THIS must be an extremely exciting time for Nigerian political scientists, students of constitutional law and real politick, for if nothing else, the YarÕAdua saga provides empirical illustration of some of the key issues at the heart of the subjects of constitutionalism, statehood, and the democratic order in African nations. This ideational anagnorisis is one gain that can be immediately extracted from the YarÕAdua saga, the ultimate end of which still remains indeterminate. In a post-humous book, the now legendary African political scientist, Claude Ake had written about the feasibility of democracy in African states. ÒIs democracy feasible in Africa? What democracy?" It is precisely the same questions that we are confronted with as a people and a country in dealing with the management of issues relating to President YarÕAduaÕs ill-health.

The original expectation in embracing democratic rule in Africa with such great enthusiasm was that it will liberate the people from authoritarianism and serve as a vehicle for transformation and the promotion of human rights. Democracy is of course in turmoil all over the world, but for Nigerians and other Africans, democracy makes sense primarily in terms of its dividends in their lives, a term that has gained more than an operational currency among Nigerians. The logical question is this: are we practising democracy or are we playing games? In reality, there is confounding alienation between the people and power figures in relation to what constitutes democracy in Nigeria. The starting point for this enquiry must be the nature of the state and political culture. What is the nature of the state and who should be in charge of it? This is an important issue in determining national progress and integrity. What we have seen since President YarÕAduaÕs illness became an issue of urgent national importance is a scramble for the control of the departments of state. Whoever seizes that control exercises power, which is ironically all that matters most in the public sphere, even when the unintended consequences are dire for the people.

The public sphere is all about those who inhabit it and those who exercise power therein. In the YarÕAdua saga we have seen a vicious struggle for that space which thows up all the fracture lines in Nigerian politics; North vs South, Muslim vs Christian, Niger Delta vs Nigeria, military vs. civilian, male vs female, gender vs tradition. The deployment of troops to receive president YarÕAdua as in the early hours of February 24, the abuse of the National Assembly and its pristine purpose by the refusal of the lawmakers to confront the issues, all point to the indicators of a failing state ethos. The power play, the struggle for control is explained by the much-indicated Turai YarÕAdua factor, the existence of a cabal and the fact of international intervention as a conflict resolution mechanism. We have seen the state being turned into an arena for conspiracy: such conspiracy that sabotages the peopleÕs interests in so far as it foregrounds their powerlessness. We have equally seen the state being turned into an arena for competition and conflict, rather than an institution for progress and development.

Many commentators on the Nigerian condition have written about the fragility if not the inchoateness of the Nigerian state, and this includes Martin Meredith and Richard Dowden as direct observers. But we no longer need outsiders to tell us how terrible the Nigerian situation is. The assumption that democratic rule will negate the fractures within the state and strengthen it as well as citizensÕ power has been exposed as a myth. Our biggest fear must be the ascendancy of class interests (that is a critical factor in the YarÕAdua story) and the deepening of the peopleÕs misery. We run in Nigeria, sadly, a state that is not driven by progressive ideology. It is a state that places more emphasis on opportunism and the reduction of nation-building to horse-trading. This is precisely why the institutions of state have not been able in any way to project the ideals.

They have all been sucked in: the military, the intelligence agencies, the legislature, the state governments, the Presidency, the civil service and the people, the same citizens who are supposed to be at the centre of the state, are helpless because they lack direct influence on the levers of state; the state as institution has exposed its own moral dissoluteness. Is ours therefore a developmental state? Or a recursive state? Or a failed state? The answer to this is better understood in the context of trends and patterns, for it did not have to take YarÕAduaÕs illness for the fracture lines to be exposed, it is an old pattern that had been sustained over the years long before independence in seasons of both civilian and military rule. The urgent need for a reconstruction of the Nigerian state as part of a democratization process is therefore imperative.

This leads us logically to the issue of constitutionalism and the role of consensus in building societies and systems. The neo-liberal assumption that the Constitution is the grundnorm, the very soul of order and stability has been under-privileged in the course of the YarÕAdua tragedy. The National Assembly had offered a self-serving interpretation of the Constitution, turning a written declaration into a BBC broadcast and conveniently on the basis of that introducing a doctrine of necessity principle. Whereas other jurisdictions can be identified where this doctrine had helped in a revolutionary sense, in Nigeria it does not serve any high democratic purpose, but class and private interests. It was a doctrine conveniently thrown up and justified, to cover up an anomaly, to protect one individual, and to deceive Nigerians.

Its application appeared consensual, and an impression of public consensus was constructed around it, but the questions that are posed are these: what is the role of consensus in a democratic context? Can Ònegotiated consensus" so called in fact result in a violation of democracy? Of what use is such consensus, which upturns the legal regime? Legal purists often draw attention to the critical difference between lege lata (the law as it is) and lege feranda (the law as it should be), but the dissociation between these two was not even the issue nor were we confronted with positivism in a progressive sense in the application of the so-called doctrine of necessity by the National Assembly: it was all simply about class interest and the pocket. The sovereignty of the law was thus compromised. To grow democracy in Africa, there is no doubt that the character of the political elite needs to be deconstructed more critically. A political elite that positions itself negatively in the interface between state and society and pursues its own base and primordial interests is dangerous to the construction of a progressive society.

