Democracy with diarchical overtones

THOSE who have long suggested that Nigerian democracy exhibits diarchical overtones may not be far from the truth. Increasingly, diarchy, which is defined as a form of government in which power is held by two supreme rulers or two governing bodies, is manifesting in Nigeria in a way that is no longer dubitable. Both the Nigerian military and the Nigeria Police make their presence powerfully felt in the polity, so much so that the people have become accustomed to their imperious and periodic interventions in governance and politics. Indeed, at various times, the two security establishments have often summoned political leaders for peace and good behaviour parleys where the Riot Act is read to them. Clearly, the military and the police still find their role as subordinate institutions to civil authorities strange and repugnant.

So far in this Fourth Republic, there is no state where the police, especially during election periods, do not summon the political class to extract a commitment for peaceful politicking. The political class, which should be directing and instructing the police, however, dutifully obeys the summons and often signs documents binding them to certain rules of behaviour. While they have rarely summoned the political class, the military on their own often prefers to issue notices instructing or warning politicians to abide strictly by certain rules of electioneering. Only last Wednesday, the Chief of Army Staff, Tukur Buratai, a Lt.-Gen., couched his warnings to the political class in the guise of alerting thugs and militias to the readiness of the military to deal with those who might wish to import strange and unlawful elements into yesterday’s elections.

The problem, it must be emphasised, is not whether the intentions of the police and military are noble, but that they often act in ways that render permission from any supervising authority redundant.  In a democracy, it is expected that the civilian heads of the military, to wit, the Defence minister and his minister of state, should address issues dealing with the political class, knowing full well how anomalous it is for the military to directly address politicians or the civil populace. More than 20 years after the military relinquished power, they have yet to exorcise the overlordship they exercised over the system from their veins. But because the federal government has yet to appreciate all the dynamics of civil rule, and have operated a unitary system of government in which the military and police are seen as integral to the projection of power, it has not quite put in place measures and systems that would preclude the security services from directly addressing and instructing the country’s political class and civil leadership.

These diarchical overtones may explain why Nigerian presidents are still entitled to a military aide-de-camp, which in the 1970s began with an officer of the rank of lieutenant under military rule, but has steadily risen unbelievably to the rank of colonel under civil rule. In tandem, governors at the state level have police aides-de-camp. The absurdity has trickled down to local government chairmen who are now also accompanied by policemen serving informally as their aides-de-camp. These may not strictly be indications of diarchy in the sense argued by Nnamdi Azikiwe, but it is definitely an overtone.

In his book, Democracy with Military Vigilance, Zik responded to Military Head of State Yakubu Gowon’s request for ideas concerning what form of government should succeed his government, by suggesting that a five-year diarchical interregnum would be appropriate. Gen. Gowon had obviously been stalling over the transition to civil rule. The great Zik had suggested that a diarchy should be enthroned for five years in the first instance, and subsequently reviewed depending on the progress made. The former governor-general was heavily criticised for his suggestions, but the military took note, and in one form or the other over the years, appeared to introduce elements of diarchy into the transition programme.

It is not only absurd for the president to have a military aide de camp, it is a waste of military assets and a ridicule of the art of government to press a whole colonel into service for that purpose. This absurd diarchical overreach is a distinctly Nigerian culture, a culture sadly noticeable only among a few other backward African countries. It should be discontinued. More importantly, the appalling habit of the military independently insinuating themselves into civil governance in the name of keeping the peace and securing the country, especially through the issuance of threats and warnings and periodic anti-crime operations, must be recognised for what they are: unacceptable and disingenuous continuation of military cum diarchical tendencies.

Let the civilian heads of the military class address the public whenever the need arises. As the recent horrendous brutalisation of Shiite protesters in Abuja also shows, the military must discontinue the habit of spontaneous deployment of soldiers in the streets. Such deployments, which have become commonplace, discredit the military, undermine service discipline, corrupts governance, and in fact endangers and distorts democracy as well as subverts the constitutional powers and authority of elected governments. Even the supposedly acceptable deployment of soldiers in highways and troubled inner cities through operation this and that merely postpones the tough task of grappling with the diminution of the police.