INTRODUCTION

One of the most political sensitive areas of social life in Nigeria is ethnicity and inter-ethnic relation. It can be hypothesized that any multi-national and multi-lingual societies have both highly dominant and less powerful ethnic groups. Competing for greater access to scare resources with accusations of tribalism and nepotism. In fact such explosive structural relations can lead to segmentation or secession.

Nigeria as a nation with various ethnic groups is facing the problem of ethnicity. That is why Nigeria as a nation adapted the concept of Federalism, to accommodate various ethnic groups at the center and promote unity among the various ethnic groups. Nigeria as a nation has experienced an unsuccessful secession movement occurred in the colonial era and also in the post-colonial era, which resulted in Civil war when, the Ibos threatened to break away from the federal. The competition for scare resources by various ethnic groups has led to Ethnic values being at variance with national values which has become non-existent in the nation building.

The implication of the June 12 annulment of 1993 opened up old wounds of inter-ethnic tension that engulfed the first republic and second republic. The Yoruba ethnic group, which believed their son, won the election and was denied to rule the country resulted to demonstration, rioting and protesting against the injustice. The leaders of the Yoruba ethnic group believed that the Northern people did not want other ethnic groups including the Yoruba and Ibos to rule the country.

The crisis of the June 12 elections resulted to dividing Nigeria into six geographical political zones to accommodate all ethnic groups at the national conference organization under former military head of state General Abacha. The six geographical political zones are North Central, North East, North West, South West, South South and South East. The crisis of political organizations like Afenifere, representing the Yorubas, Ohanaeze, representing the Ibos, Arewa people Congress representing the Hausas, middle belt forum representing the Tiv.

The result of the annulment of June 12 elections brought in the present situation in the country. The various ethnic groups agitated for democracy in which they believed that with democracy the dysfunctional consequences of tribalism, nepotism and parachiaim during the military regime would be a thing of the past that will reduce instability in the political system.

There is not one Nigerian today who is not worried at the amount of money being spent on the political arm of government, that is the Legislature and the Executive. Once upon a time, we had a unitary government. Later, we had three regions, then four. With the arrival of the military, we had 12 states, then 19, 21, 30, and the present 36 that constitute the federating units of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The country is severely stressed because the structures to make it function are faulty. There is too much government. Government is a national bakery where those who work in it must share the bread they refuse to help bake. The idea of protection of what belongs to all of those who serve in government has not been effectively infused into them. But are they, who are in the public service of the governments of the Federation, not the same people who belong in religious and cultural groups? Nobody in charge of funds of a church or the cultural union of his community would touch the money without a sense of betrayal. But in government, there are massive collusive programmes of deliberate theft of public funds, aren’t there?

The people are severely stressed. The more welfare they expect, the less they get. The more they are told about peace and security, the more they are harassed both by the private armies of the powerful few; and hoodlums who are the products of inequities, deprivation, and urban denials. Our law-enforcement agencies are few, ill-equipped and inadequately motivated.

The society itself has not been trained to ask questions from those who make it by the simple procedure of joining the political class; understandably, because government is a stranger to the people, and is a place where taking what is not yours is an achievement to be celebrated, and for which national honours can be conferred. The laws that protect the public coffers are strict, but they are kept more in the breach than the observance. The provisions on corruption were prohibitive enough to discourage infringing them before the present antic-corruption and related crimes law was passed. But everyone laughs at the latest provisions, as they did the ones preceding them, and this will continue until the causes of the stress are identified, addressed and removed.

Once upon a time, we were ruled from Britain. At independence, we chose our form of government in which there is an elected parliament where the chief executive is the Prime Minister. In this arrangement, those who make law are separate and different from those who execute law. In choosing this path, we pushed for three levels of government in which we had a chief executive at the Federal level in an elected President; at the State level is an elected governor; and at the Local Government level in an elected local government chairman. Where there are problems, the stakeholders of the system meet and discuss. They may argue and quarrel and hit their fists on the table; but no one goes beyond the arms armory of democracy, which is the dictionary where all words used, can be found. It is when the weapon of argument is short-changed and abused and undermined that other ways to right wrongs are thought of, and wrought on the system.

