POST MILITARY ERA AND THE CHALLENGES OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE IN NIGERIA

Africa-Dynamics of Social Science Review

Vol. 4 No. 4, June, 2013 (56-70). ISSN 2276-9005 (www.aceser.net)

56

POST MILITARY ERA AND THE CHALLENGES OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

IN NIGERIA

Ali Ibrahim, ABBAS

Department of Public Administration

Yobe State University

Damaturu, Nigeria

E-mail: [email protected]

GSM: +2348036919495

ABSTRACT By May 29, 1999 Nigeria had been through series of successful, as

well as unsuccessful coups, which had installed 7 military regimes

(Ejiofor, 2002). The civilian administration, which Nigerians have

for long aspired for, can be said to have, at last arrived and

consolidated with fourteen (14) years of uninterrupted democratic

governance. However, according to some scholars, it is generally

recognized that the involvement of Nigerian military in governance

has done more harm than good despite their current stay in the

barracks. Decades of their autocratic rule have created so many

negative legacies to our current democratic experiment that if it

should be tackled individually; each of these legacies can sap the

energies of any serious administration. This paper is therefore, an

attempt to assess the impacts of military rule on democratic

governance in Nigeria. In an attempt to set a conceptual basis for

the argument, a review of the phenomenon of military,

democratisation and governance are advanced. This is followed by

an analysis of the brief Nigerian military experience in governance

as well as its legacies on the current democratic experience through

its various manifestations. The paper also suggests what needs to

be done to address the predicament, restore good governance and

pursue genuine democratic practices that can lead Nigeria to a

stable and prosperous democracy in the league of developed

nations.

Key words: Military, Democracy, Governance, Good Governance

mailto:[email protected]



57

Introduction

By May 29, 1999, Nigeria had been through series of successful, as well as unsuccessful coups,

which had installed 7 military regimes. The duration of each regime control of power and

governance ranges from six months (Aguiyi Ironsi’s) to nine years (Gowon’s) (Ejiofor, 2002).

However, collectively, the military had governed Nigeria for a total of 28 years. Before the

January 1966 coup, it was assumed that Nigerian military trained in the British tradition,

subscribed to the doctrine of civil supremacy over the armed forces (Odetola, 1982). The 1966

coup coupled with the long duration of military governance entrenched a myth among the people

of Nigeria that the armed forces were Nigeria’s political messiahs. Agbese (2005:6) pointed out

that, “not only did the incursion of the military in governance increase the politicization of the

military and militarization of the politics; it also changed the nature of civil- military relation in

Nigeria’’

Moreover, despite their retreat to the barracks and the subsequent handover to the civilian

administrators, Omotola (2009:199) posits:

The democratisation process in Nigeria, as in most parts of Africa,

exhibits some peculiar features. The most notable of these relate to

the high level of instability that characterises the short history of

the country as an independent political entity. Prior to the

inauguration of the nascent democracy on 29 May 1999, there had

been 11 changes of government since independence in 1960,

including the Ernest Shonekan Interim National Government

(ING). This high level of instability, a product of coups and

counter-coups, may not be unconnected to the garrisoned nature of

electoral processes and their negative implications for

democratisation.

According to Jega (2007), democratic regimes, which have replaced authoritarian ones, have

constantly been faced with the threat and possibility of authoritarian reversals. This is essential

because the role that the military regimes have played in governance since the attainment of

independence in the 1960s which have given rise to so many complex and interrelated

processes, most of which have significant negative consequences especially on governance have

been entrenched and deeply rooted.

Democracy after all, is a form of government in which sovereign power is vested in the people

collectively and is administered for them by persons elected or appointed to represent them. It is

also worth noting that, a central theme in democratization is the extent to which political actors

can develop democratic norms and values to regulate conflicts emanating from the governance



58

structure and its political society. However, the current democratic processes in Nigeria are

bedeviled with the problems of military left over (such as the democratisation of the use of

authoritarian values of intolerance, insensitivity as well as lack of genuine dialogue in our

democratic space) in the management of our democratic structures and institutions by the current

crop of politicians.

The military in Nigeria, in one way helps to account for the evident crisis of governance. The

peculiar legacy of prolonged military rule has accounted for most of the crisis and is still one of

the biggest challenges to democratisation process. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to

examine and assess the impact of military rule on democratic governance as well as its

manifestations and consequences in Nigeria.

