Introduction
The idea of civil society, apparently, is becoming a household name in the discourse on the political sociology of Africa. In fact, in recent times, the importance and utility of the concept in the understanding of the dynamics of micro-nationalism and inter-group relations in the democratic processes in Africa is simply phenomenal. No discussions on the varieties of enigmatism on the entrenchment and consolidation of the democratic process are ever complete without a succinct elaboration on the notion of civil society. Regrettably, however, regardless of the web of importance often attached to the idea of civil society in the democratic discourse in general, an existing lacuna with respect to the usefulness of the philosophy of civil society is in the idea of citizenship.
The thesis of this paper consist in the view that the idea of civil society is one of the dynamic theoretical approach by which the idea of citizenship in its contested, beleaguered, problematic and skewed form can be resuscitated. This is based on the discovery that one of the difficulties that the African political landscape has had to grapple with in the march towards democratic consolidation is in the inability to grapple with the dynamics of micro-nationalism and inter-group relations which have had the inherent capacity in tantalising the idea of overall citizenship. The consequences of a perforated Nigerian citizenship on the consolidation of democracy have been quite phenomenal.
As long as this skewed conceptions of citizenship prevails, it becomes difficult to ensure democratic progress. One way by which this skewed conceptions of citizenship can be transcended in order to pave way for a smooth democratic programme in Africa is in the literal transfer and transplantation of the merit of the notion of civil society in relation to the whole idea of citizenship. This is founded on the view that the theory of civil society is explainable in words such as citizens, participation, autonomy, liberty, rights, etc. because of their connection to the internal aspect of the idea of citizenship. To put some empirical flavour into the orbit of this theoretical analysis, relevant instances shall be drawn from the Nigerian political ecology and other African countries with similar experiences.
THE DEMOCRATIC PRELUDE IN AFRICA
Among all forms of government, democracy, on one hand seems to be anchored on a minimum of coercion and yet on the other hand, it enjoys a maximum content of consent, not of the ruler now, but of the ruled, the mob, the plebeians. From this perspective, it appears very strong a view that democracy, even though admired greatly in the world as the best form of government, it is equally recognised as the most challenging to sustain.
But viewed less exuberantly and more parochially, its keynote, argues John Dunn, is above all its determined ordinariness, its will and its capacity to domesticate the life of a human community, and to do so all the way through. As an old but vigorous idea it sponsors the belief that in human political communities it ought to be ordinary people (the adult citizens) and not extra-ordinary people who rule.
Although this is not how things are in the world we live, however, the democratic value and idea has become the reigning conception today across the world. The idea of democratic rule may appear obvious; it also presents the idea of a strange and implausible doctrine. The power and appeal of the democratic idea come from its promise to render the life of a community something willed and chosen - to turn the social and the political existence that human beings share into a framework of consciously intended common action. In a democracy, the people, its human members, decide what is to be done, and in so doing they take their destiny firmly into their own hands. The power and appeal of democracy comes from the idea of autonomy - of choosing freely for oneself.
Interestingly, the democratic ferment began spreading across the continents of Africa, Asia and the eastern part of Europe since 1989. The spread was occasioned primarily, but not in the major sense, by the breakdown and collapse of Socialism/Communism in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe, and of the failure of One party and military rule in Asia and Africa. According to Larry Diamond, "never in human history have so many independent countries been demanding or installing or practising democratic governance. Never in history has awareness of popular struggles for democracy spread so rapidly and widely across national borders. Never have democrats world-wide seemed to have so much cause for rejoicing."
As demands for democracy have swept across the continent of Africa since 1989, dramatic change has affected states in sub- Saharan Africa. Frustrated by declining economies and the failures of incumbent governments, people from many different social strata have called for an end to authoritarian rule. In recent transitions, opines Catherine Newbury, the most vocal opponents to authoritarian rule are the urban middle classes with a cry for the establishment of a formal democracy.
But the question is why is democracy the overwhelmingly dominant, and the increasingly well nigh exclusive claimant to set the standard for legitimate political authority in the world particularly in Africa? Robert Fatton has provided a weighty intellectual argument in response to the question. According to Fatton, " the democratic project or the process of redemocratising African politics is ... becoming the hegemonic issue in African studies, not only because of a thematic/and moral search for an alternative to the existing authoritarian predicament, but also because there are indications that peasants, workers, and intellectuals of Africa are no longer prepared to put up with being victims of despotic regimes .
In most African countries, particularly Nigeria, the most commonly adduced and persistently recurring conditions for the existence and sustenance of democratic structures and rule have been absent. In fact, a common denominator of the African experience with democracy consists in its instability. Historically, the Nigerian political scene presents a dismal picture of a country in search of a stable and solid democratic future. Semantics apart, the most persistently problematic phenomena for Nigeria's political landscape is the existence of the military. Aside from this, a major hurdle that bedevils the attempt to establish democratic rule is the fact that competitive politics encouraged recourse to sectional identities. Going by Nigeria's history, there had been only two gallant attempts at democratic rule-the first and second republics 1960-1966 and 1979-1983 respectively. What could have translated into a third republic of democratic rule was the aborted June 12, 1993 presidential election which not only engulfed the country in a consistent pattern of national conflict and crises but also, carried with it, a very practical demonstration of the problems of democratic transition, consolidation and sustenance. The immediate foundation of the present Fourth Republic stems from the tirade of protests and agitation for the enthronement of democracy following the annulled June 12, 1993 Presidential election. The dynamics of these tirades of protests and agitation, as encapsulated in the idea of the civil society, and their impact on the idea of citizenship is what we are set out to analyse.
