THE PRAXIS OF DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION IN AFRICA: THE NIGERIAN

EXPERIENCE

BY

GEOFFREY IGHO JOVI

REG. NO.: 1740903029

BEING A PAPER PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL

SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ABUJA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE (M.Sc) IN POLITICAL ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
STUDIES

OCTOBER, 2018

1
 ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the praxis of democratic consolidation by laying emphasis on the theory
and practice of democratic consolidation in Nigeria. The methodology used in this study is
the review of secondary data. The study came out with findings that since the advent of this
Fourth Republic, democracy in Nigeria is one of the most vibrant in the world but there are
so many internal and external factors that militate against its effectiveness and efficiency.
They include lack of internal democracy in the political parties, manipulation of election
results and terrorism. Others are lack of adherence to the rule of law, violation of
fundamental rights of citizens, corruption, poverty and insecurity. All these have made the
people to become disillusioned with governance in Nigeria especially with the political party
that formed government in power and it has degenerated into unprecedented status, thus,
forcing the citizens to become apathetic and it is not good for any democracy. The paper
recommends that the government should provide an enabling environment for the political
parties to thrive and elections should always be free and fair in the country without
unnecessary intervention and the issue of poverty should be tackled with immediate alacrity
to discourage. Also, the civil society organisations should sit up to always checkmate the
excesses of democratic institutions in the country and lastly, political parties should always
insist on the practice of internal democracy because by so doing, the whole country will
witness democracy the true sense of it.
Key Words: Democracy, Democratic Consolidation, Election, Rule of Law

2
INTRODUCTION

Democracy refers to a system involving multiparty, elections, representative government, and

freedom of speech. It is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say

in the decision that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (direct or indirect)

participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It encompasses

social, economic and cultural conditions that enables the free and equal practice of political

self-determination. The origin of the concept of democracy could be traced to the Greeks. To

the Greeks, “Demos” means people while “Kratien” or “Kratos” means government or to

rule. The concept has myriads of definitions depending on the scholar. Satori (1965)

conceives democracy as “the power of the people and the rule of the people. To Appadorai

(1975:137), “It is a system of government under which the people exercise the governing

power either directly or through representatives periodically elected by themselves”.

Abraham Lincoln views democracy as “the government of the people, by the people and for

the people”.

Democracy requires the active participation of citizens. Ideally, the various democratic

institutions should keep citizens engaged in the business of governance by informing,

educating and mobilising the public. In many new democracies, political parties, civil

societies and other non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play a very important role

because they serve as connecting rods between the people and the government.

The reality, however, is that the people in a new and restored democracy like Nigeria do not

always live up to expectation and or play by the rules. Still, in many fledgling democracies

like Nigeria, the people have been managing to assert their role because the political class has

3
been too influential that they have hijacked the democratic process making nonsense of the

dictum, ‘power to the people’.

The area that is now Nigeria was controlled by the British during the "scramble for Africa"

era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1914, the British created modern Nigeria by

uniting three distinct ethnic regions-the Islamic north (home of the Hausa-Fulani peoples),

the Southwest (Yoruba) and the southeast (Ibo). The ethnic divisions within the country have

also been a constant source of political troubles. Beginning in the 1920s, nationalist leaders

were demanding autonomy for Nigeria within the British Commonwealth. These movements

gathered momentum in the post-Second World War era, and the British soon realized that

independence was inevitable. Negotiations led to democratic elections and the installation of

an independent government on October 1, 1960.

The nascent democratic system, however, fell victim to Nigeria's underlying ethnic divisions

shortly after independence. A military coup by Ibo officers brought down Nigerian

democracy in 1966 and anti-Ibo violence and counter-coups eventually sparked a civil war.

The eastern, Ibo-led, oil-rich part of the country, named Biafra, attempted to secede in 1967;

the ensuing three years of war killed between 500,000 and 2 million people in the region.

Civilian rule returned to Nigeria in 1979 in the form of the National Party of Nigeria, led by

Alhaji Shehu Shagari. He attempted to govern by consensus, but his administration was

perceived as weak, ineffective and corrupt. In addition, widespread economic

mismanagement created mounting economic problems. In 1983, Shagari was forced to

confront a drastic loss in revenue caused by falling oil prices; he announced a sharp cut in

imports to slow the mushrooming foreign debt. The resulting economic chaos initiated

renewed public unrest and Shagari's government was replaced by another military oligarchy.

