INTRODUCTION
In the last fifty years of Nigerian development as a nation, the last eighteen year of democratic dispensation (what is chronologically referred to in the political development of Nigeria as the fourth democratic dispensation) have been both lucrative (economy and revenue generation) and most tumultuous in terms of politics, political development, the outcomes to that effects often violence: ethnic, religious and political. The Nigerians that often bear the brunt are ordinary citizens who are already overwhelmed by poor economic situations such as poverty and dearth of socio-economic infrastructures such as schools, road, water, hospitals, recreational facilities etc. Despite the constant government rhetoric in their policies for sustainable development, it has continued to shows ineptitude, poor political will, corruption and mismanagement. The development in Nigeria becomes more gripping in establishing the democratic ideals of sustainable development.
In 1987, the world recognized the need for the redirection of the pattern and outcomes of the global developmental drives, specifically towards more sustainable ventures in the approach and later the concept referred to as sustainable development. However, in an effort to link the issues of economic development and environmental stability, the words such as „Reform‟, „Do or die‟, „Transformation‟, and of recent „Change‟ etc. have been variously introduced into politics, governance and government of Nigeria in the last sixteen years. Our concern is that what impacts have these concepts translated in Nigeria development? What are the indicators to those effects? Are such sustainable in the context of sustainable development or such concept a mere political rhetoric? These questions are the guide to this paper which is divided into six parts including this introduction.
Nigeria is a populous country of an estimated 172 million people with 350 ethnic groups which speak three major languages with several sub-languages. The three common languages are: Hausa, Yoruba, and Ibo. Its territory is geographically extensive and settlement is dispersed. Politically, these features are recognized in a federal system of the country. Despite this diversity, it is possible to make a broad generalisation about the progress and performance of democratisation as the means of assessing the democratic process of the Fourth Republic. The process of democratisation and political development will address the issues about Nigeria’s democratic project. First, the trend in political development which informs mobilization of the diversity of a plural society which rooted from the colonial rule, Nigeria as a case study in Africa was colonized by the British through the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorate of 1914. This historical antecedent had established the socio-political and economic relations more complex in the federation of the country. Secondly, democratisation transcends to a self-government rule after the political independence of 1960 which sets the new structures for governance. This political framework was applicable to the West Minister Model in a parliamentary system of government. Such that the statutory functions of the Head of State were distinctively separated from the Head of Government (then).
The root cause of this development was linked to the setting up of the first electoral commission. By the virtue of the Nigerian Electoral Provision Council of 1958, the Electoral Commission of Nigeria was established to preparing ground for the 1959 parliamentarian elections under the West Minister Model. This first electoral commission had a chairman and five other members in the federation of the country. Ogbogbo (2009: 48), the electoral commission was organised by the task of the public civil servants to administer it for the conduct of free and fair elections, registration of the political party, delimitation of electoral constituencies, and announcement of the electoral results. The major political parties which contested for the parliamentary and regional elections were: (NPC) Hausas in the Northern Region, (AG)Yorubas in the Western Region, and (NCNC) Ibos in the Eastern Region. Before the general elections, the federal constitution of Nigeria implemented a policy on the proportional representation which specified seats according to the size of each region. Awe (1960: 103-108) reported the constitutional arrangement adopted in the political affairs of the First Republic which recommended fifty percent of seats to the North, while the other fifty percent of seats will be shared between the West and the East, however, placing the North at political advantage. As a result of this political permutation, the Northern People Congress (NPC) led the parliamentarian government cum Tafawa Balewa as the Prime Minister. In this practice, Action Group (AG) from the West, and National Congress for Nigeria and Cameroun (NCNC) from the East formed the broad-based opposition. Subsequently, the outcome of 1959 federation elections was greeted with intra-party and inter-party conflicts in the country. More so, the Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, who was the Head of Government as well as the party leader from the Northern Region had maintained the political popularity throughout the era of the First Republic because of the majority in the parliamentarians.