Benjamin Nwabueze has argued that the existence and sustenance of constitutional democracy and democratisation involves a process of experimentation over time, of trial and error. The question then is can one coherently and plausibly establish the nature and the cause of the fundamental problem of the existence and entrenchment of a stable democratic polity / structures in Nigeria's political history since independence? This study is anchored on the conviction that the problem that confronts Nigeria in this domain is a crisis of citizenship status and condition.
THE ENIGMA OF DEMOCRACY IN AFRICA: PLETHORA OF VIEWS
As demands for democracy have swept across the continent since 1989, dramatic changes have affected states in Sub-Saharan Africa. Frustrated by declining economies and the failures of incumbent governments, people from many different social strata have called for an end to authoritarian rule. In recent transitions, the most vocal opponents to authoritarian rule are the urban middle classes . In recent times, there have been renewed interests in the democratisation process and the attendant problems in Africa. This was, perhaps on the scholarly side, heightened to the point of intellectual significance by the explosion of literature on democratisation in Africa since the publication of Popular Struggles for Democracy in Africa, edited by Peter Anyang' Nyong'o . But why the increasing desire for democracy in Africa?
Richard Cornwell constate that "the driving force behind Africa's second experiment with democracy came both from ideological conviction and the growing impatience of an ever-bolder public consciousness, and from the related matter of the continent's prevailing economic woes" . Schumpeter predicates the survival of the democratic doctrine on the continent of Africa on the following reasons: one, historical association of democracy with religious beliefs; two, the association of the forms and phrases of classical democracy with certain events in a people's history; three, the fact that in some small and primitive societies the democratic doctrine actually fits the facts; and four, that politicians appreciate democratic phraseology even while "crushing opponents in the name of the people."
From the very beginning, the democratic idea appears particularly simple and straightforward in its definition, composition and nature. Etymologically, the term democracy is derived from demokratia. This is a combination of two terms - demo, meaning people or mob and kratos, the Greek word for power or rule. In full, democracy means government or rule by the people for the people. In simple words, the essence of the democratic spirit is the emphasis on the role and place of the commoners. That is, the popular will constitute the sacred essence of what is essentially democratic.
Historically, the democratic idea draws its inspiration as a model for modern government and governance from the Athenian ideal. This is why the Athenian calls their constitution a democracy. In Athens, every individual adult or citizens gives practical expression to and exercises the sovereignty of the popular will by active participation in the Athenian Assembly in which national affairs were exclusively debated and experiences and compromises are given due recognition. The Athenian example tended to show the direct and primary nature of democracy. This golden age of Athenian democracy was expensively exemplified and curiously epitomised by the great Pericles. It is to the works of Pericles that Athenians often refer in any intellectual discussion of the democratic idea. In this sense, it is no misnomer to contend that Pericles provided the apt philosophical capstone and conceptual framework for what is termed instilling the 'spirit of democracy'. According to Pericles:
The constitution by which we live does not emulate the enactment of our neighbours. It is an example to others rather than an imitation to them. It is called democracy because power does not rest with the few, but with the many, and in law, as it touches individuals, all are equal, while in regard to the public estimation in which each man is held in any field, his advancement depends not on mere rotation, but rather on his true worth; nor does poverty dim his reputation or prevent him from assisting the state, if he has the capacity. Liberty marks both our public politics and the feelings which touch our daily life together. We do not resent a neighbour's pursuit of pleasure, nor cast on him the burden of ill will, which does no injury but gives pains to witness. Our private converse is untroubled, our life in the state free from illegality, owing mainly to respect for the authority of the magistrates of the day, and of the laws, especially laws laid down to help the wronged, and those unwritten laws whose neglect brings acknowledged discredit.
In essence, Pericles' philosophical formulation and conceptual framework on the democratic idea draws a lot on the idea of citizenship. In other words, democracy can hardly survive without a true sense of citizenship, patriotism, courage and love for one's fatherland. It is this pattern for democratic survival that is given practical expression in Nwabueze's idea of constitutional democracy when he posits that:
Constitutional democracy or constitutionalism is about the use of the constitution as a supreme and fundamental law to regulate and limit the power of government, legislative, executive and judicial, and has to secure the efficacy of such limitations in actual practice by ensuring the government is not assumed except with the mandate of the people freely given at periodic intervals of time, that it is executed and administered according to the constitution and the laws, that dispute about the constitutional propriety of legislation and other government acts, are adjudicated impartially according to the constitution and laws independent of the disputants, and that ordinary laws applied in the execution of government and the adjudication of dispute are made in conformity with the procedure for law-making prescribed therein.
Of interests to students of political science and sociology is the definition of democracy by Robert Dahl. According to Dahl, "a key characteristic of a democracy is the continuing responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens, considered as political equals." Dahl's notion of polyarchy has three principal elements: competition for government power, political participation in the selection of leaders and policies and civil and political liberties. For Sorenson, the actualisation of these elements is the attainment of what he calls "real democracy". In like manner, Catherine Newbury tags it "formal democracy" with emphasis on institutionalised mechanisms, means and procedure for changing government personnel; respect for the rule of law, accountable governance and protection of human and civil rights.
