By Douglass Anele
As Nigeria moves closer and closer to the 2011 elections, politicians and other stakeholders in the political process have started strategising for the event. Attahiru Jega, a well-known academic who made a name for himself by leading the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) through a successful nationwide strike during the regime of Ibrahim Babangida, is now chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Some parasitic politicians who depend on government patronage for economic survival and political relevance are decamping to other parties where they think they have brighter chances of making money and retaining whatever is left of their previous influence in decision-making process at different levels of government.

Everyone knows that the kind of democracy existing in Nigeria is so expensive and prone to corruption and abuse that one wonders whether the so-called eminent Nigerians that recommended the American presidential model actually considered the possible abuses of the system.

For instance, the bi-cameral legislature at the federal level, with full-time lawmakers who have the power to allocate outrageous allowances to themselves, is a terrible disservice to this country.

Since 1999, the amount money wasted in maintaining the Nnational Assembly is heart-rending. Add to that all the money spent by the various houses of assembly in the states, the presidency, governors, various ministries and parastatals etc, the inevitable conclusion is that the current system is definitely unsuitable for our present level of socio-economic and political development.

It is also unwieldy to manage. A sound cost-benefit analysis of Nigeria’s experiment with the presidential system will demonstrate that the cost of running it far outweighs whatever benefits that might have accrued to the country through it. Of course, the operators of the system, the ruling class, could have applied the constitution in a way that would minimise abuses inherent in it. But since it is not in their selfish interests to do so, one can understand the present cosmetic changes to the 1999 constitution made by the David Mark-led national assembly.

Even some sections of the recommendations of the Mohammed Uwais’ electoral reform panel which proposed enhancement of the educational qualifications for elective office, ineligibility of those indicted for fraud by an administrative panel, independent candidature and so on were rejected by the federal legislators, on the ground that the proposals would jeopardise their political interests.

The cost of conducting elections in Nigeria is prohibitive, and I am sure that if we continue like this, the country would be bankrupt soon. For example, Jega, having rejected the voters register he inherited from Maurice Iwu, stated that INEC requires N55bn to procure equipment needed to produce a more credible for the 2011 elections.

INEC also needs hundreds of billions of naira to take care of other logistics – electoral forms, voters cards, vehicles, stationery and remuneration for personnel. And after various administrations had spent billions in previous elections, what did Nigerians get in return? A bunch of agbata ekee carpetbaggers who are milking the country dry.

If this is the kind of democracy we can have, then I say: to hell with democracy! Fortunately, as I intimated earlier, operators of the system can modify or fine-tune the presidential model to suit our needs and meet our developmental aspirations by making it less cumbersome and relatively inexpensive to run. We can also go back to the parliamentary system the country inherited at independence. In fact, different options are available for us to choose from if we are serious.

On the question of how to pull Nigeria out of the quicksand of arrested development, many Nigerians favour a revolution which would uproot the present unjust, hideously corrupt, system and bring about rapid transformation of the society. Among them is Ben Nwabueze, a professor of constitutional law, who believes that Nigeria needs drastic surgical operation and only a revolution can provide that.

Theophilus Danjuma, a retired Lt. Gen., holds a contrary view. He believes, like many conservatives who have benefited, and are still benefitting, from the skewed system, that reforms can be successfully carried out to correct crippling anomalies of the Nigerian state.

I can understand the perspective Nwabueze was coming from: like most Nigerians, he is frustrated with the level of corruption perpetrated by the ruling class and business elite. He believes that the system is hopelessly flawed and compromised; to him, only a complete change can solve the problem.

I totally agree with Nwabueze that something drastic needs to be done to put the country on the path of sustainable development. But should such a change be necessarily brought about through a violent revolution? I am not quite sure that a violent revolution, if successful, can guarantee a better Nigeria.

Apart from the general criticisms of such method by the philosopher, Karl Popper, in The Poverty of Historicism, a violent revolution may lead to the destruction of valuable assets and human capital needed for development. If there is a guarantee that the successful revolutionaries have a clear vision of what a well developed Nigeria should be like and have the iron will and determination to bring their vision into reality, Nwabueze’s proposal would win my qualified support.

No such guarantee is available: in fact, history tends to suggest that violent revolutions easily lead to pernicious totalitarianism. TO BE CONTINUED.