a group of Nigerian authors is a great challenge – a complex one for that matter
Because they are people of ideas and whatever you are going to discuss with them they have already written about it; they have already read and discussed as well as debated it. But fortunately the organizers have given me an option that the symposium is on ten years of democracy in Nigeria but I could choose to talk on any topic
So, I have choosen to speak on a topic:
Democracy Development in Nigeria: A Global Vision
I think I want make an observation about the theme of this symposium:
It is that ten years is not enough to understand the history of development of human society.
Unless if we are going to make judgement which is not useful
It is because I do not want this kind of judgement that I have framed my topic the way it is
The Issues
Let me start with meaning f democracy:
Many of us when we gather to talk about democracy we end up discussing ideas totally beside the point.
Because democracy is much more than party formation; free and fair elections; or having a legislative house doing law to govern the life of every body in the society
Secondly, democracy is much more than the ceremonies that surround it in Nigeria today – I think there are more ceremonies about democracy than real democratic policies that improves the lives of the people.
Yes! The money spent in these ceremonies are enough to provide free health care to every Nigerian
Thirdly, another important misconception about democracy in Nigeria is that democracy is only the procedures of making democracy to work
I am sorry that in Nigeria of today the young generation including those boys and girls in the tertiary institutions, the only meaning they know of democracy are procedures of democracy
From one theoretical perspective “democracy is a system for accomplishing what can only be achieved by citizens joining together with other citizens to determine the rule of the game whose outcomes express the common good”.
That is the essence of democracy:
This makes sense (from all ideological positions) as people come together to make rules which could help them to affect
How the economy grows
How to divide the resources fairly
How to generate feeling that we are all Nigerians and we are working for overall development of Nigeria as a nation
But also to make sure the rules would ensure that the political system would guarantee fairness, and participation as well as other goals we share in common between various ethnic and other social groups.
But in a most fundamental way it seems that Democracy in Nigeria today has grown less responsive to these issues. Why? – It has become a democracy of politicians and others who have access to state resources
Seen from theoretical point of view Democracy character and development in Nigeria could not be isolated from a view that it is a product of global economic relations and the economic and social structure produced locally
From the 1950s through the 60s up to early 1970s capitalism in Europe, America and Japan, as also in other countries was more human, less competitive and state regulated.
Therefore, at level of politics it negotiated and renegotiated itself with various interests to create a balance for the benefits of all.
These were the days when social democracy became the order of the day and when welfare states existed every where providing all sorts of services free while capitalists making their own profits unhindered.
Although in Nigeria, this golden age of democratic capitalism was mainly under military rule.
Yet majority of the people of Nigeria had more economic benefit; interest groups had wider spaces to negotiate their demands with government to get something.
In a nutshell, in those days Nigerian citizens were working together to achieve a common goal.
Why is it that Democracy of today is not like of those years
It is not like of those years because the structure of capitalism – globally – has changed.
There is the present technological revolution which started during the 1970s
Consequently the structure of capitalism began to change as a result of rapid boom and buble in finance, investment, and business which raised competition
Because of high competition, by mid-1970s capitalism had began to deregulate in Europe and America.
When Reagan and Thatcher came in USA and UK respectively, they met the system deregulating itself, therefore they followed and pushed it not only in USA and UK, but also across the globe.
So, the idea of neo-liberal globalisation spread everywhere – including to Nigeria
One policy arm is to deregulate the economy by creating a market-based economic system
The second is to democratise by forming political parties and hold elections
However, there are fundamentals of the market-based economic system which undermined the practice of democracy as I have defined it.
The economy shows a process of fragmentation and disintegration of solidarity; support networks; and popular mobilization
It is a system which imposed itself through privatization of collective wealth and public properties – destroying the spirit of the people to see anything good with democracy
Reducing and deforming the state to play any role of commonwealth, in order to impose a market ideology that each is to him/her self.
Most fundamentally the implementation of the market system led to limitations on people’s political participation
Democracy has become a ritual of casting votes every 4 years.
Tiny political elites are seen doing what they want to with our resources
Neo-liberalism does not like opposition. It creates a process of social exclusion of social movements that will context it and seek to democratize it.
Most countries in Africa, including Nigeria have followed this wind of change – implementing market system and the accompanying neo-liberal democracy system
But there s a common consensus everywhere now that this democracy has failed
How is this failure seen in Nigeria and why?
First of all, let us see this problem through meaning I give to nation of development.
A useful conception of development in this context is that since mankind began to cooperate for economic and political purposes, they work for collective progress of the society which will bring benefits, though differently to individuals without disturbing the livelihood and space for people to continue to work.