For Diamond et. al., democracy is a system of government that meets three conditions; meaningful and extensive competition for selection and removal of personnel excluding the use of force; a highly inclusive level of political participation for selection of leaders and policies; and a level of civil and political liberties sufficient to guarantee the integrity of political competition and participation. Schumpeter concedes the democratic method to consist in that "institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for people's vote".
In most African countries, however, these conditions are absent. In the current debate on democracy in Africa, Diamond's formulation appears particularly insightful in relation to Nigeria. The existence and sustenance of democratic structures and practices have been a nightmare. Diverse opinions and views have been expressed and a range of factors identified as possible explanations for the prevalence of democratic decay in Nigeria.
Of major interests and of course, the most suggested factor inhibiting the seed of democratic hope in Nigeria is the problem of ethnicity. According to Scholars who hold this view, the multi-ethnic nature of Nigeria predisposes the political system and process to a conflictual pattern and a highly competitive one, rather than a co-operative affair. Generally, studies that perceive a connection between ethnicity and the problem of democracy in Nigeria rely on the idea of what Van de Berghe tagged ethnic "competitive mistrusts." The assumption is that ethnic plurality generates conflicts quite incongruent with democratic norms and civility. Hence, according to this school of thought, the problem of instability has a crippling effect on the establishment of democracy.
A deeper reflection however shows that although ethnicity is powerful, it is neither absolute nor immutable. Ethnic consciousness and loyalties lend themselves to easy manipulation particularly because other loyalties are either weak or altogether absent. In a related sense, Femi Taiwo has argued that "the absence of genuine citizenship is not unconnected with the dominance of ethnic politics driven by the requirements of rootedness in physical space."
Benjamin Nwabueze has advocated that the process of democratisation must be consciously understood to entail, in the important sense, the infusing of the spirit of liberty, democracy, justice, the rule of law and order among the people. According to him, the chief problem of democratisation in these countries (Nigeria inclusive) "has to do not with the inappropriateness of the underlying values and principles of liberty, democracy and social justice as with the inability to imbibe their spirit." He further posited that liberty, democracy and social justice are not faring well in these countries simple because of the inability of the people-rulers and the ruled- to imbibe their spirit. Democratisation must therefore involve concerted efforts to instil the spirit of liberty, democracy and social justice in the people. Interpreted rightly, all these explanation can be reduced to the absence of democratic behaviour. Good governance is only realised within the context of a whole sense of collective citizenship. The case of Nigeria deflects from this expectation, hence, the problem of democratic rule.
The existence of an irreconcilable class interest and politics which makes politics a zero-sum, winner take-all affair, and the highly consumerist behaviour pattern has been proffered as a potent factor in explaining the problem of democratisation in Nigeria. For example, Sam Nolutshungu (1990: 89-115) posit that Nigerian democratic problem exists in the existence of a class that has been in perpetual conflict right from the period of independence. In the same vein, Bade Onimode posits an inter-class and intra-class struggle that cripples the entrenchment of democratic rule, ideals and principles. Claude Ake talks of a struggle for power by an existent dominant class and subordinate classes.
Though perceived and expressed in varied forms, the heart of the matter can be phrased in the statement of the human Rights activist and lawyer that "it is now clear that the Nigerian political class is a shameless, spineless, disorganised and principleless bunch with no serious linkage to civil society Nigerian democracy cannot thrive with such characters in the front" To be sure, it is possible to interpret the problem of the democratic enterprise in Nigeria along the line of class differences but analyses must go beyond this. This is true in as much as it is not inconceivable a view to hold that the fundamental problem of democratisation in Nigeria manifests to the observing eye a problem of identity stronger than identity of classes.
And what is more, the existence of military rule has, arguably, been the most recurrent phenomenon in Nigeria's bid to establish a solid form of democratic governance. At one level, it is found to be the organiser of a transition programme to civil, democratic rule. At another level, the military has equally been found to be an ardent executioner of a messianic mission to recur the country from the inappropriateness and madness of the political class. To this end, rule by the military has served as a means of suspending, says Richard Joseph, if not resolving, the contradictions between democracy and prebendallism. However, it is contended strongly that, apart from the fact that military rule is illegitimate and unwarranted, military rule in Nigeria has a crippling effect on democratic rule in Nigeria in the sense that it is responsible for "suffocation of the civil society and the asphyxiation of all democratic openings in the country."
Along the same line of thought, Rotimi and Ihonvbere highlighting the impasse that marked the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, posit in unmistakable terms, the role of the military in the undemocratising of Nigeria. According to these scholars, "if Ghana was a clear demonstration of the ability of a committed junta to organise a comparatively successful transition to democratic governance, Nigeria represents a typical case of how a military government can completely spoil the process of transition and create more problems than solutions." It is no wonder then that Asika defines democracy as "return to civility-a return to civil rule."
