The Characteristic Democrat

Tendencies being exhibited by President Bola Tinubu, with extreme and brazen use of power, are typical of the ‘real democrat’. Olawale Olaleye writes.

Put aside the details of the etymology and definition of the word democrat, and begin to cast your mind back to certain persons in this word class, who had been privileged and entrusted with legitimate elective mandates, for a more lucid engagement.

Without racing back to the benighted days, you would see that the definition and the description of a democrat as contained in the books are often inconsistent with the actual democrat in real life, in terms of choices and attitudinal dispositions.

They are always ‘democrats’ before assuming power, propounding great theories. They never fail to give mesmeric analysis of what the egalitarian society entails.

They tell you, with assuring promises and borrowed confidence, the difference between the realistic and the idealistic democratic situations, often premised on social welfare and security.

In truth, they do not imbibe any of these qualities. On the contrary, they are just as ruthless as the khaki boys, who an average Nigerian prays never return to the corridors of power again.

History is replete with how leaders easily transition from democratic methods of gaining power to autocratic governance, often citing emergencies or challenges as justifications for their increasingly authoritarian measures.

By adopting authoritarian practices once in power, the individuals quickly move to alter the balance of governance and undermine democratic principles, thereby unfurling their true nature.

Hugo Chávez of Venezuela was elected president in 1998 on a platform of social reform and anti-corruption. But after taking office, he implemented a series of constitutional reforms that concentrated power in the executive arm of government.

He sidelined the media, undermined political opposition, and held multiple referenda to extend his presidential term, including creating a “popular militia” to bolster his support base.

In the United States, Andrew Jackson, was elected in 1828, presenting himself as a champion of the common man and promoting democratic ideals.

Unfortunately, his presidency featured significant unilateral actions. This included the forced removal of Native Americans from their land (the Trail of Tears) and defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, wherein he was quoted as having said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” This was the America of 1828.

Ecuador’s Rafael Correa came into office via an election in 2006 and promoted an agenda aimed at addressing social inequality.

Throughout his presidency, Correa’s government was marked by hostility towards the press and critics, leading to several media laws that restricted free expression. He also sought to consolidate power by pushing for a referendum to allow indefinite re-election.

Turkey has been somewhat unlucky with RecepTayyipErdoğan. From being prime minister in 2003, Erdoğan,through democratic elections, started by first promoting economic growth and reforms.

But following a failed coup in 2016, Erdoğan has since transmuted and was adopted in a hugely contested referendum.

The famous Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe was a revered figure in the liberation struggle and was first elected Prime Minister in 1980.

Over time, his regime became increasingly repressive, characterised by violent crackdowns on dissenting views, manipulation of electoral processes, and land-grabbing from white farmers alleged to have‘destabilised’ the economy. His rule resulted in widespread human rights abuses and economic collapse.

The Philippines, too, had some guy called Ferdinand Marcos. He was initially elected president in 1965, but became someone else after his re-election in 1969.

He suppressed political opposition. His regime was notorious for corruption, human rights violations, and the gagging of free speech and assembly, among other repressive actions.

Since Nigeria unanimously sent the military back to the barracks after the long drawn June 12 annulment struggle, the country has kept and maintained a relatively encouraging democratic record, albeit fledgling, after democracy returned to station in 1999.

The nation’s resolve to give democracy a chance, has paid off with 26 years of unbroken reign, in spite of the many evident inadequacies. This decision is conscious and deliberate, perhaps on the part of a majority of Nigerians and a few institutions that still boast integrity and credibility.

Unfortunately, Nigeria might have elected a quintessential democrat – one, who poses around with unverified democratic resume, alludes to his debatable roles in the fight against the military, yet struggles to uphold basic tenets of this sacred system of government. 

This is why anyone can easily hedge a good bet that in spite of all that Nigeria’s political class has been through, generation after generation, it has yet to learn any lessons about their roles in consciously growing and developing the hard-earned democracy.

In a fleeting moment of comfort, especially after an unexpected access to sleazy excesses, the nation’s political class throws decorum out of the window and looks away from the pain of many years as if the past no longer counts.They would defend the impossible and dance on the grave of martyrs of democracy.

Monday’s resolution of the drama that had stymied activities in the Lagos State House of Assembly, and by extension the state, for about 49 days before it was dubiously resolved, will forever go down in history as one of the deliberate dents to President Bola Tinubu’s democratic credentials.

The president’s concern about his personal ego and aggrandizements as against the sanctity of a legislative institution is concerning. It  questions his democratic records and the roles he ever claimed to have played in enthroning democracy in Nigeria.

Even former President Goodluck Jonathan, who sided with 16 governors against 19 others in the election of the chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, appears more intentional about his preferences than anyone siding with some divergent five against 35 others.

Section 92 of the constitution does not prescribe any extra-ordinary measures to be taken in the election and removal of the speaker. It is a purely legislative affair. In fact, the speaker didn’t need to have stolen, committed rape or any other heinous crime.

They might just decide that they didn’t like his face for that day and remove him, the same way he didn’t need to have extended to them any form of kindness or incentivise them before electing him speaker.

But a MudashiruObasa, now claiming right to speakership, as though a matter of inheritance, because of a squalid presidential backing, sums it all up for Nigeria’s democracy and the kind of leadership she currently has up there.

Whatever were Tinubu’s fears and however genuine they might be, his insistence on having his way in spite of the damaging consequences it could have on the legislature and the various pleas for reason, summarises the danger in his leadership style, which might have become not just unthinking, but also not the listening type.