The methodology employed in this paper is the use of secondary sources of data. This is because,

the necessary information required for the study is easily accessible in documented materials and

observations by the researcher. These sources include textbooks, seminar/workshop papers,

newspapers, internet materials, etc. The method of data analysis is simple descriptive analysis.

Military, Democratisation and Governance: The Nexus

The original justification for military rule in Nigeria arose from the claim that the country’s

civilian politicians were unruly, indiscipline and incompetent therefore requires a dose of

military discipline. This naive assumption overlooked the universal historical fact that since the

existence of nations states some five centuries ago, its civil politics has been disorderly (Ekeh,

1998). So for whatever claims or reasons the military are not supposed to take over power

through an unconstitutional and illegal armed means.

Attempts have been made to define military as land, air and water forces or personnel usually

charged with the responsibility of defence of a political system against external aggression. To

Hutchful (1998:249), military which is supposed to be a highly professional organ of the state, is

supposed to carry out its constitutionally defined responsibilities which usually includes

defending the territorial integrity of a nation against external aggression and assisting the police

in maintenance of internal security, especially in suppressing insurrection.

However, according to Agbese (2005), despite the open disdain of armed forces, which

dominated the political scene for almost 30 years with its attendant legacies stands out as serious

obstacles to the quest for democratic consolidation and sustainability. One major legacy and

consequence of this has been identified with regard to militarization of our culture of

arbitrariness by public officials in public conduct, impatience of both rulers and the ruled,

insensitivity to and lack accommodation of, differing perspectives and orientations; and

intolerance of dialogue as a means of resolving and avoiding conflict (Jega, 2007).



59

By democratization according to Osaghae (1999:7) cited in Omotola (2009), we mean “a process

of establishing, strengthening or extending the principles, mechanisms and institutions that

define a democratic regime”. These principles and institutions include the existence of a

democratic constitution and constitutionalism; open and free press; independent judiciary; a

vibrant civil society; and the existence of people with a democratic mindset, capable of

managing these principles and institutions in line with democratic ideals. These seem attainable

where there is a democratic political culture.

It should also be noted that successful transition from autocratic regimes (military rule) to

democratic governance involves not simply a change in the rules of the game. It requires a

fundamental shift of the rules to craft a totally new game. Similarly, Potter (2000:368) cited in

Omotola (2007), defines democratization as:

a political movement from less accountable to more accountable

government, from less competitive (or non-existent) elections to

fuller and fairer predicted civil and political rights, from weak (or

non-existent) autonomous associations to more numerous

associations in civil society.

It is instructive to note that a democratic regime, being the ultimate goal of democratization,

operates on certain fundamental principles. It is reasoned that the extent to which

democratization establishes these elements may advance the principles of good governance or

otherwise. These principles according to Osaghae (1999:7) cited in Omotola (2009) include:

(i) Pluralism and multipartyism, including free and fair competitive politics… and relatively

autonomous civil society.

(ii) Popular participation in the political process… provided those elected remain accountable

and can be voted out if they no longer enjoy the people's support.

(iii) Rule of law, respect for human rights and equality of access to all citizens and groups to the

state power and resources (which does not, however exclude policies designed to enhance the

access of members of disadvantaged and marginalized groups); and

(iv) Constitutionalism or respect for the "rules of the game", which includes civil control of the

military and the efficacy of representative, judicial and oversight institutions.

Governance, it has been said, is the exercise of political authority and the use of institutional

resources to manage society’s problems and affairs. To the World Bank (1994), governance is

“the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social

resources for development”. The World Bank has identified three distinct aspects of governance:



60

(i) the form of political regime; (ii) the process by which authority is exercised in the

management of a country’s economic and social resources for development; and (iii) the capacity

of governments to design, formulate, and implement policies and discharge functions.

All these entail transparency and accountability by public officers in discharging their duties,

responsibilities and obligations. The key to the greatness and transformation of a country is to be

found in good governance. Good governance requires an effective separation of powers between

the legislature, the judiciary and the executive organs of government. It also requires

accountability, security of human rights and civil liberties, devolution of powers and respect for

local autonomy, which all constitute a challenge to democratic regimes.