But it should be noted, however, that if the existence of the military in Nigeria's political process is to be given its full probing and apt label, it is an instrument of political domination. The military is only another form of domination, an instrument of entrenching the northern idea of primacy, a philosophy in the north that the elite of the former northern region should hold a position of primacy in any national government. Hence, the idea that spells clearly the place of primacy to the north in any national government in Nigeria has been one of the root causes of the absence of democratic consolidation. It is this preponderant idea and the opposition to it, and the effect generally on the notion of citizenship that spells the problem of democratisation in Nigeria. In one word, the problem of democratisation in Nigeria consists in the existence of conflicting identities and citizenship of the Nigerian nation-state. Citizenship sentiments, vital to the effective realisation of democratic principles are couched, defined as exclusion, not inclusion. This is often accompanied and exacerbated by an increasing sense of political domination, alienation and extreme marginalisation of other groups within the relevant polity. Different attitudes to Nigerian citizenship explain, most aptly, the problem of democratisation in the Nigerian political process, an attitude heightened and compounded to the point of sociological significance by the success of a majority group in (politically) dominating and alienating other groups to the point of their recognition as marginal groups. This is captured in the following:
The Northern elite's refusal to share power is the single most important reason why tribes have been resurgent and ethno-national consciousness has come to override overall Nigerian nationalism.
The perception of the relevance and of significance of the notion of citizenship to the effective realisation of democratic governance has varied. Citizenship status in every modern state consists of three essential propositions: Individual and human rights, political participation and socio-economic welfare. The underlying truth in all these propositions is the single most important statement that citizenship ideal can only be realised in the context of good governance (UNRISD, 1995:168). The reverse, illuminatingly, can be applied to Nigeria: democratic governance can only be solidly and effectively realised only in the entrenchment of citizenship ideals.
However, there is a peculiar pattern and a recurrent diacritic of citizenship notions in Nigeria that, in concrete terms, offers valid interpretations of the problem of democratisation in Nigeria. Peter Ekeh has preserved for the intellectual mind a wealth of unbroken analysis, valid interpretation and a lucid theoretical statement on the contradictory notions of citizenship in Nigeria. According to Ekeh, three principal contradictory notion of citizenship, in terms of rights and duties, are manifest in Nigeria. These are:
1. Identification of citizenship with rights, and not with duties;
2. Dissociation of rights and duties in the conception of citizenship;
3. The development of two publics, in respect of the conception of citizenship, in political life: an amoral civic public from which rights are expected, duties are not owed; a moral primordial public defined in terms of one's ethnic group, to which one's duties are paid, but we never expect any right.
Ekeh's analysis is an important one and contains insightful items that are germane to the study of the problems of democracy in Nigeria. However, Ekeh's analysis though not directed at the problem of democratisation, fails to consider the problem of citizenship in the light of the problem of alienation and domination. It was perhaps, in an important sense, located and traced back to the problem of colonialism.
Femi Taiwo's "Of Citizens and Citizenship" is a classic contribution to the notion of citizenship in Nigeria. Though not specifically coined to point out the value of citizenship crisis in understanding the problem of democratisation in Nigeria, it, nevertheless, contains certain gems of truth on the pattern of citizenship status. According to Taiwo, "beyond phrase mongering, there are no citizens in Nigeria, only citizens of Nigeria." Furthermore, Taiwo contends that "part of what typifies citizenship especially in the modern state is the de-emphasizing of geography and other natural facts in its composition." This, incidentally, is one of the tenets of democratic principles and ideals: democracy defines citizenship as an inclusion, not exclusion. Diamond et. al. hinted at the view that democracy is a highly inclusive system which rules out exclusion in its selection, choice of leaders and personnel, and in the level of participation in such a cause.
According to Taiwo, however, "the freedom to locate anywhere within the boundaries of the relevant geo-polity is non-existent in Nigeria. That is, Nigerian citizenship is merely geographical, it is without moral-ideological content." Taiwo's essay contains powerfully phrased truths that are apt diagnosis of the sociology of citizenship in Nigeria. However, analysis of the relevance of citizenship in Nigeria's failure to entrench a democratic polity must go beyond this. Moreover, Taiwo's concept of alienation seems to have captured best alienation in terms of military rule. According to Taiwo, "citizens do not see themselves as co-owners of the polity. Having no hand in the selection of the governors most of the time, citizens experience government as a burden, an external body from which they are alienated. The relationship between governor and the governed is characterised by hostility and mutual indifference. This has dire consequences for the evolution of the Nigerian polity." In his concluding remarks, Taiwo is of the view that "citizenship is not conferred; it is won in struggle and enjoyed as a right, a trophy. It comes with an appropriate sense of indignation at the malfeasance of governing officials-you cannot wait for any government, however, benevolent, to liberate you or donate freedom to you. A people who do not fight for freedom do not deserve to have it." But then, alienation and political domination of groups must be seen to go beyond military era alone. The most crucial sense of alienation that cripples democratic survival comes even in the face of the non-existence of military regime.
