As Nigeria Celebrates Democracy Day On May 29th , Obienyem Enters His Archive On Some Aspects Of Democracy

One of the myths woven around Confucius was the story of how he and his followers were once passing through a rugged and disordered mountain. As they passed, they were surprised to see an old woman weeping beside a grave in that godforsaken place. Through Tsze-loo, one of his disciples, he wanted to find out. Upon enquiry, the woman said: "My husband's father was killed here by a tiger, and my husband also; and now my son has met the same fate." Who would not ask her why she persisted in living in so dangerous a place? "There is no oppressive government here." "My Children," said Confucius to his disciples, "remember this, oppressive government is fiercer than a tiger."

Ever since man escaped from the jungle, the Hobbessian state of nature, and decided to live together in a community by surrendering their rights to commonly recognised persons - those in government, he has continued to seek the form of government that best suit him. If you perused through the history of evolution of government, you would encounter great names that made contributions. To some, tyranny was the best, to others it was aristocracy; some said it was theocracy while others said it was oligarchy. However, with profounder insight, after thorough examination and sometimes practical demonstration of all the forms, it is agreed that democracy properly practised is the best.

Excepting machinery/computer and other later inventions, there is hardly anything secular in our culture that did not come from Greece. Schools, gymnasiums, arithmetic, poetry, music, tragedy, comedy, philosophy, theology, agnosticism, scepticism, idealism, Epicureanism, ethics, politics, therapy, cosmetics, philanthropy, cynicism, tyranny, theocracy, etc. Democracy also came to us from Greece, not democracy in its modern form, where the people are represented through elected members. In contrast, Greek democracy was a raw one, where everybody congregated at the Agora and participated in decision making and voting.

In spite of the directness of Greek democracy, it had its own imperfections. In fact, all the problems that disturb our own democracy today - the quest for the emancipation of woman; the conservatism of the established; the corruption of politics and the perversions of conduct; the conflict of ideologies; the struggle to prevent the dictatorship of even the elected officials; between individualism and commons - all these agitated, as if for our instruction, the brilliant and turbulent life of the old democracy. There is nothing in Greek democracy/civilisation that do not illuminate our own.

If you remember, even while Greece practised democracy, occasionally some rascals came in to interrupt it. A case was the dictatorship of Persistratus, who, on becoming popular, asked for a little guard to protect him. With the guard he took over government. Like our numerous military regimes, as his dictatorship grew harsher, the cry for freedom grew louder.

To enjoy uninterrupted freedom, which a democracy has the capacity to ensure, the Greek put several measures in place. A certain man called Cleisthenes, having gained democratic powers, went on to establish a popular Assembly with judicial powers. The powers of the Assembly were enlarged by the institution of ostracism as a protection for the young democracy. How did it work?

At any time, by a majority of votes written secretly upon potsherds (ostraka), the Assembly, in a quorum of six thousand members, might send into exile for ten years one who, by its reckoning, had grown so strong or famous as to become a danger to the state. In this way ambitious leaders and those who disobeyed the laws of the land were stimulated to conduct themselves with circumspection and moderation. Thus, men suspected of conspiracy could be disposed of without the law's delay. The procedure required that the Assembly should be asked: "Is there any man among you whom you think vitally dangerous to the state? If so, whom? The Assembly might them vote to ostracize the person. Such exile involved no confiscation of property and no disgrace; it was merely democracy's way of cutting off the "tallest ears of the corn in the field".

In spite of its function, ostracism was abused as demonstrated by one of its victims - Aristides. Aristides was a good man who supported democratic ideals and aliened himself with progressive forces for the good of Athens. Aristides hated to see his fellow Athenians suffer and thus was immersed in philanthropy. As a result, Aristides was loved by many and was the talk of the town. He became so popular that Athenians voted for his ostracism because of his popularity.

Ostracism has many variants, such as banishment, exile, recall, impeachment, etc. These are measures used to check the excesses of people, including elected officials. In the olden days, it was customary to banish people from their towns when they defiled the land. People go on, or are sent to exiles when they commit heinous crimes or when they deliberately run away from oppressive governments, like the woman in the Confucian tale. Constituencies can actually recall those representing them in the House if they fail short of what is required. The House can check the excesses of the executive through impeachment.

In the second Republic, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, the governor of Kaduna State was impeached. In the present dispensation, the Deputy Governor of Anambra State was impeached. In the last dispensation, the House made several efforts to impeach Mr. President. It was during one of the moves that he made the statement "I dey kampe". Kampeism, a political philosophy expounded by Obasanjo enjoins utmost steadfastness in the face of political turbulence or even earthquake.

Presently, the House of Representatives said they wanted to impeach Mr. President. They have gone ahead to compile about 20 impeachable offences against the man. Honestly, when you read through the offences you will be convinced that the charges have merit. Ordinarily, Nigerians, especially those exasperated against Obasanjo should be actively supporting the House, but on the contrary, nobody of substance is in support. It is a time for the house to ask itself questions. Nigerians believe that the House brandishes impeachment once the President behaves in a way that suggests a little seriousness. Why is the impeachment coming soon after his public indictment of the house for corruption? Meanwhile we are dealing with a House that started so many things in the past, including impeachment, only to back out like a dog that stopped backing at its master's defence because a bone was throne to it.

The present impeachment moves offer the House an opportunity to prove to Nigerians that it can bite. If they back out as expected, that will be a further confirmation to Nigerians that the House is not serious and should not be taken seriously.

Ostracism and its modern children are all tools intended to enforce good governance, but the House should be weary of rendering the tool of impeachment blunt due to irrelevant (sorry), infantile uses.

From Valentine Obienyem , SA Media to former Governor Peter Obi