The decision of President Muhammadu Buhari to name June 12 as Nigeria’s “Democracy Day” was motivated by self-serving politics, not principled conviction. Before he became president in 2015, Buhari never once publicly condemned the annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election. However, in 2018, as he prepared to seek re-election the following year and faced deepening unpopularity in the South-West, Buhari changed the annual “Democracy Day” from May 29 to June 12 to curry favour with the South-West, which had turned the annulment into an ethnic issue. Professor Wole Soyinka said at the time that Buhari took the decision “with an eye on electoral fortunes, undoubtedly.” He was right!
Equally opportunistic were the so-called pro-democracy politicians. Most of those parading themselves as democrats today, including those in the ruling APC who rode on the coattails of June 12 agitations to advance their political careers, are by no stretch of the imagination true democrats. They were utterly devious and duplicitous in both the pre-annulment events and post-annulment shenanigans. They secretly colluded with General Ibrahim Babangida, who annulled the election, and hobnobbed with General Sani Abacha, whom Babangida accused in his memoir A Journey in Service of instigating the annulment. Prior to Abacha’s death on June 8, 1998, five political parties, populated by today’s “democrats,” endorsed him as the sole presidential candidate in April 1998, calling him Nigeria’s “saviour.”
Last week, President Bola Tinubu, the chief beneficiary of the June 12 annulment, conferred national honours on about 35 people who, according to him, “suffered persecution, endured indignities, exile, incarceration, and, at times, solitary confinement, so that we have democracy today.” Last year, Tinubu gave national honours to about 32 people, describing them as “those who have made sacrifices in the past, braving all the odds and guns to ensure we have a regime of democracy in our country.” But that list was widely condemned for excluding most of the “June 12 activists.” So this year’s list is Tinubu’s attempt to rectify last year’s deficiency, although the current list still excludes those in Tinubu’s bad graces, his vocal critics, who some would argue should be on it.
But here’s a wider point. In his three years in power, President Tinubu has conferred national honours more on the so-called June 12 activists than on other Nigerians. Indeed, nearly 90 per cent of the national honours that Tinubu has conferred to date, since he came to power in May 2023, have been on those linked to agitations against the annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election. The implication is that in over 30 years, since 1993, those who have sustained Nigeria and thus are more worthy of national recognition are the “June 12/pro-democracy activists,” not teachers, not doctors, not the myriad categories of Nigerians who work in all spheres of life, the kind of people that other countries with an honours system, such as the UK, usually honour. Well, the logic behind singling out “June 12/pro-democracy activists” for the preponderance of national honours conferment is that, as Tinubu repeatedly said, their “sacrifices” gave Nigeria “the democracy we have today.”
Of course, that’s intellectually dishonest. Providence, not June 12 activism, ushered in civil rule in 1999. It was Abacha’s sudden death that triggered the process. In his recently published autobiography, Call of Duty, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, who succeeded Abacha as head of state, said Abacha was not poisoned but died from a heart attack. So June 12 agitations were not the proximate trigger for the end of Abacha’s tyranny; it was his death. Of course, protests led to regime change elsewhere, but not in Nigeria. For instance, between 2010 and 2011, the Arab Spring pro-democracy protests brought down many authoritarian regimes in North Africa, including President Hosni Mubarak’s in Egypt. In 2024, a student-people uprising brought down the autocratic regime in Bangladesh. But such seismic events have never happened in Nigeria, which has never had a genuine popular uprising. In any case, Abacha brutally suppressed agitations. Had he not died, the story would, indeed, be different today. Ordinary Nigerians who endured Abacha’s reign of terror until providence intervened deserve credit. But it’s the “June 12/pro-democracy activists” who are receiving national honours for “ensuring Nigeria has democracy.” They need a dose of humility.
But let’s even assume, as Tinubu said, that the “June 12/pro-democracy activists” ensured “that we have democracy today.” What kind of democracy does Nigeria have today? And what have the activists contributed to Nigeria’s democratic development since the country returned to civil rule in 1999? Sadly, hardly anything positive! Instead, we have seen an approach to gaining power based on a “grab it, snatch it, and run with it” philosophy. We have seen the commandeering of the electoral body, judiciary, and security agencies – the triangle of compromise – to thwart the will of the people in elections. We are observing how the ruling party and the president are determined to hollow out and destroy opposition parties to turn Nigeria into an electoral autocracy where multi-party elections are meaningless because the incumbent has distorted the playing field and stacked the cards unfairly against the opposition. Well, sadly, we are also seeing fierce and intrepid journalists during the June 12/pro-democracy era who are now defending and rationalising today’s anti-democratic practices simply because their patron saint and favoured party are in power.
In 2023, General Babangida lamented that the “gains” of the June 12, 1993, presidential election were “squandered” in subsequent elections. Babangida told journalists: “It was adjudged the freest and fairest election in Nigeria, yet politicians have blatantly ignored that beauty, the beauty of credible elections.” It’s remarkable that Babangida, who annulled, or was forced to annul, a patently free and fair election, could now accuse politicians of violating the principles of credible elections. But he was right. Nigeria has never had a true electoral democracy since June 12, 1993. Virtually all presidential elections since 1993 have been massively manipulated. But the 2023 poll was uniquely so. Why? Well, because, unlike in previous elections, genuine technological safeguards, notably the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Results Viewing (IReV) portal, were introduced to ensure the transparency and credibility of the 2023 general election. But, alas, INEC’s failure to use those technologies, citing a “technical glitch,” and the judiciary’s endorsement of its actions irreparably destroyed the transparency, credibility, and legitimacy of the 2023 presidential election, and massively eroded confidence in the integrity of future polls, especially the willingness of INEC and the judiciary to be above board and beyond reproach.
Strangely, against the foregoing, some are this year hailing “Nigeria’s 27 years of unbroken democracy.” But true democracy is not just the absence of military rule. You can have a civil rule where the elements of democracy are lacking. For instance, rule of law, independent judiciary, independent electoral body, free and fair elections, control over abuse of power, transparency and accountability in public administration, political pluralism, separation of powers, and effective parliamentary oversight are critical pillars of democracy, according to the United Nations. So, if a civil rule lacks these elements, does the fact that civilians are in charge, does the fact that deeply flawed elections are held, make it a true democracy? No, a civil rule is not necessarily a true democracy. Sadly, that’s the case with Nigeria. It should be hailing 27 years of unbroken civil rule, not unbroken democracy.
Truth is, no credible international body regards Nigeria as a true democracy. For instance, the International IDEA’s Global State of Democracy highlights the lack of electoral integrity in Nigeria. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index classifies Nigeria as a “hybrid regime,” even worse than a flawed democracy. In its recent Democracy Day poll, NOIPolls found that 72 per cent of Nigerians are dissatisfied with democratic rule in Nigeria. So the evidence is conclusive: Nigeria is a sham democracy. Why, then, is it ritually celebrating “Democracy Day” every year? What kind of democracy? It’s an annual charade!
*Dr Fasan is the author of ‘In The National Interest: The Road to Nigeria’s Political, Economic and Social Transformation’, available at RovingHeights bookstores.
The post June 12: Nigeria’s annual ritual of glorifying a sham ‘democracy’, by Olu Fasan appeared first on Vanguard News.
