The Changing Roles and Contributions of of Civil Society to Democratisation process in Nigeria

  Authoritarian Versus Democratic Regimes: The Changing Roles and Contributions of of Civil Society to Democratisation process in Nigeria(1985-2005)

                                                                John Ikubaje                                                                                  

‘’In societies attempting to move from authoritarian rule to democracy, monarchical impositions or forms of ‘benevolent’ military rule to a (multi-party or non-party) democracy which allows free competitions, free association, mobilise for the securing of human rights (individual, clan, class and economic rights), the role of one of the building blocks of a democracy, the civil community or civil society, is of extreme importance’’
(Ian Liebenberg; 2000, p.70)

Introduction

Civil society has been portrayed as the prime catalyst for promoting democratisation process in developing countries, Africa in particular. This paper attempts to examine the above assertion in Nigeria and argue that democratisation has different phases and therefore the contribution of civil society to democratisation process cannot be generalised. It notes that democratisation process can be divided into two phases in Nigeria, during the authoritarian military regimes (1985-1999) and after (democratic government 1999-2005).
The paper posits that the roles and contributions of civil society to democratisation process from 1985 to 1999 centred on the campaign for immediate disengagement of the military from the political space and the restoration of democracy in the country. Civil society (under the military) was successful in accomplishing the above objective, however, the roles changed to that of deepening democratic practices from 1999 and because the Nigerian civil society is yet to change its campaign strategy from militant to a pro-active method, it is presently experiencing difficulties in its interaction with the new ‘democratic government’. The above challenge has impacted negatively on the roles and contributions of the sector to the ‘second phase’ of democratisation process in the country. For civil society to be relevant the way it used to be under the military regimes, it must overcome the above socio-political transition and other challenges identified in this paper.

To elaborate the above argument, the first section of the paper attempts to clarify these two concepts, the civil society and democratisation. The second section examines and analyses the types, roles and contributions of civil society organisations to democratic process from 1985 to 1999.

Section three indicates the types of civil society organisations that are presently in place, their roles, contributions and challenges; it shows how these challenges had affected their contribution to the democratisation process from 1999-2005 .

Section four compares and analyses the role of the civil society under the two phases of Nigerian democratisation project to indicate the challenges that the present civil society must overcome to contribute meaningfully to the process of democratisation in the country. The conclusion to the paper summarises the argument.

1.1 The Concept of Civil Society

Like other social science concepts, civil society has been defined to mean different things. From its classical definition of civility (politike koinonia), defined by Aristotle to mean a ‘civilised and rational society’, he also argued that the civil society was coterminous with the state (Keane John 1988 p.35). The above definition reflects the social transition from ‘rude’ forms of life to a ‘polished’ and or a ‘civilized’ society, hence the ‘civilised society’ or ‘civil society’ (Keane John 1988 p.35).This concept has been challenged and re-defined by scholars to suit the reality of their time . Thomas Paine, Hegel, Alex de Tocqueville and others, for instance, contrary to Aristotle’s view, argued that the civil society was different from the state; and the power of the state needs to be regularly checked by the civil society (organised citizens) (Keane John 1988 p. 35). In his analysis of civil society’s development, Keane himself draws a boundary between the state and society to show two distinct and competing realms (Keane, 1988, p.39).

However, this paper in consideration of limited space will not review more literatures on the above concept but will adopt the definition provided by Larry Diamond and that declared by Gordon White to be the most currently used definition. The justifications for this are based on the (much) similarity of the two definitions and the rate at which scholars have quoted these definitions of and these scholars’ works on civil society in recent time.

“The realm of organised intermediary groups that are voluntary, self-generating, independent of the state and the family, and bound by a legal order or set of shared rules’’
(Diamond: 1997 p.xxx)
“An intermediate associational realm between state and family and populated by organizations which are separate from the state, enjoy autonomy in relation to the state and are formed voluntarily by members of society to protect or advance their interest or values’’(White: 1996, p. 182).

From the above two definitions, it is clear that civil society is comprised of individuals acting collectively as an organised group civil society organisation (CSO) for some common public purpose; independent of the state; voluntarily constituted, not for profit and has its independent regulations.