This is both in economic, social, cultural and political development
But is this New Democracy encouraging this?
There is no doubt that the “New Economy” and the “New Democracy” have produced “New Midas in Nigeria – richer people and perhaps more prosperity for some other people.
But this new riches had made the gap between the rich and poor wider
This wealth has increased inequalities in the society
The increasing inequality is vindicated by a report by one consultant that less than 200 families control the economy and politics of Nigeria.
Furthermore as the scale of market economy widens the FGN has withdrawn a range of public services including health and education needed by the citizens to develop themselves
There are numerous other problems of the New Economy:
Hundreds of industries have collapsed and left us with mass of jobless youth on the streets whose concept of democracy is not to fight for common goals but only to get money to eat food and intoxicants
At any community level whether of work or settlement including family relations, market dominate individual desires instead of common goals
Consequently, the logic of collective action for collective interest has changed – democracy being swept away
But from political calculation there is no doubt that this democracy:
Has reduced tensions over long period of military rule:
Has particularly released the middle-class i.e. the modern middle class from political closure by the military so that now we can come out to speak and even participate in the politics
At least there is a feeling among the people that there is democracy and rule of law, even if the democratic practices are structured in an economy whose politics is to disempower the people
There is also increasing campaign for Human Rights.
On the other hand:
The parties are merely cartel organizations
As such the parties that produced candidates are not democratic and these parties as I know them cannot produce anybody who could be a democrat.
Or could they?
There are many flaws in the electoral system which are deliberately enshrined in the law in order not allow free and fair electoral competition etc.
Market created discontent; insecurity; threatens many rights of people; etc
Are these not limits to democracy
By way of conclusion I will not hesitate to repeat my earlier assertion that neo-liberal democracy in Nigeria as in many other countries, is a failure.
This is not speaking from radical position. One of the most prolific writers about the failure of neo-liberal democracy was a minister of labour in a government of USA.
Hundreds of years ago a variety of liberal theory showed that capitalism would become a corporate business and democracy would become a few corporate affairs.
That is the case in USA, Europe; Japan and the rest of them as well as all the New Democracies of the developing countries.
Subsequently, there is already a debate now raging among intellectuals about social management of neo-liberalism.
Both at economic and political levels:
Obama’s government policies show that the old neo-liberal formulas are being discredited indicating there will be a break with market fundamentalist policies that have governed since 1980s.
At political level he is also building capitalist consensus for social democratic alternative to market fundamentalism which may probably return the old values of democracy
Furthermore, global economic and political elites are converging on global social democracy as a solution to the current economic and political crisis facilitated by neo-liberalism.
Again, western and USA elites have realized a shifting balance of power towards the south so is pushing for global social democracy – a kind of partnership to safeguard their interests.
However, the question is how decisive and definitive will there be a break with neo-liberalism globally and in our domestic politics.
Would it not be merely to stablise market capitalism, giving it human face after which to give back to corporate elites?
Or are we going to see a second round of Keynesian capitalism and its way of political management of human society?
Those are among the options but in my opinion the neo-liberal structures and mechanisms are the problems and therefore which ever option is to distance ourselves from it.
We can do this by reversing the fundamental policy measures of neo-liberalism and
To consolidate a network of social movements that could defend these changes.
The question one may ask after these theoretical controversies is what would Nigeria learn from these.
I think there is no simple answer neither a short-cut to a solution.
The only thing to do is to continue talking and debating about this problem
Thank you.
A Lecture delivered by M. M. Yusif,
Department of Political Science, Bayero University, Kano
In a Symposium on Ten Years of Democracy in Nigeria organized by Association of Nigerian Authors at Murtala Muhammad Library, Kano on 18/07/09
Friday 30 October 2009
Globalisation and Job Security: Theoretical and Political Notes on Nigeria
Globalisation and Job Security: Theoretical and Political Notes on Nigeria
Introduction
The topic on the programme is Globalization and Job Security. This gathering of Labour Leaders (of Nigeria Labour Congress Kano State Council) of the Second most significant Union – after COSATU – in Africa is like a political search light meeting on what should be on Trade Union Politics in Nigeria
Therefore the topic is conceived from broader theoretical and political as well as historical perspectives in order to raise important questions which may hopefully continue to be discussed in the labour circle with a view to re-orient trade union struggle in face of neo-liberal globalization.
The Issues
In practice, a process of globalization is being for centuries, but a fundamental question is that which globalization is the current globalization?
Before we come to the answer of this question it is important to note that the immediate past of the present Nigeria, precisely the 1970s, witnessed the globalization of the development of underdeveloped countries. When Multinational Corporations transferred production of goods and services to relatively cheap labour areas i.e. the developing countries including Nigeria.