A succession of northern-dominated military governments has held power ever since. These

4
regimes have repeatedly promised a return to democratic government, and various

preparatory steps have been taken.

In 1985, the military regime, under General Ibrahim Babangida, promised a return to more

humane and civilian government. Steps to this goal included a loosening of political

censorship and the release of political prisoners. Continued economic distress, however,

forced the government to delay a return to civilian rule until 1992.

Elections were held in 1993. Mashood Abiola, a prominent Yoruba businessman, apparently

won the elections and declared that he would be forming a government of national unity. The

military rulers nullified the election results and in June 1994 arrested Abiola for claiming the

right to rule. He was imprisoned until his release and subsequent death on 7 July 1998.

Though Abiola was by no means the cleanest actor in Nigerian politics, he was a symbol of

democracy for most Nigerians. Many Nigerians hope that his death, along with the death of

General Abacha, will usher in a new era of civilian democracy.

Nigeria, the most populous and potentially the richest country in Africa, was at an important

crossroads in its political history. The deaths of Nigeria's two most important political actors-

hardline military ruler General Sani Abacha and imprisoned leader Mashood Abiola, both of

heart failure-has left the country in chaos. It is hoped by most of the population that Nigeria's

new military leader, General Abdulsalam Abubakar will create a civilian transitional

government, as has been promised in the past. The struggle for civilian democracy has

defined Nigeria's political history.

In 1999, the administration of General Abdulsalami Abubakar conducted an election that

ushered in the Fourth Republic which is the focal point of this research project. The election

was won by Chief Olusegun Obasanjo whose tenure ended on May 29 th 2007. Elections were

conducted that same year and Umaru Musa Yar’Adua won the Presidential election and died

5
in 2010. On his sick bed, Nigeria went through some tumultuous periods occasioned by a

group of cabal who did not want to transmit the presidential powers to the then Vice

President in the person of Goodluck Jonathan. Eventually, through the invocation of doctrine

of necessity the parliament passed a resolution transmitting the presidential powers to him

and in 2011, there was another rounds of general elections which returned former President

Goodluck Jonathan to power through an overwhelming victory in the polls. That election was

widely acclaimed to be one of the freest and fairest on the soil of Nigeria. Again, in 2015,

elections were conducted and President Muhammadu Buhari was elected as the President of

the Federal Republic of Nigeria between 2015-2019.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework used in this study is the elite theory. The array of the proponents

of this theory like Robert Michels, Wright Mills, Floyd Hunter, William Domhoff, James

Burnham, Robert D. Putnam, Thomas R. Dye are of the view that in every society, two

groups of people appear; the minority who are very powerful and are united and very

formidable and secondly, the majority that are unorganised and powerless. The major tenets

of elite theory are:

(i) Societies are divided into the few who have power many who do not. Only a small

number of persons allocate values for society; the masses do not decide public policy.

(ii) The few who govern are not typical of the masses who are governed. Elites are drawn

disproportionately from the Upper Socio-Economic strata of the society.

(iii) The movement of non-elites to elites positions must be slow and continuous to

maintain stability and avoid reduction. Only non-elites who accepted the basic elite

consensus can be admitted to governing circles.

6
(iv) Elites share a consensus on the basic values of the social system and the preservation

of the system.

(v) Public policy does not reflect demands of the masses, but rather the prevailing values

of the elites. Changes in public policy will be incremental rather than revolutionary.

(vi) Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from pathetic masses.

Elites influence masses more than masses influence elites (Dye & Zeigler, 1972).

The elites especially the political elites usually struggle to consolidate democracy to further

their interest within the Nigerian society. This is because the organized elites will always

have consensus and in unity, they make sure that they get what they want using democratic

institutions at all times irrespective of the feeling of the masses.

