A Failure of Democracy

As Vincent said, with the right type of democracy and competent people, democracy and create stability for a country, no matter where or what type of democracy it is. Of course, we see many examples of this today, like our very own Singapore.

However, we mustn’t forget that there exists another group of democracies, which on the other hand, aren’t so successful, and isn’t exactly very stable. Firstly, we have Nigeria.

After gaining independence from the United Kingdom in October 1, 1960, the corruption of the political processes in the 1966 elections, along with some religious disequilibrium, led to a considerable number of consecutive military coups and assassinations of leaders. One significant event was the breaking away of the eastern region in May 1967. It declared itself an independent state called the Republic of Biafra. On July 6, 1967, the remaining Nigerian side attacked Biafra, starting a bloody 30-month war which eventually ended in January 1970.

After his predecessor was overthrown by a military coup in 1985, the new head of state, Ibrahim Babangida, set 1990 as the official deadline for a return to democratic governance. He also enrolled Nigeria in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which as a result, inflamed religious tensions in the nation. Babangida pushed back his promised return to democracy to 1992 after surviving an abortive coup.

Finally, free and fair elections were held on June 12, 1993. However, Babangida went back on his word when he declared the results showing a presidential victory for Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola null and void. This sparked mass civilian violence in protest, forcing Babangida to relinquish office.

Upon electing Olusegun Obasanjo as the new President, Nigeria re-achieved democracy in 1999, ending about thirty years of limitary rule. Despite Obasanjo showing willingness to fight corruption, the 1999 and 2003 elections which brought him to power were condemned as “unfree” and “unfair”, and he was accused of being just as corrupted.

The current President of Nigeria, Umaru Yar’Adua of the People’s Democratic Party, was elected into power during the latest general election of 2007. This was witnessed by members of the international community and condemned as being massively flawed.

Nigeria is meant to be a Federal Republic modeled after the United States. But why is there such a huge difference in the outcome of the democracies, in terms of the stability created? In my opinion, the key difference is the choice made by the people.

The common people have to be able to choose wisely. Choosing the wrong leader could lead to the rigging of the next general election. This flaw in the system of democracy creates an endless loop of corruption, which in the case of Babangida, was eventually broken by mass civilian protest. This defeats the entire purpose; we don’t want to use violence to solve problems as such a solution compromises on the stability of the nation itself. As long as the people chooses honest and competent leaders, much of the rest is should be well taken care of.

As Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said during the 7th RI Lecture, “The real thing we should ask ourselves: In 30 years’ time, will Singapore continue to have a government that is honest, competent and cares for its people? If the answer to that question is yes, then it almost doesn’t matter which party is in power in 30 years’ time.”