That globalization was characterised by capitalist industrialization and large-scale farming.
A remarkable change which marked this era was seen by structural transformation of the economy financed by an influx of foreign capital, accelerated expansion of industry and banking, expansion of indigenous capitalism pushed by Enterprises Promotion Decree
The result is the growth and expansion of modern wage system and hence a formation of industrial working-class imbibed with radical ideas to defend the economic and political interests of workers and other oppressed groups of the society.
This brings us to the crucial stage/phase of the history of formations of Trade Union organizations i.e. the phase of rapid growth and expansion.
The records of the working class politics and the successes have revealed relatively better monetary benefits by Nigerian workers and political commitment of the leadership of the Unions to sustain the gains.
The state regulatory regime of labour relations – of a corporatist style – imposed on the Trade Unions, although promoted ideological divisions did not carry away the leadership from the course of workers interests. Only ideological differences on how to achieve the objective set to attain.
The current globalization has reversed the gains of the past – the industries have collapsed; agriculture has largely returned to olden days farm method; the growth of pure industrial workers is restructured, trade unions have lost much of their influences on their members; wages have declined drastically; etc.
Yes! This globalization is distinct from all previous forms of globalization because it is neo-liberal globalization.
Let me share with you not necessarily deep thinking, about the concept of globalization and of neo-liberalism.
Globalization is an enormously controversial concept. Such that talking about meaning of globalization of today would carry our search light through many theoretical perspectives. Generally, it is an economic change but one common notion often referred to in any public gathering is that it is a unified global economic, political, cultural and technological processes in which national states have become virtually dissolved and national authority has lost its meaning.
According to this view:
The world has become a global village;
With a single economic system
That a global ruling-class with global governance institutions operating as global government is already in place
That globalization has made it that something different from capitalism is emerging in which social classes, imperialism and ideology came to an end.
That market and democracy have produced peace and harmony such that institutions of management of conflict of the old order like trade unions are not useful and therefore would disappear. That is globalization. What of Neo-liberalism? I do not want get into the details about the concept of neo-liberalism. In this context it implies market system. The idea is that the market can solve every problem in the best possible way so just leave the economy and the politics to market.
According to this view:
Industrial relations and wages are to be deregulated
Trade is to be liberalized
State is to be little
Everything should be privatized
The current globalisation is neo-liberal globalisation because it is founded on market principles
The reality of the place of labour under this globalisation is that Nigerian workers are confronted by new economic structure created by market economics.
The processes of this system in Nigeria is market by:
First, by wage freeze and now by intended deregulation of industrial relations – through the 2005 labour law
Liberalization of trade which subsequently destroy industry sector
An emphasis on economic competitiveness as the motor of restructuring the economy and
An extended role for international regulatory organizations such as IMF; WB; WTO; etc.
Subsequently a new production regime is emerging:
Most manufacturing industries have collapsed
Those who have survived have done away their old technology and adopt the new ones that do not require much labour force
Because of international competition and more exposure of the economy to global there is less emphasis of manufacturing of mass of consumer goods
The result is that the most prosperous business today is not in traditional manufacturing but in services e.g. communication; banking and other financial business; estate development; and to a smaller extent entertainment industry.
Furthermore, other measures are taken to deregulate labour market and labour relations:
Employment policies are abandoned allowing mass unemployment seen everywhere in major streets of major cities.
Employment protection and privileges are weakened to encourage employment flexibility (casual workers, contract workers; part-time workers; temporary workers).
Thus, labour recruitment outfits have come up to supply workers for private and even public economy
Again, market dictatorship pressures extended in the form of privatization, cuts n government subsidies, retrenchment, etc. has made even those who are employed feel insecure.
I hope by now it has become clearer that as Nigeria’s economy becomes more globalised and marketised, labour becomes threatened by deregulation arising from the adoption of neo-liberal policies.
What is interesting not forget, especially by labour leaders is that these changes are bound to change the composition, structure and politics of the working class.
If organized labour and the leadership is unable to develop and sustain coherent alternative strategies, the neo-liberal globalisation is likely to lead to the decline in the economic and political influence of labour
A simple observation may show evidence of this decline already noticeable in Nigeria:
Union membership has fallen
There are many non-unionised workers in the private sector
What of skilled workers in the modern technology industry that are not part of the unions
The work place influence of local union representatives has systematically waned.
There are more difficulties encountered in encouraging members to participate in union activities.
One perspective in the debate on the options before Trade Unions and their leaders is that only by working towards and committed to competitive advantage offered by market system can organized labour improve working and other conditions of workers.