But there is not one Nigerian today who has not complained of the expense involved in sustaining this political arm of government. Before the Americans chose the road they took in late 18th Century, they argued and discussed and voted. The document they produced has been amended a couple of times because of exigencies and experiences of life and living. The people of Nigeria are overcrowding the Democracy Highway they are walking. And the way is developing bumps and manholes and raters, and these problems are yelling for attention.

I hereby propose that we should retain a three-tier arrangement – The Central Government, the Regional Government and the State Government. The present local government structure should be an affair of the Regional Government, and be funded by it. The following stands should also be noted:

1) The Central Government should continue to be headed by an elected President so that we may all continue to have a sense of ownership of the head of the Nigerian State.

2) The law-making body should be the present Senate of 109 members. There should be a nominated Upper House of Elders, one from each state of the Federation and Abuja. The number will thus be 37. This would be like the arrangement in the First Republic.

3) The powers of the Centre should be reduced and only those powers that would mould the federating units should be retained exclusively by the Centre, like defence, external affairs, citizenship and currency. Let us be advised by the experience of the United States of America over the years.

4) There should be Six Regional Governments on the lines that have emerged as Zones – North-West, North-East, North-Central, South-West, South-East and South-South. These, and not the 36 States, should be the federating units.

5) The law-making bodies in the Regions should be those elected from the present House of Representatives constituencies.

6) Each Regional Government should be headed by a Governor. He may be elected by the Region or appointed by the party that forms the majority in the Regional House.

7) Many of the powers moved from the Centre will anchor in the Regional and State Governments.

8) There will be 36 State Houses of Assembly as at present. The reason they will be retained is that no state would like to lose its autonomy. It is a fact we have to live with.

9) The position of executive governor is unnecessary and untenable, and should be cancelled. We should restore the parliamentary system at the state level. The present office of Governor should be re-designated Premier as we had in the First Republic. He will contest elections to the House like any other member of the House, and can be appointed by his party if it wins the majority of seats in the House.

10) All members of the State Executive Council would come from the House of Assembly. If what the Governor does now can be better done in the House, the expense of electing him to straddle the state treasury and do what he likes with it, as has happened to many state governments since May 29, 1999, can be saved and channeled to development of the state.

11) There are at present 774 local government councils with elected council chairmen and councilors who are “working” full-time. This level of government is the greatest fraud that has been visited on our democratic outing, and has been responsible for the lack of growth in the local government area.

12) We should have elected councilors who will elect one of themselves as chairman. Each councilor should earn a sitting allowance of N2,000 per sitting, with such sittings not being more than seven times in a quarter. It means that no councilor would be taking home more than N52,000 per annum. The chairman should earn N3,000 per sitting.

13) The day-to-day running of the council should be the responsibility of the Secretary who would be appointed by the Local Government Service Commission, and would have the status of a permanent secretary in the public service.

14) The local level of government should be the affair of the Regional Government. It means that all the 774 local government councils would be inherited by the Region into which they fall. The Region can increase the number or reduce it, as it deems fit.

REVIEW ON DEMOCRACY

Democracy is by far the most popular form of government in the world today. There is hardly any leader who does not wish to be seen or described as democratic. Democracy also holds a strong appeal among the ordinary people in the last decade; the world has witnessed the emergence of mass organizations in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe that have risen to demand an end to dictatorial rule and its replacement with democracy. Then what is the meaning of the word “DEMOCRACY”.

There is no universally accepted definition of democracy. Scholars and statement have conceptualized it from different perspectives and therefore emphasized aspect of the process. Joseph Schumpeter (1942) defined democracy as a method, which is well designed to produce a strong, authoritative government. Heater (1944) defined democracy as a form of government that is essentially a method of organizing society politically. Democracy equality implies one man one vote, irrespective of difference in wealth, religion, and intelligence e.t.c. It is also connotes the equal rights and opportunity of all citizens to hold political office.