1.2 Democratisation

Like Civil society, the definition of democratisation has consistently been subjected to analytical scrutiny by social scientists, in particular, the political scientists. In his definition, Conteh-Morgan (1998, p. 4) argues that democratisation is an increase in political equality and a decrease in coercive rule; although, he fails to say how. To him, democratisation is above all a matter of power. He contends that it is power relations that most importantly determine whether democratisation can emerge, stabilize and then maintain itself in the face of adverse economic conditions. Instead of calling it power relation, for Manor, the success of any democratisation process to a large extent depends on government commitment (Manor, J. 2004).
In their analysis of the distinction between democracy and civil rule, Levy and Bruhn (1995: 208) argues that democratisation is the transition towards democratic government; a movement from authoritarian to a democratic government. Others argue that democratisation is synonymous to democratic consolidation and or the deepening of democratic practices (Diamond et al; 1995, p.54; Makun and Ihonvbere; 1998 pp 305- 29; Clark John F, 1998 pp. 97- 123).
For this paper, democratisation is defined to mean the opening of closed ‘democratic space’ and a continuous deepening of democratic practices; this entails a dethronement of authoritarian rule for the entrenchment of democratic governance.

2.0 Civil Society and Democratisation under Military Regimes 1985-1999

Among the forces that dislodged entrenched authoritarian in Africa and brought the beginnings of formal democracy in the 1990s, the continent’s nascent civil societies were in the forefront (Gymah-Boadi, 1997, p. 278). This statement and that of Ian Liebenberg could be said to capture the Nigeria’s experience under the military regimes (1985-1999) (Fayemi: 2005, p. 120; Mbaku and Ihonvbere, 1998, p. 315; Agbese, O. 1998, p.124). However, contrary to the above claim is another position by Elke Zuern, who argues that Nigeria has recently once again become a democracy, not due to civil society agitation but rather the death of its military despot, Gen. Sani Abacha ( p.118).

Nonetheless, it is also critical to point out here that the death of Gen. Abacha in 1998 brought another military regime, the Abubakar Abdusalam, which voluntarily relinquished power to an elected democratic government due to national and international pressure in 1999.

The roles and contributions of civil society to the process of democratisation under Generals Babangida and Abdusalam regimes from 1985-93 and 1998-1999 respectively cannot be overemphasized. Leading Nigerian and international scholars for instance have argued that Gen. Ibrahim Babangida’s decision to “step aside”- voluntarily handing over to an Interim National Government (ING) on August 26, 1993, and Abdusalam Abubakar handing over to a democratically elected government in May 1999 were as a result of pressure from the Nigerian civil society (Diamond, L. 1995, pp 470-81; Fayemi: 2005, p. 120; Mbaku and Ihonvbere, 1998, p. 315; Agbese, O. 1998, p.124). If the above claims are true, then, one can possibly argue here that, the Nigerian civil society actively contributed to the opening of military dominated and closed public space and the entrenchment of democracy in Nigeria.




2.1 Evolution of contemporary civil society and democratisation challenges to the military governments in Nigeria.

The emergence of contemporary CSOs in Nigeria started in the 1980s (Kew, 2004; p.102). The following amongst other few organisations were established then, Women in Nigeria (WIN), Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Constitutional Rights Projects (CRP). Their primary concern then was the protection of human rights and the redress of rights that were violated-mostly prisoners and women rights (Kew, 2004; pp.102-7) . Their concern for the restoration of democratic governance at the beginning of their activities was minimal if not out of place. However, their practice of lobbying the government on a wide range of human rights issues quickly moved these organisations and activists who were mainly lawyers into the centre of pro-democracy struggle in 1990s.

The military regimes from 1985-1999 therefore had three different but basic democratic transition challenges: the end of cold war and the global preference for democratic governance, the democratisation conditionalities from international financial institutions and the pro-democracy activism against the military rule. The second and the last challenges identified above compelled Babangida’s government to embark on transition programmes from 1985-93.