Understanding the Nexus

It is difficult to understand and explain the nature and character of Nigerian politics and

governance without taking into consideration the encounter of the country with military

dictatorship. What is now described as military approach is an admission that this asymmetric

military relation had a determining as well as destructive influence on democratisation and

governance in Nigeria. Almost 14 years of uninterrupted democratic governance, it would

amount to self-delusion to claim that Nigerian state today is free from the corrosive effects of

military values, systems and institutions. Indeed, the manner these military models were grafted

into democracy and democratic structures, continue to have consequences for contemporary

democratic governance.

Drawing on these propositions, this paper argues that the Nigerian society which was gradually

nurtured by the military norms and values clearly defined by historically antagonistic cultural

gaps will have difficulty in speedy adjustment to democratic ideals. This is because for

democracy to survive, grow and thrive in any society like ours, it must be derived from and be

inspired by a deeply rooted culture of popular participation as well as the true practice of good

governance which is absent in the case in Nigeria. Hence, democracy can only be accepted and

appreciated in our society only if the actors decide to play the game according to its basic laid

down rules. It is as simple as “no democratic players, no democratic regime”. It is therefore not

surprising that the attainment of democratic governance in 1999, as well as the earlier 1979 to

1983 have had limited impact on the inherited practices of the past military rule in Nigeria.

Consequently, the democracy project of the immediate post military era soon gave way to one

party dictatorship and its damaging consequences. The democratic transition falters because

there is a wide cultural gap in the transition framework from the post military authoritarianism to

the current democratic regimes. The democratic regime and its consolidation which is largely

attainable in democratic political culture, seen as the set of attitudes, popular beliefs, and

expectations which give order and meaning to the political process are either weak or absent in

the current democratic experiment in the country. This, therefore, marked the beginning of the



61

failure of the promise of democratic governance by the politicians as the guarantee for good

governance, transparency and accountability.

When we talk of democracy, we cannot do without the participation of the people whom the

fulcrum of democracy rests. While the democratic structures are introduced in the new found

democratic regime introduced by the military administration while handing over, corresponding

democratic ideals, values and consciousness with the people was lacking in reality. The failure to

resolve this conflict, which had its roots in the military era, was the major dilemma faced by

Nigerian leaders in the immediate and current post military democratic era. Unfortunately,

instead of finding solutions to the problem immediately, the inheritors of the military political

offices were so much pre occupied with the struggle for power and appropriating to themselves

the privileges of those offices vacated by the military that little time was left for constructing

political and economic agendas appropriate for democratic consolidation to take effectively take

place.

The Nigerian Experience of the Military in Governance

In his fascinating book “The Military and Integration Politics in Nigeria” Atim (2011) provided

an interested overview of the military adventure in Nigeria. According to this scholar, the

Nigerian military began its incursion on governance on January 15, 1966, when junior officers

made a bid for power, which terminated the Balewa’s parliamentary government, and

inadvertently brought General Aguiyi Ironsi to power. This effectively marked the beginning and

succession of military governments in the nation’s political history. However, late Major General

Aguiyi Ironsi’s attempt to introduce a unitary system of government for the country coupled with

what was perceived by the Northern part of the country as unwillingness on his part to bring the

January 15 coup plotters to book led to a counter coup on July 29, 1966 which brought Lt

Colonel Yakubu Gowon to power.

Gowon ruled for nine years, before he was overthrown in yet another coup d’état on July 29,

1975. The then Brigadier General Murtala Ramat Mohammed succeeded as Head of State but

was killed in an abortive coup on February 13, 1976. Murtala was succeeded in power by the

then Brigadier Olusegun Obasanjo who ruled till October 1,1979 when he handed over power the

civilian government of President Shehu Shagari. Shagari who led the country in a presidential

system of government for four years was ousted in yet another coup on December 31, 1983 and

the military once again bounced back with Major General Muhammadu Buhari as Head of State.

The country again witnessed another coup specifically on August 27, 1985 which led to the long

stay of General Babangida’s administration in power until 1993 when he put in place an interim

civilian administration due to domestic and international pressure. The interim administration led

by Chief Earnest Shonekan lasted for only three months when it was overthrown in a palace coup

by the military spearheaded by late General Sani Abacha.



62

Abacha’s government ruled Nigeria from 1993 to 1998 which had its own share of the political

dramas both within and outside the country. As a serving military Head of State he was adopted

by the then five registered political parties as their sole candidate; a ploy to prolong his

government but eventually died in office allegedly from poisoning. However, with the sudden

but controversial death of General Abacha on June 8, 1998, General Abdulsalami Abubakar

headed the new military administration, and was immediately confronted with the herculean task

of restoring the already battered image of Nigeria in the global political arena.

