Democracy And The Political Economy Of War -By Obi Nwakanma

Mr. Ahmed Bola Tinubu, whose presidency of Nigeria is still currently in dispute and under litigation has written to the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, to grant him war powers, which he intends to use in deploying the Nigerian Armed Forces to neighbouring Niger Republic, to attack it. Why? Because Tinubu disagrees with the military overthrow of the democratically elected government of Niger Republic. Niger is Nigeria’s neighbour, and a member of the regional bloc, ECOWAS.

On July 26, soldiers overthrew the civilian government of President Mohammed Bazoum. Only three weeks ago, Mr. Tinubu was elected the Chairman of the ECOWAS Heads of governments body. It is as Chair of ECOWAS that Tinubu is trying to mobilize the charge and lead the restoration of democracy in Niger. The coup in Niger, coming just as Mr. Tinubu had secured chairmanship of ECOWAS seemed like a direct, and very symbolic challenge to him. He issued a serious, seven-day ultimatum to the soldiers in Niger to restore democracy and reinstate the deposed president or face serious consequences. On Thursday, Tinubu sent a high-powered diplomatic delegation from Nigeria, headed by former Military Head of State, Abdulsalam Abubakar. The diplomatic foray failed spectacularly.

The Niger Republic under the new military government broke off diplomatic ties with Nigeria, France, USA and Togo. Those folks are not joking and they have drawn a line on the sand. Mr. Tinubu’s response was to write the Nigerian Senate seeking authorization to intervene militarily in Niger Republic against the new military government. Tinubu’s letter to the senate asked for authority to launch a “military build-up and deployment of personnel for military intervention to enforce compliance of the military junta in Niger should they remain recalcitrant.” That language of the letter to the senate says all about Mr. Tinubu’s naivete and his very weak knowledge of foreign policy. He wants to commit Nigeria to a pointless, and potentially devastating war.

First of all, Nigeria has no business interfering in the internal affairs of another sovereign country, irrespective of ideological and political differences. She will break all kinds of international laws and treaties, and Nigeria will violate a very sacrosanct principle, the illegal levying of war against a sovereign nation which has not levied war on Nigeria. It is a foolish demand, and a most illogical request and move. Tinubu has proceeded to order the closure of all the land borders between Nigeria and the Niger republic, and has activated the border drilling exercise, which is basically, Nigeria’s show of force, threatening to invade a sovereign nation, which is within its own rights to determine its sovereign matters. Tinubu has ordered that electricity to Niger be cut, that commercial flights operating between Nigeria and Niger cease operations, and he has ordered a blockade of goods in transit between landlocked Niger and the Lagos and Eastern seaports in Nigeria. This is outrageous. It amounts to the levying of war, because when you order a blockade of Niger, it reminds us of the blockade on East during the war, which resulted in millions of deaths of children especially from starvation and malnutrition. Of course, Niger is calling the bluff of Nigeria, and are themselves threatening to dam the Niger, which would create very serious ecological problems for Nigeria, among many other things. Besides, sovereignty still matters! Nigeria should not become a bully and an enforcer in her neighborhood. Besides, what is the real rationale for seeking to go to war against Niger? How would Tinubu feel if, on account of the very obvious failures of Nigerian democracy, including the conduct of course, of the sham election that has made him President, an alliance of West African states organize to levy war on Nigeria, because Tinubu is president? What is the difference between the coup in Niger, and the violence, and the suppression of votes that Tinubu’s party, the APC, engaged in? Would it make sense if a coalition of West African states, working with a foreign power, invades Nigeria on the grounds that Nigeria, simply because it cannot manage its elections and its democracy is a threat to the economic, political, and cultural life of West Africa? That is precisely the precedent Bola Tinubu’s inexperience and lack of perspective on key international obligations is trying to set.

Nigerians and many Africans are actually asking Mr. Tinubu to take out the logs first from his own eyes, before taking out the speck from his neighbour’s eye. Nigeria is not a paradise, nor is it the beacon of democracy. It is politically, in far more dire straits given the unresolved controversies and brewing tensions surrounding the election that only recently produced Tinubu, and is in no position to assert, or claim a moral high ground against the coupists in Niamey. Nigerians – majority of them – did not vote for Tinubu in the first place. They are also expressing skepticism about Tinubu’s war-mongering moves: in seeking to engage in war, many have suggested, Tinubu may be attempting to secure himself in power, banking on the fact that the constitution of Nigeria does not permit the removal of the president, once the nation is at war. Many of course have certainly pointed out that, this ploy would not work. Why? Because the law does not recognize multilateral engagement as part of a war condition that gives a president extensive emergency powers.

But it is not very unlikely that Tinubu and his handlers are banking on the kind of extensive emergency powers which would situate him as a war president. The second most crucial point here is that Niger Republic has the sovereign authority to determine its own fate. Military rule is intolerable, and some have even suggested that the worst democracy is better than the best military government. That might be pushing that argument too far. Nigeria’s recent experience has made many Nigerians even now nostalgic about military rule. It is wrong. But it is true. But let us also understand that the Armed Forces of a nation has one obligation: to defend the nation from external and internal subversion. Soldiers swear an oath to die for their country.

The key critical function of the Armed Forces is to secure the sovereign integrity of the nation. That includes, securing it from illegitimate, compromised, corrupt, or tyrannical government. When democratically elected governments begin to oppress the citizens, corrupt all the national institutions that are safeguards for national cohesion and legitimate government; or lose control of the nation’s ability to secure its citizens in all the ramifying meaning of security: human security; state security; food security; job security; and so on; when the nation is buffeted by an impossible question over the legitimacy of the ballot, it is the moral and constitutional obligation of a nation’s Armed Forces to intervene, and protect the state. The constitutionally established military of the Republic of Niger felt that obligation, and sacked an elected government which it feels no longer served the interests of the people. The Nigeriens have been celebrating. It is their sovereign right. It will also be their sovereign right to organize to push the military out. Such a situation then is when ECOWAS can quite legitimately intervene. Nigeria has borne the brunt of the security of West Africa . Nigeria organized the formidable ECOMOG, which was basically a multi-state military partnership that helped stabilize West Africa, intervening in the wars in SierraLeone and Liberia, and containing for years, the rise of extremists in West Africa. But then, Nigeria was flush with petrodollar. Much of the resources used to organize ECOMOG was from the so-called “Windfall” from the war in Iraq. But it is no longer so.

Today, Nigeria has been impoverished beyond measure. We do not have the resources to prosecute war in Niger. That is the third and pragmatic reason why Tinubu’s war plan is a bad idea. It has no sex appeal! Will Nigeria borrow to mobilize and fight a senseless war in Niger? As Nigerians have noted, this nation has been unable to contain the insurgents from Boko Haram and ISIS, and the separatist movements, and it wants to fight an international war. On whose behalf? Certainly, not on the strategic interest of Nigeria and Nigerians. Many have accused Tinubu of trying to fight a proxy war.

Frankly, Nigerians have no dog in this fight. That is why the Senate of the republic must reject Tinubu’s request, and push the government to commit to finding, and exploring more pragmatic diplomatic options. We must stop Tinubu from dragging West Africa into a needless and provocative war. Nigeria has no rights to levy war against a sovereign nation that has not levied war on her. Where democracy fails, military coups happen. That should be the lesson for Nigeria. If the National Assembly continues to permit executive excess, and the Courts fail to deliver justice, democracy will fail in Nigeria. Sadly, just as in Niger, the Armed Forces will become an unsavory option.

The situation in Mali, Cote D’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, and now Niger, is a cautionary tale to Nigeria. But Tinubu must not be granted the power to levy war.