2.2. Transitional Democratic programmes and the contested Public Space

Babangida’s transition programme (1985-1993) was complex and unique. One of the first shocking transition resolutions reached by his administration was its decision to create only two ideologically different political parties- one to the left and the other to the right. This decision was taken by the Armed Forces Ruling Council (AFRC) without consultation with the citizens.
Attempt by Nigerians to register their associations as political parties were turned down while AFRC went ahead to impose these two political parties on Nigerians, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the National Republican Convention (NRC). The battle over the political space between the military oligarchy on one hand and the civil and political societies on the other actually intensified during this period

In addition to the above, inconsistencies were also the orders of the day in the amendment of the dates of the handover. The initial date of October 1990 was changed to October 1992 and later to January 1993 and eventually to August 27, 1993 when the regime had spent eights years in office (Ojo, E; 2004, p. 68). Although, the regime actually conducted elections into the entire national, state and local government positions but it was not willing to let go the presidency. The government finally fixed June 12, 1993 for the presidential election and the late Chief MKO Abiola, the SDP presidential aspirant was declared the winner of the election by some national and international election observers.

In order to counteract the effectiveness of civil society campaign for the restoration of June 12 election and the swearing in of the presidential candidate that won the election, Babangida’s
government decided to fund ‘very well’, a civil society organisation known as Association for Better Nigeria (ABN), established by the government to campaign for the cancellation of June 12 presidential election (Obadare, E. 2004 p. 143; Diamond L., 1995, p457). At this point, it became obvious to Nigerians that the military was not willing to disengage from the body polity. The cancellation of the above election and the refusal to swear in the acclaimed winner led to the formation of the following civil society coalitions to campaign for the immediate disengagement of the military from the political space and the restoration of democracy in the country. Campaign for Democracy (CD) - made up of WIN, CDHR, CLO, CRP etc; United Action for Democracy (UAD); National Democratic Coalition (NADECO); Joint Action Committee of Nigeria( JACON); Democratic Alternatives (DA).

Noteworthy is the fact that the campaign role of the above pro-democracy organisations and other socio-cultural and professional organisations locally and internationally, forced Gen. Ibrahim Babangida to ‘step aside’ (Fayemi: 2005, p. 120, Mbaku and Ihonvbere, 1998, p. 315; Agbese O;1998, p.124) in 1993 to put in place the ING.

Unfortunately, some Nigerian civil society practitioners erred by accepting to serve under the above ING. This mistake impacted negatively on the unity and contribution of the Nigerian civil society to democratisation process during the above struggle. Some activists left some of the above popular anti military coalitions as a result of differing positions among the activists on ING.

Finally, the acclaimed winner of June 12 1993 presidential election, who later died in prison, filed a case against the ING in Lagos High Court and the court, on the 17 November, 1993 declared the ING illegal. Based on the above ruling, Gen. Sani Abacha staged a coup d’etat, dissolved all the existing democratic structures retained by ING and once again returned the country to a full blown military dictatorship. Unfortunately, he died while in office and his Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Abdusalam took over from him and successfully handed over to a democratically elected government in 1999.

2.3 Types and Roles of Civil Society Organisations
Nigeria had two types of organisations during the military regimes, those that are ‘civil’ in character and disposition to democratic governance, e.g. CD, UAD etc and the ‘uncivil’ -ABN. The civil groups had two objectives, the removal of military in the body polity and the entrenchment of democratic governance. The uncivil or the official civil society organisations (OCSOs) –“established and funded by the military regimes’’ also had their objective, to campaign for a continuous military hegemony in the Nigeria body polity

The role of the ‘genuine’ civil society under Abacha government for instance, was to campaign for immediate disengagement of the military from the political space and the restoration of democracy in the country; this was not different from what it used to be during the Babangida’s regimes but it was more intense, specifically, the foreign dimension to the campaign.
The following are the few examples of OCSOs in Nigeria then. Sanni Abacha Initiative for National Transformation (SAINTS); Youth Earnestly Ask for Abacha (YEAA); Media Democratic Forum (MDF); Union of Democratic Elected Representatives of Nigeria (UDERN); National Associations of Patriotic Professionals (NAPP) etc I will henceforth continue to refer to the genuine civil society organizations as the CSOs and or civil society in this paper.

Pro-democracy, media and professional roles in democratisation

The media was very active and contributed significantly to the anti-military campaign through its publications. In the same vein, other professional bodies like Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Nigeria Medical Association (NMA) and Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) amongst others also embarked on countless strikes to campaign against the military hegemony. On their own part, pro-democracy groups adopted civil disobedience, rallies of different kinds to show their hatred for the military rule and preference for democratic governance. Some members of the pro-democracy group like the PRONACO, for instance, left Nigeria to United Kingdom, USA, and Canada etc to continue their anti-military campaign there ( Fayemi, K. 2005; pp.146-97 ). Several economic and political sanctions were imposed on Abacha’s government by western governments as a result of PRONACO activities abroad.

