By Edikan Ekanem
Democracy
as defined by a former American President, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1965) is
“government of the people, by the people, for the people”. Put it another way,
it is government that the people feel its presence, get involved and enjoy it
influences.
The
social contract theory on the other hand as propagated by Louise Rusling, can
be defined loosely as a sort of hypothetical or actual agreement between
society and its state. This agreement has been said to be responsible for the
bases of our moral decisions and stances. In other words, we merely abide by
the governments rules and regulations in the hope that others will do the same,
subsequently leading to a more secure and comfortable life.
Rousseau
on his part begins the social contract theory with the notable phrase “Man is
born free, but everywhere he is in chains” asserting that the solution of
legitimate authority is the “social contract”, an agreement by which the people
band together for their mutual preservation.
How
then does this theory of social contract have a place in the Nigeria’s modern
democracy? What influence(s) does it have in our modern day Constitution and
democracy? How can it help in solving some problems in this country? Relevant
sections of the constitution will be cited to help us bring out the thrust of
this analysis.
Apparently,
a true reflection of elements of social contract theory in democracy is clearly
seen in the wordings of section 14 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
republic of Nigeria, as amended. A little perusal of its subsection will
suffice in buttressing this assertion.
Section
14(2)(a) states: “sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom
government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority”.
This clearly shows that the “people” cannot be excluded in the practice of
ideal and genuine democracy in Nigeria. Beyond that, section 14(2)(c) expressly
guarantees the participation of the people in government.
Correlatively,
since the constitution as the ground norm derives its powers from the people,
it sets the yardstick and parameter for the performances of its government
which will enable the people to see and measure the effectiveness, expediency,
transparency and flaws of the constituted authorities they summited their
powers and resources to, to be used in their behalf.
Chapter
2 of the constitution (sections 12-24) has also provided for fundamental
objectives and directive principles of states policy. In simple terms, it
provides for the duties of both the government and citizens of the country.
These include economic, political, social, educational, environmental, foreign
policy objectives etc. These have ipso facto formed the basis of government
performance to the people.
Though
by the provision of section 6(6)(c) of the constitution, these objectives
cannot be challenged in any law court, but it has set the yardstick for
performance. It states: “shall not except as otherwise provided by this
Constitution, extend to any issue or question as to whether any act of omission
by any authority or person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is
in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State
Policy set out in Chapter II of this Constitution”
From
the forgoing analysis, government performances should be measured based on what
they should do (their statutory responsibilities) and not on baseless
sentiments like unnecessary comparisons to her sister states or States,
comparison with the past authorities etc.
It
is so clueless, unreasonable, uncouth and shameless that the credibility and
competence of government is now subjected to personal reasoning, past
administration formula than the standards set by law.
The
fact that others have not been doing is not a defence and does not in any way
justify the incompetence and failures of a present administration in
discharging its statutory responsibilities that is paid for. A wrong or crime
can never be justified by the influx of wrong doings and criminality in
detriment of its set standard.
People
should stop behaving as they will die if governmental authorities are
questioned for an unreasonable act or decision. The people have the
constitutional right of doing so. Participation in government must not at all
time be in tandem with the trending order of the day, it may differ to some
extent.
It
should also be borne in mind that heaven will not fall if governments are
criticised. The right of constructive criticism is shielded by section 38 of
the Nigerian constitution.
As
long as democracy is concerned, public opinions cannot be done away with;
government must always listen to the cries, comments and criticisms of its
people. Doctrine of check and balances, rule of law, supremacy of law will
always be employed in democracy.
Most importantly, governance should be separated from electioneering, propagandas and sentiments. The constitution is the basis of governance in the country as against personal idiosyncrasies and sentiments. A country with constitution without constitutionalism is like a sailor or pilot without a compass
Summarily,
the government should always strike an acceptable balance between itself the
people, the masses should be carried along, and social welfare of the people
should always be of concern to the government.
Laws
and powers should not always be a shield to the government and at another phase
a sword to the authorities at the detriment of the masses. We are all humans
who demands fair treatments from others.
“All
things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them.
This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean”- Matt 7:12
Thank
you.
Edikan
Ekanem is a student of University of Uyo, a contemporary writer and a columnist
who remains politically neutral. He can be reached at 08130015006 or
eddy4jah@gmail.com
No comments: