By Kayode Emola
Looking at the way Nigeria is being governed today, one will ask if we truly are practicing democracy or military governance. Some people will say we are practicing a military government in a civilian outfit. Nigeria is not the only country bedeviled in the ocracy toxicity as several countries around the world are either suffering from one form of this ocracy syndrome. Perhaps, let me take time this week to really summarise the different kinds of governmental systems around the world and we can deduce from it what Nigeria is really practicing.
There are many forms of governing systems practiced throughout the world, with varying opinions both from the people living under them and those looking on from the outside. It is difficult to find one that is universally considered ‘good’, and all too easy to find a way of corrupting to one’s own ends whichever system is currently held. I do not claim to be a student of philosophy nor of political sciences, but I would like to offer my own views here as food for thought.
Looking at autocracy, it is a system of government where one person holds absolute control. This may be in the form of a monarchy, where the monarch rules with absolute power; or in the form of a dictatorship or tyranny. It can be easy to pick out the potential flaws of such a system: having one person who makes all the laws can therefore make themselves above the law, and easily manipulate the system of government to their sole benefit at the expense of their subjects.
Perhaps, deeper consideration can suggest a counterpoint view to this, that having one person making all the decisions frees the rest of the population from the burden of doing so. It also provides a single person to settle disputes, thereby eliminating disparities. The autocratic ruler will have their future implicitly entwined with the future of their state over which they are ruling – this gives them a vested interest in ensuring the future survival of the state in order to ensure the future survival of themselves.
In aristocracy, it is perhaps a more familiar term, though one which today is often used to define a particular social class rather than a system of governance. In its purest form, the term means governance by a ruling elite who hold a higher class or status than the rest. When the term was originally coined by the Ancient Greeks, they suggested that these elite should be comprised of the best of the citizens chosen by careful selection, and was held in contrast to any form of hereditary rule. In modern times, this system espoused by the Greek philosophers would be more likely considered a form of meritocracy, and aristocratic status is largely passed on through family lines.
This, again, has some fairly obvious pitfalls, in that it leads a small, elite group of people to believe that they are somehow above everyone else and that they have the right to rule based purely on an accident of birth. History has clearly shown us that the son of a wise and judicious ruler does not always go on to become a wise and judicious ruler himself. Moreover, when a person is taught from birth that they are superior to those around them, it can lead to a disregard for the ‘common’ people’s wellbeing; as ‘inferior’ beings, they matter less and so their sufferings are less important.
In the case of technocracy, it describes a system of government whereby people are given positions of responsibility based on their expertise in that area. This may, for example, lead to the position of minister for health being given to a medical doctor, minister for education being given to a teacher, minister for justice being given to a lawyer, and so forth. There are many people who believe that this would lead to better policies, as those creating and implementing the policies would have had first-hand experience of what it is like to be in the role of those whom their policies will directly affect. There are three flaws to this thinking. The first is, the qualities that make someone a good doctor (or teacher or lawyer) are not necessarily the same as those qualities that will make them a good leader or policy-maker. One may be an excellent surgeon but have such a terrible interpersonal manner that no one can stand to be in the same room. Or perhaps be an inspiring teacher, but lack the assertiveness to push through unpopular, but necessary, proposals.
The second flaw that I would like to posit is encompassed by the old adage that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Once the doctor, lawyer or teacher has been removed from their working environment and placed in a governing position, they may begin to lose touch with the realities of day-to-day working life. One can become insulated, and consequently become insular. They no longer make reforms that will be perceived as beneficial to the ground-level workers but instead pass those that increase inefficiencies in the system or make life harder for said workers.
Finally, these differing areas of governance are not capable of functioning independently without an external body having oversight and coordinating them together. Imagine, the minister for health wants to ban all alcohol and tobacco, whilst the treasurer does not wish to lose the income that taxes on such products provides. If left to function individually, each will be trying to undo the other’s efforts. They require one mediator or ultimate decision-maker. In a technocratic society, where each position is filled by an expert in the subject over which he is appointed to preside, what type of expertise should be sought for the one with the ultimate oversight?
For timocracy, it is a system whereby only those who own property may participate in governmental affairs. A form of this, where only landowners had the right to vote, persisted in the United Kingdom until as recently as 1884, and in the state of North Carolina in the US until 1856. This clearly excludes a large proportion of the population from representation, and can easily slip into a form of plutocracy, where the ruling class is limited to those who are in possession of great wealth or assets.
Since the human condition as it relates to ownership of money and power is to naturally seek more, a plutocratic society engenders a situation where those who are in power because they have significant wealth seek to manipulate the system to increase their wealth. This further secures their position as eligible to rule, creating a positive feedback loop where more money leads to more power, which in turn leads to more money, and so on. Since money and resources are finite, it is inevitable that as those in power will inevitably seek to gain more of them, and causing those not in power to become more impoverished.
In meritocracy, it is often touted as the most desirable system, where people are given position and power based on their merit: talent, effort and/or achievements. Very few countries practice this system of government and in places where it is being practiced, it improves the standard of living of their citizens.