As indicated above, the activities (roles) of civil society were so effective that the military governments could not condone it but had to establish their parallel CSOs to counteract the civil society’s campaigns.
One fact that is critical but having a negative spill-over effect on the roles of CSOs to democratisation process from military to democratic regimes as analysed in section four of this paper is that, under the above authoritarian military regimes, the Nigerian civil society adopted a militant and undemocratic strategy in their campaign. Unfortunately, the above strategy, though productive and effective under the military regimes, however, is failing to yield the expected democratic dividends under the present government. (Socio-political or ecological transition challenge).

3.0 Civil Society and Democratisation in Democracy 1999-2005

Some scholars have argued that the types of civil society and government in place to a large extent determine the types of role and contribution the CSOs makes to the process of democratisation (Elke Zuarn p.105, White, G, 185-189). The above assertion partly explains why the roles of CSOs under the military governments in Nigeria from 1985-1999 were significantly different from May 1999 to 2005 under a democratic regime. Below are the broad types of CSOs and their roles in contemporary Nigeria.

3.1 Types of Civil Society and their Contributions to Democratisation

A. Specialised Research and Advocacy Groups: these are few without a membership base but effective think-tank research and policy advocacy NGOs. They have easy access to the Nigeria policy makers and have established cordial relationship with the foreign donors .e.g. Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD); Centre for Advanced Social Sciences (CASS); African Leadership Forum (ALF), Centre for Research and Documentation (CRD) etc. Some of these organisations do not only participate in drafting key policy documents for the governments, they also consult for the present regime on governance, economic, security and development issues. In a nutshell, these organizations share similar characteristics in term of influence over policy formulation with IDASA in South Africa (Robinson, M and Friedman S, 2005 p.14).They have contributed significantly through research and advocacy to deepen democratic practices under the present Nigerian government.


B. ‘Specialised’ Human Rights and Democracy Advocacy Groups: These are organisations founded by individuals, mostly during the Military regimes. Democratic credential within these types of organisations is usually poor. Most of them do not have members but few board members that are appointed by the founding directors. However, they specialize in redressing and campaigning against gender and human Rights violations while majority of them are donor driven. (Work on election today and HIV/AIDs tomorrow). Few of them like Gender and Development Action (GADA), Women Advocacy Research and Documentation Centre (WARDC), Human Rights Law Services (HURILAW), etc are fairly active in policy influence and less donor driven. Nevertheless, most of these human rights and democracy focussed organisations are yet to be transformed from adopting militant advocacy strategy in their dealings with the present ‘democratic’ government, hence their limited contribution to the democratization process in contemporary Nigeria.


C. Networks and Coalitions: These are coalitions and networks formed by individuals and organisations (NGOs and CBOs) to campaign for specific changes to the Nigeria policy and or legal frameworks; eg Citizens Forum for Constitutional Reform (CFCR) established to campaign for a nationally acceptable Nigerian constitution, Electoral Reform Network (ERN) set up to campaign for a legitimate national electoral law, Transitional Monitoring Group (TMG) set up to monitor transition programmes. Members of these coalitions and networks come from different type of CSOs identified in this paper and each of the above coalition has more than 100 organisations as members across the country; other characteristics of these coalitions include elections of officials by members (majority of them have strong internal democracy, however ‘regular’ elections depend on availability of funds as most of these organisations depend on donors and not membership dues for survival ); effective in policy influence- TMG, CFCR and ERN, for instance, have produced alternative electoral laws and constitutions for the country and some of their recommendations are presently finding their ways into the new proposed Nigerian Electoral law and Constitution being drafted by the Nigerian legislators.

Trade Unions and Professional Bodies: These are organisations established to influence policies in favour of their members. They are very active in influencing economic and less of political policies. One of the leading and effective members of this group is the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC); it has a vibrant internal democracy, financially viable (less dependent on foreign donors) and is popular in mobilizing Nigerian workers to go on strike when the need arises and the government is aware of this strength and it is well respected for it. However, this strength has not been effectively utilised to deepen democratic practices from 1999 to date. Some of these organisations are beginning to collaborate with pro-democracy organisations on governance and human rights issues but such collaborations have been less effective.