Dipo Irele, in a monograph entitled "Alienation and the Problem of Loyalty in Africa" proffered a stimulating analysis of the notion of loyalty and alienation in Africa. According to Irele, the idea of alienation is crucially linked with the nature of the social system in which Africans find themselves. In his words, citizens in most African countries see the state in a praetorian fashion. Hence they are alienated from the government. They see the state as an aggressive and oppressive one hence they are alienated from it and seek the solace of their ethnic group. Thus, the difficulty in eliciting the loyalty of the people lies in the alienating nature of the social system. Extending Marx's analysis of alienation, Irele posits, in the following terms, that alienation is best analysed in the light of the problem of loyalty. Again, he says, "let us say provisionally that someone is alienated from an object (a) when, given his situation, he would normally have expected to show a sense of loyalty toward (a) but in fact does not. He is normally expected to show senses of loyalty to that object (a) if he has lived within a defined geographical boundary. But if he is alienated he does not view the country as his own, and as a result does not care much to what happens to it. Anything that one is loyal to he can also be alienated from, and conversely."
Aside from the fact that Dipo Irele's account does not seem to be directed at the connection between his concept of alienation, loyalty and the problem of democratisation as a whole, it is worth restating that alienation in his terminology is far from the sense in which alienation is conceived in this work. Related is the fact that his sense of citizenship is one that is done at the first order level, an analysis of the political cum civil component. Hence, his sense of alienation will normally take on the denial of rights and privileges existing and available in the public domain.
Since exclusion and alienation has a socio spatial, as well as an economic and political dimension, the alienation emphasised in this work is one that is the outgrowth of the social history and culture of the people existing in the sense of a socio-political sphere. It is not the sense of alienation as advocated and highlighted in classical Marxist political philosophy nor is it the sense of alienation discussed in the first-order construct on citizenship. The sense of alienation emphasised in this paper is one that is necessitated and occasioned by the existence of an inherent contradiction in a sociological conception of citizenship. The centrality of such a tendency in political engineering is captured in the following
In country after country, a single ethnic group has taken control over the state and used its powers to exercise control over others. In retrospect there has been far less "nation-building" than many analysts had expected or hoped, for the process of state-building has rendered many ethnic groups devoid of power and influence.
It is to this end that Ifidon (1996:104) concludes that the struggle to exclusively dominate and exploit the system that generates the inequity which accounts for the problems of citizenship and statehood, and ultimately for democratic instability and impasse. In other words, the type of ethnic group to which one belongs is central to one's definition of citizenship and relation and access to (or alienation from) power in the whole democratic enterprise in Nigeria.
In general, the existence of skewed conceptions of citizenship in Nigeria's political history accounts, in the main, for the dilemma of democracy. These conceptions are:
1. The definition and ascription of citizenship notions, sentiment, feelings and attitudes in the light of one's primordial base and ethnic origin;
2. The emergence in Nigerian politics of the view that not all Nigerians are equal with respect to citizenship claims, stakes, rewards and responsibilities going by certain official practices, ideologies etc; in other words, there are first class citizens and second class citizens. Not all can enjoy the fruit of citizenship;
3. The wide gap between paper truth (what the constitution says and guarantees) and empirical, practical and political reality (social practices, beliefs, and tradition) in the definition and status of citizenship in the Nigerian socio-political space;
4. Citizenship in Nigeria has been reduced to mere formal and passive membership of a Nigerian political community rather than to a concrete form of substantive participation with respect to political power, competition etc.
5. Constitutional and juridical citizenship in Nigeria is cruel mockery, in abeyance and simply non-existent. This is so in as much as the theoretical foundations on which this conception and guarantee stands have been vitiated not only by the perversions prevalent in our social life but also by the absence of commitment and sense of belongings that characterise such provisions.
In the light of the above conceptions, it is assumed that, with respect to citizenship and democratic survival and consolidation, politics is based on a number of principles of which the following are fundamental:
1. Principles of political equality of all citizens with respect to the selection, recruitment and competition for political and electoral positions;
2. Principle of majority rule which declares that the people, being the majority decide who rules them in the light of a well-ordered and principled political framework of operation;
3. The principle of choosing through the electoral procedures which is about the most universal mode of choosing who leads in a particular instance, a procedure devoid of rigging, malpractice and fraud;
4. The display and manifestation of political maturity, openness, fairness and free atmosphere for the expression of grievances without molestation and intimidation
5. Respect for principles of citizenship rights synchronised around popular ideals such as equality of all, equity, liberty and welfare
CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE FOUNDATION OF PUBLIC CITIZENSHIP
The characterisation of civil society in Africa is a contentious and controversial one. However, the interest that the ideas of the African State and the political economy of daily life, ethnicity, citizenship and identity debates, and the flourishing of social movements have generated amongst African scholars has been a stimulant for the proper characterisation of the concept of civil society in Africa. According to Adigun Agbaje, there is the re-discovery of the vitality of civil society and the resourcefulness of non-state voluntary action and associational life in the continent."
More recently, the need for this characterisation has become deepened in the light of the incessant demands and struggles for the initiation of the democratisation process. Hence, in Nigeria for instance, one significant outcome of the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election is the growth and sporadic spread of popular struggles for the establishment of democracy. The relentless pressure mounted on both the Babangida and Abacha regimes in demanding for democratic rule appears phenomenal in the history of the country. In very clear language, it is the demand of the citizenry for a change in the authoritarian nature in the governance of the African political space
But then what is the idea of the civil society in which these groups are ensconced? The concept of the civil society is a contested one. According to Crawford Young the search for the contemporary meaning of civil society especially in the context of the upsurge of demands for political pluralism and for democracy in sub-Saharan Africa "must begin with a bow towards the layers of received meanings with which this term is burdened".
