How Social Contract Theory influences Nigerian Democracy By Edikan Ekanem

Democracy as defined by a former American President, Abraham
Lincoln (1809-1965) is “government of the people, by the people,
for the people”. Put it another way, it is government that the
people feel its presence, get involved and enjoy it influences.

The social contract theory on the other hand as propagated by
Louise Rusling, can be defined loosely as a sort of hypothetical or
actual agreement between society and its state. This agreement has
been said to be responsible for the bases of our moral decisions
and stances. In other words, we merely abide by the governments
rules and regulations in the hope that others will do the same,
subsequently leading to a more secure and comfortable life.

Rousseau on his part begins the social contract theory with the
notable phrase “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains”
asserting that the solution of legitimate authority is the “social
contract”, an agreement by which the people band together for their
mutual preservation.

How then does this theory of social contract have a place in the
Nigeria’s modern democracy? What influence(s) does it have in our
modern day Constitution and democracy? How can it help in solving
some problems in this country? Relevant sections of the
constitution will be cited to help us bring out the thrust of this
analysis.

Apparently, a true reflection of elements of social contract
theory in democracy is clearly seen in the wordings of section 14
of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria, as
amended. A little perusal of its subsection will suffice in
buttressing this assertion.

Section 14(2)(a) states: “sovereignty belongs to the people of
Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all
its powers and authority”. This clearly shows that the “people”
cannot be excluded in the practice of ideal and genuine democracy
in Nigeria. Beyond that, section 14(2)(c) expressly guarantees the
participation of the people in government.

Correlatively, since the constitution as the ground norm derives
its powers from the people, it sets the yardstick and parameter for
the performances of its government which will enable the people to
see and measure the effectiveness, expediency, transparency and
flaws of the constituted authorities they summited their powers and
resources to, to be used in their behalf.

Chapter 2 of the constitution (sections 12-24) has also provided
for fundamental objectives and directive principles of states
policy. In simple terms, it provides for the duties of both the
government and citizens of the country. These include economic,
political, social, educational, environmental, foreign policy
objectives etc. These have ipso facto formed the basis of
government performance to the people.

Though by the provision of section 6(6)(c) of the constitution,
these objectives cannot be challenged in any law court, but it has
set the yardstick for performance. It states: “shall not except as
otherwise provided by this Constitution, extend to any issue or
question as to whether any act of omission by any authority or
person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in
conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles
of State Policy set out in Chapter II of this Constitution”

From the forgoing analysis, government performances should be
measured based on what they should do (their statutory
responsibilities) and not on baseless sentiments like unnecessary
comparisons to her sister states or States, comparison with the
past authorities etc.

It is so clueless, unreasonable, uncouth and shameless that the
credibility and competence of government is now subjected to
personal reasoning, past administration formula than the standards
set by law.

The fact that others have not been doing is not a defence and
does not in any way justify the incompetence and failures of a
present administration in discharging its statutory
responsibilities that is paid for. A wrong or crime can never be
justified by the influx of wrong doings and criminality in
detriment of its set standard.

People should stop behaving as they will die if governmental
authorities are questioned for an unreasonable act or decision. The
people have the constitutional right of doing so. Participation in
government must not at all time be in tandem with the trending
order of the day, it may differ to some extent.

It should also be borne in mind that heaven will not fall if
governments are criticised. The right of constructive criticism is
shielded by section 38 of the Nigerian constitution.

As long as democracy is concerned, public opinions cannot be
done away with; government must always listen to the cries,
comments and criticisms of its people. Doctrine of check and
balances, rule of law, supremacy of law will always be employed in
democracy.

Most importantly, governance should be separated from
electioneering, propagandas and sentiments. The constitution is the
basis of governance in the country as against personal
idiosyncrasies and sentiments. A country with constitution without
constitutionalism is like a sailor or pilot without a compass

Summarily, the government should always strike an acceptable
balance between itself the people, the masses should be carried
along, and social welfare of the people should always be of concern
to the government.

Laws and powers should not always be a shield to the government
and at another phase a sword to the authorities at the detriment of
the masses. We are all humans who demands fair treatments from
others.

