Good Governance, Democracy
and Sustainable Development
Speech Delivered at the Centre
for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Ibadan
By Asiwaju Bola Tinubu
Monday, January 5, 2009
|
•
Tinubu
Photo: Sun News Publishing
|
| |
We are in an unusual era in Nigeria. In fact, I can venture
to assert that we have never been here before. And if this
is an unusual, indeed, unprecedented era in our national history,
then it calls for an approach and also a form of sacrifice
that are fittingly unmatched or unparalleled. What is unique
about where we are now as a people and as a nation in the
annals of our history? We have never had nine unbroken years
of democratic rule since Nigeria gained independence.
We tried immediately after independence in 1960 when the British
left us to our own devices and decisions, but the democratic
experiment, to so describe it, collapsed after six years.
We gave it another shot in 1979 when the military retreated
to the barracks after thirteen years of the usurpation of
the people’s right to rule themselves, but a few months
past the fourth year anniversary of democratic rule, the soldiers
again sacked the civilian government and returned to power.
The new band of martial rulers of the 1980s and beyond changed
Nigeria forever. They were a more vicious, more oppressive,
far less patriotic and fascist bunch who bombarded the country
as if it were an enemy territory. Eventually by the late 1980s
and 1990s, this band of brutal soldiers and nation-wreckers
forced a myriad of democratic forces into the trenches to
raise new barricades against unaccountable power. The 1980s
and1990s soldier-rulers did not mind handing over power, but
ruthlessly attempted to hand-over power only to themselves.
From General Muhammadu Buhari who abrogated our right to discuss
our democratic future through General Ibrahim Babangida’s
flawed transition to civil rule programme, to General Sani
Abacha’s brutal resistance to a return to democratic
rule, the Third Republic which was, at any rate, a pregnancy
designed to lead to a still-birth, was eventually aborted.
The duplicity, oppression, tyranny, injustice, and brutality
of the military in power provoked pro-democracy forces and
an active civil society to enter the fray on behalf of, and
as a vanguard of, the people.
At the end of the hostilities, the military retreated in shame
to the barracks and was forced to concede power, admittedly,
to an imperfect combination of civil forces that took over
the reins of power under a democratic arrangement. Like human
beings, nations can be lucky at particular times and unlucky
at other times. In 1999, unfortunately, as the military retreated,
power was handed over to one of their (retired) own. Thus,
at the end of one struggle, unknown to many at first, Nigeria
began another struggle with a cruel leadership that mistook
the democratic heritage of Nigerians to his feudalistic propensities
and primal instinct for unjust actions.
But Nigerians eventually reminded this man who personified
what I have just described that they did not defeat the active
military only to capitulate to its retired wing. Happily,
in the Nigerian battlefield, no matter how protracted the
war is, civil forces always triumph over martial conspiracies.
However, let me quickly draw back from what seems like happy
conclusions and bring in the critical observation of some
informed critics of the present order. These critics have
concluded that even though the democratic, civil forces won
the battle against the military, they lost the war. In 1999,
they argue, power was handed over by the retreating military
to the retired military. Civil forces therefore were confronted
with the challenge of returning to a new form of barricades
to ensure that the war was won, even though the battle was
already in the kitty. We must note the pessimism of this view
even though we must admit that, to a great extent, it describes
the great challenges that we face as a people: Moving from
a mere civilian rule to genuine democratic governance.
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, we gather here
today to again ruminate over the ways in which we can make
our present order genuinely democratic, encourage good governance
and deliver the much needed and long awaited developmental
promises that are inherent in a democratic order. I am indeed
always proud to be part of this debate. As someone who was
a Senator in the aborted, if not abortive, Third Republic
and one who was not only forced into exile in the historic
struggle to validate the results of the June 12, 1993 presidential
elections, but did all in his power in exile to end the disastrous
rule of the midget despot, General Sani Abacha, and then returned
home to participate in rebuilding of Nigeria and the construction
of a new democratic arrangement, without being immodest, I
would say I am also well-placed to participate in the debate
for a better country.
The State of Affairs
In a 2005 survey by AfroBarometer which conducted a series
of national public attitude surveys on democracy, market and
civil society in Africa, in this case with specific reference
to Nigeria, the researchers found that:
• Nigerians were deeply dissatisfied with the performance
of democracy; The public was unhappy with the government’s
handling of key issues and problems.
• Nigerians were also discouraged by the performance
of elected officials.
• Trust in major institutions had also diminished.
• Nigerians were much more critical of the integrity
of elections.
But Nigerians showed resilience in their support for democracy
because:
• Nigerians continued to prefer democracy as the best
system for the country; Public resistance to non-democratic
options was still strong;
Public patience with democracy was strained; However, despite
the concerns, the survey also found that Nigerians continue
to subscribe to democratic practices and values. Specifically,
the survey found that:
• Nigerians showed considerable continuity in their
views on democratic practices.
• The public perceived an erosion in political rights
and democratic processes
In relation to the economy, assessments of Nigerians were
increasingly negative, because:
• Nigerians continued to emphasize economic problems
as their highest priorities.
• The public was increasingly unhappy with the state
of the economy.
There was continued ambivalence about the nature and direction
of the economy:
• Fewer people believe that democracy had brought economic
benefits.
Furthermore, the survey found that there was widespread deprivation
and increased pessimism about personal conditions, given that:
• Nigerians were generally downbeat about their personal
circumstances.
• There was evidence of continued hardship and diverse
coping strategies.
Views on the economy influenced satisfaction with democracy.
The result of this survey gives a picture of the current state
of affairs in Nigeria. We can construct our deliberations
of good governance, democracy and sustainable development
against the background of this reality.
What is good governance? In an academic community, such as
this, people are accustomed to definitions. Indeed, the academic
enterprise would seem impossible without definitions. I remember
the elementary lessons in my undergraduate days which included
“definition of concepts”. But before we deal with
definitional practices, let us stop-by at the centre of street
wisdom. If you ask a regular market woman, for instance, what
is good governance? It is not unlikely that even if she is
unable to define it, she will tell you that “when I
see it, I recognise it!” Let me digress one moment,
still. Part of the challenges of our contemporary scholarship
in Nigeria, particularly in the humanities and social sciences,
is how to pay more attention to what has been long described,
particularly on this campus, as the marriage of “town
and gown”. Our social research needs to be informed
by our societal realities and our societal realities need
to be captured by our social research. In this particular
instance, it would be a good research effort, if someone goes
to Gbagi, Dugbe or Bodija Markets or Oja-Oba and ask the women
what they consider good governance. I will return to that.
Even though the term, “governance”, meaning “the
process of decision-making and the process by which decisions
are implemented (or not implemented)” is not new, “good”
was recently added to qualify it so as to distinguish it from
and recognize it over and above its prevalent opposite, “bad
governance”. Good governance, scholars and practitioners
alike have argued, is Participation, Rule of law, Transparency,
Responsiveness, Consensus-oriented, Equity and inclusiveness,
Effectiveness and efficiency, and Accountability.
When we examine the indices of good governance, we can return
to the wisdom of the market woman: “Good governance?
When I see it, I know it!” For those of us who are politicians
and social reformers, our primary charge is to link our actions
and programmes to the purposes and sensibilities of our people,
the masses. Therefore, to attend to the logic of the market
woman, we are more focused on the practical, rather than the
theoretical and conceptual problem of the academia. Rather
than just ask “what is good governance?” we transcend
that and concern ourselves, first philosophically, and then
practically with the questions “what is the purpose
of good governance?” and “how do we achieve that
purpose for the greatest number?” This is where democracy
and sustainable development come into the equation.
|
