People say ‘’the worst civilian rule is better than the best military government”. But if this saying is an axiomatic statement that it appears to be, how come Nigeria’s case is different?
Nigeria does not appear to have fared outstandingly better under any of these systems of government in terms of growth and development. So the question is: what is wrong with Nigeria?
Out of 51 years of Nigeria’s nationhood, the country had been ruled cumulatively by the military for 28 years, while the civilians have had 23 years so far.
Now, if we look at things critically, which one has brought more development to the country?
This question, as simple as it appears, call for some circumspection and painstaking analysis of certain indices painstaking in order to arrive at a fair and objective conclusion. But one thing is indisputable: none has been met the Nigerians’ expectations!
Aside that, it is also clear that one is more expensive to run than the other. Of course, the civilian government is more expensive especially considering the state of things presently in Nigeria. Can you imagine what goes for recurrent expenditures on political appointees in the country’s budgets?
I concede that the military is not trained nor equipped to be involved in civil governance and for that reason military personnel are ill-fitted to play the role of politicians. Democratic principles are antithetical to the hierarchical structure of the military. And so military rule, to put it mildly, is an aberration.
Civilian rule, on the other hand, is the accepted form of governance globally and the one more imbued with the apparatus to promote democratic ideals. But what is the essence of democracy without being accompanied with development and growth?
In Nigeria, the “development” we witness is in terms of sporadic and astronomical material transformation in the life of an average politician. This of course has to do with the jumbo pay that the Nigerian politician earns. Quite unfortunate that while the prosperity of the Nigerian politician catapults phenomenally, the corporate fortunes of Nigeria dwindles condescendingly.
Nigeria, having being ruled by the military and civilians apiece for almost the same length of time, is still lagging far behind in development. The aspirations and hopes of her founding fathers have obviously been dashed. The optimism of contemporary Nigerians, on the other hand, has been, to say the least, badly injured.
Respect for the rule of law, democratic ideals, regard for fundamental human rights and constitutionalism are not enough to make Nigerians happy. It is high time this country moved forward in terms of tangible infrastructural development and growth. To achieve this, Nigerian politicians cannot afford to do things as usual.
So the germane question here is not: which government- military or civilian is preferred? Rather it is: which government has what it takes to take Nigeria to the promised land?
As Nigerians, we have no choice- it must be civilian rule. The constitution frowns at military intrusion in politics. Any change of government, not through electoral process, is unconstitutional and an offence that carries the severest penalty.
Cost of governance must be reduced drastically and the interest of the country must also come first in the heart of those in public offices, if Nigeria must develop.
Now that you have read what I have to say, what is your own opinion? Use the comment form below to express yourself. Thanks for reading.