Post-election Nigeria

Nigeria’s 2015 general elections have been hailed as historic. The victory of Muhammadu Buhari, in the March presidential poll, was viewed as a landmark – the first time a sitting president had been voted out of office.
Equally important was incumbent Goodluck Jonathan’s acceptance of defeat – not a given on a continent in which rulers have often gone to great lengths to retain power. And, despite some violent incidents at the state level, the absence of a similarly bloody outcome to 2011 – when over 800 died – has been viewed as a notable advance.
Hopes for a new era?: This has inspired hopes for a new era of democratic progress. Citing Nigeria as a trailblazer, it has even prompted talk of an ‘African spring’.
Yet the extent to which Nigeria’s experience will prompt a continent-wide shift should not be overstated.
Indeed, while some spoke of a breakdown of sectarian voting, noting the gains made by Muslim northerner Buhari in the overwhelmingly Christian south, the run-up to the poll was highly polarised.
Campaigning at all levels saw the usual mud-slinging, and remained some way from being fully issue-based.
Celebration of the poll has instead centred on the absence of large-scale violence – and upon Jonathan’s acceptance of defeat. Rather than real consolidation, this reflects the tellingly low standards by which democracy in the region has come to be judged.
In this context, however, the vote does mark something of a milestone.
It is the first time power has transitioned peacefully since the return to civilian rule in 1999. Citizens defied threats by Islamist militants Boko Haram in the northeast to vote. And the poll was overseen by a neutral electoral commission insistent upon the use of biometric technology.
Democracy beyond elections: Yet declarations of the broader significance of these events, and the democratic progress they signal, should be treated with caution.
Though electoral activity is judged by some scholars to facilitate democratic learning, consolidation is inevitably a much longer-term process.
What will matter more is what happens once a new leader is in place.
In this respect, a common critique in parts of Africa has concerned the prevalence of diminished forms of democracy whereby polls are held to lend a veneer of legitimacy to what may otherwise be highly undemocratic regimes.
Certainly, there have been numerous examples of rulers seeking to weaken democratic institutions.
The long-term view: As such, it is clear that a country does not become democratic purely through the casting of votes. Rather, consolidation is a less tangible process determined by long-term investment in democratic institutions; the entrenchment of a democratic culture; respect for freedom of speech, assembly and organisation; and the absence of attempts to subvert the various organs of a democracy.
In this respect, the hard work in Nigeria lies ahead. The trajectory, however, remains unclear.
As a former military leader who took power through a coup in 1983, Buhari’s candidacy was held by opponents to symbolise a return to a repressive past.
Yet, he has since fought in three democratic contests, and claims to have learned from his stint in office. He presents himself as a born-again democrat. And he won on a campaign to root out corruption – a fundamental source of perversion of state institutions and of popular faith in them.
What will be key, upon his accession, is the extent to which he remains committed to this cause, and to strengthening democratic institutions more broadly.
He has warned that progress could take time; yet his ability to overcome entrenched interests to fulfil this pledge will be key to his success in the eyes of citizens.
Excerpted from: ‘Nigeria post-election: Bellwether of African democracy?’.
Courtesy: Aljazeera.com