Redefining Democracy Dividends

Having been denied democratic rule for several years, many Nigerians were elated when the country transited from military despotism to democracy in 1999. Unarguably, democracy has been adjudged the best system of government.

Expectedly, Nigerians anticipated much from the system. They contemplated basic rights that were missing in a military government. However, apart from the abridged regimes of late Gen. Murtala Muhammed and the Buhari/Idiagbon administration, no military government showed any purposeful leadership in the country. The other regimes ran the country aground, ruined every public institution and brought untold hardship to the people.

But the advent of democracy rekindled hope and expectations became high. Nigerians looked forward to the rejuvenation of public institutions which were in comatose and a noticeable, palpable improvement in the quality of living. Because of the high value tagged on it, democracy is preferable to ordinary every day activities.

Nevertheless owing to stark ignorance and dearth of knowledge of what dividends of democracy is, our leaders and political office holders often refer to infrastructural development as dividends of democracy.

Consequently, they reel out statistics in newspapers and on the electronic media advertising their successes in the building of infrastructure and the provision of social amenities. In the midst of their boast, there is very little in our practical life that shows that politicians nay our leaders are committed to the utilization of the nation’s enormous resources to better the lives of the citizenry. Most of the media adverts showcasing their so-called achievements are doctored.

Assuming it is correct that state governors for instance build infrastructure, empower people economically and provide social amenities, does it make these good works democracy dividends? In other words are the building of roads, hospitals, schools or job creation dividends of democracy? Do we need democracy to get them in place?

During the oil boom era of the 70s, oil proceeds were better managed by the military despots. Most critical infrastructure in existence today were built then. This was an epoch when government policies were less politicized and more people-oriented. To a reasonable extent, and given the performance of the economy then, we had better infrastructure. Indeed, no one lost sleep over insecurity. And vice and violence were noticeable only by their declining progression.

Take Rivers State as an example. If one may ask, when was the state secretariat complex built? In whose administration were the state-owned moribund companies established? What about the famous Alfred Diete-Spiff Sports complex that hosts many sporting events? We can proceed endlessly. Still in the military era, potable water was available in homes and public taps were sited at strategic locations in the cities. The sanitary condition of our cities attained very high standard and electricity supply was constant. Education standard was at its best.

This feat was achieved under military rule and long before the institution of democracy in the country. It is common knowledge that dictatorship characterises any military government globally. And so could we conclude that because the military institutions in the country made laudable achievements, it is democratic? Or can we say, the infrastructure they built are democratic dividends? If so, how can an undemocratic institution give us democracy dividends?

What then is democracy dividend being touted by our leaders? It is freedom. Freedom of association. Freedom to think and act independently. But above all, democracy dividend means power.

The 18th century German sociologist, Max Weber, defines power as the ability to get others to act in accordance to your will.” These are the vitae ingredients that are missing in a military dictatorship.

Unlike the dictatorial form of leadership, in democracy power is shared between the ruler and the ruled. In other words, there is greater participation in government by the people. Democratic politics strives for less domination of power by an elite few, and the greater participation of people in governing themselves.

Clearly, then, democracy concerns itself not only with the mere acquisition of power, but with its equitable distribution. And equitable distribution of power recognises the people as the ultimate repositing of power.

Therefore, the elected and government officials and every organ of government are delegated to operate solely and totally in conformity with the will of the people. Until this reality becomes the governing principle of Nigerian politics, there cannot be dividends of democracy.

At the moment, there is no dividend of democracy in the country until the elected and government officials stop scorning the will of the people. It is amazing  that until now, our leaders have refused to let election results reflect the electoral choices of the people as expressed through the ballot box.

How can there be democracy dividends in the country when political godfathers determine those who will vie for elective positions in the party? How can there be democracy dividends when money earmarked for projects disappear into thin air?

Tell me, how can there be democracy dividends when our leaders steal funds budgeted for improving the energy, health and the agricultural sectors etc.

It is only when our leaders subject themselves to the powers of  the electorate and act in accordance with their will, then shall we say we earn democracy dividends. Then it will be impossible for them to rig election, steal public funds or engage in any act that contravenes the legitimate aspirations of the people.

Arnold Alalibo