This research fundamentally assumes that democracy is a beautiful bride and it appears to be

the most appealing ideology and it is a force to reckon with if the elites who most often than

not inundate the people with issues that are capable of causing uneasiness to our democracy

want to always remain secured. Democratic institutions are like the pillars of every

democracy and so, adhering strictly to their ethics by ensuring that their there is always

respect for the rule of law and due process is sine-qua-non to democratic consolidation. But

the irony is that the elites use these institutions for their own benefits. Since it is a known fact

that Nigerian elitism is a never-ending circulation, in which case, the elites that have been on

the corridors of power since independence era are still the ones holding power today or their

stooges. This is done to further or protect the interest of their elite-godfathers.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Concept of Democracy

The origin of the concept of democracy as earlier pointed out, could be traced to the Greeks,

‘Demos’ means the people while ‘Kratien’ or ‘Kretos’ means government or to rule. The

7
concept developed first in the small Greek City States, and the Athenian model of democracy

is what always falls back on (Satori, 1965).

Democracy is always applied in a variety of ways. For instance, Satori (1965:19) conceives

of democracy as, “the power of the people and his rule of the people.” Furthermore,

Appadorai (1975:137) describes it as a “ a system of government under which the people

exercise the governing power either directly or through representatives periodically elected

by themselves.” In his own contribution, Schumpeter (1967:153) reduces the concept to

procedural, when he defines the democratic method as the “institutional arrangement for

arriving at political decisions in which individuals require the power to decide by means of a

competitive struggle for the people’s vote”. And from the Marxist point of Marx and Engel’s

(1981) the communist manifesto, democracy connotes the “the dictatorship of the

proletariat,” that is to say majority rule.

MCpherson (1978) States that democracy originally meant rule by the common people, the

problems. It was very much a class affairs; it meant the sway of the lowest and largest class.

That is why it was feared, reflected, and modified by men of the age of enlightenment

spearhead by the British who valued their properly more than issue of political sentiments.

Democracy as a levelling doctrine, was also rejected by Plato in the fifth century BC,

Cromwell in the seventeenth century AD, and by John Stuart Mill, the major nineteenth

century apostle of liberalism. J.B. Miller, for example, realized that the common people had

to be treated as people, proposed a system of voting that would prevent the labour class from

having majority voice from having majority voice in decision-making so as to safe-guard the

interest of the propertied-class who were in the minority. This is the tap-rot of the variety of

models of democracy we have currently.

8
There are certain things that must be in every democracy to make it a truly democratic

society. These include:

(i) There must be an electorate political authority derives only from the mandate or prior

agreement of the electorate.

(ii) There must be a parliament or an assembly to legislate for the country.

(iii) There is the need for executive that would be responsible for the day-t0-day

administration of the state. It is the Executive that would carry out the decisions of

parliament .

(iv) To be sure that the principle of separation of power is adhered to, there must be a free

judiciary the courts must not be under the control of either the parliament or the

Executive and justice must be family and justly dispensed.

(v) Another feature of democracy is that there must be periodic elections at which all

eligible citizens must have equal rights to vote without discrimination of any type.

(vi) In a democratic set up, human rights are guaranteed and protected. Such rights,

include freedom of association, religion, movements, speech, etc.

(vii) it is normal in a democracy that the provisions of the constitution are supreme. If any

law is inconsistent with the constitution the provisions of the constitution always

remain and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be null and void

(Satori, 1965).

These features are integral to every democracy because they make possible free discussion on

the continuous participation of the people in government, not only at the time of elections.

The features are important, because democracy is based on a belief which places great value

on individual personality and individual freedom.

9
Where power is conferred permanently or where on account of an atmosphere of fear and

coercion, people do not feel free to discuss, vote and displace the existing government if they

want to do so, democracy cannot be said to exist.

Concept of Democratic Consolidation

According to Diamond (1997), democratic consolidation represents a state whereby

institutions, rules and constraints of democracy becomes the sole legitimate means for the

acquisition and exercise of political power. For Jega (2006) cited in Erunke (2012),

democratic consolidation is a term which describes the vital political goal for a transiting

democracy with intermittent flop by authoritarian rule. It consists of overlapping behavioural,

attitudinal and constitutional dimensions through which democracy becomes routinised and

deeply internalised in social, institutional and even psychological life as well as political

calculation for achieving success.

