By ERNEST OSOGBUE
The recent coup de’tat in Guinea Bissau should begin to get all lovers of good governance in Africa worried about the fate of democracy on the continent. It has now become the vogue in recent years for impatient military officers to turn their guns against democratically elected governments. These officers, who pretend to be messiahs, hide their ambitions behind their rifles in a bid to show their superiority in statecraft, of which knowledge they lack in reality.
While the issues relating to the coup in Guinea Bissau seem bizzare in respect to the information currently available, it becomes clear that the incumbent president, Umaro Sissoco Embaro, conveniently invited the military to take over the government, so as not to face the embarrassment of losing his bid for re-election and having to hand over power to the opposition presidential candidate, Fernando Dias da Costa, who was on his way to win the election. This is indeed a frightening scenario. It follows, therefore, that Embaro was never a democrat, as no right thinking lover of democracy would undertake such a dangerous venture.
As the debate continues on Embaro’s anti-democracy action, we must not gloss over the fact that military coups are making a comeback in Africa after only just a few years of democratic governance. In countries like Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Sudan, Madagascar, Chad, and a few others, the taste of democracy seems to have turned sour in the mouths of the people, leaving a flavour more bitter than bile. This has led to military strikes in these countries, resulting in the suspension of democratic institutions. In the case of Niger, Nigeria’s immediate neighbour to the North, crowds waving the flags of different countries, including that of Russia, were shown on television, jubilantly welcoming the announcement of the coup in July 2023. The same could be said of the reception of the military interventions in the other countries, and that is, that the people welcomed the military with glee and excitement.
Everyone interested in good governance on the continent must begin to ponder on the reasons why democracy, the lofty governance ideal, sold to Africans not too long ago, by Western countries, as the panacea to the continents problems, has suddenly become anathema to the people. It is becoming clearer that the lofty ideals espoused by Western countries, was not so lofty after all. Africans bought into the democratic movement, without filtering and adapting it to the peculiarities of their societies. Democracy is not original to Africa, and as a result its adaptability is becoming a challenge to the people. For Western style democracy to succeed in Africa, it must be adapted to the peculiarities, desires, and needs, of the continent and its peoples, rather than importing it wholesale, without filtration.
Be that as it may, the point remains, however, that despite the challenges of democracy, military dictatorship would never be a substitute. But if so, why do Africans jubilate when the military throw politicians overboard? I remember as a young lad back in 1983, when the Mohammadu Buhari coup was announced by the then Brigadier Sani Abacha, on New Year’s eve. There was excited fear in the eyes of our parents as they heard the announcement. There was excitement because the people needed a change, but there was equally fear, as they didn’t know what to expect. By the end of the day, however, fear had given way to hope, as they celebrated the military takeover with joy. Why were they joyful? Is it that democracy has failed in Africa?
The answers to the above questions can not be given in simple terms. One must dig deep and equally search the minds of the mostly uninformed African peoples, and as well, interrogate the attitude of politicians when they have power, before answering the questions. For example, in Nigeria, before the advent of democracy in 1999, the comments on the lips of politicians, was that democracy would bring about a quick and even development of the country. At the time, there were guerrilla newspapers and magazines, as journalists ran for cover, in a bid to evade the violent and unforgiving hand of the military rulers. Politicians, helped by the media, eulogised democracy, as that form of government that would resolve all of Nigeria’s problems, and the citizens would live in a land flowing with milk and honey. After 25 years of democracy, Nigerians have realised that those projections were inherently false. Most people who do not understand the difference between democracy and military dictatorship, now believe that they were sold a dummy. This same scenario is what equally played out in most of the above mentioned countries, where coups have taken place.
It must be stated, however, that it is not the exclusive preserve of democratic governance to bring about development in a nation or society. Any kind of government, including dictatorships, could bring development. In China, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Morocco, Russia, Qatar and Rwanda, to an extent, development is taking place, despite these nations not practising exactly the Western form of democracy. What separates democracy from dictatorships is the freedom of expression that citizens enjoy, and the guarantee of participation in the process of governance. Due to high level illiteracy on the continent, it became difficult to sell democracy to the people in the days of military dictatorships, and so, politicians simply presented democracy as a system which has the solution to all of society’s problems. This is not exactly correct.
After about two decades of democracy, and with mounting and unresolved challenges everywhere in the society, the people have become impatient, and are searching for answers as they await the so-called dividends of democracy.
The difference between democracy and dictatorships, or any other form of government, for that matter, is that in a democracy, power belongs to the people. That is how democracy is practiced in the Western world. As defined by the late former US president, Abraham Lincoln, democracy is simply government of the people, by the people, and for the people. While the concept could be given many other definitions, Lincoln’s definition has endured over time, due to its simplicity and concise capturing of the innate essence of democratic governance. The above definition simply means that the people are in-charge of their own governance. This is because, they participate in the process of choosing the leaders. They also have their elected representatives in parliament, acting as a check on the president and his cabinet. In a dictatorship or in any other type of government, this situation does not arise. For example, under military dictatorship, the president or head of state imposes himself on the people, or is imposed by a group of people. Babangida, Abacha, Abdulsalami Abubakar, were all imposed on Nigerians. In turn, these leaders imposed regional leaders without consultations.
