Democracy And Diarchy Or Duumvirate: Strange Bed Fellows (Part 7)

By Mike Ozekhome, SAN

INTRODUCTION

An American science fiction writer, Frank Hubert, once rightly
stated that “good governance never depends upon laws, but upon the
personal qualities of those who govern. The machinery of government
is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that
machinery. The most important element of government therefore, is
the method of choosing leaders”. So far, we have discussed three
forms of government. They are: democracy, autocracy and oligarchy.
Today, we shall be x-raying DIARCHY or DUUMVIRATE as another form
of government. Upon conclusions of same, we shall commence
interrogation of another concept of government infamously known as
FASCISM.

MEANING OF DIARCHY

Diarchy (or diarchy), from the Greek word ‘Di’ meaning,
“double” and αρχια, “rule”, is a
form of government in which two individuals, the diarchs, are the
heads of state. In most diarchies, the diarchs hold their position
for life and pass the responsibilities and power of the position to
their children or family when they die.

ORIGIN OF DIARCHY

Diarchy is one of the oldest forms of government. Diarchies are
known from ancient Sparta, Rome, Carthage as well as from Germanic
and Dacian tribes. Several ancient Polynesian societies exhibited a
diarchic political structure as well. Ranks in the Inca Empire were
structured in moieties, with two occupants of each rank, but with
different status, one hanan and one hurin. In recent practice,
diarchy means a system of dual rule, whether this be of a
government or of an organization. Such “diarchies”
are not hereditary. Examples of diarchies are the principality of
Andorra, whose heads of state are the President of France and the
Bishop of Urgell; the Republic of San Marino, with two collegial
Captains Regent; and the Kingdom of Swaziland, where the joint
heads of states are the king and his mother.

DIARCHY WAS FIRST INTRODUCED IN INDIA

This system was first introduced in India through
Montague-Chelmsford reforms in 1919. This form of government, the
executive branch of each provincial (now state) government is
divided into two sections. The various fields of administration
will be divided between these two sections.

In British India government, Provincial governments included
British members (Executive Councilors) and Indian members
(ministers from Legislative council). In order to provide
administrative authorities to Indian members, the diarchy was
introduced and the concept of transferred and reserved subjects was
introduced.

The transferred subjects include matters of high importance like
law and order, revenue and justice. Reserved subjects include
matters of local administration like education, public health etc.
In this way, Indians got some powers to administer themselves yet
the crucial subjects were dealt by British executive
Councilors.

Diarchy as a novel form of government was introduced in the
Indian provinces in 1921, it operated for sixteen years between
1921 and 1937. Finally diarchy was replaced by provincial autonomy
in 1937. During the period of its operation in Bombay Presidency,
many inherent weaknesses and drawbacks of diarchy which proved
detrimental in its functioning came to light. Due to the
combination of its defects with the adverse conditions under which
diarchy had to function, the ultimate failure of diarchy was
brought about. However, despite its ultimate failure diarchy did
make several positive achievements in various fields in Bombay
Presidency.

ADVANTAGES OF DIARCHY

Diarchy has been suggested as a pragmatic way of resolving the
incessant political instability in Nigeria. It is a formula by
which civilians and the military share the governance of the
country in equal terms. The Army is therefore introduced into the
political administration of the country on permanent basis. The
rationale of the odd arrangement is the hope that by such
participation, the ambition for political power on the part of the
military might be curtailed.

DIARCHY IN OTHER SPHERES

The proposal hit the headlines when the great
Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe raised it in a Sunday newspaper of 29th
October 1972. Since then, it has generated intense debate
and widespread controversy. One political association lately
reflected that concept in its manifesto.

The diarchy formula is simply an arrangement of expediency. Its
proponents expect that it will solve our stability crisis and give
the nation a breathing space to move forward. But does it provide a
lasting solution to contemporary Nigeria’s political crisis?
Diarchy is at best a palliative not a solution.  If the army
as an institution is introduced into governance as of right, why
not other institutions or professions? After all, the Nigeria
Police, the academia or the Church is as entitled to a share of
political authority as the Armed Forces. Experience elsewhere shows
that expedient accommodation of this sort may create more problems
than they solve. A
soldier interested in partisan politics should relinquish his
appointment and go into politics like any other citizen. This is
the vogue in the United States of America, Israel and nearer home
in Ghana and Chad. It is a better way than participating in
governance through the back door.