Ademola (2011), on the other hand argued that democratic consolidation is an identifiable

phase in the process of transition from authoritarian to democratic system that are critical to

the establishment of a stable, institutional and lasting democracy. Similarly, Beetham (1994),

cited in Mohammed (2013) sees democratic consolidation as the challenge of making new

democracies secure and extending their life expectancy beyond the short term of making

them immune against the threat of authoritarian repression and of building dams against

eventual reverse waves. For Frimpong- Mansoh (2012:14), democratic consolidation refers to

“a firm establishment and successful completion of the process of political democratization”.

According to Ogundiya (2009), democratic consolidation is about regime maintenance and

about regarding the key political institution as the only legitimate framework for political

10
contestation and adherence to the democratic rules of the game. In the same vein,

Mainwaring (1992), define democratic consolidation as the acceptance by all political actors

that democratic procedure dictate government renewal. Put differently, democratic

consolidation entails widespread acceptance of rules that generate political participation and

competition. Linz and Stephan (1999:5) contend that in a consolidated democracy,

“democracy becomes the only game in town” and offer a framework encompassing behavior

and attitudinal and constitutional means of determining democratic consolidation.

Behaviourally, there are no significant socio-economic, political, institutional or national

actors trying to achieve their aims through unconstitutional means, violence or in attempt to

secede from the state.

Huntington (1991), on his part, postulates a “two- turnover” thesis as an indicator of

democratic consolidation. He argues that democracy becomes consolidated when an

entrenched regime delivers free, fair and competitive election by which the party that wins

power at the initial elections during the transition phase loses in subsequent elections and

hands over power to the winning party and when the winning party also in turn hands over

power peacefully to another party at subsequent elections

Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria

The yardstick to measure democratic consolidation in any country is tied to the effectiveness

of democratic institutions and the capacity of those institutions to carry out their functions

with little or no encumbrances. These institutions are looked at vis-a-vis their functionality in

Nigerian democracy.

Legislature: At the inception of the current democratic dispensation in the country in 1999,

the hallowed chambers of the central legislature became an auditorium of monumental

political dramaturgy. Extant literature on this episode is humongous. We shall only sample

11
the aspects that had to do with leadership instability and the meddlesomeness of the executive

branch of government, personified by the then President Olusegun Obasanjo, in the affairs of

the two arms of the National Assembly in Nigeria: the Senate and the House of

Representatives. In Banjo (2013), we see a well-documented effort in chronicling the

Nigerian Senate’s leadership embarrassment between 1999 and 2007. In most cases, the

executive branch of government was behind this leadership imbroglio. In conclusion, Banjo

posits:

We have proved in this descriptive analysis that the upper house of

the Nigerian National Parliament that sat from 3 June 1999 to 29
May, 2007 produced financial scandals as well as a leadership crisis
as its major defining attribute. In conclusion, we submit that
whenever the history and politics of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic are
examined/re-examined, the Senate will face a rather critical review
for some unparliamentarily attributes.
According to Okolie (2012) who reported the submissions of Emeka Ihedioha, former Deputy

Speaker of Nigeria’s House of Representatives, the political leadership that emerged in 1999

was coming from a military background where the idea of a legislature was totally unknown

or greatly detested. Under succeeding military regimes, Ihedioha highlighted, the ruling

military High Command always combined executive and legislative powers. Government

policies and programmes were carried out with “immediate effect”. The military had no

patience for “too much grammar” and debates often associated with parliamentary

democracy. So, for a former military leader who was used to issuing out orders and getting

things done, it was inconceivable for former President Obasanjo to be sharing powers with

“idle civilians” who constituted the legislature in a democratic setting.3 The tendency to

assert total control was ever present. This mental construct or military hangover was

primarily responsible for the adversarial relationship that existed between the Executive and

the Legislature, between 1999 and 2007 in Nigeria.

Ihedioha further submitted that the desire of the Executive to exercise total control over the

12
Legislature led to the imposition of leadership in the two chambers of the National Assembly,

against the preferences of majority of the members. Hence, the two chambers of the National

Assembly: the Senate and the House of Representatives, similarly witnessed crises of

leadership, which had their origin in the meddlesomeness of the Executive (Okolie 2012).