“All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also
must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets
mean”- Matt 7:12

Edikan Ekanem is a student of University of Uyo, a
contemporary writer and a columnist who remains politically
neutral. He can be reached at 08130015006 or
eddy4jah@gmail.com

Democracy as defined by a former American President, Abraham
Lincoln (1809-1965) is “government of the people, by the people,
for the people”. Put it another way, it is government that the
people feel its presence, get involved and enjoy it influences.

The social contract theory on the other hand as propagated by
Louise Rusling, can be defined loosely as a sort of hypothetical or
actual agreement between society and its state. This agreement has
been said to be responsible for the bases of our moral decisions
and stances. In other words, we merely abide by the governments
rules and regulations in the hope that others will do the same,
subsequently leading to a more secure and comfortable life.

Rousseau on his part begins the social contract theory with the
notable phrase “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains”
asserting that the solution of legitimate authority is the “social
contract”, an agreement by which the people band together for their
mutual preservation.

How then does this theory of social contract have a place in the
Nigeria’s modern democracy? What influence(s) does it have in our
modern day Constitution and democracy? How can it help in solving
some problems in this country? Relevant sections of the
constitution will be cited to help us bring out the thrust of this
analysis.

Apparently, a true reflection of elements of social contract
theory in democracy is clearly seen in the wordings of section 14
of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria, as
amended. A little perusal of its subsection will suffice in
buttressing this assertion.

Section 14(2)(a) states: “sovereignty belongs to the people of
Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all
its powers and authority”. This clearly shows that the “people”
cannot be excluded in the practice of ideal and genuine democracy
in Nigeria. Beyond that, section 14(2)(c) expressly guarantees the
participation of the people in government.

Correlatively, since the constitution as the ground norm derives
its powers from the people, it sets the yardstick and parameter for
the performances of its government which will enable the people to
see and measure the effectiveness, expediency, transparency and
flaws of the constituted authorities they summited their powers and
resources to, to be used in their behalf.

Chapter 2 of the constitution (sections 12-24) has also provided
for fundamental objectives and directive principles of states
policy. In simple terms, it provides for the duties of both the
government and citizens of the country. These include economic,
political, social, educational, environmental, foreign policy
objectives etc. These have ipso facto formed the basis of
government performance to the people.

Though by the provision of section 6(6)(c) of the constitution,
these objectives cannot be challenged in any law court, but it has
set the yardstick for performance. It states: “shall not except as
otherwise provided by this Constitution, extend to any issue or
question as to whether any act of omission by any authority or
person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in
conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles
of State Policy set out in Chapter II of this Constitution”

From the forgoing analysis, government performances should be
measured based on what they should do (their statutory
responsibilities) and not on baseless sentiments like unnecessary
comparisons to her sister states or States, comparison with the
past authorities etc.

It is so clueless, unreasonable, uncouth and shameless that the
credibility and competence of government is now subjected to
personal reasoning, past administration formula than the standards
set by law.

The fact that others have not been doing is not a defence and
does not in any way justify the incompetence and failures of a
present administration in discharging its statutory
responsibilities that is paid for. A wrong or crime can never be
justified by the influx of wrong doings and criminality in
detriment of its set standard.

People should stop behaving as they will die if governmental
authorities are questioned for an unreasonable act or decision. The
people have the constitutional right of doing so. Participation in
government must not at all time be in tandem with the trending
order of the day, it may differ to some extent.

It should also be borne in mind that heaven will not fall if
governments are criticised. The right of constructive criticism is
shielded by section 38 of the Nigerian constitution.

As long as democracy is concerned, public opinions cannot be
done away with; government must always listen to the cries,
comments and criticisms of its people. Doctrine of check and
balances, rule of law, supremacy of law will always be employed in
democracy.

Most importantly, governance should be separated from
electioneering, propagandas and sentiments. The constitution is the
basis of governance in the country as against personal
idiosyncrasies and sentiments. A country with constitution without
constitutionalism is like a sailor or pilot without a compass

Summarily, the government should always strike an acceptable
balance between itself the people, the masses should be carried
along, and social welfare of the people should always be of concern
to the government.

Laws and powers should not always be a shield to the government
and at another phase a sword to the authorities at the detriment of
the masses. We are all humans who demands fair treatments from
others.

“All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also
must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets
mean”- Matt 7:12

Edikan Ekanem is a student of University of Uyo, a
contemporary writer and a columnist who remains politically
neutral. He can be reached at 08130015006 or
eddy4jah@gmail.com