Community Based Organisations (CBOs): These are organisations formed by people living in the rural communities. The formation of most of these organisations dates back to 1980s and they were founded mainly to respond to the economic challenges of Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP). These organisations are still very active and effective on economic but ineffective on governance and democratic issues till date. There is also a strong disconnection between this group and the effective urban based pro-democracy, research and policy advocacy organisations and for this and other reasons; the CBOs have been less effective in influencing democratic practices at the local government level.

In summary, below are the four broad roles that the present Nigerian civil society has been playing to deepen its contribution to the democratisation processes.

3.2 Types of Civil Society’s Roles

Monitoring Role- This varies from one programme and organisation to another. The monitoring of the executive and legislatures for accountability and good governance for instance are most prevalent among the specialised research and advocacy NGOs while census, elections and budget implementation monitoring are common among the Network and coalitions. They have been performing this role, pointing to mistakes and how governments can overcome such mistakes.

Capacity Building Role- Training and sensitization of citizens on their democratic and human rights and how these rights can be protected e.g. the rights of the citizens to hold accountable the elected representatives etc. This capacity building is not restricted to the citizens alone, the elected representatives have also benefited from such trainings e.g., democratic control of military and security establishments, the making of participatory and gender sensitive budgets etc. This type of capacity building role is common among all the civil society groups aside from the CBOs.
Advocacy Role Like the above two, CSOs advocacy role varies. One area that CSOs have significantly contributed to the deepening of democratic governance from 1999 to date is through the campaign for legal reforms and introduction of new laws. For instance, the Freedom of Information Bill that has been passed into law by the House of Representative but awaiting the Senate passage was initiated by Freedom of Information Coalition (FOI) This private bill was initiated by CSOs and handed over to the legislature for passage.

Another remarkable, although, ongoing contribution of civil society to the process of democratisation in Nigeria; is the campaign for a new constitution for the country through the convocation of a sovereign national conference. The 1999 Nigerian constitution was drafted by the military regime; Nigerian civil society argues that the constitution is legal but illegitimate and it would take the convocation of a national sovereign conference of all Nigerian representatives to make a legitimate constitution for the country.
Initially, the government condemned outrightly, the civil society’s demands that the government should convene a conference to draft a new constitution ‘‘sovereign’ or no sovereign’’. It argued that the national assembly has the constitutional power to amend the Nigerian constitution but due to pressures, it accepted to organise a National Political Reform Conference (NPRC) at last. The recommendations of the NPRC are part of what the National Assembly is presently working on to draft a new constitution for the country.

Disciplinary Role Finally, the civil society has also been mobilising the citizens and call on government to discipline some of the elected representatives and bureaucrats for misconduct while in office through recalls and dismissal (though they have not been successful in this role). More efforts and capacity building- training and fiscal resources are needed to be successful in this role.

4. Analysis of CSOs Contributions to Democratisation Process in Nigeria

As democratic government was established in 1999, high expectations about the role and capacity of Nigerian civil society to promote governance reform and foster democratic deepening were exaggerated (Aiyede, R. 2004). The reasons for the above argument are what I indicated below (with brief analysis) as the challenges of CSOs to deepening democratisation process in Nigeria.