Within the specific context of democratic consolidation, it is highlighted in this study that as

the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan came to an end in 2015 and Retired

General Muhammadu Buhari was sworn in as the President of Nigeria, such executive

meddlesomeness was no longer presentable as a feature of Nigeria’s democracy. Both the

Senate and the House of Representative had freely elected their leaders, who were

successfully leading them to the end of the tenure of Nigeria’s seventh National Assembly.

In the case of the Senate President, David Mark, who had served for an unprecedented two

terms of four years each, as Senate President, he maintained a reciprocally cordial

relationship with the executive branch of government. In the case of Alhaji Aminu

Tambuwal, who had also completed a single term of four years as Speaker, he actually

emerged Speaker against the evident wishes of the executive branch of government.

Throughout his tenure, he retained the strong support of a majority of the House Members

while disagreeing most times with the policies and administrative tendencies of the

Executive. Even when he (Tambuwal) decamped from the then majority party in the House,

the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), under which platform he became Speaker and moved to

the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC), he still remained Speaker, (in contentious

circumstances) but with the evident support of his colleagues in the House (across party

divides).

Freedom of Speech: It is instructive to point out that this subsection of the study is not called

“Freedom of Speech” in error. It was not meant to be captioned “Freedom of the Press”

which is equally a necessary condition for democratic consolidation. We specifically

13
underscore by this caption, the notion of the right of the citizen to freely express his views as

his contribution to democratic consolidation.

This is conceptually different from freedom of the press, even where the two concepts may

overlap. Freedom of speech entails that the citizen expresses his views without being abused

by the person he elected into office. We are of course already alluding to the Presidency of

Chief Olusegun Obasanjo in Nigeria. According to Obafemi (2004), with regards to Chief

Obasanjo:

Nigeria’s President, Olusegun Obasanjo has become an institution or

rather a wild thorn that is uncontrollable ... There are many reports in
the news media both locally and internationally of his convulsive and
abusive tempers which is unbecoming of a leader. It is still fresh in
our mind the insult he hurled on the victims and families of the Ikeja
military cantonment hardware explosion. Hundreds of people died in
that explosion and the President was reported to have insulted the
victims and their family, calling them stupid as they attempted to find
an answer to their calamities. And now in Plateau State, the Nigeria
President has thrown the temper tantrum again, calling the Chairman
of the state chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) an
idiot in an open forum.
Oduyela (2004) also has a record of Chief Obasanjo’s abusive methodologies. By 2015

however, under the Presidency of Dr Goodluck Jonathan, for a President to abuse a Nigerian

citizen would be unthinkable. To demonstrate the extent to which Dr Jonathan liberalized the

public space for the citizens to freely express their concerns and contribute to the democratic

process, he once declared that he was the most criticized President in the world (Chiedozie

2012). Further to our democratic consolidation thesis, the freedom of speech that is currently

available to Nigerian citizens is a positive development. Another positive dimension to the

freedom of speech characterization of the current democratic tendencies in the country is that

those who express some otherwise provocative views are not even molested by government,

knowing that the hunting of some of such characters in the past ended in wild goose chase

(Eziukwu, 2015).

14
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC): The professional and administrative

capacity of an electoral umpire is critical to the credibility of the electoral process in

particular and the overall assessment of electoral democracy in a specific polity. The

Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in Nigeria, under the leaderships of

Justice Ephraim Akpata in 1999, Sir Abel Guobadia in 2003 and Professor Maurice Iwu in

2007 were usually perceived to be deficient in professional and administrative competencies.

It was actually these deficiencies, which manifested as INEC-induced irregularities in the

elections conducted by INEC, under the leaderships of these Chairmen. Obah-Akpowoghaha

(2013), Musa (2011) and EU Election Observer Mission Report (2011), Ebirim (2013)

highlights as follows:

Justice Ephraim Akpata and Sir Abel Guobadia served as the

Chairmen of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in
1999 and 2003 respectively. During these periods (1999 and 2003), it
was reported that election results were widely condemned by the
opposition, and the European Union Election Observers. The
elections were marred by poor organization, lack of essential
transparency, violence, widespread procedural irregularities and
significant evidence of fraud, particularly during result collation
process.
In 2005, Professor Maurice Iwu became the Chairman of Independent National Electoral

Commission (INEC). His tenure was perhaps the most controversial, when compared to his

successors. The 2007 election he conducted was marred by massive irregularities and blatant

favoritism and he was criticized by Nigerian and foreign observers for conducting election

that fell below acceptable democratic standards and this statement was also admitted by the

late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, the ostensible winner of the 2007 election (Ebirim,

2013).