Theocracy is a system whereby rulers are deemed to have been given their position by a deity, and oftentimes hold concurrent positions as head of state and head of the predominating religion. Since the ruler is considered appointed by God, whatever decisions they make are considered to be the divine will, and as such cannot be questioned or held up for scrutiny by the population.
In the case of democracy, it is ostensibly a system where every person has an equal stake in representation, either directly participating in decisions regarding legislation, or by electing representatives to do so on their behalf. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the UK from 1940-1945 and 1951-1955, is credited with saying, “Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” It is the most common form of governing system across the western world, held up as the gold standard to be imposed on all other societies, either by negotiation or by force. However, even a cursory look at many of these ‘democratic’ countries would suggest that it has not been the panacea that its proponents suggest.
After all, there are many examples of where a leader has been democratically elected and gone on to impose detrimental legislation upon their subjects – Adolf Hitler and Robert Mugabe spring to mind as two particularly extreme examples of this.
In the case of Nigeria, it purports to be using democracy, but from what I have observed, I would say that the general situation is more one of a theocratic meritocracy and I will explain what it means.
What do I mean by this? Simplistically, the general belief is that God is in control of the fates of all people, and He apportions to them accordingly as they deserve. If someone is in power, it is because God has placed them there because they have proven worthy. On the face of it, this appears to be a good thing, but let me unpack why I think this combination has been toxic for the average person in Nigeria.
There can be no dispute that Nigeria is a country whose society has deep roots in religion. Whether that religion is Christianity, Islam, or traditional religion, there are few in this country who can claim to have no religious affiliation at all. For those who subscribe to one religion or the other, it colours every aspect of their life. When something goes well, it is a blessing from God. When something goes badly, it is a lesson or a reprimand from God. The rulers that are in place are considered to have been put there by God. This is often accompanied by two opposing perspectives: either that the rulers are God’s chosen men (and therefore must be good) or they have been placed over the country to punish it for its transgressions.
Equally, there is a prevailing view that if you have something, whether that is money, possessions or power, it has been given to you by God because you ‘deserve’ it. Therefore, it is the people who are ‘worthy’ that God bequeaths power, money, status, security etc. However, these beliefs carry a dark reciprocal.
A theocratic meritocracy, where it is believed that what you are given by God is whatever you deserve by virtue of your ‘good or bad deeds, says that if bad things are happening to you, it is because you deserve it. If you are living in poverty, it is not because those in power have failed to implement measures to alleviate it, but because you have failed to pray enough, to believe hard enough, or simply to be good enough. It divests responsibility for the wellbeing of the general population away from those in power and places it equally in the hands of God and of you.
It says, “I am where I am because I deserve it because God has seen my good works and has rewarded me. You are where you are because you deserve it. You have not tried hard enough to succeed, you have not worked hard enough, you have not prayed hard enough, you have not given enough money to the church, you have not been good enough. Your situation is therefore your own fault, and so it is the responsibility of you alone to amend it.”
This implicit belief is widely prevailing throughout Nigerian society, though I believe that few realise it is so. It allows the oppression of the general populous both by the ruling classes and by the religious elite and the religious leaders can manipulate this mindset to swell their ranks: “Attend my programme and you will receive God’s blessing!” “This year will be your year of prosperity! Declare it aloud to yourself and to your neighbour, bring your neighbour to the programme and you will prosper!” It also allows them to swell their coffers: “God blesses those who bless others! Give to Him and He will give back to you ten-fold!” “Who will come forward for ₦10,000 worth of blessing? Come, give God the ₦10,000 and He will bless you accordingly! Don’t accept only ₦5,000 worth of blessing. God is worth it, bring it to Him and He will make you a millionaire!”
The ruling class can also use this to their own gain and to maintain their rule. When they become rich by embezzling public funds or by impoverishing their constituents, a meritocratic mindset allows them to say, “I got this by working hard. If you work hard, you, too, can achieve all that I have achieved and own all that I own.” A theocratic mindset allows them to say, “I have what I have because God gave it to me. You cannot blame me for having abundance whilst you lack, because it is not in my control, it is all down to God.”
I should say that I do not purport to put blame either on God or on a belief in Him, but rather on those who have been given the stewardship of the country. It is not a criticism of God that men have twisted and warped His Word to meet their own ends. The responsibility must be placed firmly at the feet of those who have been placed in power over the country, whether one believes that they have been placed there by God or by man or by some combination.
The rulers must be held to account for the way they have managed their position of responsibility – for that is what authority is. Authority is not a statement of worthiness or of being better or superior. It is a position of responsibility, where one takes on duty of care for those who exist under his rule. True authority should be about prioritising the needs of one’s charges over the desires of oneself. But we can only hold our rulers to this standard once we have recognised the lies that we are taught by the system, and thrown off the yoke of believing them. Will Nigeria ever operate a true meritocratic system? I doubt, given that the present leaders live life, all for themselves without caring for the people. With the current levels of campaign for Biafra & Yoruba Nation, it is my hope that the new emerging nations will embrace a system that is fairer to all in order to build a viable society.
