Politics of Fear And War

Since the return of democratic governance in 1999, Nigeria has hardly had very peaceful and violent-free national elections. Although many has expected the democratic system to grow and become more mature politically with every election, the situation on ground suggests that the expectation of political maturity has nosedived to the basest, mundanely crude level of ectopia that completely reduces events in George Orwell’s Animal Farm to nothingness.

The current political atmosphere in Nigeria is laden with palpable fear and unusual apprehension that may snowball, as some already predicted, into violence, instability and unrest across the nation if nothing is done now to arrest the situation. The reason behind this unusual but obvious volatile political atmosphere is due to the way and manner both the ruling party and the major opposition party has conducted themselves lately.

Let me begin here by saying that I do not take lightly the threats of war and other unprintable vituperations emanating from the lips of some politicians across the two major political parties in Nigeria; the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressive Congress (APC) and their supporters.

Only a fool will go to bed while fire burns close to his abode. Sixteen years after the return of democratic governance, Nigeria’s worst years are predictably election years which are usually characterized by violence, wanton destruction of lives and property rivaled only by the current Boko Haram scourge and the Nigerian civil war. It is commonplace to see children rise against their fathers simply because of differences in their political inclinations. This is happening in 21st century Nigeria. But that is child’s play compare to the current heated exchange between mostly the PDP and APC regarding the outcome of the forthcoming elections.

It is no longer news that some supporters of the ruling party have threatened fire and brimstone if Nigerians failed to reelect President Goodluck Jonathan while others has impliedly and expressly postulated that the panacea for Nigeria’s elusive peace is to return President Goodluck Jonathan to power. In other words, what these folks are telling us is that the unity and of a country of over one hundred and sixty million people is depended on the fate of one man’s reelection or defeat.

The major opposition party has also responded that they would form a parallel government if the elections are rigged. To a discerning mind, there is no way both approaches will not lead to violence and loss of hundreds of human lives. I have not been a supporter of the President Jonathan led government lately. However, I am in total disagreement with the two major political parties on their double-edged approaches which tends to severely damage the fragile chords that binds us together as a people.

From the basic understanding of an election in a democratic process, it is usually an opportunity for those interested in political offices to come out and sell their candidacy to the populace. The people will thereafter exercise their constitutional rights freely to elect whoever they desire worthy of that office. Ideally, people maybe sweet-talked and if necessary, deceived through campaigns, to vote for a particular candidate or party.

This is done through an appeal to the reasoning and conscience of the people. Coercion and the threat of violence as a means of soliciting for votes plants fear in the minds of the electorate and induces them to involuntarily vote against their conscience and good reasoning. It also clogs their reasoning and leads to apathy towards the political process. When fear is used as a political tool and weapon against the people, the government or party or candidate can never enjoy the support of the people it seeks to lead. And if the fear or threat amounts to such that could leads to loss of lives, the party imposing such fear can never work for the safety and security of the people.

There is a vision of democracy embedded in most of the historic regimes in the world. This vision assumes that public understanding and political participation are important in order to protect individuals as well as the public interest, that is, that a well-functioning democracy requires a well-functioning system of rule of law, freedom of speech and of the press, equality before the law, etc. so that these can be an effective guardian of all other rights in our constitution.

This vision is predicated on the assumption that people have the potential to perform their democratic role in a democratic society: it takes seriously the idea of popular sovereignty and assumes that the public needs substantial and reasonably diverse sources of information in order to perform its democratic function. It rejects the idea that the people should hear only one side of public questions or be subjected to fear and intimidation to gauge their political dispositions. I know, of course, that this vision is contestable. At best, it describes an ideal to be pursued. Regrettably, Nigeria is moving away from the ideal rather than closer to it.

Political campaigns should be issue-based and intelligently presented to the electorates to shape the environment to produce a system that supports a democracy where people feel an undeniable sense of belonging and not the fear of being annihilated because they voted for or choose not to vote for a particular candidate or political party. Although we cannot attempt to take any credit for practicing genuine democracy in Nigeria as we should, it is high time we come to the most recent political realities of modern societies and follow the most notable examples furnished in our own generation of other democratic societies who have made themselves striking example of progressive change.

Written by John Omoarebu Kemhi, a legal practitioner