On June 8, 2010, Professor Attahiru Muhammadu Jega was nominated by President

Goodluck Jonathan as the new Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission

(INEC), subject to Senate confirmation as a replacement for Professor Maurice Iwu, who

vacated the post on April 28, 2010. Professor Attahiru Jega’s nomination as INEC chairman

15
followed approval by a meeting of the National Council of State called by President Jonathan

and attended by former Heads of State … Before the April 2011 elections were conducted (in

Anambra State), the much maligned Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had

undergone an internal overhaul, under its new boss, Professor Attahiru Jega. INEC claims

that a great deal of time and money had been invested in technology, for a high-technological

registration process, and in staffing, in order to ensure that the elections were free and fair

(Ebirim 2013).

The elections in Anambra State were largely adjudged free and fair and subsequent elections

conducted in Nigeria under the leadership of Professor Attahiru Jega as the Electoral body’s

Chairman were usually adjudged largely free and fair by nonpartisan commentators. The

cumulative successes in the conduct of such elections in the different states of the federation

(where gubernatorial elections became due) culminated in the success recorded by the Jega-

led INEC in the 2015 general elections. The truth is that, the professional and administrative

capacities of INEC witnessed immense boost under the leadership of Attahiru Jega. This

competent disposition of the electoral umpire, in an electoral democracy, is a sine qua non for

democratic consolidation.

The Challenges of Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic

Electoral Malpractice: One of the tenets of democracy is orderly change of government

through credible free, fair and periodic elections. Since restoration of democratic rule in the

country, elections have been characterized by monumental irregularities and malpractices

which magnitude increases with every election. Institutions of state such as the police, the

military, and the electoral body collude to manipulate the electoral process in favour of

certain candidate. Apart of election being one of the cardinal principles of democracy or

democratic process, free, fair and credible elections are central to the consolidation of

democracy. This is because, it defines the degree of freedom exercised by the people in

16
selecting who represent them in government. But this has not been the case in Nigeria as the

system is manipulated in favour of certain individuals and political parties (Ogbonnaya,

Omoju and Udefuna, 2012).

Poverty: Poverty is another factor that constitutes grave challenge to democratic

consolidation in the country. Nigeria is blessed with abundant human and natural resources

and yet its people are poor. The nation is rank among the world’s poorest country. According

to United Nations Development Programme (2009), in Nigeria hunger exhibits its ugly face

in most homes where the average citizen contends with a life of abject poverty. Thus, the

average Nigerian is alienated from himself as he lacks the wherewithal to afford the basic

necessities of life such as education, medical facilities. According to Victor (2002) cited in

Ogbonnaya (2012) about 70% of Nigeria population are poor. The consequence of this is that

the poor masses are easily brainwashed and their right of choice terribly manipulated making

an objective choice seldom to consideration. Besides, various forms of inducements and

gratification which provide temporary relief from the scourge of poverty are given central

attention in making democratic choices. Poverty has also been identified by some scholars as

one of the causes of security challenges confronting the nation (Awoyemi, 2012; Harrington,

2012).

Corruption: Corruption constitutes one of the greatest challenges and threats to the democrat

consolidation in Nigeria Fourth Republic. The incidence of corruption in the country reached

a crescendo in2004 when a German based non-governmental organisation called

Transparency International in its 2004 Corruption Perception Index (CPI), report projected

Nigeria as the 2nd most corrupt country in the world (132nd out of 133 countries surveyed)

(Akinyemi, 2008). Nigeria has also been ranked as the 3rd most corrupt country in the Sub-

Saharan Africa and 143rd out of 183 countries surveyed around the world in 2011

(Transparency International, 2011). According to the Transparency International (2011), the

17
level of corruption and other related crimes in the country attracted between $4million and $8

million dollars loss on daily basis and a loss of about $70.58 million dollars to the national

economy annually and that the country has lost more than $380 billion to graft since the

country attained independence in 1960.