Development
Development according to Walter Rodney (1972) is a multifaceted phenomenon. It could imply progress, transformation, change and ability to innovate or use new skills or ideas. Development involves freedom, independence, improved literacy, good leadership, viable economy and market, access and ability to use resources and tools, ability to control disease and stay healthy, use of iron and steel etc. (Rodney, 1976). Many years after Rodney‟s assertions on development in the evergreen piece How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, developing countries in African and Nigeria in particular are still engulfed with the negative challenges of developing, and hence termed underdeveloped nation.
DISCUSS THE IMPACT OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA FROM 1999 TO 2017.
The concept of democracy
The truth is that democracy is increasingly becoming a disoriented political philosophy. Hence in global perspectives, democracy is currently in decline (Willige, 2017). Strong men in emerging democracies, populists and demagogues (in the other cases) have succeeded in unleashing such governance attacks on this system of government, so much that its natural movement has become with the reverse gear. Consequently, it is becoming increasingly difficult to define democracy.
But a particularly valid name for democracy is a people-centered system of government. This centrality is however often misconceived again by misguided politicians (mainly in emerging democracies) as being election-supremacy. Once the elections are over, the strong-men politicians would begin to greedily personify democracy and chose to dictate what happens in the polity and in their shenanigans, succeed in dominating the political space in the name of democracy. However, a democratic system of government ideally ensures that the government in power is accountable to the people and that such a regime and its personnel obey the laws of the land (Egharevba & Chiazor, 2013, 18).
As a matter of fact, accountability is a central tenet of democracy. And it is equally important that democracy guarantees the well-being of the people who subscribe to its practice(s) in their nation-state. Where a despotic and unaccountable regime engenders development and the democratic equivalent of such government becomes the harbinger of developmental retardation, then democracy is on trial in such a
Politics
The concept of politics has a fairly understanding and implications as it affects this presentation. In several dispositions in this regards whether as the fabulous Lasswell saying that it refers to “who gets what, when and how”, the Estonian “authoritative allocation of values for a society” and in Max Weber assertion that “politics is the operation of state and its institutions” (quoted in Anifowose and Enemuo,1999), politics as played in Nigeria over the years and more critical in the last decade, could not be better defined or illustrated. However, we could for the purpose of this discuss define politic cited in (Anifowose and Enemuo,1999) as a process by which men debate matters concerning the „polis‟ the political community and take action in an attempt to realize the public interest or the common good.
What is development?
The definition of development is indeed, both dicey and incidentally, highly democratized. Hence, all scholars and lay writers alike would have some seemingly valid trajectories to the conceptualization of development. In the process however, we end up dealing with relativities, subjectivities and what must sometimes become describable as outright implausibility. A certain contributor might for instance, conceive development in measures of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), another may base the assessment on the institutionalization of moral and ethical issues in a community, yet another, on the quantum of epicurean opportunities in a given socio-economic setting. In these schemata therefore, development comes with a multiplicity of variations – national, personal, social, political, economic, and psychological, and so on.
In any case, does the absence of development amount to underdevelopment? Scholars of variant persuasions have continued to engage in the occasioning debates. Hence in the apparent polemics that ensues, it is often argued that underdevelopment is not the absence of development because every people have developed in one way or another and to a greater or lesser extent (Rodney, 1972, 22; Ashaver, 2013, 35). Inversely denoted therefore, the absence of development should not constitute underdevelopment. Jackson and Madaki (2014, 11) however squarely posit that the opposite of development is underdevelopment. The truth although is that as human beings (the stability of our mental states being guaranteed) we do not require dressing mirrors to see the bracelets worn around our own wrists. When we see development we know. When underdevelopment is the reality on ground we also recognize it. And above everything else, it is theoretically and empirically settled that development is about people. It begins with people and ends with them.
But according to the United Nations (1986) development is a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom. Accordingly, the human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development (United Nations, 1986). Thus, the objective of development is to produce sustained improvements in human well-being (Pritchett & Kenny, 2013, 1). Furthermore, Pritchett and Kenny have identified what they perceive as two fundamentally distinct uses of the word, development. One use of the word, they argue, takes the fundamental unit as a human being and defines development as a better quality of life. The other common use of development to these scholars, takes the features of the society - usually but not necessarily a nation-state, as the fundamental unit and the individual in this case is a participant in this broader whole.
