Nigeria, the giant of Africa, celebrated its Democracy Day on June 12th, 2024. Yet, amidst the usual fanfare, a somber voice rose above the celebratory din. Bishop Matthew Kukah, the outspoken Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, delivered a speech that sent shockwaves through the nation. His central message: Nigerian democracy is in recession, and the root cause lies in its disconnect from the country’s rich cultural tapestry.
Bishop Kukah’s critique is not a new one. Nigeria, a nation brimming with diverse ethnicities, languages, and traditions, adopted a Westminster-style democracy inherited from its colonial past. This system, developed in a vastly different social context, has struggled to fully integrate Nigerian cultural norms and values.
The Bishop argues that this disconnect manifests in several ways. First, the current system prioritizes short-termism. Politicians, fixated on the next election cycle, often neglect long-term development plans crucial for a nation with a burgeoning population. This obsession with the immediate, according to Kukah, disregards the importance of building a future for generations to come, a concept deeply ingrained in many Nigerian cultures.
Second, the winner-takes-all nature of the current system breeds exclusion and resentment. Nigeria’s complex ethnic makeup necessitates a more inclusive approach to governance, one that acknowledges and caters to the diverse voices within the nation. The current system, however, often marginalizes minority groups, fostering a sense of disenfranchisement and hindering national unity.
Third, the emphasis on individual rights enshrined in Western democracies sometimes clashes with the communal values prevalent in many Nigerian cultures. While individual rights are crucial, neglecting the importance of community and social responsibility can lead to a breakdown in social cohesion.
Bishop Kukah’s speech has ignited a national conversation. Many Nigerians resonate with his concerns. Social media is abuzz with discussions on how to bridge the gap between the adopted system and the nation’s cultural realities.
However, his critique also has its detractors. Some argue that focusing on cultural specificities can be a slippery slope, potentially leading to ethnic or religious divisions. Others point out that successful democracies, even those with strong cultural identities, have adapted to changing times and incorporated aspects of other systems.
So, what path forward does Nigeria face?
There are no easy answers. One potential solution lies in fostering a more robust public discourse on the future of Nigerian democracy. This discourse should involve not just politicians and academics, but also ordinary Nigerians from all walks of life.
One suggestion is to explore hybrid models that incorporate elements of traditional governance structures alongside the existing parliamentary system. Nigeria has a rich history of community-based decision making and consensus building. These practices, with necessary adaptations, could be woven into the national fabric.
Another crucial step is tackling the issue of short-termism. Strengthening institutions and fostering a culture of long-term planning are essential. This could involve setting clear national goals that transcend individual political cycles and hold leaders accountable for achieving them.
Ultimately, the challenge for Nigeria is to find a democratic model that reflects its unique cultural identity while remaining responsive to the needs of the 21st century. Bishop Kukah’s speech serves as a powerful reminder that this is not merely an academic exercise, but a matter of national survival.
Nigeria’s democracy is at a crossroads. Will it continue on its current trajectory, or will it evolve into a system that truly represents the aspirations and cultural realities of its people? Only time will tell.
