The Shifting State of Nigeria’s Democratic Process

Out of four model countries within the continent including South Africa, Egypt and Kenya, Nigeria is falling short of expectations. For the third year in a row, Mo Ibrahim withheld his prize recognizing excellence in African democracy, dropping an exceptionally unfavorable rating on Nigeria. Nigeria placed 14 out of 16 countries in the West African sub-region, also ranking 43 out 52 countries when considered for the award. Particular low points were matters of human rights, transparency and accountability (Tribune).

President Goodluck Jonathan recently claimed that Nigeria “was the second most improved country in Africa fighting corruption.” Yet all signs point to Jonathan and his administration as a source of corruption. The 2010 Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer claimed that three quarters of Nigerians see heightened corruption, namely among the police and politicians (Aljazeera).

Jonathan’s position resides within ethnic tension. The Ijaw, from which Jonathan hails, are quick to rally around him when his administration is criticized, creating exclusive claims to his leadership despite a variety of ethnic groups voting him into office. Consistent disruptions of ethnic violence, such as a killing spree in July that saw more than 100 dead, occur with only superficial repercussions from the military and Jonathan’s government. As ghosts of the previous military administration that was ousted by free elections in 1999, the current military has a vital role to play in the new era of democracy.

Following a clouded history prior to the country’s present government, the Nigerian military now has a clean slate and a cleaner influence in civil matters. The concern is whether the military can effectively limit its influence to matters conducive to the democratic system, such as improved handling of ethnic violence, and keep a clear distance from a political mantel.

As part of Nigeria’s shift into democracy the military was stripped of its civil authority. Military officers who participated in the nations enslavement were retired and junior officers were granted new positions within the system as national watchdogs loyal to the civil authorities (allAfrica). The military has assumed a place of pride in strengthening the democratic process rather than deflecting it. Senator Ibikunle Amosun, the Ogun State Governor recently stated: “…the only way the military could play such noble roles like their counterparts in developed societies is by subjecting themselves to the dictate of the constitution which embodies the sovereignty of the nation as well as democratic institutions and democratically elected authorities” (allAfrica).

The state of Nigeria’s people exists within a conundrum of huge oil wealth and extreme poverty. “More than 80 percent of Nigerians live on less than $2 a day despite the fact that Nigeria pumps 2.2m barrels a day of top grade oil.” The top 10 percent of income earners in Nigeria accounted for 38 percent of the country’s wealth in 2010. These elites absorb the large majority of the country’s wealth while most of the government’s budget goes towards frivolous expenditures (Aljazeera).

There is hope for Nigeria if Jonathan will deflect perceptions of corruption by publishing his own assets, assuaging ethnic tensions perpetuated by his own ethnic group, and implementing policies more accommodating to the poor populace rather than the elite.

sources:

“Fighting corruption in Nigeria requires action not words.” Aljazeera. 9 October 2012/

<http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/201210891018158911.html>

“Mo Ibrahim: Nigeria’s Low Rating.” Nigerian Tribune. 25 October 2012.

<http://tribune.com.ng/index.php/editorial/49739-mo-ibrahim-nigerias-low-rating>

“Nigeria: Democracy – Charting a Path for the Military.” allAfrica. 16 October 2012.  

<http://allafrica.com/stories/201210160393.html?viewall=1>