Interestingly, the Abdulsalami administration rose up to the occasion as many immediate

concerns were immediately addressed including the release of all political detainees and

prisoners. The administration further announced and implemented faithfully a political transition

agenda that ushered in a new civilian government in 1999, precisely in less than one year in

office. This brought the administration of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo which was inaugurated on

May 29, 1999.

Impact of Military Rule on Democratic Governance

Ejiofor (2002) is of the opinion that, it is generally recognized that the involvement of Nigerian

military in governance has done more harm than good as decades of the autocratic rule have

created so many negative legacies of militarism that cannot easily be tackled with. According to

Abbas (2009), militarism normally refers to the pervasiveness in society of symbols, values and

discourses validating military power. This also symbolizes itself in authoritarian regimes, the

dominance of patriarchy, powerful military and repressive state apparatuses, as well as armed

conflicts. According to Ekeh (1998), it is utterly naive to imagine that civilian government taking

over from a military rule will be different from military government within no time.

This led to so many scholarly writings where Jega (2007:87) posits that “the implication of

prolonged military rule and its damaging legacies are a major source of concern for all those

interested in sustainable democracy in Nigeria.” He went ahead in analyzing how militarization

of the civilian for almost 30 years has made the present Nigerian politicians who assumed

leadership position in the current democratic experiment seem to possess a disturbing proclivity

for squandering opportunities of democratic rebirth and regeneration as serious matters of

governance are taken lightly. The expected socio political and economic gains of democracy are

still distant and hazy on the horizon of Nigeria due to this unfortunate phenomenon. A cursory

look at the impacts and consequences of military rule on democratic governance is therefore

undertaken below.

Corruption, Mismanagement and Poor Accountability

Many institutional and structural activities of military rule in Nigeria had stampeded the

development of democracy in Nigeria (Jega, 2007). The state which remains at the heart of the

military politics served as the process of capitalist accumulation in the economy. Once in control



63

of the state political power, the military sit tight in governance thereby resulting in reckless

resources exploitation, misappropriation of national revenue, as well as social and economic

injustices. Many signs of the collapse of democracy in the country had been the issue of

corruption and mismanagement. Corruption is bribery, abuse of power, privileges and trust.

Forms of corruption in Nigerian governance include bribery and manipulation of electoral

process, nepotism in award of contracts as well as favouritism in dispensing patronage.

Moreover, the inability of the successive military administrations to set example in punishing

corrupt public officers in high places is a big minus to the expressed objective of curbing

corruption and mismanagement in the country. This is further aggravated by the long unabated

malaise which has surely back lashed in the subsequent democratic dispensations. This is evident

in the recent scandalous revelations about the diversion of Pension funds, Faruk Lawan/Otedola

saga, the irregular award of oil blocs and payment for signatures bonuses, the petroleum subsidy

crises among so many others. These few classical cases are enough for us to conclude that in

spite of public presences to fight corruption through EFCC and ICPC, the menace appears to

have been institutionalized in the nation’s body polity. It is not surprising that the culture of

impunity is gaining ground in the country with the recent controversial pardon granted to

Alamieyeseigha by his political patron, President Jonathan.

Despite the activities of EFCC, ICPC and Due process, for all practical purposes, it seems

business as usual. Resources are still being misappropriated by our elected and appointed public

officials as leaders are never accountable to their people. Only scapegoats whose sins are very

minor are punished rather than addressing the problem equally and squarely and this is very bad

for democratisation.

Recurring Ethnic, Regional and Religious Clashes

Being a plural society, the federation of Nigeria is divided along segmental cleavages. These

cleavages may be religious, linguistic, regional, cultural, or ethnic in nature; which are advanced

or promoted in their primordial forms even during the military era. The first ever coup in Nigeria

was said to be regionally motivated which saw the death of many prominent Northern politicians

like Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Ahmadu Bello and this brought General Aguiyi Ironsi to

power. However, late Aguiyi Ironsi unwillingness and failure to bring the January 15 coup

plotters led by Major Chukwuma Nzeogwu (his kinsmen) to book led to a counter coup on July

26, 1966 which brought Lt Colonel Yakubu Gowon to power (a Northerner). This further created

suspicion among the military ranks and by extension the ordinary citizens in the country between

the Southerners and the Northerners. This could partly explain the continuous dominance of the

“Northern Generals” in the helm of affairs of the country for long time where the southerners

viewed as domination and marginalisation (Abbas, 2009).



