The theory and principle of democracy effectively removed the
power of elevating officials into the ruling class from the hands of potentates
and transferred same to the people. In practice there had always been
interference from strong economic and political forces in the democratic
process.
These seek to undermine or influence and manipulate the electoral
process to favour a point of view, an ideology, a selfish interest or some
candidates. This has happened in all democracies; it is indeed a human trait.
What has differed is the degree and for what ends. As a result, democracy or
the principle of it has not always had its way. The checks and balances are in
the hands of men; not angels or saints! It is this crack; the crack of human
element and weaknesses that often times transfers the final pronouncement from
the hands of the people to a select few.
Historically, monarchs and kings determined
the fate of peoples. In most cases the word of the king was law. Under the
doctrine of Divine Rights of Kings, the monarch was God’s viceroy on earth.
Challenging the king’s authority or regicide was tantamount to toying with
one’s salvation through God’s wrath. It was in this tradition that Louis XIV at
the height of absolutism in
How King Louis’
absolutism headed him into confrontation with the Huguenots and the papacy is
subject for another day. Suffice it to say that the 1848 revolutions
effectively marked the end of the obnoxious Divine Rights and gave way to the
peoples’ rights in different degrees.
As democracy was being entrenched theorists
believed that there should be separation of powers among the three arms of
government – the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. In separating
the powers of the different arms theorists attempted to and did succeed to some
extent in ensuring that no powerful interests subverted the system. The power
of the judiciary was therefore created to check the excesses of the other arms
of government. Symbolised by blind Athena the goddess of justice, the judiciary
as noble as it was created, was never meant to replace the will of the people
either by design or by default.
Some electoral laws may not favour popular democracy. In other words, there are
circumstances in which a simple majority cannot produce a winner. As a result,
additional laws could state that a winner must have two thirds of the vote. The
American model prescribes the rather undemocratic Electoral College vote. Thus
a contestant could win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College votes as
it happened in the Al Gore/Bush and Donald Trump/Hillary Clinton elections.
The truth as we have come to see in
contemporary experience is that the judiciary is NOT always blind, neutral and
dispassionate. They have biases, predisposition and mindset. These also
influence HOW they interpret the law and deliver judgment. Nothing so well
illustrates this more than the current confirmation hearings of a Supreme Court
judge Hon Brett Kavanaugh in America
Politics, more than
anything else, determines who gets to the highest court in America
In human terms it is more acceptable if the
courts, perceived and designed to be neutral, intervened in a deus ex machina
process to resolve knotty legal issues. The infamous twelve two third story of
the Second republic continues to haunt the nation! In preference to a laid-back
primary school teacher, the court rejected the real man that could have changed
the destiny of Nigeria
If our politicians understood the implications of ceding powers they would not
readily refer electoral matters to courts, to judges who by the way had no hand
and may not even represent the popular and democratic view. They would use
technicality of the law to entrench a person or persons in office. Why this
does not offend the sensibilities of current politicians is because they do not
dwell on the profound issues behind institutions. Democracy is about the
triumph of the people; not the triumph of a small but powerful elite.
It spirit and in practice it abhors the power
of individuals to decide for the people. It is for this reason the constitution
starts with ‘We the people…’ Any politician who does not respect the verdict of
the ballot box is not worth the toga of ‘politician’. To claim the prize of
democracy through legal technicality is fraud of the greatest order. Also, to
cede power to some godfathers or a cabal is antithetical to the theory of
democracy.
To deserve the peoples votes the politician
must win the hearts and mind of the people. This is why we practice
representational democracy. The elected legislators are the representatives of
the people. If both the executive and legislative arms consult the people ALL
the time, they will never go wrong. And there would be no need for rigging. A
situation in which the courts now decide on technical grounds to award victory
to one of the contestants is against the spirit of democracy. Win your
elections without the courts. Let the courts adjudicate on points of law. Not
on politics. Are politicians responsible to the courts? No; they are
responsible to the people. The people are sovereign in the practice of
democracy, not the courts, not the cabals, not the godfathers!
*Eghagha is a professor of
English, University
of Lagos
No comments:
Post a Comment