As a nebulous concept, the idea of civil society lacks a concrete and specific definition. To this end, scholars have ended up using the concept in the way it suits their purpose(s). In spite of the disagreements in its meanings, civil society seems to conjure in our minds the nature and essence of the relationship between the individual space and the community space. Alfred Stepan defines it as the arena where social movements and civic organisations from all classes… attempt to constitute themselves and advance their interests. Edward Shills conceives of the idea of civil society as consisting of three main components:
The first is a part of society comprising a complex of autonomous institutions - economic, religious, intellectual and political - distinguishable from the family, the clan, the locality and the state. The second is a part of society possessing a particular complex of relationships between itself and the state and a distinctive set of institutions which safeguard the separation of state and civil society and maintain effective ties between them. The third is a widespread pattern of refined manners.
Although currently dominant Western notions of civil society derive very much from the works of Hegel, the history of civil society predates Hegel. In this predominantly Western background, four broad, closely related epistemological paradigms are discernible. These are (1) the Greek ideal city state (2) Roman civil law (3) Liberal Paradigm and (4) Marxist Paradigm.
The Greek ideal city - state paradigm revolves around ensuring the best life for all Greek citizens. The best way to achieve this, argues Plato, one of the best philosophic mind ever to exist, is to separate the public life from the private. To this end, each and every citizen was to fill the role that suits his or her intellect and aptitude. In this whole setting, Plato conceives the sphere of the public, which is the political society as the polis i.e. the state while the sphere of the private is that of the civil society. This platonic construction corresponds with his rigid division of the souls of men, hence the division of the polis into the class of the appetitive, the spirited and the wise. According to Plato, therefore, the civil society is different from the state.
In the Aristotelian construction, civil society has its existence in the city-state. According to Aristotle, there are three distinguishable types of community, the first is the community based on mere contractual relations such as exchange of goods etc. The other is the community based on ownership in which there is a ruler and the ruled. In between these two, according to Aristotle, is a constitutional or political ruler. The city-state, for Aristotle, is the natural attraction for every citizen. This setting for Aristotle is the civil society. This is based on the fact that man is neither contented nor happy outside the city-state.
The Platonic and Aristotelian ideas on civil society formed the basis of subsequent philosophical and political ideas to emerge later in Greece. More than this, it formed an inextricable part and the philosophical foundation of Roman thought after the glory of Greece became evanescent
The Roman civil law paradigm is important for the modern world, not only in its construction on the idea of civil society but primarily in its cherished and worthy contribution to political theory and jurisprudence. It is in Roman jurisprudence that we find the notions of rights, freedom, law, rule of law, separation of powers very prominent and preponderant. An overriding figure in this tradition is Cicero. In this tradition, citizens alone constitute the civil society. A citizen, in Roman construction is the possessor of rights and duties. This array of rights includes the right to free association right to participate in the making of laws, right from undue political interference etc. In its apt theoretical and philosophical perspectives, the idea of civil society, in Roman Jurisprudence, revolves around the concept of citizenship. In other words, civil society and citizenship are twin concepts. This is why in Africa, the idea of civil society is one of the dynamics means by which the idea of citizenship in its problematic form can be resuscitated.
The liberal paradigm on the idea of the civil society crystallised around the emergence of the capitalist society. In the works of Thomas Hobbes, civil society was another label for the State as distinct from the state of nature. The state of nature became unbearable for those who lived under it; it was one that made lives short, brutish, nasty and chaotic. The evolution of the social contract, which marked a departure from the state of nature, gave birth, in Hobbessian language, to the civil society. John Locke, though shared the hypothetical state of nature and social contract, broke away from the sinister way in which Hobbes painted it. According to Locke, there is a fundamental difference between the state and the civil society. In his rendition, the social contract gave birth to the emergence of the state where every individual surrenders his/her right and performs certain duties. However, the individual is privileged over the state. It is the consent of the individuals that constitute the bedrock on which the state is built.
Hegel's writings represent a precise treatment on the idea of the civil society. In this order, Hegel privileged the community over the individual. He made a clear-cut separation between the State and civil society contending that it is the State that creates the civil society for its purpose i.e. an essentially moral purpose. For Hegel, the notion of superiority, inferiority and co-operation marked the relationship between the State and the civil society. The liberal orientation in these works found their acute expression in the ideology of America liberalism. American liberalism is anchored on these four cardinal principles: natural rights, human rationality, pluralism and responsive government. These principles are the foundation stone of liberal democracy as practised religiously in the United States. It is on this liberal doctrine and ideology that the notion of civil society draws much of its strength, hope, comfort and vigour. In this order, the existence of the civil society is regarded almost automatically as a sine qua non for the sustenance and consolidation of democratic governance. In a way, it further draws on the importance of civil society in relation to citizenship.
This latter version of liberalism separates the State from the civil society. It endorses pluralism. i.e. the existence and interaction of varied interest, groups, association, an organised coalition of private individual interests beyond the primordial sphere of the family.
The Marxist paradigm is essentially a critique of the liberal doctrine. According to Marx, civil society developed simultaneously with private property out of the disintegration of communal property. According to Marx, legal relations as well as forms of state have their roots in the material conditions of life, the sum total of which Hegel… combines under the name of civil society.