Even more noteworthy is the fact that, either by omission or commission, the president might have created a monster in Obasa, a man who gallivants around with multitude of thugs. He might also end up his nemesis. His preference for such characters embodies more than the outer eyes can decipher.

Without a doubt, the last has not been heard of the Lagos Assembly imbroglio. But the days ahead will tell.

First, contrary to some alleged numb understanding, Obasa is not going to resign because his backer might have told him so. For a man, who in spite of his removal stormed the assembly to forcefully repossess the seat, aided by security operatives, the said resignation, earlier scheduled for today, Wednesday, is another tale by moonlight.

Two, a gulf and endless crisis of trust and confidence might have been created amongst the lawmakers, which would naturally affect the business of lawmaking and other oversighting responsibilities of the legislature. This will drag till the next election with huge impacts.

Of course, things can no longer be the same again between the executive and the legislature in the state, as this might have been the end game of the ‘colonial master’ as part of his staying power. Although they’ve been hitherto papering the cracks, things will get worse now.

Suffice it to say that this was not about party supremacy as some seemed to have argued. It has always been about the president. Was it any surprising that his famed election mantra, “Emi lo kan” spoke strictly to self and sheer entitlement to the leadership of the country?

Again, this is also why President Tinubu may never get close to the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, in terms of stature and greatness, even though the latter was never elected president.

Awolowo, at different instances, bowed to party supremacy because the idea was not embedded in an individual but a terminology defined by ideology. There are two examples of how Awolowo was defeated by the other party members, when his interests clashed with theirs.

Awolowo, ahead of the 1979 elections, had wanted Pa Emmanuel Alayande as the Oyo State UPN gubernatorial candidate. But other party members wanted Bola Ige. Ige won the primaries and went on to become the governor. Heaven did not fall. Awolowo embraced him and that was it.

A similar thing would later play out in Kwara State, however, in 1983, when Chief Josiah Sunday Olawoyin, the strongman of Offa politics, wanted to give another shot at the governorship after losing to NPN’s AdamuAttah in 1979.

He was Awolowo’s preferred candidate for the UPN, just as he was in 1979. But other party members wanted another choice instead and Chief Cornelius Adebayo won in the aftermath of the internal party politics, and went on to become the Kwara State governor.

Yet, in spite of the stiff opposition to free education on the basis of funding, Awolowo, defeated other members of his party, who didn’t think it was feasible, albeit through sound and logical arguments. The free education idea, today, remains the greatest of all times.

In their days of real politics of ideology (and not those who run for offices without a ready manifesto), there was party supremacy and also mutual respect to the views of others.

The era of incontrovertible Baba So’pe is the repercussion of long military rule on the psyche of the political class, and the manifestation of the autocratic nature of every individual, regardless of who or what they profess to be.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that those who worked with Awolowo and learnt directly under him were a different cast in terms of disposition as well as approach to politics and issues? A few of them, like Akinrogun Olusegun Osoba, a former governor of Ogun State, are still alive.

With the self-induced crisis created back at home, it is yet to be seen what language the next election speaks. If as one house, they not only lost the presidential election in Lagos and struggled to keep the governorship, it would be a good case study to see how the APC comes back from this in 2027.

Away from the show of shame in Lagos and the patchy resolution of the crisis, the seeming idolisation of the president by the political class, might have further endangered the country and her growing democratic culture.

This, also, is why last week’s shout of “no vacancy in Aso Rock” during the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting, was a sad reminder of the reality that Nigeria’s political class remains the same yesterday, today and perhaps, always.

Without traveling too far, just some 10 years ago, this same parasitic class insisted it was either Muhammadu Buhari or no one else. The former president was dressed in a different clothing other than the one he was used to and hero-worshipped through his poor and timid reign.

Immediately he was done serving his two terms, these same highbinders came out to speak ill of him and how he was responsible for Nigeria’s current economic challenges through his mismanagement of the nation’s resources and his inability to deliver sound leadership.

Not minding that they belong to the same party and the role they played in nurturing the monster they created, they did not think demonisingBuhari and his administration could rub off on the party as an election-delivering machine with zero ideology.

Today, Tinubu is the beautiful bride. They did not only pass confidence vote in him at the charade called NEC, they also stylishly endorsed him for reelection with shouts of “no vacancy in Aso Rock” renting the air, after their own version of the national anthem, “On your mandate we shall stand”, had been rendered with aplomb.

Elated, the president, who has more or less institutionalised hero-worshipping, said prices of foodstuff had crashed. Maybe in the Aso Rock market. He rode on that to gallivant and reel off his incredible successes so far. It was his call after all.

But if that charade was all that they spent their time doing at their first NEC in two years of the Tinubu presidency, which they immediately adjourned indefinitely, then Nigeria must be some experimental social settlement.

In the end, there’s always a tomorrow and that tomorrow will be here soon for Nigerians to take stock. The people would be glad to see how many of these political Machiavellians would come back to tell how much of a disaster Tinubu was, when they are done with him, too.

After all, Malam Nasir El-Rufai, a former governor of Kaduna State, has started early, after mobilising and letting down as many people as they relied on him in 2023 for Tinubu to be president.

The ‘Day of Reckoning’ is fast approaching, and would be here in grand style. How a president believed to be remotely involved in the crises of many states, including Rivers, Osun, Kano, Kaduna and Lagos (for now), still thinks 2027 is going to be a walkover, gives some exciting vibes about the next national elections.

Until then, the already compromised political class can continue to thoughtlessly and barefacedly stand on somefrail, tired, shaky and nepotistic mandate.