64

Jega (2007) is of the opinion that, the prolonged military rule has installed structures and

processes that are inimical to civil and democratic regimes. Its legacies left the crisis of “us

versus them” syndrome. Matters of governance such as public employment, resource allocation

and leadership became excessively ethnicized, at the same time; the populace became

increasingly conscious of these polarizations. This confirmed the view that ethnic thinking had

military origin in Nigeria as this characteristic was deeply rooted and promoted in Nigeria’s past

as it was a consciously crafted ideological tradition that was introduced and promoted during the

military adventure in governance. In pursuit of these agenda, according to Abbas (2009), the

military rulers have discarded merit and embraced ethnic balancing or what is called federal

character in Nigeria introduced by the military regime of late General Sani Abacha.

In the same vein, after the return to democratic governance, the constitution of the ruling party

Peoples Democratic Party which was drafted by the military Generals and their civilian friends

promoted rotational presidency and quota system in the nation’s body polity as an extension of

the military rulership. This idea of ethnic balancing has the consequence of imposing nepotism

and mediocrity at the expense of merit in governance. Once in control of the state political

power, politicians just like in the military regime deploy the state machinery, including the

treasury, mass media and security forces, to service the dominant party (government) in power to

guarantee its continuing dominance. This culture of "winner takes all” therefore, precipitates a

trend of endemic mass violence which stems largely from authoritarian rule, exclusion of

minority or majority from governance, reckless resources exploitation, social and economic

deprivations, inequity and injustice. It could also take the form of the inability of states to

effectively manage social and political conflicts.

This is not an exception to so many crises such as the Niger Delta Militancy and the recent

Jama’atual Ahlis-Sunnati Lidda’awati Wal Jihad (Boko Haram crisis) in Nigeria with their

negative impacts as demonstrated in the incessant struggles for superiority, threats of secession

or division, ethnic nationalism and prolonged civil strife, which have recently assumed an

alarming rates in Plateau, Borno, Yobe, Kano, etc. Some scholars are of the view that, these

entire crises were simply manipulated by some people to achieve their political ends. According

to Jega (2007), it is an unbelievable compendium of the disaster which those crises have caused

all sectors of the Nigerian society both at home and at the international arena. He therefore posits

that, the military had left an impact on the socio political and economic lives of Nigerians as

violence have been democratized and conflicts had been heightened through various

manifestations challenging Nigerian government and state.

The Leadership Question and the Crisis of Legitimacy

Despite the open disdain of the armed forces, decades of military rule in Nigeria have made the

military and the retired military officer’s formidable political players. The elitist group who are

set off from the rest of the society consider themselves superior because of certain qualities they



65

possess by virtue of their influence or achievements in the military career. Hesitant to repress,

but anxious to dominate the political scene, the Nigerian military class, especially in the early

democratisation process created a personality cult around themselves to continue to run the

political and administrative leadership. Bako (2001) is of the view that the transition that brought

Obasanjo into power in 1999 was merely a handiwork of the retired Generals to maintain their

interest as the presidency was not only undemocratically zoned to the south-west because of the

June 12, phenomenon but they made sure Obasanjo scaled through by all means to emerge as the

President.

While claiming to be democratic most former military leaders behave in the manner of maximum

military rulers, in effectively demonstrating their actions and inactions. In 2003 alone for

instance, the ex-military men came back into politics and took a centre stage during the 2003

elections campaigning and acting like true democrats. Four retired Generals participated

seriously in the 2003 election as presidential candidates: General Olusegun Obasanjo (PDP),

General Muhammadu Buhari (ANPP), Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu (APGA) and

Major General Ike Nwachukwu (NDP) (Abbas, 2009). Many others like them also participated

actively in the 2003, 2007 as well as the 2011 elections in varied political capacities.

It was also evident in 2007 election that Obasanjo tactfully imposed President Umaru Musa Yar

‘Aduwa on Nigerians and nothing happened to check this military approach. Jega (2007:98)

lamented on the likes of the above situation, thus:

….unfortunately, the leadership and governance question is far

from being resolved, as the group that has taken over from the

military is proving through its actions and inactions to be far from

what is desired in the circumstances Nigeria found itself. They

have essentially been nurtured and conditioned by militarism.