According to (White G., 1996, p. 185), the contribution of civil society to democratic process can be broadly divided into two, ‘undermining authoritarian government’ and the fostering of a democratic polity - the improvement of the quality of governance within the polity’. He further indicated that the above can be achieved when the civil society successfully plays the following roles:
Balancing the power between the state and society, mostly in favour of the latter; Discipline the politicians and public administrators when necessary (discipline role); Serving as a transmission belt between the state and the society (intermediary role) and Redefining the rules of the political game along democratic lines (constitutive role).
For Robinson and Friedman (2005 p.42), they argue that the most important rationale for the formation of CSOs in a democracy is that they provide citizens with a voice in public policy debate.
How the Nigerian civil society has excelled in promoting democracy, using the above frameworks as yardstick is what I now turn to.
The civil society under the authoritarian military regimes (1985-1999) as indicated in section two of this paper significantly contributed to the democratisation process in Nigeria. They did not only undermine the authoritarian military governments they also succeeded in entrenching democratic governance in 1999.
However, as these scholars, Aiyede, R. (2004); Gymah-Boadi, (1997, pp.278-91) and Zuarn, E. (2000, p.110) have noted, the challenge of transition from the role of a reactionary protester to a proactive policy makers is currently a limiting factor on the part of the contemporary Nigerian civil society; this problem has negatively affected its contribution to democratisation process; most importantly the specialised human rights and democracy advocacy groups (the most active group during the military regimes). This yet to be overcome transition challenge, is negatively affecting the Nigerian civil society’s intermediary, discipline and constitutive roles today.
In connection to the above, while it is worth appreciating, the intermediary role and the policy influence of the specialised research and advocacy groups under the present regime, their activities however, are mostly restricted to the federal government level. The above group of CSOs together with the coalition groups are seriously disconnected from the CBOs and this has negatively affected the deepening of democracy at the grassroots and local government level. They have not been able to provide the citizens with the needed voice in public policy debates (most especially at the grassroots level).The specialised research and advocacy groups that are effective in policy influence, influences public policies without necessarily getting the consent of Nigerians (the question of democratic credential).
Divisions among the Nigerian civil society along the ethnic and regional lines have not helped its democracy advocacy; this has led to disunity and disagreement among the Nigerian NGO practitioners in term of decision taking and unity of purpose.
The expanding focus of foreign donors on democratic governance in Nigeria has also impacted negatively on CSOs capacity to positively influence democratic process in the country. Most Nigerian pro-democracy NGOs are donor dependent and the focus of foreign donors on democracy in Nigeria have expanded from supporting pro democracy organisations to include the support for democratic institutions like the legislature, judiciary and other democratic institutions. This fiscal factor has also reduced the activities and impacts of some pro-democracy CSOs in contemporary Nigeria.
Readers that are familiar with the Nigeria’s struggle for democracy and good governance must have been wondering why I have not written much on the roles and contributions of the Nigerian private media to the process of democratisation. The reason is simply because the Nigerian private media are mostly ‘profit making organisations’ and do not fit into the type of ‘civil’ organisations that I am concerned with in this paper. Most often, the Nigerian private media rely heavily on government patronage (advertisement) for survival and their independence has been seriously compromised for the above reason. However, their intermediary role as a transmission belt between the government and the citizens from 1980s to date cannot be overemphasised.
The lack of internal democracy in most of the Nigerian CSOs is also a contemporary challenge as it is difficult for members of these organisations to learn democratic values/norms within their organisation. This lack of democratic credential has indirectly been affecting the civil society advocacy as this weakness has become a weapon in the hand of the government to campaign against the good work the Nigerian civil society is doing. For example, despite the ongoing achievement of FOI coalition on access to information in Nigeria, the network has never held any election to appoint its officials since it was formed in early 2000.
Finally, the role of government in democratisation process is critical (Manor, J. 2004). A handful and leading pro- democracy activists in Nigeria have recently realised this fact. They argued that there is a limit to their contribution to democracy under the present Nigeria government. They claim that the democratic space they struggled to open has been hijacked by undemocratic politicians (the political god fathers and/or the fixers ) and for them to make a meaningful contribution to democracy in the country there is need for democracy activists to seek elections into political positions (Fayemi, K. 2006).
5. Conclusion
The paper critically analysed the roles and contributions of civil society to the process of democratisation from mid-1980s to 2005 but with many references to 2006 in Nigeria and argued that the types of governments in place and the types of civil society and its advocacy strategies to a large extent determine the level of civil society’s contribution to democratic process.

It also argued that the civil society was among the major forces that ousted the authoritarian military hegemony in Nigeria in 1999; however, these commendable roles and contributions of the sector could not be transformed and maintained under the new democratic government. The expected role of pro democracy CSOs has changed from warring with authoritarian regimes (to open up the closed democratic space) to that of deepening democratic norms and practices from 1999-2005. Unfortunately, the civil society in Nigeria during this period has not been transformed from adopting its old militant campaign strategies to a consultative method that is needed in a democracy and this has negatively affected the sector’s contribution to democratisation process in contemporary Nigeria state.

Finally, in addition to the above challenges, the paper identified the following constraints that must be overcome by the Nigerian CSOs for them to maintain their relevance in democratisation process under the present Nigerian government: Inactive CBOs on governance issues at the local government level; private media that depends on government for survival; ethnic and regional division among the Nigeria CSOs; national fiscal resource constraint; poor democratic credential of most of the Nigerian CSOs; disconnection between active urban CSOs and the CBOs etc.


