Democratic Terrorism in Nigeria
Nigeria’s 2023 general elections unravelled in a most controversial and unprecedentedly flawed manner. At the decisive juncture that ushered in the election results, Nigeria had a choice between submitting to a sham or confronting the conundrum of its existence. As I previously observed, the former, which became the course of action, promised nothing but the gratification for the perpetrators of this tragic enterprise.
Now that Bola Tinubu is the President of Nigeria, however contested his position may be, Nigerians must decide how they want to outlast this rogue wave. On the one hand, we have at the helm a steersman whose existence is shrouded in opaqueness. On the other hand, we have a besieged man desperate enough to deploy all nefarious forces against our democracy. We are thus burdened with the irony of history, which compels us to assess the meaning of democracy in Africa’s most populous country.
In any real democratic environment, the outcome of a democratic process ought to be the most pristine version of that process. But in Nigeria’s case, all local and international witnesses to the process that foisted Tinubu on us agree on the perversion of both the process and the outcome. This is perverted democracy.
When does the question arise about the delta between the process that brought Tinubu to power and the ones which propel putschists to seize it? In what sense is Tinubu’s declaration as Nigeria’s president different from the emergence of Goïta in Mali, Doumbouya in Guinea, Traore in Burkina Faso, or even Tchiani in Niger?
Crucially, the perverted process that brought Tinubu to power led to the deaths of more innocent citizens than these coups d’état combined. We must therefore note that, in the absence of credibility, fairness and openness, a democratic process is no different from, and may sometimes be worse than, military coups. This comparison, of course, should be considered without the presumption of preference for nondemocratic regimes. Rather, an understanding should be given to the scourge of ‘decadent power.’
Many analyses on the relationship between terrorism and democracy have explored the inherent vulnerabilities of democratic regimes. A growing correlation has also been identified between weak or failed states and terrorism, with Nigeria being one of the African countries where acts of terrorism most frequently occur. To a large extent, analyses focus on acts of terrorism by non-state actors, but very seldom mention or consider state terrorism, which is perhaps more closely related to the concept of democratic terrorism.
What distinguishes state terrorism from democratic terrorism is that the former requires the active participation of the state and its institutions in perpetrating such acts. Inversely, democratic terrorism only requires the express or implicit recruitment of non-state actors by the state to both intimidate and perpetrate acts of violence against the people. This form of terrorism, covertly and overtly, employs the symbols, structures, and institutions of democracy to promote terrorist groups and terroristic ends. It is at once the democratic legitimization of state-sponsored terrorism and the democratization of terrorism. This is precisely what Tinubu’s regime has come to represent.
The scope of Tinubu’s recruitment of terrorism has expanded from the smallest state by area in Nigeria to the national stage where, naturally, the replication of governance and control by democratic terrorism is advancing. While still awaiting the verdict of the presidential elections petition tribunal (PEPT), the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party in 2023, Atiku Abubakar, has reported simultaneous attempts on his life, and establishments in Yola, Adamawa State by suspected Boko Haram terrorists. This development followed Tinubu’s threat of “chaos and anarchy” should the verdict of the PEPT invalidate his illegitimate regime.
Perhaps more worrisome is the alliance between Tinubu and the ex-militant, Asari Dokubo. The curious event in which Dokubo – who holds no officially known elected or appointed position – was able to address the media using a platform backdropped by the national coat of arms in the presidential villa makes this alliance extremely dangerous. Since that event, Dokubo has threatened state governors and citizens with assault rifles, while parading his militiamen as undefeatable agents of terror. The sudden relevance of terror merchants such as Dokubo implicates the incentivization of democratic terrorism. At the same time, it serves to contextualize the pre-election utterances of Tinubu suggesting the conscription of 50 million youths into the Nigerian army, and his subsequent remark emphasising “the mass recruitment of individuals in a volunteer army” as his most enlightened plan to resolve Nigeria’s insecurity crisis. Those familiar with the Eritrean situation should not take this obsession lightly.
Nigeria currently has the second-highest number of unemployed youths in the world, effectively rendering more than half of its youth population vulnerable to the excesses of an illegitimate and morally defective leader. The desperate conditions of citizens will also likely worsen: the price of petrol is at an all-time high, prices of goods and services are spiralling, and the Naira is projected to fall steeply to the US dollar. Without timely and decisive intervention, the Tinubu regime will bask with impunity in the context of democratic terrorism. The natural consequence of this democratic terrorism, perpetrated against the people, will be a subdued population and subdued hopes of a brighter, truly democratic future.
Raphael Adebayo is an author and human rights activist from Nigeria. His work has appeared in Sahara Reporters, The Punch, and Business Day.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Vanguard Africa, the Vanguard Africa Foundation, or its staff.