Politics
Citizens’ Participation In A Democratic Government (II)
This article was first published on Monday, August 15, 2016.
As was hinted at above,
the citizens’ struggle to bend the state to their will was often violent. The elements of the bourgeoisie who wrestled the state from the monarch, may have been liberals who reclaimed their freedoms from the ruling houses. But they were not democrats by definition who desired to create the conditions under which the generality of the people would determine their representatives in the state apparatuses and therefore, how the state would serve them. For, just as the monarchs were reluctant to part with power, so were the bourgeoisie unprepared to accommodate the unwashed masses. Power, it is said, is never voluntarily given to the people; they have to fight for, and to grab it. To understand what happened in this instance, we need to look beyond the political space to understand the nature of the movement that turned democratic.
The logic of capital whose bearers the bourgeoisie had become, obliged them to gradually dismantle the barriers against all freedoms: movement, belief and confession. Movement is not just one of the laws of nature which would impel the citizens to seek wider political participation. But what is natural was given a purely intellectual interpretation and it became embodied in that most obvious crystallization of matter – capital. Here, it seems, science and the economy found mutual support; both helped propel the political push for democratisation sometimes against the short-term interests of the new ruling class. Without the freedom of movement, the factors of production could not be shifted to the most critical points of need at anyone time. Thought, speech and information had to be unfettered otherwise science and its associated inventions which are absolutely necessary for production would not flourish. This, it will be recalled, was the era of the industrial revolution.
The imperative of these freedoms was also what propelled the people, over time, to demand political participation. By the same token, it provided also the push factor that made the bourgeoisie bow to the persistent demands from below. In the long run, these tendencies yielded the state’s gradual recognition of the rights of the people and the welfare state. The people had triumphed, had they? Historical experience would show that real power was in the economy and that what the people won was the power of the relatively inferior power of the ballot. It is not to be overlooked on this account, but neither should be exaggerated.
What had appeared to be the steady march of the power of the people began to suddenly unravel in the last decades of the 20th century. Hitherto the economy, not minding some hiccups, had been growing reasonably well until the 1970s. Signs of decline first manifested in the periphery where declining state revenue forced the push for balanced budgets. Quickly withdrawn were the critical social support for health and education which the wretched of the earth needed. The negative impact on growth and development was obvious, hence the 1980s were rightly described as a lost decade for Africa. The forces of freedom and independence weakened as capital, shielded by the state, easserted itself with imposition of austerity regimes by International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Under these conditions the rights to health and education which the people thought they could take for granted simply fizzled into the thin air. That was only in the first phase of what was to become a global phenomenon. A decade later in the second phase, profits declined further in the advanced regions of capitalism where democracy had won the people cover under the social security network, the demand of capital won over those of the people. The state was rolled back and as in the periphery, if with less devastating result, as it opted to balance budgets by either removing, reducing or freezing welfare programmes, depending on the strength of social and forces it encountered. Since then the state has always responded against the people and in the interest of capital any moment a choice has had to be made. The last stark example was the struggle the Greek government waged with the European Union in the bid to help Greece and Spain manage their economic crisis. On each count the people lost and capital won.
This harsh state of affairs actually helps us to better understand the nature of contemporary democracy. It can be logically argued that what we witness now is the true nature of democracy. It has always seemed to be about all the people but it has usually always been about some of the people. And because it claims to be about the people, the people have ever been struggling to force it live up to that beautiful claim. The ideology of democracy presents the state as the agent and instrument of the people but the stark reality of democratic life shows that the state always attempts to hoist itself above the people. Thus, at best the political space is filled with tension as the state seeks to maintain its position and the people insist on bending it to their will. It is in the context of this nature of the democratic political space that one can meaningfully discuss our topic today.
Citizen participation in a Democracy:
If our interpretation of history and theory of democracy presented here is meaningful, it can then be concluded that democracy is not just about the existence of political parties, periodic, free and fair elections with an independent umpire, rule of law, existence of virile media, observation of human and civil rights, etc, all of which may have been encoded in constitutions that appear to accord sovereignty to the people. These are merely the structures of the system. In and of themselves they can easily constitute clutters in the political space and can even be impediments to democracy. Because they are not unimportant, however, we may term them the “hardware”, to be digitally correct. More important than those are elements of the “software” without which the hardware is of little use: this software is the culture of sustained political consciousness and behavior with which the people, as citizens, interact in and with these structures to give them life and expression, so to speak. In the United States of America, Germany, the United Kingdom or Nigeria, Ghana, and Rwanda, all have political structures are in place alright. But regardless of this, democracy works differently in each of these countries because the levels of consciousness and culture or how these find expression, differ. It is the process of participation that gives expression to that software of democracy.
Participation is a many-sided concept. It includes voting and or being voted for, attending political meetings, expressing political views and opinions, membership of political parties and pressure groups (including civil society associations); being regularly updated about political developments; monitoring how the state performs and demanding responsiveness, transparency and accountability from its officials. There is an ethical component to the concept of participation and it demands that exchanges must be based on mutual respect, tolerance and civility. All these are obvious enough and have been much discussed. It is difficult to know what to add to these. The challenge as I see it has to do with how we work them in the context of the tension of the democratic space. How do we participate so that we hold democracy to be about the majority of the people and not just for minority of the people; how do we ensure that the state more or less reflects the citizens’ will?
Perhaps only one qualification should be made to all this, namely, that citizen participation must be active, sustained and critical. But this implies an important assumption, namely, that the people have already become citizens. Democracy is possible only with citizens, otherwise the leaders deceive themselves and the people. I mentioned earlier that the transformation from being subjects to being citizens had taken place in the older democracies; it was in fact critical for taking the first tentative steps away from feudal rule and its ideology of the divine right of kings. A subject in a state is politically inactive or gets involved only sporadically; she believes she is incapable of making any political difference. Thus he lacks self-confidence. A citizen on the hand is politically active and wants to make an impact through some input at any point in the political process. Unless people in a democracy are in a sustained “citizen mode”, dictatorship will thrive under its cloak.
Eme Ekekwe
In a statement issued on Wednesday, December 31, 2025, and signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mr Obiora Ifoh, the party said it had taken note of Mr Obi’s defection alongside some of his supporters, as well as what it called a “lacklustre speech” delivered by the former Anambra State governor at the defection event.
“We wondered what new he intends to sell to Nigerians,” the party said, adding that it was not surprised by the move, having “since September 2024, parted ways with Peter Obi and some of his blind supporters in the National Assembly.”
According to the statement, the faction said it had patiently awaited Mr Obi’s exit, describing it as a blessing.
“The party is finally liberated by this defection and as party leaders, we count it as a blessing,” the party said.
The faction further disclosed that it had previously urged Mr Obi and his supporters to leave if they were unable to work with the party leadership.
It claimed that several lawmakers had been suspended for anti-party activities and that similar action would have been taken against Mr Obi but for the intervention of “some well-meaning Nigerians.”
It also blamed its internal crisis on Mr Obi and Abia State Governor, Dr. Alex Otti, accusing them of sponsoring what it described as an insurrection against the Julius Abure-led leadership.
“The crisis we had in the Labour Party was caused by Peter Obi and the Abia State governor, Alex Otti,” the statement alleged, adding that it was surprising Dr Otti had not followed Mr Obi out of the party despite his suspension.
Reacting to Mr Obi’s defection event in Enugu, the faction claimed the gathering was largely boycotted by prominent political and traditional institutions in the South East, insisting that those present were “political spent forces who cannot win in their wards should there be an election today.”
It warned that this development signalled the failure of any future Mr Obi presidential or vice-presidential ambition, claiming he had “clearly lost the charm that had endeared him to the people prior to 2023.”
The faction also accused Mr Obi of misleading the South East during the 2023 elections, alleging that the region suffers political marginalisation under President Bola Tinubu’s administration as a result.
“He must be told that the South East lost out completely in President Ahmed Tinubu’s government because they trusted and believed in him in 2023,” the statement said, alleging disparities in ministerial appointments and infrastructure allocation to the zone.
The Abure-Led LP apologised to Nigerians for its decision in the last election.
“We gave Nigerians a candidate we thought was good for the nation in 2023, but time has since proved that we made the greatest political mistake. We plead for forgiveness from Nigerians,” the party said.
It urged Nigerians to watch out for a rebranded Labour Party, promising to present “the best prospect” capable of returning Nigeria to what it described as its “glorious days.”
steadily toward unity, justice, and shared prosperity”, he said.
Speaking to journalists on Wednesday at his country home in Ikere-Ekiti, Dr Oluyede said the development came as a shock, stressing that INEC supervised and monitored the PDP governorship primary that produced him as the party’s candidate.
According to him, INEC officials documented the process, completed all required forms, and even affirmed his candidacy in court through sworn affidavits arising from cases linked to the primary election.