Bibliography

Agbese, O. (1998), Nigeria: how to derail a transition program; in Mbaku, M. J. and Ihonvbere, J (eds.) Multiparty Democracy and Political Change: Constraints to Democratization in Africa; pub. Ashgate Brookfield USA.

Aiyede, R. (2004), The Dynamics of Civil Society and Democratisation Process in Nigeria
Centre for Democratic Studies (TCDS), New School University, New York

CFCR (2004), The Position of CFCR on 1999 Nigerian Constitution, Pub. Citizens’ Forum for Constitutional Reform, Nigeria

Clark John F, (1998) National Conferences and democratization in Francophone Africa; in Mbaku, M. J. and Ihonvbere, J (eds.) Multiparty Democracy and Political Change: Constraints to Democratization in Africa; pub. Ashgate Brookfield USA.

Conteh-Morgan Earl (1997), Democratization in Africa: the theory and dynamics of political transitions, Preager Pub.Westport, USA

Diamond, L; Linz Juan; and Lipset Seymour (1995) Politics in Developing Countries: comparing experiences with democracy (Second Edition), Pub Lynne Rienner, London.

Diamond, L (1997), In Search of Consolidation; in Diamond et al, Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies Themes and Perspectives , Pub - Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fayemi, K. (2005), Out of the Shadows: Exile and the struggle for freedom and Democracy in Nigeria. Pub. Centre for Democracy and Development, Nigeria

(2006) Imperative of Transition from Activism to politics in Nigeria; Being a paper presented at Centre for International Affairs, Howard University April, 2006

Gymah-Boadi E. (1996) Civil Society in Africa; in Diamond, L. et al, Consolidating the the Third Wave Democracies: Themes and perspectives; Pub. John Hopkins University Press, London

Keane, John (1988), Despotism and Democracy, The Origin and Development of the Distinction between Civil Society and the State 1750-1850, John Keane (ed.) Civil Society and the State, Verso, New York.

Kew, D, (2004), The third Generation of Nigerian Civil Society: The rise of Nongovernmental Organizations in the 1990s; in Agbaje, A; Diamond, L; and Onwudiwe (eds.) Nigeria’s Struggle for Democracy and Good Governance, Pub. Ibadan Uni. Press, Nigeria

Levy C.and Bruhn K. (1995), Mexico: Sustained Civilian Rule without Democracy; in Diamond, L. et al, Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing experiences with Democracy (2nd edition) Lynne Rienner Pub, London.

Liebernberg I (2000), The Consolidation of Democracy – Debate in Africa: Challenges for the Civil Community; in Liebernberg I and Solomon H (eds), Consolidation of Democracy in Africa: A view from the South, Ashgate pub, Burlington USA.

Manor James (2004) Journal of Human Development, Vol.5, No. 1, March 2004

Mbaku, M. J. and Ihonvbere, J.. (1998), Assessing the future of democracy in Africa: internal and external challenges; in Mbaku, M. J. and Ihonvbere, J (eds.) Multiparty Democracy and Political Change: Constraints to Democratization in Africa; pub. Ashgate Brookfield USA.

Obadare, E.(2004) Manufacturing Civil Society: The struggle for Public Space in Nigeria; in Agbaje, A; Diamond, L; and Onwudiwe (eds.) Nigeria’s Struggle for Democracy and Good Governance, Pub. Ibadan Uni. Press, Nigeria

Ojo E. (2004), The Military and Political Transition; in Agbaje, A; Diamond, L; and Onwudiwe (eds.) Nigeria’s Struggle for Democracy and Good Governance, Pub. Ibadan Uni. Press, Nigeria

Robinson, M. and Friedman S, (2005), Civil Society, Democratisation and Foreign Aid in Africa, IDS Discussion paper 383, Brighton.

White G. (1996), Civil society, democratization and development, in Luckham, R. and White G (eds), Democratization in the South: The jagged Wave, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Zuern E.(2000), The Changing Roles of Civil Society in Africa Democratization Processes; in Liebernberg I and Solomon H (eds), Consolidation of Democracy in Africa: A view from the South, Ashgate pub, Burlington USA.