Many, if not most of them exhibit intolerance, insensitivity, lack of

capacity for dialogue and peaceful resolution of disputes and

selfishness in the public conduct.

As a result of the dominance of a few military generals in the politics of the Nigerian state,

politics has mostly been based on personalized interest. The first major feature of this

undemocratic imposition in governance is the problem of failure to conduct free, fair and

credible elections. In Nigeria today, rules governing electoral competitions are not usually

followed. As elections, are not free and fair, the performance of most governments are also poor,

while the freedom and welfare of the people are not guaranteed. This is why today these

illegitimate governments impose a reign of terror on the citizens to force them into submission

like in the military era without any recourse to their rights and feelings on matters that concern

them (Abbas, 2009).



66

Abuse of the Constitution and Constitutionalism

The way and manner in which the military came in to power (through barrel of gun) is not only

illegal but corrupt. Their desire and consistent refusal to respect the constitutional provisions is

not only unacceptable but tragic. According to Abbas (2009), when the military accede to power

through coups such rulers begin to scheme and plot how to stay in power indefinitely thereby

suspending the constitution and introducing military decrees and whoever dare challenges them

faces the consequences. However, for this reason in most part of the country our current

politicians have no interest in the sanctity of the electoral system as the only legitimate means of

acceding to power. Therefore, they deploy all crude and illegitimate means of capturing power

through manipulating the constitution and its provisions to suit their personal interests at

whatever cost.

For instance, between 1999 and 2007, Obasanjo’s administration just like in the military regimes

had in several ways and instances tactfully violated and disregarded unfavourable court rulings

to service his own interest Abbas (2009). Complementing on the above reality, Omotola (2009)

comments:

This tendency was most pronounced within the presidency and it’s

PDP, where ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo almost became a

presidential monarch, who personalised the state. With this

posture, the president appropriated all powers – executive,

legislative and judicial. He was able to do this through undue

interference in legislative affairs, most notably the appointment as

Senate president and Speaker of the HOR of those he perceived to

be loyal to him, masterminding their impeachment at any point

their loyalty became doubtful. At the judicial level, he entrenched a

culture of impunity, choosing which court order/pronouncement to

obey or not at will, the most notable example of the latter being the

Supreme Court’s judgment on Lagos state local government

statutory allocation that he unilaterally withheld. In this case, the

Supreme Court had ruled that the allocation was illegally withheld

and that it should be released forthwith (pp 201-202).

But Obasanjo insisted that until Lagos state heeded to his demand to revert to the earlier local

government structures, he would not release these funds despite the court ruling. It is on record

that Obasanjo did not release the fund as directed by the court during his tenure in office

(Omotola, 2009). In the same way, until his agenda was frustrated by the National Assembly and

his erstwhile Vice President, it was no secret that President Olusegun Obasanjo (a former

military Head of State) nursed and pursued a self-succession bid that would have entailed an

amendment of the constitution to enable him contest for a third term in office just like General



67

Abacha who attempted to transit from military to democratic rulership but failed. This trend

therefore created a pervading fear in the democratic transition that a succeeding government

could call the ex-leader to account for his stewardship. This created the tendency by the

incumbents to tinker with the electoral process in order to secure for them loyal successors who

will cover their misdeeds (Omotola, 2009).

In order to achieve the above selfish objective of Obasanjo for instance, late President Umaru

Musa Yar ‘Aduwa was said to have been seriously ill but was unilaterally imposed on Nigerians

by Obasanjo and he (Yar ‘Aduwa) accepted the offer of the PDP ticket to run as the President.

He was later to die in office, paving way for his erstwhile Vice President Goodluck Jonathan to

take over as the President of the country as enshrined in the constitution. The purported PDP

rotational presidency between the North and South whether legal or illegal is said to have been

altered with the contest of President Jonathan (a Southerner) in 2011 election and the likely

drama that may follow in 2015 Presidential election. This trend of imposition of candidates at

various levels of governance by various political parties have assumed an alarming rate as only

those in the position of political authority (President, Governors, etc) decides who contest what,

where and when. They also decides who heads and do what in the legislature and will be fired

the moment his or her loyalty is in doubt.