He maintained that no court order or injunction currently restrains INEC from listing his name as the PDP candidate, arguing that the electoral body lacks the constitutional power to determine who emerges as a party’s nominee.
Dr Oluyede described such decisions as the exclusive responsibility of political parties, not the electoral umpire.
While playing down panic over the released list, Dr Oluyede noted that electoral processes often involve reviews and corrections.
He disclosed that he had commenced wide consultations, including engagements with PDP leadership and formal correspondence with INEC, to seek clarification on the omission and determine the next line of action.
The PDP candidate assured his supporters across Ekiti State that he would appear on the ballot, expressing confidence that the situation would be resolved in his favour.
He described attempts to exclude candidates from elections as dangerous and undemocratic, warning that such tactics undermine the people’s right to freely choose their leaders.
Dr Oluyede called on the people of Ekiti to reject any form of disenfranchisement, insisting that elections should be contests of ideas, records, and acceptance by the electorate rather than exclusionary maneuvers.
He also declared that the PDP in Ekiti had resolved its past internal crises and was now united, focused, and ready to win the forthcoming governorship election.
He urged party members and supporters to remain calm and focused, expressing optimism that, with divine grace and the will of the people, the PDP would emerge victorious at the polls.
Mr Obi spoke while formally declaring for the African Democratic Congress (ADC) at a well-attended event in Enugu on Wednesday, where he outlined what he described as a fresh roadmap for rescuing the country from its socio-economic challenges.
Addressing party members, supporters and other stakeholders, the former governor stressed that leadership must be driven by integrity and accountability, warning against the culture of double standards in public office.
“We cannot continue to deceive our people. Leadership is about telling the truth and leading by example. You cannot promise one thing in public and do another in private. That is not leadership, and that is not the change Nigeria needs”, Mr Obi said.
He maintained that genuine national rebirth would only be possible if entrenched wrongs were corrected, adding that governance must be guided by competence, discipline and a clear sense of purpose.
Mr Obi also underscored the need for fresh thinking in the nation’s political space, urging political actors to move away from recycled ideas that have failed to deliver sustainable development.
“We must come with new ideas,” he said, adding that “Nigeria’s problems are not mysterious; what has been lacking is the courage and competence to address them differently. We need a new approach that puts people first and focuses on production, not consumption.”
Calling for a broad based political collaboration, Mr Obi appealed to parties and stakeholders across ideological divides to work together in the national interest.
“This country is bigger than any party or individual. All parties must come together to change the present trend. What matters is not the platform, but the future of Nigeria and the wellbeing of its citizens”, he declared.
Looking ahead to the 2027 general elections, Mr Obi challenged aspirants seeking elective offices to ensure transparency in their credentials, warning that the era of falsified certificates was drawing to a close.
“Anyone contesting for any position in 2027 must come with genuine certificates. All the machinery is now in place to verify what is genuine and what is not. Integrity must start from the very foundation of leadership”, he stated.
Drawing lessons from international development models, Mr Obi cited Rwanda and Indonesia as examples of countries that rose from difficult beginnings to become thriving economies through disciplined leadership and sound policies.
“These countries were once behind us,” he noted, adding that “Today, they are moving ahead because they chose competent leadership, clear vision and policies that support local production and human capital development.”
He also criticised the economic policies of the present administration, particularly the continued importation of food items that can be produced locally, describing such practices as inimical to national development.
“You cannot grow an economy by killing local production. Importing food that we can produce in Nigeria destroys jobs, weakens our farmers and drains our foreign exchange. A serious country must produce what it consumes”, he argued.
The event featured renewed calls from ADC supporters for sustained engagement and mobilisation, as Mr Obi reiterated his belief that Nigeria remains redeemable if led with honesty, competence and a commitment to shared national progress.
In his remarks, the National Chairman of the ADC, Senator David Mark, expressed confidence in the emerging coalition, assuring Nigerians that the party would deliver good governance at all levels of administration if entrusted with power.
The gathering also witnessed the defection of several prominent politicians from different political parties across the South-East and beyond.
The motion endorsing the defection was moved by a former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chief Emeka Ihedioha, and seconded by former economic adviser to ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo, Prof. Osita Ogbu.
Goodwill messages from notable political figures, including Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, Mrs. Aisha Yesufu, Chief Sam Egwu, Dr. Okwesilieze Nwodo, Chief Achike Udenwa, Mr Onyema Ugochukwu and Senator Gilbert Nnaji among others, further underscored the growing momentum within the ADC.