Incumbency factor: Incumbency gives the incumbent an undue advantage over other

participants in the electoral process through the means of manipulating the entire electoral

process. The manipulation can take different forms ranging from compilation of voters’

register, the appointment of electoral officers, members of electoral tribunal to protect stolen

mandates, use of state instrument of coercion and apparatus to intimidate opposition parties

and denial of access to state owned media houses, etc, to ensure they regain or elongate their

tenure against popular will as well as the use of state funds for campaign. The cumulative

effect of incumbency factor on democratic consolidation is that it leads to the erosion of the

principle of democratic governance which has led to the emergence of political godfather and

family dynasty (Nwanegbo and Alumona, 2011).

Lack of viable Opposition Parties: Since the inception of this republic, there has been no

viable and credible opposition party capable of checkmating the ruling party. Opposition

parties are vital in every functional and people oriented democratic government. This is

because they checkmate the excess of government or its agencies by highlighting

constitutional rules and appropriate principle and practice in democratic governance.

Nigeria’s political environment has been dominated by the People Democratic Party since

restoration of democratic rule in 1999. Although the country has over fifty political parties,

most of them are very weak to provided needed opposition to the ruling party at the centre.

Thus, the absence of viable opposition in today’s Nigeria democratic system left the ruling

party to call the shots on most national affairs (Njoku, 2012).

18
Insecurity: One of the daunting challenges confronting the present democratic dispensation

is insecurity. Since the return of democracy, the country has experienced ethno-religious

crises, sectarian mayhem, etc., questioning and shaking the survival of the country. Some of

these crises include: Yoruba/Hausa-Fulani disturbance in Shagamu, Ogun State; Aguleri,

Umuleri and Umuoba Anam of Anambra State; Ijaw/Itsekiri crisis over the location of Local

Government headquarter; the Jukun, Chamba and Kuteb power struggle over who control

Takum; incessant turbulence in Jos; the 2011 post-election violence in the northern part of the

country as well as the constant sectarian crisis exemplified by the activities of the Boko

Haram.

The analysis of the above upheaval will reveal that our democracy is under siege prompting

Dauda and Avidime (2007) to argue that the current security situation in the country is a

major obstacle to the consolidation of democracy. It is important to note that despite these

challenges there is a light at the end of the tunnel. After fourteen years of uninterrupted

democracy, the longest in the history of the country. Nigeria can be said to have arrived

democratically. There abound significant elements of democratic consolidation in the

political system and these are: vibrant press, independent judiciary and a budding civil

society as well as widespread acceptance of elections as a means of choosing political

leaders.

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS

Firstly, through the help of the democracy, so many issues have been put on the front burner

of public discourse. These issues affect Nigerians directly or indirectly and in most cases

negatively. They include lack of adherence to the rule of law, violation of fundamental rights

of citizens, corruption, poverty and insecurity. Secondly, since the advent of this Fourth

Republic, democracy in Nigeria one of the most vibrant in the world but there are so many

19
internal and external factors that militate against its effectiveness and efficiency. They

include lack of internal democracy in the political parties, manipulation of election results

and terrorism. Thirdly, that the level at which the people are disillusioned with governance in

Nigeria especially with the political party that formed government in power has degenerated

into unprecedented status, thus, forcing the citizens to become apathetic and it is not good for

any democracy. By way of recommendations, the following are put forward:

i. The government should provide an enabling environment for the political parties to thrive

and elections should always be free and fair in the country without unnecessary

intervention.

ii. The issue of poverty should be tackled with immediate alacrity to discourage.

iii. The civil society organisations should sit up to always checkmate the excesses of

democratic institutions in the country.

iv. The political parties should always insist on the practice of internal democracy because

by so doing, the whole country will witness democracy the true sense of it.

REFERENCES

Ademola, A. (2011), Endangering good governance for sustainable democracy: The

continuing struggle against corruption in Nigeria. Journal of Research on Peace,

Gender and Development 1(11). December. Pp- 307-314.

