Dictatorship and Reframing the Title of the President – By Sesan Michael Johnson
The Punch newspaper’s use of the title of Major General for the president and Wole Soyinka’s use of President-General are just pointers to the agitation about the alleged dictatorial propensity of the president of the country. Without mincing words, the president was once a Major General and it is generally believe that once a military man, you are a military man forever. Who can even deny the fact that the president is constitutionally the Head of the Armed Forces, i.e., the Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C).
Whereas, the brazen actions of the DSS on Sowore amidst other allegations of frontal flouting of court judgments by the Presidency and its agents are continually affirming this agitation. Is this accusation tenable? Is the president really a dictator? In what ways has Buhari manifested dictatorship? As a Rtd. Major General and former Head of State, Buhari was a dictator when he ruled this country between 1983 and 1985 before he was toppled via a coup by another dictator (IBB). This is markedly supported by Nigeria’s political history. Evidently, Buhari’s dictatorial antecedents cannot be deleted from our collective memories. What is arguable or questionable is whether the president is currently a dictator?
After all, Buhari himself asserts that he is now a converted democrat. What do Nigerians tend to gain or lose with the possibilities of the resurrection of Buhari’s dictatorship? Pro-Buhari groups argue that at worst Buhari’s dictatorship will help fight corruption to a standstill in Nigeria. Can Buhari’s dictatorship help the country to recover looted funds? Judging by the antecedents of some historical benevolent dictators, can we allow Buhari to become a democratic dictator? If Buhari’s dictatorship will help Nigeria achieve progress and development, why can’t we allow him to become one? Too many questions begging for answers and we may not exhaust them all in this (single) piece.
What are the socio-political and economic conditionalities in Nigeria that could reconvert Buhari to a dictator? Buhari’s ‘Cult of Personality’ and the locusts of die-hard online crusaders with the flowery and sponsorship of their dedication by political shenanigans at the corridors of power portend grave concerns. History reminds us that Hitler and other world dictators enjoined ‘Cults of Personality’ that eventually beclouded their sense of humanity. In the same sense, there have been different accusations that Buhari is pursuing a Fulani agenda. Many had pointed to the seemingly ambivalence of Buhari’s presidency to some of these ethnic-based clashes particularly to those orchestrated by some marauding herdsmen and Islamic chauvinists. Has anyone proven this Fulani agenda to be true? I am afraid that even OBJ’s claim of Fulanisation agenda has not proven this beyond doubt. However, what cannot been questioned is the special sensationalism the president has for his tribe and the large dose of Fulani nationalism the president enjoys. If as alleged, Buhari is truly a stark promoter of Hausa/Fulani agenda or Islamic fundamentalism, the current situations can increase his propensity towards dictatorship. Consider Hitler’s Germany as one of the most paradoxical and striking cases. While there were some German anti-Semitic agitations during the late 19th century, Germany did not seem the most likely place for dictatorship to thrive. Hitler manipulated the polity by arousing Germany’s nationalistic jingoism to promote his dictatorship not only against the rest of Europe but also against non-Aryan people in Germany (German-Jews, etc).
In the same manner, Russia’s Bolshevik regime leveraged its dictatorship on the general hatred for the ‘bourgeoisie’ (capitalists) who were blamed for the Soviets’ ills. Afterwards, Lenin’s subtle dictatorship became exemplified through his ‘command economy’ he executed during the Russian Civil War between the White Army and the Red Army. Lenin’s successor, Stalin (a brutal dictator) pushed that philosophy farther, exterminating the so-called ‘corrupt rich’ who came to include rich peasants (kulaks) through his ‘purge’. It is on historical records that Stalin’s Steel Hand eventually fell on the masses thereby leading to full-fledged tyranny and totalitarianism. It is germane to point out that economic recession/depression suffered by Germany and Russia also promoted the dictatorships of the leaders mentioned above. This was applicable to the emergence of Mussolini’s dictatorship in Italy. You can reframe these conditionalities within the Nigeria’s political dynamism.
Since Buhari’s Nigeria has begun, Boko Haram’s insurgency/terrorism in the Northeast, bandits’ attacks in the Northwest, and IPOB’s discordant secession demands for the Republic of Biafra in the Southeast and other national challenges had drastically increased the military involvement in governance particularly in the public and political domain. Whereas, an active and continuous romance between the military and a president who has military background portends a call for dictatorship. Thus, amidst these cacophonous seas of conflicts and challenges pervading Nigeria’s polity, the country remains vulnerable to emergence of a dictator.
Beyond the above discussion, some have pointed to the vulnerability of Lawan’s Senate and credulity of Gbaja’s House, as well as the conniving ambivalence of Tanko’s Judiciary to allege that, it will not be out of place for the president to mature into embracing or unleashing his dictatorial propensity. In the same vein, it is will be easy for the president to demand for arbitrary power to deal with a national emergency and restore order, even though underlying problems might have been caused by bad government policies. Likewise, all in the name of protecting national sovereignty, many people are often willing to go along with and support totalitarianism that would be unthinkable in normal democratic times.
Whereas adverse economic situations are also creating opportunities for dissidents, activists, and opposition elements to rise against the state, however, an aspiring dictator can then use this as his social capital under the guise of national security in order to accomplish his ultimate desire to silent critics and destroy opponents.
With two decades of uninterrupted democracy in Nigeria, many had argued that it will be very difficult for a dictator to emerge in Nigeria. Some opine that this is impossible since the nation’s constitution is anchored on democratic principles. Many people are pointing to the complexity and complicatedness inherent in Nigeria’s heterogeneity. However, dictatorship had surfaced where it is least expected. It had been brewed among prosperous, educated and civilized people who seemed safe from a dictatorship – in Africa, Europe, Asia and South America. Historically, Nigeria has had her dose of dictatorship through military leaders such as Abacha, Babangida, Buhari, etc.
Those who dismiss the possibility of a dictatorial regime in Nigeria need to consider possible developments that could make our circumstances worse and politically more volatile than they are now – like endemic corruption, soaring taxes, pogroms, inter tribal wars, inflation and economic collapse. No doubt, the Nigerian political system with a separation of powers and checks and balances as entrenched in the Constitution does make it more difficult for emergence of a dictator.
To be fair to the government, a president cannot sit down and allows undesirable elements to undermine the security of the state. Governmental powers within the ambit of the rule of laws and the country’s Constitution must be utilised to stop anti-national agenda and retrogression in the country. The president is voted for to protect the nation and the citizens. National interests must be projected and protected above individual and sectional agenda.
Like my readers, I am fully aware of the 1948 fundamental human rights and the rights entrenched in Nigeria’s Constitution. As an advocate of social justice, I strongly believe in freedom of speech, association and expression, freedom of every person of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear according to Roosevelt’s understanding of a ‘moral democracy’.
