In contemporary times, democracy is about the only game in town. Despite its flawed character, it is still a desired baby. After a testy and rather bruising experience with military rule, all are now agreed that it is better to play by the rules of democracy. Therefore, I was not very surprised when I received an invitation to discuss the issues which relate to the deepening and sustenance of Nigeria’s democracy at an unusual place like the Lagos State Polytechnic in Ikorodu. Such is the relevance of the issue that I have decided to share aspects of the discourse with a wider audience on these pages.
The paper itself speaks to these times. This is because we are still basking in the flush of a historical dynamic. For perhaps the first time in the history of our country, an incumbent government lost the elections at the centre. And to this extent, a new wave of optimism abounds in the land.
Indeed, the suspicion is that the theme of this lecture essentially speaks to this novel optimism in the land. But then, before we are carried away about the issues of participation and strengthening of democracy, I wish to pose the question: do we in fact have democracy? Even if the answer is in the positive, we may as well go on to pose another question: which type of democracy? As a response to the immediate foregoing, I want to shatter some illusions as regards democracy in Nigeria.
In doing this, I want to direct our attention to a book written by Ian Brook titled The One Eyed Man is King. In this particular book, we are treated to an unusual narrative of the democracy which the British bequeathed to us. As revealed by Brook, a departing colonial officer, the British did not want to give independence. But such were the devastating effects of the Second World War that a sapped Britain was in fact forced to grant democracy, and by extension independence, to the then fledgling and social formation called Nigeria. Therefore, at the socio-cultural level, it was something of a shock for Nigerians. And as vividly reported by Ian Brook, the nation’s moods, which varied between wonder and surprise, asked: was the white man going after all? Ian Brook and his colleagues had to assure then that the white man was indeed going.
The deeper implication of the foregoing was that by the time the colonialist was putting in place the so-called democratic structures, our people were far from being ready. As if to indicate that what is being said here is not fictional, it is apposite to reveal that there was indeed an unusual political party. The party was formed on the eve of colonial rule. Its sole purpose was to ensure the retention of colonial rule. As bizarre as this may sound, we only have to remember that the subsequent conduct, or better still misconduct, of our politicians has accorded a measure of relevance to this political party. If we may restate, the prescient nature of this political party can be seen in the fact that our politicians have been able to live up to the perverse expectations of this particular political party.
Even then, the political party was not alone in its scepticism as regards what awaited Nigeria in the post-colonial era. There was also a woman, Adunni Oluwole. Adunni Oluwole also shared the pessimism of that political party. She contended that Nigerians would be in for a hard time as soon as the colonialists left. As a way of demonstrating this, she went around the streets of Lagos in heavy clothing with a big stone tied around her neck. What could be the basis for this bizarre dressing? onlookers asked her. In response, she said that she was showing observers how the post-colonial masters would treat ordinary Nigerians from 1960 onwards. Thus, and despite the euphoria which attended our flag independence in 1960, there were doubts as regards what the new democracy portended for the country.
Even then, what is being said here was virtually corroborated by Wole Soyinka. The then young playwright was commissioned to write a play to commemorate Nigeria’s independence. The play which he wrote, A Dance of the Forests, was laden with pessimism and foreboding as regards what the future held for Nigeria.
Even the political structure was not conducive for the democratic essence and ideal. The structure of what passed for the Nigerian federation was such that this structure was in itself the antithesis of the embodiment of democracy. For one, there was the large and seemingly monolithic North whose population and consequent allocation of parliamentary seats had the capacity to dictate terms to the other regions.
But then, please note my words carefully here; I did say “the seemingly monolithic North”. This is because within this North were pockets of minorities who were yearning for autonomy. Incidentally, what is being said here was by no means specific to the North. As we will go on to see in the next instalment, the other regions also had within them their own pockets of minorities. Part of the puzzle is: how do you fashion a democratic essence out of this mosaic?
Kayode Soremekun