Akinyemi, B (2008), Corruption a battle Nigeria must win. Thisday, August 22. P22.

Amuwo, A. (2009). “The Political Economy of Nigeria's Post-military Elections, 1999–2007”

Review of African Political Economy, 36:119, 37-61.

Appadorai, A. (1975), The Substance of Politics. London: Oxford University Press.

Awoyemi, O. (2012), Revenue allocation, insecurity and poverty in Northern Nigeria

Retrieved on 17th October, 2013 from www.proshaven com/news/16703.

20
Banjo, A. (2013). “Leadership Crisis in the Parliament of Nigeria: The Case of the Senate in

the Fourth Republic.” Journal of African Studies and Development, 5(6): 135-144.

Dauda, O & Avidime, S. (2007), Towards a sustainable democratic government in Nigeria’s

fourth republic. Millennium Journal & International Studies. Vol.2.No.2:67-73.

Diamond, L (1997), Civil Society And The Development Of Democracy. Working Paper No.

101. Estudio.

Dye, R.T & Harman, Z. (1972) The Irony of Democracy. Belmont: Duxbury.

Erunke, C.E (2012), Reconsolidating democratic governance in Nigeria: Analysis and

suggestions. African Journal of Social Sciences. Vol.2.No.2 pp. 67-73.

Frinpong-Mansoh, Y.A. (2102) Democratic consolidation in Ghana: The role of the news

media. Africa Media and Democracy Conference, Accra, Ghana:1-36.

Harrington, E. (2012), Religion is not driving extremist violence in Nigeria, says Obama

officials, after church bombing, CNS News Retrieved on 17th October, 2013 from

www.cncnews/news/artcle/.../

Huntington, S.P (1991), The Third Wave: Democratisation In The Late Twentieth Century.

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Linz, J.J & Stephan, A (1999), Problems Of Democratic Transition And Consolidation:

Southern Europe, South America And Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore and

London: The John Hopkins University Press.

Marx and Engel (1977), Manifesto of the Communist Party. Moscow: Progress

Publisher.

Macperson, C.B. (1978), The Real World Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Mainwaring, S., (1992), Issues in democratic consolidation: The South American democratic

in comparative perspective. Notre Dame: university of Notre Dame Press.

21
Mohammed, U (2013), Nigeria’s elected system: A change to sustainable democracy in the

fourth republic. International Journal of innovative Research and Development Pp.

567- 581. Available at www.ijird.com

Njoku, A.O (2010), Political violence and its implications to democratic consolidation in

Nigeria. Knowledge Review 21(4). December. Pp 16-22

Nwanegbo, C.J &Alumona, I.M (2011), Incumbency factor and democratic consolidation in

Nigeria’s fourth republic. The Social Sciences 6(2) pp. 125-130.

Obafemi, A. (2014). “Pastor Adejare Adeboye Should Call President Olusegun Obasanjo to

Order” http://nigeriaworld.com/articles/2004/may/171.html. Accessed, 11/05/2015.

Obah-Akpowoghaha, N. G. (2013). “Assessment of the Impact of Political Recruitment on

Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria, 1999-2007.” Masters of Science Thesis,

Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.

Oduyela, S. (2004). “Ogbeh and Obasanjo: Two Sides of Same Coin.”

http://nigeriaworld.com/feature/publication/oduyela/122004.html.

Accessed, 11/05/2015.

Ogbonnaya, U.M., Omoju, O.E. & Udefuna, N.P. (2012), The Challenges Of Democratic

Government In Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences

vol. 3 (11) November Pp. 685-693.

Okolie, A. (2012). “Ihedioha: Obasanjo Sowed Seed of Discord in N’Assembly”

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/ihedioha-obasanjo-sowed-seed-of-discord-in-

nassembly/118751/. Accessed, 11/05/2015.

Okoronkwo-Chukwu, U. (2013). “Female Representation in Nigeria: The Case of the 2011

General Elections and the Fallacy of 35% Affirmative Action.” Research on

Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(2): 39-46.

Satori, O. (1995), Democracy: What it is?, London: Macmillan.

22
Schumpeter, A. (1967), The Basic Tenets of Democracy, London: Macmillan.

23