It is the manifestation of this in the YarÕAdua story that further foregrounds the obvious crisis of possessive individualism. Aristotle had made the point about the state being more important than the individual. But the reigning dialectic not only in post-colonial Africa, but elsewhere in the world also, for the crisis of governance is global, has been the imposition of the individual on the national platform, going back to Louis XIVÕsÒlÕetat cÕest moi". Meaning on the national stage, the commonwealth and the exercise of power are all inscribed into an ascriptive self, and the machinery of state is used to promote that abuse. This is in part why till date, it is not possible for anyone to say categorically how troops were deployed to receive the President on February 24. It explains the sudden importance of Turai YarÕAdua, and a faceless cabal around the YarÕAdua throne, the Katsina factor, and the resolution by the PDP that Goodluck Jonathan will not be a presidential candidate in 2011, because the North will retain its claim to the Presidency. It further explains why President YarÕAdua remains invisible.

Such possessiveness makes it impossible for the common good to occupy the high ground and so, more than 100 days after President YarÕAdua disappeared from public view, there has been very little talk about the peopleÕs interests. The political competition in Abuja has been neatly resolved in favour of the YarÕAduas: a sick man gets to keep his office and the privileges attached thereto, his wife remains First Lady and exercises influence on behalf of a husband who is no longer serving the people due to incapacitation, and it is a status quo that will subsist because individual interests have become supreme. Those who dare to cry wolf are attacked, their persons are abused in the hope that they can be silenced as they struggle to protect their own individualism. This is the sad reality.

One dimension to all of this however is the international factor. It is often said that all politics is local, but increasingly in the context of globalization and the international character of capital and resources deployment, that which is local is instantly international, and there are universalized ideals and best practices on the basis of which that which is supposedly local is evaluated. I have just returned from a conference held in Dakar, Senegal organized by UNECA and CODESTRIA on the African Governance Report III. One fellow making a contribution to the methodology and framework discussion, a Kenyan I think, had prefaced his comment with the snide view that ÒNigerians cannot see their President" and that this explains part of the crisis with the leadership in Africa and that he intended to explain why Nigerians cannot see their President! Everyone laughed except the Nigerians in the room.

This was on a day when Nigerians expected the Executive Council of the Federation and the National Assembly to discuss the YarÕAdua matter and take a decisively progressive stance. Of course, the meetings were held but nothing progressive happened. Can you imagine a Karuti, a Kenyan laughing at Nigeria? About the same time, a cartoon appeared in a Kenyan newspaper portraying the Nigerian Presidential car as an ambulance! Should we tell the Kenyans that they have no business laughing at us when they have a log in their own eyes? But it is not only in Kenya that the Nigerian tragedy has generated much concern. Nigeria has become the butt of jokes in the international arena. We are losing much capital and creating odious literature around the Nigerian brand and identity due to the failure of the political elite, the political party systems and the bureaucracy to act responsibly.

Nigeria used to be accorded respect as the leading country in West Africa and Africa, but we have squandered that goodwill. The management of President YarÕAduaÕs sickness has turned Nigeria into a country that needs to be managed and assisted to prevent it from tipping over the hill. The Americans and the EU have had to focus intently on the Nigerian crisis to prevent a disaster that could waste their taxpayersÕ resources in the event of a blow out; thus they act in self-interest, not out of concern for democracy. States like Nigeria becoming problematic threaten the expectation that the universalisation of democracy will promote global peace and stability. Retrieving a place of pride for Nigeria in the international community is a task that will have to be addressed over both short and long-term bases.

We have made the point now and again that part of the salvation process lies in the hands of civil society. But the problem with the Nigerian civil society is its contradictory nature, and the confusing signals it projects. Its attention span is short, both by nature and construction, making the reliance on civil society a matter of vigilance within and externally and constant prodding. When it bestirs itself however, its impact is often radical and significant, if not revolutionary, as in the protest against Third Term and the objection to constitutional violations. Having seen its power and potential, civil society needs to be constantly urged and pressured to stand up and not be discouraged. For, it is a fact that part of the instruments used to promote the deception over President YarÕAduaÕs state of health was a section of the media which soon began to publish reports about how the President was seen playing with grandchildren, drinking tea or coffee and taking a walk in the garden. Lies. Questions therefore arise about the responsibilities of civil society and its institutions but this should be done with an understanding of its dynamics, structure, and diversity, particularly in relation to the Nigerian political opposition parties which seem to be more relevant in the arena of de-democratisation.

In the end, all of this is about good governance. We have leaders who go through the process of elections and who claim to be democrats within political parties but who have no idea whatsoever what democracy is all about in relation to the peopleÕs best interests. What should the state do? Should it be used to subvert the people or provide service? Where are human and citizenship rights? Should the state be reduced to a vehicle for self-preservation and access to property? What should leaders do? Should they serve the people? Or should they cheat and abuse them? What should democracy do? Should it offer progress or misery? Should personalities be more important than the Nigerian state? What should be the outcome of elections? Strong or sick leaders? The idealistic answers are as obvious as their denial at the highest levels of Nigerian politics.

Yar'Adua: Of smoke and mirrors-By Reuben Abati