Encouraging democracy over stability in Nigeria

Despite the violence that the international audience has come to expect from news of Nigeria these days, Nigeria is not the traditional picture of a war-torn country. It is, on the contrary, a growing and vibrant democracy. Within the current international crisis over a surge in Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, and in anticipation of the upcoming Nigerian elections, it is a crucial time for the international community to encourage continued democratic progress in developing states like Nigeria. Let us not lose sight of this priority.

At this pivotal pre-election moment in Nigeria, and with parts of the country having been overrun by Boko Haram, the media has understandably focused on the need to restore security. And it is clear that the Nigerian government needs to do more to guide and empower the military to challenge advances being made by Boko Haram in the Northeast. Boko Haram has savagely killed and displaced thousands and kidnapped hundreds, in a sadistic effort to establish an Islamic state. President Goodluck Jonathan needs to exhibit more strength in compelling the military to stop this savage terrorist organization. 

{mosads}In response to this, the main opposition candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, has gained support because of his background as a military strongman and as a Muslim with a political base in the Northeast. Yet some Nigerians recall with unease his short tenure as military dictator of Nigeria, following a coup in 1983, in which he ruled distinctly with an iron fist.

A candidate made famous by a military coup demonstrates questionable commitment to democracy.

With Nigeria being the fourth largest democracy in the world, and with one quarter of Africans being Nigerian, protecting democracy in Nigeria is incredibly important.

History tells us that in America’s haste to support strongman-style stability over democratic principles (often related to our interests abroad, like oil), we empower unchecked and despotic individuals (think of U.S. support for Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, the Shah, and Gaddafi, to name a few). This has never turned out well. Furthermore, the lesson to take from the eruption of revolutionary movements within the Muslim-dominated Middle East and North Africa is that civilians are tired of dictatorship and terror; they want to forge an equitable form of governance.

Another point of concern is Buhari’s Islamist leaning. Though Buhari has vowed to confront Boko Haram, he has called for the implementation of Sharia law in Nigeria (Boko Haram seeks this as well). He has also allegedly directed Nigerian Muslims to vote only for fellow Muslims in elections.

Furthermore, a strong case has been submitted to the International Criminal Court (ICC) accusing Buhari of instigating violence that resulted in the killing of over 800 people after he lost the 2011 elections. As part of that incident, Buhari supporters targeted and burned down churches.

This does not sound like a pacifying voice in a Muslim-Christian country that is being reluctantly dragged by Boko Haram into the transnational sectarian conflict facing our world today.

But we need to think beyond how to confront Boko Haram and other terrorist groups in the near term, and also work to determine and address why these groups are gaining traction around the world. A vibrant democracy is the best place to identify the sources of these problems and develop solutions. So, even if both candidates in the 2015 Nigerian election are lacking, it is the democratic duty of the international community to check and hold accountable their current and potential leaders. With this analysis in mind, a war-mongering, Islamic fanatic is the worst alternative for Nigeria, and for the rest of the region and world as well.

Stokes is a writer and international program manager with expertise in sectarian conflict and transnational extremist movements. She spent years in the Middle East working to empower moderate and independent grassroots movements, and to build democracy and local governance.