On the other hand, others argue that such involvement will lead to a deterioration in working conditions and of the union leadership. I think this option is untactical and is belied by reality. It is immature promotion of Keynesianism in a monetarist economy which is inappropriate.
I am not sure if the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has a strategic definition of its relationship with the market system
Its opposition of the market system is not within a framework of a strategic objective to be attained.
So, also the silence on some other policies in the package
I think this is what partly surrounds the ineffectiveness in the formulation and implementation of 2005 Labour Law.
The intention of the 2005 Labour Act was to decentralize labour relations with state and society which could perhaps facilitate for the labour organization to defend the interest of workers against market using market mechanism
Yet, there is a mixed feeling from all the parties to give the law a chance. The market is refused to be recognized to allow it to grow and thrive especially in industrial relations.
Yes! Inspite of policy statements, the Federal Government of Nigeria has refused to allow market to govern, for example, in wages fixing. While the Labour Movement has failed to build the power to control market wages fixing in favour of the working-class.
However, if this would have materialized unions would still have become, trapped into representing capitals interests to their members rather than positioning themselves against the logic of globalisation. But still would strategically engage market to prepare for a future fight.
Additional focus is essential. Not of a socialist revolution but of a kind of a new working-class politics which would build the capacity of unions and their leadership to control market fundamentalism in work places and in the larger society.
The method of promoting this line includes:
Promoting independent Unionism where state wants interfere into union affairs
Unions are to be encouraged to link their demands to those of other unions across the globe.
Leadership and membership come to understand working –class issues in other countries
Return the local union influences in National Union Affairs
Without going back to methods of past struggle these would introduce a new class politics that will challenge neo-liberal globalisation.
Thank you.
I wish you successful retreat
A Lecture delivered by M. M. Yusif,
Department of Political Science, Bayero University, Kano
On the occasion of retreat by NLC – Kano State Council at Fadama Hotel Katsina, Katsina State on 26/07/09
Introduction
The topic on the programme is Globalization and Job Security. This gathering of Labour Leaders (of Nigeria Labour Congress Kano State Council) of the Second most significant Union – after COSATU – in Africa is like a political search light meeting on what should be on Trade Union Politics in Nigeria
Therefore the topic is conceived from broader theoretical and political as well as historical perspectives in order to raise important questions which may hopefully continue to be discussed in the labour circle with a view to re-orient trade union struggle in face of neo-liberal globalization.
The Issues
In practice, a process of globalization is being for centuries, but a fundamental question is that which globalization is the current globalization?
Before we come to the answer of this question it is important to note that the immediate past of the present Nigeria, precisely the 1970s, witnessed the globalization of the development of underdeveloped countries. When Multinational Corporations transferred production of goods and services to relatively cheap labour areas i.e. the developing countries including Nigeria.
That globalization was characterised by capitalist industrialization and large-scale farming.
A remarkable change which marked this era was seen by structural transformation of the economy financed by an influx of foreign capital, accelerated expansion of industry and banking, expansion of indigenous capitalism pushed by Enterprises Promotion Decree
The result is the growth and expansion of modern wage system and hence a formation of industrial working-class imbibed with radical ideas to defend the economic and political interests of workers and other oppressed groups of the society.
This brings us to the crucial stage/phase of the history of formations of Trade Union organizations i.e. the phase of rapid growth and expansion.
The records of the working class politics and the successes have revealed relatively better monetary benefits by Nigerian workers and political commitment of the leadership of the Unions to sustain the gains.
The state regulatory regime of labour relations – of a corporatist style – imposed on the Trade Unions, although promoted ideological divisions did not carry away the leadership from the course of workers interests. Only ideological differences on how to achieve the objective set to attain.
The current globalization has reversed the gains of the past – the industries have collapsed; agriculture has largely returned to olden days farm method; the growth of pure industrial workers is restructured, trade unions have lost much of their influences on their members; wages have declined drastically; etc.
Yes! This globalization is distinct from all previous forms of globalization because it is neo-liberal globalization.
Let me share with you not necessarily deep thinking, about the concept of globalization and of neo-liberalism.
Globalization is an enormously controversial concept. Such that talking about meaning of globalization of today would carry our search light through many theoretical perspectives. Generally, it is an economic change but one common notion often referred to in any public gathering is that it is a unified global economic, political, cultural and technological processes in which national states have become virtually dissolved and national authority has lost its meaning.
According to this view:
The world has become a global village;
With a single economic system
That a global ruling-class with global governance institutions operating as global government is already in place
That globalization has made it that something different from capitalism is emerging in which social classes, imperialism and ideology came to an end.