Diamond (1988) defined Democracy as entailing meaningful and extensive competition among individuals and organized groups (especially political parties either directly or indirectly for the major positions of governmental power. This is addition to popular participation in the electoral process and respect for the civil and political rights of the people.

Many of the elements of modern democracy originated from ancient Greece, particularly the state of Anthens. Indeed word demons mean the people and Kratia, which means rule of or by. The term democracy therefore, literally means rule by the people. In addition to its Greek antecedents, modern democracy is also taken to have evolved from such medieval institution as the British parliament and the jury and from the political theories of the seventeenth centuries such as equality of men, natural rights and sovereignty.

Plato was aware that ‘knowledge is what we seek, but opinion is all we have’. Plato was a critic of Greek democracy which he described as ‘mob rule and emasculation of the wise’, this encapsulated a conundrum, the problem of reconciling the political impulse for organising society and the civil liberties essential for creative innovation.

Aristotle was clear that knowledge was sense perception. But reason and empirical science could not cope with democracy, there was no reasoned consensus, reality was diversity and competition.

Augustine (400) suggested reason was never sufficient, progress required faith. But democracy seemed to require everyone to be a believer in God’s authority.

Aquinas (1250) made progress and synthesised faith and reason. Aristotle’s ‘Prime Mover’ and Aquinas’ God converged. But democracy was not the effect of a cause.

Early Republicanism recognised that self-determination required protection from tyranny and oppression but replacing one dictator by another was no solution. Machiavelli (1500) preached ‘eternal vigilance’.

During the Renaissance and the Reformation the power of the myths was eroded and questions were asked which led to the new understandings of the Enlightenment and Science. But it was a false dawn, democracy was not part of a clockwork universe.

Hobbes (1651) saw nature as strife and the Leviathan state was an essential policeman if the people were to be protected from themselves.

Locke (1690) on the other hand saw nature as largely co-operative with the state having to be constitutionally constrained if individual liberty was to be protected.

Rousseau (1762) developed Republicanism further with the concept of the ‘common good’. This was easily identified when opposing the tyranny of Kings, but it soon evaporated in the reality of practical policy making in a diverse and competitive society.

The democratic ideas of Madison and Montesquie (1776) were embodied in the constitution of the USA where necessary Federal activities were subjected to elaborate checks and balances to guarantee freedom in the states.

The father of modern Liberal Democracy was John Stuart Mill (1859) who attempted to resolve Plato’s conundrum by a clear separation of the two concepts of necessary political co-ordinating activity and innovative individual freedom in civil society. But with freedom embracing a caveat; the moral and legal obligation to avoid harm to others.

Marx (1848), even with the caveat, thought Mill was trying to ‘reconcile the irreconcilable’, Marx identified class economic power as the undermining distortion of democracy.

By the middle of the 19th century Mill and Marx had started a battle of ideas that would rage until the end of the following century.

Schumpeter (1930) suggested the efficiency of technological bureaucracies always tended to result in a leadership elite, but competitive rivalry could counter tyranny. However there was little role for the democratic institutions of civil society.

Dahl (1950) pursued the idea of competitive interest group rivalry, which seemed to reflect the reality of modern politics. But interest groups were unequal or ‘gridlocked’ and social scientists were suggesting that the state itself was a vested interest group.

MODELS OF DEMOCRACY

According to Held, there are three basic variants or models of democracy. First the direct or participatory democracy in which all citizens are involved as in ancient Anthens in decision making. The second model is the Liberal or representative democracy. This model view democracy as a system of rule embracing elected officials to represent the interest and views of citizens, within the framework of rule of law. The third model of democracy is the Marxist tradition. This model is also sometime referred to as people democracy. The Marxist theory of democracy seeks to extend equality of all citizens from the political to the social and economic spheres of life.