Another difference and the most important one, between democracy and military dictatorship or any other system of government, is the freedom of expression that citizens enjoy. This difference is usually taken for granted when things become difficult, but it is very fundamental, and must be protected. Dele Giwa was killed because he disagreed with the military leaders of the time. Pa Alfred Rewane, Kudirat Abiola, Bagauda Kaltho, were all killed by assassins supposedly sent by the Nigerian government. Alex Ibru, the publisher of the Guardian Newspapers, was lucky to escape with a bullet wound, under the Abacha government. There are many other Nigerians who lost their lives mysteriously under military dictatorship.
With many others spending time in detention. In Saudi Arabia, Jamal Khassoggi, a critic of the government, was killed and butchered in Turkey by assassins allegedly sent by the Saudi government. In Russia and China, many people who disagree with the government, are either in their graves, or rotting in gaol. In any other type of government but democracy, the government becomes the enemy of its citizens, to the extent of killing and arresting them for dissent. In Nigeria today, social media is filled with skits criticizing the government. On the radio, television, and in newspapers, those who disagree with the government speak freely without fear, to the extent of even abusing and cursing the leaders. In a dictatorship, this will not be allowed. What the people fail to realise is that these are the dividends of democracy. The dividends of democracy are not food and drinks, rice or garri, but the freedom of citizens to speak truth to the leaders without fear.
Haven taken cognisance of the above, we must note that democracy still has a lot of challenges in Africa. One of the problems is that the leaders, some times, do not obey the rules of democracy. They often try to rig themselves back into power when rejected by the people. This tends to create political tension in the country, which often leads to a military takeover. Another problem, as mentioned earlier, is the over expectations of democracy by the people. Politicians eulogised democracy out of proportions, by making it seem like a be all and cure all. Which presupposes the absence of challenges and the abundance of milk and honey in the land. This is far from reality. Our people must understand that democracy only guarantees a representative government, and the freedom of expression without fear. In a dictatorship, or any other type of government, these ingredients do not exist.
Another reason why democracy looks uninteresting to Africans, is the slow decision making process. In military dictatorships, decisions are supposedly swift, as leaders take instant decisions which are implemented immediately. An example is the creation of states in Nigeria. While the military could divide states arbitrarily, it is difficult for a democratic government to create states, as wide and sometimes difficult consultations must be made, to ensure that everyone is happy before a state is created. Dictators, however, do not care whether the people are happy about their decisions or not. The government simply moves on to the next issue, and marches ahead regardless of how the people feel. To the uninformed African, this is a weakness of the democratic system.
Another challenge of democracy in Africa, is the attitude of politicians. Once they are in power, politicians focus on themselves, and become power drunk. Governance becomes a winner takes all. They become rulers rather than leaders, taking care of only their friends and family. They become corrupt and act like dictators, only using elections as a foil to cloak the government as being democratic. This attitude usually offends the citizens, and is often the reason why they invite the military. Not because they love dictatorships, but simply to teach the arrogant politicians a good lesson.
The lack of cooperation among politicians, is another challenge of democracy. Ordinarily, the ruling party and opposition, should see themselves as part of the democratic structure. However, members of the opposition in most cases are more interested in the collapse of the incumbent government. Rather than contribute meaningfully to good governance, by criticizing constructively, the opposition goes all out to condemn, castigate, and rubbish every action of the government, in order to bring it down. Unknown to the opposition, however, undue criticisms empower fifth columnists and give impetus to the enemies of democracy to wrongly assume that democracy has failed. This could create an opening for military intervention.
For democracy to thrive in Africa, therefore, politicians must be honest by telling the people the truth; democracy does not have all the solutions to all the problems. Politicians must equally educate the people on the importance of a representative government, as opposed to a dictatorship. Representative governments follow procedures and processes. While these procedures may seem slow, it is the best way to guarantee that a decision that favors one person does not have a negative impact on another.
Politicians must also learn to share power with the opposition. This would go a long way in guaranteeing harmony in the political space. When politicians work together, irrespective of political affiliation, it becomes difficult for the enemies of democracy to break their ranks. They must equally shun corruption and also learn humility, by listening to the people and being frugal. Behaving arrogantly, acting like they know it all, living ostentatious lives, and showing off their wealth, could trigger anger or jealousy in the citizens, and lead to them turning to the military as an alternative.
The African democratic development is still in its infancy and requires purposeful leadership in order for it to succeed. Our people must understand that democracy is a slow burning process that requires patience and nurturing in order to mature. The freedom that we enjoy today must be protected at all costs. It is in our collective interest to nurture democracy, groom it, and water it, until it yields the results that we desire. Hurrying to seek solutions because democracy is slow will be to our collective detriment and to the detriment of our nation’s development. Let’s allow democracy to grow!
•Osogbue, a public affairs analyst, wrote from Lagos
The post The resurgence of military coups in Africa and why democracy is failing appeared first on Vanguard News.