Marx's critique of the idea of civil society consist in the fact that the development of the bourgeois society is the precursor of the idea of civil society. The civil society, in Marx postulation, is the organiser of the State. The State is the expression of the bourgeois society. Although this notion of civil society was subsequently emphasised by Marx himself and consequently disappeared from western scholarship, it witnessed a revival in the writings of Anthonio Gramsci where it became a potent weapon for the transformation of state - society relations and for the subversion of the predominant capitalist order. Gramsci's conception of the civil society achieves much of its originality in the fact that the civil society mediates in the search for political, cultural and ideological leadership over society.
CIVIL SOCIETY, CITIZENSHIP AND DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA
It is of curious relevance and interest that the evolution of the concept of civil society seems to be closely tied with the dynamics of social and political relationship existing within a particular political order. Running through the paradigms outlined above, it appears clear to me that the concept of civil society is a theoretical construct that has an empirical, practical reflection and manifestation in the ideals of citizenship. Civil society, therefore, will be or should be the dynamic manifestation of citizenship claims, stakes and status in other forms. On both counts, the concepts of citizenship and civil society are intestinal with the idea of democratic sustenance. With the exception of the Marxist paradigm that sees civil society as an entrenchment of the capitalist order, hence as what ought to be abolished, the recurrent theme in the three other paradigms is the connection between civil society and the entrenchment of democracy. Emeka Nwokedi puts it succinctly that:
Most other theorist from Thomas Hobbes through Hegel to Alexis de Tocqueville, conceived civil society differently. This was seen as either enabling the emergence of a stale and secure political order or the enthronement of greater pluralist participation in this; the latter is important because it is the only means of promoting and safeguarding democracy, justice or both by checking the arbitrariness of power. Put differently, civil society is concerned with how to limit and at the same time apportion political power...
In the largely empirical sense, civil society thrived in the colonial and post-colonial period in Africa generally, and in Nigeria in particular. Within this orbit of history, the incidences of maladministration on the part of the colonial administration paved way for the increased growth and influence of civil society in participating and monitoring the agenda and policies of the colonial administration. But then it is to be noted that the inherent nature of politics in the general sense especially given its ethnic colouring affected the vitality and vivacity of civil society in Nigeria. The weakening agent in this respect was nothing more than the recourse to the primordial sentiments that are often allowed in political interaction and that, ultimately, can be said to be the originative factor in the demise of Nigerian citizenship. It is in this sense that Peter Ekeh noted that the several associations, unions and groups in the colonial period, that were apparently opposed to colonial rule, were deeply rooted in the politics of primordialism. In the words of Ekeh,
Many primordial associations in Nigeria and Africa are exclusively concerned with the welfare of their own members and have not helped in the crystallisation of a generalised conception of the human person and individual liberty that transcend ethnic boundaries.
However, it is taken as given that civil society as an active index of Nigeria's search for democratic dispensation can be traced back to the late 1980's during the military regime of General Babangida and in the wake of the annulment of the June 12 election. In consequence, the arrant authoritarianism of the military and its episodic effects on the conditions for the transition to civil, democratic rule led to the literal explosion of civil society in the totality of its place in Nigeria's march towards democratic rule. In a special sort of way, at the heart of the explosion in the reconceptualisation of the role of civil society in the transition question in Africa and given the history of Nigeria under military rule is the activities of human rights groups.
A very important consequence and fall out of the annulment is the active role and place of civil society in politics as evidenced in the emergence and the multiplicity of many pro-democracy movements and groups. At the heart of the operation and activities of these pro-democracy groups and movement is the recrudescence of popular struggles for democracy in the continent of Africa in what can be called a distaste for authoritarianism and repression in governance.
In Nigeria, the annulment of the presidential polls of June 12, 1993 provided a leeway not only for the expansion of these pro-democracy groups and civil society but also provided the forum for the rejection of military regimes altogether and a demand for popular democracy. Therefore, the operation and emergence of these pro-democracy movements appears cleverly interwoven and situated in the global emergence of the idea of civil society. The merit in this political opening for civil society consist in the fact that these behemoth of social forces and groups, regardless of ethnic background, primordial roots and religious obligations, were able to project and advance a common front through which oppression and tyranny was fought against. This was much evident in the fight against the Babangida and Abacha regimes.
One eventful outcome of this scenario for Nigerian democracy is the bridging of the gap in the definition of citizenship in Nigeria. As a gain for democracy, this paved way for an easy translation and metamorphosis of citizenship values from the cistern of dry formalism and popular passivism to popular activism where it had all along been confined. One obvious indication of the merit of civil society in this respect can be seen in the outcome of the June 12 election that has been described as a watershed in the history of Nigeria. The basis for this consist in the view that Nigerians transcended all ethnic, religious and other sectional sentiments to vote in Late Moshood Abiola as a revitalisation of national sentiments and loyalty. Behind the success of this election even in a military era was the presence of an ever-active and vibrant civil society.
Within the overall framework of the spirited attempts by the military government to narrow the national political and democratic space, the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO) and many other pro-democracy movements such as Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), National Association of Democratic Lawyers (NADL), Campaign for Democracy (CD) and more importantly, National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) that emerged took on the task of championing the case for the opening up of democratic space, respect for the sovereignty and civil rights of the people, and the rule of law.
