By Emeka Alex Duru
There seems to be something that works against President Muhammadu Buhari each time he appears to be getting it right. In a manner of the mythical incubus the refuses to go, that unseen factor has a way of making him lose momentum when history beckons on him to have his name on gold. Incidentally, the President does not seem to give this a serious thought. Recall the #EndSars# protests last year which the government initially appeared to be recording some applauds on the civilised manner it was handling the protesters before it lost it by unleashing security agents on the youths. Nigeria is yet to recover from that misguided outing.
Now, take a look at June 12 that has come to be institutionalised as Democracy Day in the country. Since the annulment of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election and the subsequent death of the presumed winner, Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola, in captivity, Nigerians, regardless of political persuasions, had recognised that date as a watershed in the country’s history. It was an election that was adjudged free and fair in all accounts. It was particularly an exercise that saw Nigerians rising beyond the divisive factors of religion and ethnicity in the country’s politics in casting their votes. Abiola and his running mate, Babagana Kingibe, were Muslims, in a country of sensitive religious leanings. Their political platform, the Social Democratic Party (SDP), also won in many parts of the country, including Kano, the home state of Abiola’s rival, Bashir Tofa, the presidential candidate of the National Republican Convention (NRC).
Given the wobbly reasons adduced by the then military administration of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, for annulling the election, Nigerians had insisted that June 12 represented a day for new beginning for the country. Neither the beneficiary government of President Olusegun Obasanjo nor the succeeding administrations of Umaru Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan, had acceded to the demands by Nigerians for June 12 to be recognised as Democracy Day. They had all insisted on May 29, when they were sworn in. It was Buhari that yielded to the demand by the people. That was a significant feat.
The President has effectively explored the windows of the Day to advertise the achievements of his administration in the last six years. Trust politicians in the game of razzmatazz and propaganda. His image handlers have literally been shouting from the rooftops the giant strides of the President in areas of infrastructure rebirth, social reengineering and political inclusion.
Ordinarily, these are developments that should coalesce into a shining moment for Buhari but have been overshadowed by some untoward acts of the government through its parochial tendencies and the needless assault on the citizens’ basic freedom.
The President can thus, sing and dramatise how he inherited a broken system and has been able to fix it in many ways. He is entitled to the claims. But for whatever they may be intended, the claims border essentially on the tangible side of democracy. Known dictators in history like Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Muammar Ghadaffi and back home, Sani Abacha, had even done more in infrastructure uplift of their respective countries.
The President is yet to record outstanding credits on the intangible side of democracy. These are such issues as respect for rule of law, sanctity of the legislature, freedom of expression by the people, equity and justice, and fairness to all omponents of the federation. They are the real democracy dividends, aside building bridges, constructing highways and erecting skyscrapers. They are the measureable standards that differentiate democratic governments from autocratic regimes and military contraptions. These fine principles of democracy, are clearly lacking in the Buhari version. In place of fairness, he selects who to cuddle, especially his Fulani kinsmen, while treating other Nigerians as outsiders to the common patrimony. He employs rule of the thumb against robust engagement. Contrary opinion, to him, constitutes an affront.
Why the President chooses to go on these tracks that run against the democracy code, is an issue, perhaps known to him. And while he continues to be on those bizarre lanes, those fundamental ethos he tries to side-step or skirt around, keep haunting him and making mockery of his stay in office.
The government’s spat with the social media platform, Twitter, is for instance uncalled for. No matter the reasons by officials of the government to justify the ban on the micro blog, Nigeria will continue to lose in the row. To be sure, this is an encounter Buhari and his administration cannot win in substance and in the court of public opinion. Even if the curtains of the entanglement are lowered today, the president has done incalculable damage to the reputation of the country by that intemperate action.
That is one major move by the government that constitutes a direct assault on Nigerians in the area of freedom of information – a fundamental principle that no genuine democratic system toys with. More than 40 million Nigerians are estimated to be denied the right of communication and interaction by the illogical action. The pettiness demonstrated in the exercise, is enough to discourage investors. If the disclosure that Nigeria loses N1.2 billion or thereabout daily, on account of the Twitter shutdown is to go by, then, whatever reason the government offers for the face-off, flies in the face. For a fragile economy that is in dire need of foreign direct investment for retool, any action that tends to discourage investors, is tantamount to a shot in the foot. It also shows how power corrupts and makes one forget his past, easily.
If any President could travel this ugly path, it should not have been Buhari. Two things stand him and his administration out. His election in 2015 was the first time an opposition candidate would dislodge an incumbent president in Nigeria. His party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), also came to power on the crest of the social media platforms, including the Twitter. At all times, these are considerations that should guide the actions and activities of the President. It therefore amounts to biting one’s finger in the president turning against the same medium through which he gained power.
Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt, are right in their book, “How Democracies Die”, that “Democracies may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders – presidents of prime ministers who subvert the very process that brought them to power”. Buhari falls into this, squarely. While seeking power, he personified all the attributes of democracy – frequenting the courts to challenge his losses at the polls, embarking on street protests to register his anger, making extensive use of the media to let out his feelings. But on getting to Aso Rock, he developed cold disdain for the judiciary, began to loathe the press, snub the legislature and has perhaps, more than any other president, done everything to suppress open protest and expression of contrary opinions. These are not helpful to democracy.
So, while the President enthuses on institutionalising June 12 as Democracy Day, he needs to reflect on his understanding of the term, democracy and change his attitude at it. For now, his conducts and utterances can be anything but certainly do not represent democracy which Abraham Lincoln, defined as government of the people, by the people, for the people. Buhari’s version is unique and bizaare.
Duru is the Editor of TheNiche Newspapers, Lagos (08054103327, nwaukpala@yahoo.com)