It is the stand of this study however, that the above dichotomy is only useful for analytical purposes. Development is squarely about the individual citizen, his concerns and conditions. Ajaebili (2013, vi) further argues that development involves improvement in the totality of the individual in his/her economic, political, psychological, social and cultural relations, among others. The ultimate purpose of development therefore, is sustainable positive change in the quality of life of citizens who inhabit a certain social space, usually a nation state. The focus of this study is accordingly on national development, which possesses social, political and economic trajectories.
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
In view of these aforementioned literatures, Nigeria as a nation succinctly established the principal election in 1959 which put the country on the track of a democratic regime. This achievement was opened to process of managing the political affairs of the country that is geographically dispersed. Thus, the colonial structure was established by the leadership of Lord Lugard in 1914. This process had set forth for the emergence of the colonial constitution for the management of Nigeria regionally. The political development (then) had informed other constitutionals arrangements in the country. One of these was the General Lyttleton constitution, which march the country to the political independence in 1960.
Ogbogbo (2009: 48) reported that Governor General Lyttleton established a federal constitution which introduced some changes in the country’s electoral laws. It was therefore felt that there was a need to set up an electoral body for the purpose instead of the previous ad hoc arrangements. By virtue of Nigerian (Electoral Provision) Order-in- Council of 1958, the electoral commission of Nigeria was established. Subsequently, the commission released the guidelines for the subsequent elections. It is instructive to note that this marked the beginning of the management of electoral matters in Nigeria. This commission conducted the general elections of 1959 and 1964. These elections were marred by electoral violence and allegation of rigging. The failure of these elections provoked the military to intervene in the politics of Nigeria in 1966.
There was no moral justification for the military past interventions in Nigerian politics which started from the April coup de’ tat of 1966, it manifested as the agent of political development. Ihonubere (1996: 194-196) stated that military coups in Nigeria was an aberration in the process of competing for power of the state. The rationale behind the unconstitutional approach was by political, social and economic unrest in the country. Whereas, the involvement of the military in the Nigerian Politics has opened the country to underdevelopment in the socio-economic live. To justify this position was the civil war which claimed lives and property between 1967 and 1970was an example in the history of Nigeria. In another view, Military regimes are not recognised for the prospects and political development by the international community and national intellectuals. Consequently, military is considered as an agent of political development when it co-exists with a democratic rule. Dunmoye (2008: 177-178) aptly noted the essential functions of the military existence as agent of democratisation in relation to social interaction with other arms of government for the survival of the state in this post-modern period. Not only the performance and legitimacy of the military considered when, acting as an arm of the state and an important institution of society, which is central to the democratic state.
The emergence of the Fourth Republic in 1999 with the founding elections which installed democratic systems in the federation of Nigeria was a hallmark in progress and performance as it brings the government closer to the people for hope and confidence in the institutions that were established. This political achievement was distinctive from the First and Second Republics of (1960-1966) and (1979-1983) which lived for short periods.
Politics in Nigeria is still largely an elite game, along the lines presented above: rich, male, and old. This closed system is propagated by what Nigerians refer to as the “sit tight” or incumbency syndrome, in which elected officers refuse to relinquish their seats in government despite their poor performance, and utilize any means to stay in office. Not only does this result in an inadequate circulation of elites, but it also perpetuate systematic discrimination against three primary groups: Women, the poor, and non-indigenes.
Another key barrier to integration in Nigeria’s democracy is the widespread discrimination against citizens known as no indigenes, no matter how strong their ties to the communities in which they live. All Nigerians are officially classified into two types of citizens: those who can trace their ethnic and genealogical roots back to the people who are said to have originally settled there (indigenes), and those whose ancestors came from elsewhere. There is no way for a non-indigene to become an indigene, no matter how strong or long-lasting the ties to the communities in which they are resident. As a matter of policy, many states refuse to employ non-indigenes in the civil service and exclude them from academic scholarships. The rights that are systematically denied to non-indigenes run directly counter to the constitution’s guarantee of freedom against, discrimination, and remain a source of considerable resentment questions about national integration among many Nigerians, especially as demographic changes in the country continue to take place, such as internal migration.