The Liberal democracy or representative democracy has emerged as the dominant model of democracy adopted by most countries of the world. The direct and Marxian model has become an ideal, which may not be feasible in modern states.

PRINCIPLES FOR DEMOCRACY

It has been noted that democracy is a remarkably difficult form of government to create and sustains. It is not only a form of government but also a way of life, with ideals of democracy that are yet to be fully realized in any state. Several conditions are conducive to the germination, growth and sustenance of the democratic system.

(1) It has to be desired by the people who must also be prepared to strive and sacrifice to attain it.

(2) The citizens must be willing to tolerate opposing views and show respect for the lives of the people.

(3) The majority must act in a tolerant way, the minority must learn to accept the decisions of the majority.

(4) The people must have broad-minded and have a Liberal disposition.

(5) The citizens must have an educated sense of political responsibility, that is, positive interest in public affairs.

(6) There must be existence of political debate to stimulate thought and exchange of ideals.

Consequently, we could deduced from our definition of democracy and explanation that more than any over form of government, democracy recognizes diversity and plurality within society as well as equality of citizens and seeks to build consensus through debates, persuasion and compromise. It guarantees basic individual and group liberties and ensures governance according to the law. Through periodic popular elections, it facilitates peaceful change of leaders and thereby the renewal of society. Therefore, it is important that democracy in every society organizes and struggles for the full realization of the principles and tenets of democracy.

CRITICS OF THE PRESIDENTS

In every democratic state there is always the room for criticism. However, constructive criticisms are seen and treated as essential ingredient needed in the course of moving the country forward. Most often than not, criticisms are fashioned by opposing parties to check the excesses of the ruling government.

In the first republic when the government at the center was formed by the coalition made between the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) and the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC). The head of state, who was regarded as the president in the person of Late Nnamdi Azikwe, was criticised of not having any portfolio and so an empty figure head with any responsibilities.

The president was also condemned for not being active at the Federal level. This, critics said, gave the Northerns the opportunity to rule the country freely without considering the interest of other Nigerians. The declaration of state of emergency in the western part of the country in the 1962 could also be attributed to this fact.

In 1979 when the Obasanjo led administration handed governmental power to Alhaji Shehu Shagari, a shy and retiring man, acquired the reputation of being a reluctant president, whose real ambition was to be a senator, as executive head of government and president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the defeated politicians never accepted defeat in good but instead went ahead to criticise the acclaimed president of rigging the election.. He might well have been a devoted senator in the parliamentary sense and would probably have worked diligently for his constituency. Destiny imposed on him wider responsibility than he bargained for. It could be that in that sense, he sacrificed himself for a course of far wider dimensions than is commonly understood. The regime of Alhaji Shehu Shagari was criticised of incompetence and gross misappropriation of public fund. The president was declared the winner of the general election held on 6th of August 1983 but unfortunately, there was a large record of economic mismanagement and large scale of rigging of elections. Many people doubted the authenticity of the result. The generality of Nigerians were not happy as a result of the stupendous sheer of mismanagement of the economy under the first term in office of the NPN government.

The aborted third republic never had any constitutional backing that is the interim government led by Chief Ernest Shonekon which came about as result of the annulment of the June 12 1993 presidential election which in the history of the country considered as the most peaceful election conducted ever in the country. The aborted third republic had no constitutional support and was seen as a guided rule by the military and so lasted for only 72 days.

The about to be concluded fourth republic is not availed of various criticisms despite the applause given to it by the international community. The critics of Obasanjo administration have accused the president of lavishing the country’s resources in engaging on international tour for his personal satisfaction. The president has also been criticised of embarking on so many unrealistic programmes, which never ended well. Examples of such programmes are the poverty alleviation programme, which did not meet the purpose for which it was intended to to serve. The oputa panel, which intended to bring those behind the set back of the country especially during the Abacha led administration, was a total failure