Many, many years ago, at the beginning of its democratic experience, it was said that an elder statesman in the United States of America was asked by a confused elite, ‘Sir, what really do we have —a monarchy or a democracy’? To which the elder statesman replied, ‘A democracy—if we can keep it.’ The US has been the bastion of world’s democracy since then exporting whenever it can, this brand of governance to far flung countries.
Over the years, it has used both carrots and sticks to try and influence how other countries choose to govern themselves. Cuba under the late Fidel Castro was a glaring example of how the US can bully and pauperise a nation that refuses to tow its democratic line. Even that desire to foist a system of governance on another country is in itself, not democratic for democracy is about the right to choose.
Democracy in its simplest, crudest form is about the rights of the people where the minority can have its say but the majority has its way. But it is not as demonstrative of the will of the people as it claims because a vocal minority can and often rides rough-shod over a passive majority.
The emergence of Brexit and Trump is an example of how less than 30 percent of the populace can alter the way of life of the entire people for good or ill. And the concept of an electoral college having supremacy over popular votes is an aberration of the principle of the majority having its way.
At its best, the beauty of democracy is the feeling that you have had a say in choosing your leader whether it is at the ward level, professional level or national level. It is rejecting the notion of a benevolent dictator—one all—knowing man who decides what’s best for everybody. But, weighed down by the bureaucracy of its checks and balances, it can be slow and ponderous.
It is obviously not the best for a nation in a hurry to develop because of the inherent need of democracy to accommodate as many vested interests as possible. And vested interests can be narrow as we’ve seen in the last four years of the Obama administration when the legislature did everything possible to frustrate him.
His approval rating showed that the US Congress was not exactly doing the mandate of the people that put them there. That again, is an undemocratic behaviour. Yet democracy can be self-correcting in that it does not allow any one leader to get too far ahead of itself or the country. This gives the countries practising it a large measure of stability and balance. But ‘to keep democracy’— to quote this Elder Statesman again— along the lines of its proper definition, is the real test of democracy.
Its strength lies in the balance of power among the three arms that constitute democratic governance. But it is not enough just to have the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. What is important is the quality of leadership in these institutions.
The minute we populate these institutions with low grade personnel or second eleven, that is the minute the imbalance comes in and a weakened democracy follows suit. For example, the press has often been touted as the fourth estate of the realm. Yet, a cowed and inefficient press is useless to democracy. So is an inefficient arm of the three arms of governance. And speaking of the press, let me illustrate my point on how structure and balance define a democracy with a typical newspaper. Most newspapers I know have sections like sports, news, business and the woman’s section among others.
These are the ‘arms’ that give a newspaper balance and make it a complete paper. Yet the impute and quality of the line editors will determine the commercial leaning and subsequent branding of the paper. A strong sports editor for example can give the paper a sports outlook which will attract sports lovers.
Ditto a strong business editor. So it is not the absence of the other sections but the quality and dominance of one section that often brands a paper. So it is with the arms of government. If any arm neglects to field its first eleven or compromises its duty, or is slovenly in output, then it is not only that arm that suffers but the entire system. Last week, a senior advocate, Dr Kanu Agabi made an impassioned plea about the need for the country to respect the judiciary.
This is in the wake of arrests and prosecution of judges and SANs. Yet he and other senior lawyers must do a lot of soul searching. How did the Judiciary get to this depth? Is the ‘face’ of the Judiciary its first eleven in terms of knowledge, erudition and integrity? All over the world, the Executive tends to act the bully.
Yet one of the ways of dealing with a bully is to expose their shallowness through courage, firmness and superior skills. I am not sure the face of the Judiciary as presently constituted is morally and intellectually capable of that.
A leader who demands and earns respect in my view is one who applies himself diligently to a job without thinking of personal gains. One who neither compromises his principle nor the ethics of his profession. One who steers his institution along moral high grounds. One who is firm, decisive and fair. Look at the way the Judiciary handled the legal tussles between two PDP factions in Ondo State.
The legal gymnastics were sometimes illogical and ludicrous. In the end, deliberately or inadvertently, the Judiciary succeeded in putting PDP at a distinct disadvantage at the polls. Such a carrying-on does not command respect. Look also at the Legislature and ask if the face of its leadership commands respect as described above. What with allegations of budget padding, purchase of cars and lack of financial transparency. What with the quality of their debates.
What with the quality of their over-sight functions.
For democracy to thrive, the Judiciary and the Legislature must stand up to the Executive especially when the latter tries to become self-righteous and arbitrary.
They must be able to confront and expose the hypocrisy and ineptitude of the Executive. But they cannot do that effectively unless they cleanse their own houses and put forth their first eleven. These must not only be people with intimidating credentials, they must be people of high moral standing who do not cut deals or compromise themselves.
For you to earn the respect of people, you must first respect and discipline yourself. In this respect, the Judiciary and the Legislature still have some distance to go. They need to shape up quickly because the country— and indeed democracy—needs them to whip the Executive into shape.
END
Be the first to comment