The democracy-political culture nexus in the Nigerian nation
Culture has the power to transform entire societies, foster inclusiveness, while also forging a sense of identity and belongingness for people of all ages (Nwankwo, Okechi, Nweke & Onyishi, 2015). This definitional hue does not of course exclude political culture. Culture is accordingly not a concourse of antique assemblages. It is a depiction of the specializations of a people (Okeke, 2015, 130). Culture may therefore be an omnibus terminology which can mean a variety of things, depending on the context in which it is used. But many people would however appreciate it as the configuration of people ‘s learned behavior that is transmitted from one generation to another (Mkpa, 2001; Okeke, 2015, 128). What then are the specializations that the Nigerian political culture of hooliganism and electoral brigandage brought to the democracy-political culture nexus in the country? What learned behaviour has democracy introduced to the paradigms of development in Nigeria? The Nigerian national budget has certainly not ceased to be the governance ritual that it became under the military dispensations. Culture (inclusive of its political variant) can be learned, borrowed or transferred from one group to another (Mkpa, 2001, 113). What has the Nigerian political culture learned, borrowed or transferred to other peoples and the county’s citizens?
What is the opposition’s attitude to the government / the party in power and how do the men in power see the opposition? It would be wrong to conclude that a political culture of national consensuses (cast on stone) is a requisite condition for the flourishing of democracy and development in any polity. But national attitudes are of essence. Democracy does not depend on agreement on fundamentals (Weils. 1994, 104). It is on the other hand a process of continuing alternatives. The opposition’s attitude in canvassing the alternatives is as critical as how the government in power perceives the opposition. In the Nigerian political culture, it is common knowledge that with political office come the spoils where the practice of using public office for private gain is seen as normal, despite the existence of anti-corruption agencies or institutions (Egharevba & Chiazor, 2013, 18). Between the regime in power and the opposition therefore, it has been the same decadent political culture of greed.
To what extent therefore is it plausible to talk about the Nigerian political culture in its generic terms? It is the position of this study that such a characterization is immensely plausible. Hence, in its summative trajectories, the Nigerian political culture is describable as a self-denigrating type, bordering on corporate damage and national euthanasia. In contradistinction, the British political culture is conservative and preservative. Culture is unarguably dynamic (political culture inclusive). Consequently, the American political culture might have (in its dynamism) bordered on self-extension in the past and currently tending toward self-preservation. Let us however return to the corporate destructive thesis of this study as the defining feature of the Nigerian broad political culture. In this regard, we posit that the overall Nigerian template of political culture still possesses the following as subcultures: political corruption, electoral malfeasance, electioneering hooliganisms, ethnic bigotry and elite coldness (that is as pathological as it is wide-ranging).
CONCLUSION
Nigeria’s political development is indeed leading the country to some undesirable destinations. Hence, the disarticulations and weak linkages among political culture, democracy and development in Nigeria is a function of fundamental disunity among the disparate peoples that currently answer Nigerians. The hooliganisms that usually characterize national elections in the country accordingly detract from democracy and subsequently lead to the emergence of the so-called leaders who lack the legitimacy for leading the nation to developmental destinations. Elections and democracy are certainly not synonymous. But a popular, purposeful and valid electoral process revalidates the citizens’ electoral choices. Such an election gives legitimacy to office holders, their offices and the actions deriving from such positions. But Nigeria’s political culture and her elections have in historical contexts essentially produced only leaders with immense questionable credentials.
From the foregoing development in Nigeria, the uninterrupted 17 years of democracy embellished in political and governmental slogans more rich in their connotations than in how they impact on the life of the citizens. In this respect cut-throat-politics, politics base on appeals to ethnic and cultural sentiments, heightened by monumental, corruption and mismanagement. What the majority of the citizens especially the masses earned in this year remains poverty, rising unemployment, violence crisis, death and destructions. Hence, sustainable development in the context of the nation seems a mirage.
WRITTEN BY BENSONTBOY(25)
