Arendt Lijphart is the winner of the
1979 Ethnic and cultural pluralism Award of the American political science
Association.
He authored a beautiful book titled
“democracy in plural societies” which received global acclaim as a good
encyclopedia of information on politics of many diverse nations even as the
book has been widely recommended to scholarly minded persons around the World.
Briefly dwelling on his treatment of
the thematic area of “Consociational engineering” he enlightens us on the fact
that popular uprisings are essential elements that sustain democracy, and
respect for the rule of law.
Here is what he wrote: “This book’s
message to the political leaders of plural societies is to encourage them to
engage in a form of political engineering: if they wish to establish or
strengthen democratic institutions in their countries, they must become
consociational engineers”.
Turning to researchers on political
thematic issues of contemporary age, this the author stated thus; “Political scientists
have generally been far too reluctant to make macro-level policy
recommendations. Particularly as far as issues of development are concerned,
the contrast with their colleagues in economics is a stark one”.
As Giovanni Sartori puts it, “with
reference to economic development the economist is a planner; with reference to
political development the political scientist is a spectator. The economist
intervenes: His knowledge is applied knowledge. The political scientist awaits:
he explains what happens, but does not make it happen.”
Continuing on the fundamental basis
why societies without vibrant civil society community suffer from
politico-economic emancipation of the multitudes of the citizenry, he asserted
that “Yet we find ourselves in a genuine dilemma. On the one hand, if we
conceive of political development not as any change but as induced change
toward an intended goal-such as stable democracy-the need to specify the means
whereby this end can be re ached is self-evident. On the other hand, are we
justified in engaging in political engineering or in advising political
engineers when our knowledge is imperfect? Specifically, is our knowledge
sufficient to justify the recommendation of the means of consociational
democracy for the objective of an effective and durable democratic regime in a
plural society”.
Writing on the topic “The Philippine
democratic uprising and the contradictions of neoliberalism”, Ben Reid from the
university of Newcastle, stated as follows; “The mass uprising against and subsequent
collapse of President Joseph ‘Erap’ Estrada’s government in the Philippines
provides both an illustration of many of the main forms of and prevailing
attitudes to political struggles for democratisation in the contemporary Third
World”.
Occurring in late January 2001, the
uprising, he stressed, generated responses on a variety of overlapping scales:
international, regional and national. Simultaneously it demonstrated the
increasingly limited capacity of elites committed to neoliberal development
policy to endorse or countenance the use of democratic methods of mass
mobilization as a means of securing political and social change.
Many proponents of the neoliberal
commitment to market-orientated approaches to development and economic
growth-purportedly achieved through price stability, trade and investment
liberalization- in his considered thinking, are increasingly finding themselves
opposed to the demands and methods of democratic mass movements.
The precise reason for this
reflection is because of the overwhelming evidence that suddenly civil activism
and constructive non-violent uprisings have taken the back seats in the affairs
of Nigeria thereby exposing millions of Nigerians to the vagaries of mass
poverty, social inequities, mass unemployment, and the collapse of the basic
infrastructures of health and education. Once upon a time when Nigeria
had the likes of the Musical Maestro Mr. Fela Anikuapo Kuti, Chief Gani
Fawehinmi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Senior Advocate of the masses and of
course Mr. Chima Ubani the co-founder of the Campaign for Democracy and the
Civil Liberties Organization, the ruling political elite were kept constantly
on their toes even as these elite were circumspect in adopting or implementing
draconian economic measures that only impoverishes the civil populace. As
soon as these great personages passed on to the great World beyond it seems
like Nigeria is now under the totalitarian stronghold of a range of forces that
have emasculated the fundamental freedoms of the common Nigerians to be able to
chart the best course of their collective social and economic advancements.