Conclusion

The civilian administration, which Nigerians have for long aspired for, can be said to have, at

last arrived and consolidated with 14 years of uninterrupted democratic governance. Nigerians

now have the opportunity to make their dreams come true as a result of the new development

despite the challenges. An overview of the governance and democratic experiment in Nigeria

show that the party systems and arrangements are usually characterised by lack of internal

democracy and trust even among party faithfuls. The actors of the political system should

therefore, make governance and democratic practice to be deeply rooted in the people thereby

enhancing political maturity through popular citizenry participation. Democracy and its

dividends can only be achieved if the representatives of the people generally derive their

mandate from the people, which in this case is through the electoral process. The transparency of

the process, which produces political leaders, is not negotiable. This brings us to the issue of

continued political reforms to conduct a free and fair election which will eventually produce

credible politicians to pilot the affairs of Nigeria.

For democracy to strive in Nigeria, the fight against corruption must be sincere. We must build

effective accountability; especially in governments institutions by strengthening them. There

should be accountability and transparency on the part of the politicians who are in government to

show case good leadership and shun corrupt activities thereby setting good examples. The choice

of political leaders of Nigeria should also be based on national interests rather than corruptibly

manipulating tribe, religion, or region to win elections by our politicians. The courts and their



68

judgments should be supported by the administration to allow justice for all and achieve judicial

independence. Other democratic institutions such as the mass media, the rival political parties

and the legislatures should be allowed to effectively perform their roles in developing our

nascent democracy without undue interference and interventions.

The use of boots and tanks alone in addressing the insurgency and other crises in the country

have proven to be ineffective, given the rise in the problem. The presidential amnesty proposed

to the current Boko Haram insurgents in the North is a welcome development as this will help in

demilitarizing the already ravaged region thereby restoring back peace and stability. The military

also should observe the rules of engagement in carrying out their constitutionally defined

responsibility of defending our territorial integrity, which will foster national unity and

development. It is also important to note that a stable and prosperous democracy in Nigeria does

not lie on imposition of democracy on Nigerians but on good governance which is achievable

when Nigerians can feel and touch democratic dividends of democracy without necessarily been

told.



69

REFERENCES

Abbas, A.I, 2009, the Impact of Military Rule on Governance in Nigeria, a Seminar Paper

Presentation of Bukar Abba Ibrahim University Seminar Series, BAI University, Damaturu

Agbese, P.O, 2005, the Politics of Stable Civil-Military Relations, Zeds Books, London

Atim, T, 2011, the Military and Integration Politics in Nigeria, AT-MISHAD Publishers, Abuja

Bako, S. 2001, the Crisis of Transition to Democracy under Obasanjo’s Presidency, a

Conference Paper on Democracy and Democratization in Nigeria, Mambayya House, Kano

Ejiofor, R., 2002, the Return of the Retired Generals in Nigerian Politics, Accessed from

www.worldpolitics.com on12/5/2011

Ekeh, P, E, 1998, Theory and Curses of Military Rule and the Transition Programme, State

University of New York Press, Buffalo

Hutchful, E and Bathily, A (Eds) 1998, Military and Militarism in Africa, CODESRIA BOOK

SERIES, Dakar

Jega, A. M, 2007, Democracy, Good Governance and Development in Nigeria: Critical Essays,

Spectrum Books Ltd., Ibadan

Odetola, O, 1982, Military Regimes and Development: A Comparative Analysis in African

Societies, George Allen Publishers, London

Omodia, S. M, 2007, ''Governance and Democratisation in Africa: The Nigerian Experience”, in

Medwell Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 2, Number 2, pp 134-138

Omotola, J. S, 2007, “Democratization, Good Governance and Development in Africa: the

Nigerian Experience” in Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol. 9, No.4,

Fayetteville State University, North Carolina, pp 247 — 274

Omotola, J. S, 2009, ''Garrison Democracy in Nigeria: The 2007 General Elections and the

Prospects of Democratic Consolidation”, in Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Vol. 47,

No.2, pp 194 — 220

The Nigerian Army Website available at www.nigeriaarmy.org.index accessed on 20th

April,

2013

http://www.worldpolitics.com/

http://www.nigeriaarmy.org.index/



70

World Bank, 1994, Governance: the World Bank Experience, the World Bank, Washington D.C

POST MILITARY ERA AND THE CHALLENGES OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE IN NIGERIA

Documents

Transcript of POST MILITARY ERA AND THE CHALLENGES OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE IN NIGERIA