That market and democracy have produced peace and harmony such that institutions of management of conflict of the old order like trade unions are not useful and therefore would disappear. That is globalization. What of Neo-liberalism? I do not want get into the details about the concept of neo-liberalism. In this context it implies market system. The idea is that the market can solve every problem in the best possible way so just leave the economy and the politics to market.
According to this view:
Industrial relations and wages are to be deregulated
Trade is to be liberalized
State is to be little
Everything should be privatized
The current globalisation is neo-liberal globalisation because it is founded on market principles
The reality of the place of labour under this globalisation is that Nigerian workers are confronted by new economic structure created by market economics.
The processes of this system in Nigeria is market by:
First, by wage freeze and now by intended deregulation of industrial relations – through the 2005 labour law
Liberalization of trade which subsequently destroy industry sector
An emphasis on economic competitiveness as the motor of restructuring the economy and
An extended role for international regulatory organizations such as IMF; WB; WTO; etc.
Subsequently a new production regime is emerging:
Most manufacturing industries have collapsed
Those who have survived have done away their old technology and adopt the new ones that do not require much labour force
Because of international competition and more exposure of the economy to global there is less emphasis of manufacturing of mass of consumer goods
The result is that the most prosperous business today is not in traditional manufacturing but in services e.g. communication; banking and other financial business; estate development; and to a smaller extent entertainment industry.
Furthermore, other measures are taken to deregulate labour market and labour relations:
Employment policies are abandoned allowing mass unemployment seen everywhere in major streets of major cities.
Employment protection and privileges are weakened to encourage employment flexibility (casual workers, contract workers; part-time workers; temporary workers).
Thus, labour recruitment outfits have come up to supply workers for private and even public economy
Again, market dictatorship pressures extended in the form of privatization, cuts n government subsidies, retrenchment, etc. has made even those who are employed feel insecure.
I hope by now it has become clearer that as Nigeria’s economy becomes more globalised and marketised, labour becomes threatened by deregulation arising from the adoption of neo-liberal policies.
What is interesting not forget, especially by labour leaders is that these changes are bound to change the composition, structure and politics of the working class.
If organized labour and the leadership is unable to develop and sustain coherent alternative strategies, the neo-liberal globalisation is likely to lead to the decline in the economic and political influence of labour
A simple observation may show evidence of this decline already noticeable in Nigeria:
Union membership has fallen
There are many non-unionised workers in the private sector
What of skilled workers in the modern technology industry that are not part of the unions
The work place influence of local union representatives has systematically waned.
There are more difficulties encountered in encouraging members to participate in union activities.
One perspective in the debate on the options before Trade Unions and their leaders is that only by working towards and committed to competitive advantage offered by market system can organized labour improve working and other conditions of workers.
On the other hand, others argue that such involvement will lead to a deterioration in working conditions and of the union leadership. I think this option is untactical and is belied by reality. It is immature promotion of Keynesianism in a monetarist economy which is inappropriate.
I am not sure if the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has a strategic definition of its relationship with the market system
Its opposition of the market system is not within a framework of a strategic objective to be attained.
So, also the silence on some other policies in the package
I think this is what partly surrounds the ineffectiveness in the formulation and implementation of 2005 Labour Law.
The intention of the 2005 Labour Act was to decentralize labour relations with state and society which could perhaps facilitate for the labour organization to defend the interest of workers against market using market mechanism
Yet, there is a mixed feeling from all the parties to give the law a chance. The market is refused to be recognized to allow it to grow and thrive especially in industrial relations.
Yes! Inspite of policy statements, the Federal Government of Nigeria has refused to allow market to govern, for example, in wages fixing. While the Labour Movement has failed to build the power to control market wages fixing in favour of the working-class.
However, if this would have materialized unions would still have become, trapped into representing capitals interests to their members rather than positioning themselves against the logic of globalisation. But still would strategically engage market to prepare for a future fight.
Additional focus is essential. Not of a socialist revolution but of a kind of a new working-class politics which would build the capacity of unions and their leadership to control market fundamentalism in work places and in the larger society.
The method of promoting this line includes:
Promoting independent Unionism where state wants interfere into union affairs
Unions are to be encouraged to link their demands to those of other unions across the globe.
Leadership and membership come to understand working –class issues in other countries
Return the local union influences in National Union Affairs
Without going back to methods of past struggle these would introduce a new class politics that will challenge neo-liberal globalisation.
Thank you.
I wish you successful retreat
A Lecture delivered by M. M. Yusif,
Department of Political Science, Bayero University, Kano
On the occasion of retreat by NLC – Kano State Council at Fadama Hotel Katsina, Katsina State on 26/07/09
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