Those of us who are struggling to succeed these great iconic civil society
figures are still miles away from attaining their lofty positions due to a
number of factors that are within the frame of human concupiscence. Some
arguments have been advanced that the reason why some of these great
personalities I mentioned above were very active was because Nigeria was then
under military dictatorships and so the rest of the democratic World were
willing and indeed were predisposed towards the provisions of essential
monetary and capacity building assistance and the technical know-how to some of
these civil society leaders to be able to pose effective challenge through
active mass mobilization of the rest of the fearless civilian community to
protest massively on the streets even amidst threats to their lives by the gun
wielding boys from the military barracks. There is also this side of the debate
that because civil democracy arrived in Nigeria in 1999 the Western World
completely shrunk the frontiers of technical and monetary assistance to the
civil society community in Nigeria. The few available international donor
baskets have also been effectively cornered by some few members of a powerful
cabal within the human rights community who have made sure that whatever funds
trickles down from the European and United States communities are shared among
their ranks leaving the rest of us as onlookers who would then be forced to
look around frantically for local funds to be mopped up to enable us remain
relevant and by so doing there is usually the tempting tendencies to collect
some funds from some bad sources within and without the government circles.
This is not to say that the rest of us who still remain relevant in the civil
society community have not managed to raise local funds from credible local
sources. But the presence of any rotten eggs within the civil society community
has substantially affected the vibrancy of mass mobilization for effective
popular uprisings and constructive non-violent actions that would make the
society better. Questions still linger.
Why is Nigeria under
the suffocating throes of a number of forces both centripetal and centrifugal
especially on the economic front? Why are there forces that have made social
life difficult for Nigerians and have vowed that the petroleum sector will
never be well with Nigerians? Why should Nigerians suffer because there is
scarcity of petroleum products for the common man even when Nigeria has crude
oil resources on our soil especially in the neglected Niger Delta region? Why
is civil activism in the tertiary institutions in a state of comatose and the
student's union hijacked by elements from extraneous forces especially the
political wing of the elite? Why are the Labor unions virtually dead and the
leaders marooned and ensconced in air conditioned offices of some hurriedly set
up government contraptions such as SURE-P and boards of educational and labor
ministry agencies? Why are market women only heard during campaigns and after
that market activism dies a natural death? Why? Why? Why?
Simple: popular
uprising is dead in Nigeria because of unbridled quest for quick cash and we
must reawaken it and prune away the egotism tearing the civil society apart.
Popular uprising must be resuscitated or Nigeria is finished. Constructive,
non-violent civil uprising and non-violent conflicts are imperative for a
sustainable democracy in Nigeria.
Few years back when
the outgoing Federal administration wanted to unilaterally remove the so-called
petroleum products’ subsidy, the civil society community protested forcing
government to put that plan on hold but a significant chunk of that so-called
subsidy were withheld and a fund known as SURE-P was created as a scheme to
finance the construction of basic social infrastructures across Nigeria.
This contraption known
as SURE-P which is a dubious duplication of the jobs of federal ministries
however created room for a board of directors and two groups-labour and civil
society were allotted one slot each completely emasculating the independent
fervor of labour unions but from amongst the government handpicked civil
society representative is a person unknown for any civil society activism
credentials.
For many years
Nigerians are going through grave economic problems. There is no fuel anywhere.
Education and Health have virtually collapsed. But what do we see? Women and
youth-led groups have gone silent apparently because the government officials
have bought up all those who are mouth pieces of these vital social organs and
those who may wish to operate independently are not been heard because of
limitations of popular media space. The private sector-led media industry is
dominated by persons with affiliations to government officials and therefore
the news contents are anti-people mostly. To be fair to the private owners of
the media, these businesses must be sustained and if they are to remain afloat
then they need patronage by way of adverts. From time to time, little spaces
are created for the views of the oppressed to be presented but most times these
spaces are negligible.
There is therefore
this class struggle in Nigeria between owners of businesses and ordinary
Nigerians. The beautiful treatise of Karl Marx is true of present day Nigeria
and the only strategy for the people to take back ownership of the democratic
process is for popular uprisings to become fashionable once more.
11/5/2015