Given the centrality of the State in the country's political and economic development, and also given the fact that the military had been in power since December 1983, the campaign and protests of these societies and pro-democracy movements inevitably took the form of demands for the State to change its policies and embrace the path of democratic reform. More precisely, the nexus of their activities revolved around the opening of political space and the imposition of the agenda for democratisation.
At the height of the annulment fever, CDHR and CRP both challenged the comeback of the military. In their views, the Abacha coup denies the people of Nigeria the right to determine who governs them. Even if there are divergent views on the quality of office holders at these levels of governance, the prerogative to improve or replace them rests squarely with the electorate and not with self-appointed militants in uniform." In the same vein, the NADL constate that "the latest military incursion into the nations polity is a product of the vaunting ambition of some military officers. The military take-over was a lethal blow at the tortuous and expensive attempts of Nigerians to enthrone an undiluted democracy."
On its part, the CD reiterated the sanctity of the June 12, 1993 elections. In a statement issued in its office in Lagos on October 29, 1993, CD noted that: "there can be no new elections until the June 12 mandate is exercised…An AIDS infested gang cannot give birth to an AIDS free electoral process…Upholding of the June 12 electoral verdict is the key to the immediate political crisis and a Sovereign National Conference the long term solution to Nigeria's socio-political and economic problems."
The most notorious of the pro-democracy movements during the era of the military especially in connection with the annulment of the June 12, election of 1993 is the activities of the NADECO. NADECO emerged in the middle of 1994 to press for the de-annulment of the annulled June 12, 1993 presidential election won by Chief M.K.O. Abiola NADECO's opposition catch phrase is the popular statement of one of its leading figures, Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi that" he who makes peaceful change impossible makes violent change inevitable" was enough trouble to the Abacha regime."
Given the centrality of these groups in the democratic awakening in Nigeria, it is sure to conclude that the gains of the movement in ensuring the survival of democratic structures in Nigeria, especially in the face of the military regime, had to do, in the first instance, with the whittling away of the skewed conceptions of citizenship which had always had a debilitating effect on the project of democratic consolidation, transition to democratic rule and the end to authoritarianism. In precise terms, a major success recorded by voluntary associations that belonged to the civil society in Nigeria can be seen in the overwhelming impact it had in the re-orientation of citizenship sentiments in Nigeria especially in the light of the June 12 election.
The impact of civil society thus can be seen in the fact that it assisted in the reconstruction of citizenship values and sentiments in the country. For example, citizenship that had been constructed in very myopic terms and ways received a fresh light and refreshing illumination as reflected in the results of the June 12 election regarded as a watershed in the annals of the country's history. More or less, the activities helped in the education of the citizens, an education that paved way for transcending one of the ills of citizenship in Nigeria, the idea of constructing citizenship in the light of one's primordial base.
Critical therefore to the task of reinventing the values of citizenship in the country, as played by the emerging civil society especially during the Babangida and the Abacha regimes, was the programme of education of the citizenry. This is a plus for civil society in Nigeria. Citizenship education is needed to promote citizenship awareness. In this light, the importance of both formal and informal education cannot be over-emphasised. Education is the wheels on which successful citizenship rights and liberties are driven. The essence of education is to the effect that it broadens the mind as well as destroys the cloak of ignorance. A people that refuse to learn will continue to wallow in the abyss of political and social abysmality.
With respect to citizenship in Nigeria, education of the citizenry was a task taken up by civil society in Nigeria. Citizenship education and empowerment in this regard are to be seen as key factors in contributing to social development and well being of Nigerian citizenship through the expansion of our full potentials for sustained democratic society. This much was manifest in the activities of civil society. In fact, the present experience of democratic rule in Nigeria was the product of an active civil society willing to transcend the abysmal picture and quagmire of insalubrious appearance in which citizenship was reduced to during the Babangida and Abacha regimes.
CONCLUSION
There is an historical antecedent to the rise and emergence of civil society in Africa. In the basic sense, it is the display of arrant authoritarianism and the presence of military regimes in the larger part of the 1980's that occasioned the active role of civil society. Again, the dynamics of the need for the institutionalisation of civic societal norms in the political culture and ethics of Nigerian social life during this era of military adventurism must have been an agent of awakening for civil society in Nigeria. Still, while its amazing growth is explainable in the light of bitter experiences under authoritarian regimes, indeed, contemporary civil society and its dynamics are products of and responses to the demands of democratisation. It has helped in giving direction to the democratic cry in most African countries.
In conclusion, the most obvious merit of civil society as can be evaluated and assessed in the light of the present experiment with democratic rule in Nigeria can be discerned and deciphered in the sense of its contribution to citizenship. Civil society in Nigeria has enabled the Nigerian political environment cultivate a sense of mutual belonging by ensuring that citizens have a collective opposition to governmental oppression. Interestingly, it was civil society that bailed the Nigerian political landscape out of the doldrums of political apathy that years of military rule had confined it. This was achieved by involving citizens collectively in a public sphere to express their interests, passions, ideas, make demands on the state and standing as an intermediary between the private sphere and the state. This has heightened citizenship values and feelings that had hitherto been reduced to mere passive and formal membership rather than substantive sense of active participation.
