Of iron-fist democracy

 Nigeria has been diagnosed as a schizophrenic nationhood: it is a democracy, but needs iron hand to survive. That was the insight brought into national discourse lately by Special Adviser to President Muhammadu Buhari on Media and Publicity, Femi Adesina.

The presidential spokesman submitted that what this country needs to stay course is a benevolent fascist: a leader who whips people into line in any part whenever they misbehave, but kindly so. In his weekly commentary penultimate Friday, titled ‘I suddenly remembered why I fell in love with the President,’ he argued for the persona of the Nigerian leader being one of “iron and steel, one ready and willing to knock sense into contumacious heads, whipping everyone into line. And being kind to us in the process. A kind bully, if you like the oxymoron.” He was writing against the backdrop of the President recently alluding to the Nigerian civil war and threatening to deal harshly with troublemakers – a comment that, when it was posted as a tweet, was deleted by Twitter for violating its user rules. Twitter has in turn been officially banned from operating in Nigeria.

Adesina said, inter alia: “What our country needs at this time is iron and steel. An alchemy of GMB (General Muhammadu Buhari) and PMB (President Muhammadu Buhari). We are in a democracy, yes, but democracy is no byword for lawlessness. If anybody misbehaves in any part, repeat, ANY PART, of the country, they need to be whipped into line. The nation needs not go into a tailspin because some people bear giant-sized grudges in their hearts. By the way, is there any part of the country that does not have one grievance or the other? Is the next option then to capsize the boat of the country? Any leader that has sworn to uphold the Constitution would not open his eyes, and see it happen.”

He added: “Leaders must do whatever they should do to maintain peace and tranquility in their countries. Their intentions will always be misinterpreted and misrepresented. No matter. The good of the larger majority must be considered at all times. North, South, East, West, anarchy should never be condoned, no matter what some people may say.” 

What the presidential spokesman advocated, in effect, was that repression be accepted as legitimate in dealing with ‘misbehaviour’ by any citizen or group of citizens in a democracy. He was in safe reference zone, of course, with models of rogue democracies offered by many African, Latin American and Asian countries; but not so with the classical libertarian philosophy and Western models that are considered paradigms of democracy, from which Nigeria decidedly copied its present system, and whose political value standards many Nigerians including the leadership elite fondly espouse. Not that Adesina isn’t right that lawlessness should never be condoned as a threat to national survival or impediment to national progress. Only that the concept and practical delimitations of lawlessness aren’t so clear. For instance, while sheer criminality is easily recognizable as social misbehaviour and lawlessness, is it right to as such regard public protests and other acts of civil disobedience? Adesina seems to so aggregate, but it is highly debatable. Besides, you don’t avow being a democracy and go acting fascistic. If there is the challenge of lawlessness in your democracy, what is advised is to seek how genuine democracies deal with the challenge.

For our purpose here, the place to begin is deconstruct Adesina’s iterations, and this compels that we go historical. The President he fell in love with apparently was the military ruler who, upon seizing power in 1979, horsewhipped Nigerians on open streets for purported indiscipline. True, that had some appeal at the time owing to gross decadence of the civilian leadership elite that was kicked out of power. But that appeal was short-lived, providing the crestwave of public resentment on which a subsequent coup sailed, with the arrowhead of that plot designating himself military president, just so to ease into public acceptance. If the horsewhipping act didn’t fly under military dictatorship, how on earth will it fly in the context of civil rule? The idea of whipping people into line is better substituted with talking people into line in a democracy.

“If the horsewhipping act didn’t fly under military dictatorship, how on earth will it fly in the context of civil rule?”

Iron fist is desirable in every society against criminality. But it helps to understand the root motivations of respective form of criminality to rightly tackle each kind. And this is not an approach that is alien to the present government. Herdsmen criminality, for instance, has been such a pervasively ruinous menace that state governors across the entire geo-political spectrum of this country have announced a ban on open grazing in their different jurisdictions while advocating preference for ranching. But even as constructive as that stance seemed, the Buhari presidency held the ban on open grazing illegal and instead touted “deep-rooted solutions” to herdsmen attacks by way of ranching – same as the governors wanted, but not barring open grazing – and creation of forest reserves. Ignore the dubious objection to the ban on open grazing; the useful upshot here is that “deep-rooted solutions” can equally be explored to separatist agitations presently tearing the country at the seams. Dialogue is one obvious approach to enacting  such solutions, and it isn’t far-fetched because many notable stakeholders, including governors and foreign partners of Nigeria, have strongly canvassed the option. Neither can you foreclose that the approach could work. When the late President Umaru Yar’Adua wanted to deal with the South-south militancy he inherited, and which was nearly bringing the nation’s economy to its knees, he called those militants to dialogue and offered the amnesty pact by which they were reined in, and remain so to date. Grudges are by no means exclusive to any group, but the good thing is: they can be discussed. If the present government explores negotiated solutions to criminalities that have even a faint semblance of issue at their roots, that would leave the menace of lawlessness for its own sake, like kidnappings for cash and robberies, to tackle with iron fist.

France offers a recent example of how decent democracies deal with lawlessness. A French man, early last week, took aim and delivered a slap on the face of President Emmanuel Macron during a visit by the French leader to the southeast of the country. That protester was not blasted to smithereens by trigger-itchy security agents because of the audacious misadventure, he was rather tackled to the ground and dragged off to court where he came off with a three-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of 1,500 Euro (1million CFA Francs) for assault and battery. A video footage of the incident showed the longhaired man reaching out with the slap and shouting “Down with Macronie” as the French leader cozied up to a small crowd in the Drôme region of France where he was visiting to speak with members of the food and restaurant industry. Mr. Macron, who quickly shook off the assault and resumed talking and shaking hands with the crowd, later said that he was fine and that the slap was an isolated incident. “The overwhelming majority of French people are interested in substantive issues,” he told a local newspaper, adding that a minority of “ultraviolent individuals” should not take over the public debate.

Two people were arrested in connection with the incident, but there was no single fatality. No horsewhipping, no iron fists. It is to be remotely imagined where the assaulter would land should he dare such act on a Nigerian leader. Beauty also was that politicians across the entire French spectrum swiftly condemned the act. “Democracy is debate, it is dialogue, it is the confrontation of ideas, the expression of legitimate disagreements. But it can never be violence or verbal assault, let alone physical assault,” Prime Minister Jean Castex told France’s lower house of Parliament. Even Mr. Macron’s fiercest opponent, Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Rally party, said it was “unacceptable” to physically attack the head of the French Republic. “I am Emmanuel Macron’s first opponent, but he is the president,” she said at a news conference in eastern France, adding: “One can fight him politically, but one cannot be violent in any way against him.”

There are lessons there for everyone to learn, including protesters.