The Punch Editorial
As the nation moves towards another general elections, voters should look carefully before they leap. The nation’s democratic institutions are still fragile. They require down-to-earth democrats to nurture them to maturity. The khaki men now wearing agbada should not be allowed to weaken them the more.
Recently, David Mark, a retired General and now a senator, was quoted saying that the best material for the position of president of the country is somebody with a military background. According to him, civilians do not possess the requisite training to hold the high office. A Staff Sergeant in the military, he contends, is better than a university graduate.
As an ex-soldier who is more known by the various political positions he held under different military juntas than by professional competence, Mark’s sentiment is not unexpected. Like other Nigerians, he is entitled to savour the new democratic climate which guarantees freedom of expression. The relevant portions of the Constitution, particularly sections 131, 65, 106 and 177, spell out the requisite qualifications for all categories of political office seekers. Once an aspirant is constitutionally qualified, whether an ex-soldier or a civilian, he has the right to vie for the office sought. The grounds on which aspirants can be disqualified are also expressly spelt out in the Constitution.
What is most baffling, nevertheless, is the General’s objectionable attempt to link military men with better qualifications for democratic leadership and good governance when compared with their civilian counterparts. No doubt, there may be some men of honour and integrity endowed with good leadership qualities in the military; yet, the dismal performance of soldiers for the 36 years they held power after Independence in 1960 has said it all about the grand failure they were in governance. With over $350 billion from oil alone, the military failed woefully to modernise the economy and provide basic infrastructure and related social services to improve living standards. The federal structure inherited from the nation’s founding fathers was destroyed and remoulded after the military’s single-command structure.
From its budding stage in the early 1960s, corruption grew and became a monstrous cancer under the military, especially in the 1990s. The military itself suffered from the mismanagement of its own men in power. The morale of officers declined, as politics was placed above professionalism. Pensions of retirees were embezzled, while military weapons and equipment were left to decay. The unsuitable unitary structure remains the bane of political stability and economic growth.
Before slipping into the hands of another retired General as President, the nation must reflect on the fact that the single-command structure and training of the military do not predispose the average soldier to the refined precepts and culture of democracy, which are rooted in dissenting views, consensus building, respect for the rule of law and the rights of citizens, separation of powers, checks and balances, and due process.
The prevailing climate of intolerance and human rights violation clearly testifies to the impatience of the soldier-politician with democratic tenets. Under the present General-dominated politics, the nation has witnessed blatant disregard for approved budgets, contrary to the dictates of the Constitution. The President chooses which court orders to obey and which to ignore. Indeed, which truly democratic leader will withhold funds meant for Lagos councils even after the Supreme Court has ruled that the funds be released to them? In what way is the interest of democracy being served by the “garrison” politics now on display?
Besides, there seems to be no remarkable difference between the inhuman treatment the opposition suffered under junta rule and the experience since 1999, especially during the failed third term campaign. The cases of political assassination and repression under this dispensation may also be an offshoot of the martial method of brutally crushing the opposition as a means of resolving conflicts.
As the nation moves towards another general elections, voters should look carefully before they leap. The nation’s democratic institutions are still fragile. They require down-to-earth democrats to nurture them to maturity. The khaki men now wearing agbada should not be allowed to weaken them the more.
The PUNCH, Thursday, June 29, 2006
As an ex-soldier who is more known by the various political positions he held under different military juntas than by professional competence, Mark’s sentiment is not unexpected. Like other Nigerians, he is entitled to savour the new democratic climate which guarantees freedom of expression. The relevant portions of the Constitution, particularly sections 131, 65, 106 and 177, spell out the requisite qualifications for all categories of political office seekers. Once an aspirant is constitutionally qualified, whether an ex-soldier or a civilian, he has the right to vie for the office sought. The grounds on which aspirants can be disqualified are also expressly spelt out in the Constitution.
What is most baffling, nevertheless, is the General’s objectionable attempt to link military men with better qualifications for democratic leadership and good governance when compared with their civilian counterparts. No doubt, there may be some men of honour and integrity endowed with good leadership qualities in the military; yet, the dismal performance of soldiers for the 36 years they held power after Independence in 1960 has said it all about the grand failure they were in governance. With over $350 billion from oil alone, the military failed woefully to modernise the economy and provide basic infrastructure and related social services to improve living standards. The federal structure inherited from the nation’s founding fathers was destroyed and remoulded after the military’s single-command structure.
From its budding stage in the early 1960s, corruption grew and became a monstrous cancer under the military, especially in the 1990s. The military itself suffered from the mismanagement of its own men in power. The morale of officers declined, as politics was placed above professionalism. Pensions of retirees were embezzled, while military weapons and equipment were left to decay. The unsuitable unitary structure remains the bane of political stability and economic growth.
Before slipping into the hands of another retired General as President, the nation must reflect on the fact that the single-command structure and training of the military do not predispose the average soldier to the refined precepts and culture of democracy, which are rooted in dissenting views, consensus building, respect for the rule of law and the rights of citizens, separation of powers, checks and balances, and due process.
The prevailing climate of intolerance and human rights violation clearly testifies to the impatience of the soldier-politician with democratic tenets. Under the present General-dominated politics, the nation has witnessed blatant disregard for approved budgets, contrary to the dictates of the Constitution. The President chooses which court orders to obey and which to ignore. Indeed, which truly democratic leader will withhold funds meant for Lagos councils even after the Supreme Court has ruled that the funds be released to them? In what way is the interest of democracy being served by the “garrison” politics now on display?
Besides, there seems to be no remarkable difference between the inhuman treatment the opposition suffered under junta rule and the experience since 1999, especially during the failed third term campaign. The cases of political assassination and repression under this dispensation may also be an offshoot of the martial method of brutally crushing the opposition as a means of resolving conflicts.
As the nation moves towards another general elections, voters should look carefully before they leap. The nation’s democratic institutions are still fragile. They require down-to-earth democrats to nurture them to maturity. The khaki men now wearing agbada should not be allowed to weaken them the more.
The PUNCH, Thursday, June 29, 2006