Another reality in diarchy is that the presence of some military
people in government will not stop others outside it from nursing
ambitions for political power. Nigeria has experienced several
coups d’etat against military governments. As a matter of fact,
such coups are usually more bloody than revolts against civilian
governments. The lust for power, wealth and positions induce
military personnel to seize power by all means. Civilians and the
military are strange bedfellows as colleagues in governance. There
is a basic divergence in culture and orientation between military
and civilian rulers. The army is autocratic with an orientation
towards imposed order, command and a non-political approach to
problems.
Civilians are political, accommodating and willing to bargain and
compromise conflicting positions. A combination of such
incompatibles may not work effectively and indeed harmoniously.
Proponents of diarchy insist that apart from direct participation
of
soldiers in government, the system makes them “watchdogs
over the conduct of politics and public
life”. Advocates of this diarchy option presume that the
military are not partisan themselves or are immune from
corruption.

We cannot pretend otherwise in the light of our experiences over
the last fifty-eight years. Our best gamble in Nigeria is to
embrace democracy by trying to make it work and learning from our
mistakes and failures. It is a culture that develops by trial and
error. The political history of Europe, the United States of
America and Asia shows lessons in the struggle to install
democratic order. Diarchy in any form will only deprive the people
the benefits of the learning process. Democracy may not be perfect,
but diarchy is certainly not its alternative. As Alfred Smith
succinctly affirmed: “All the ills of democracy can be
cured by more democracy.”

MEANING OF FASCISM

Fascism is another form of government, radically difficult to
define because it has no single philosophy. Mussolini’s brand of
Fascism is not exactly like Adolf Hitler’s brand of fascism, which
is different from the neo-fascist views of groups like the
skinheads and post-World
War II^[1] beliefs. However,
there are some core principles that identify a fascist movement. We
shall consider these principles when discussing the characteristics
of fascism.

ORIGIN OF FASCISM

Fascism refers to a form of radical totalitarian rule often
characterized by dictatorial rule and the forcible suppression of
its populace social, economic and physical facilitation’s within
the confides of a nation state. The origin of this phrase was
however first used in 1919 to describe a movement started under the
leadership of Benito Mussolini, who described Fascism as an
ideology of avid moral standing. Nevertheless, the principals of
Fascism rotate around the facilitation of a doctrine based on
totalitarian dogma or system of governance that involves itself
with not only political organizations within a state but the
political tendency of its social environment. Furthermore, Fascism
as a process involves a hostile approach to all peaceful systems of
governance. This veracity can be noted as Fascists often view the
state as an entirely mental construct. Consequently, fascists often
claim the nation is never really made neither can the state attain
an absolute physical form due to the fact the nation-state is
viewed as a mental political manifestation. Robert Paxton a
professor at the Columbia University of New York also known as the
elaborate of Fascism, does however describe this practice as a
distinctive administration which gained wide held acceptance and
popularity in the 20th century. In accordance to his beliefs, this
philosophy involves the invocation of enthusiasm among a populace
through the promotion of refined propaganda techniques based on an
anti-liberal, anti-socialist and expansionist national agenda.
Nonetheless, Fascism in today’s global epoch is commonly associated
with many popular German Nazi and Italian regimes after World War I
in Europe. On the other hand, Fascist ideology does however aim to
create a mixed economy through the creation of a national and
independent economy that is not only sovereign but self-sufficient.
As such Fascists often view, Imperialism, political violence and
war as appropriate means which can be used to achieve national
rebirth. This veracity can be noted as fascist often claim there is
nothing wrong with displacing weaker nations through territorial
expansion.

CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM

1. EXTREME NATIONALISM IN
   FASCISM/ULTRA-NATIONALISM

The first pre-dominant characteristic of Fascism as an ideology
is however known as Extreme nationalism or Ultra nationalism.
Whilst most cosmopolitan conservative ideologies are based on the
principals of international cooperation and an elite culture,
extreme nationalism with regard to the ideals of Fascism does
nevertheless promote the interest of one state or populace directly
over that of another. Extreme nationalist or ultra-nationalists
heavily rely on propaganda as a means to spread information to
achieve a particular goal.

Moreover, advocates of this process use Propaganda as a means to
manipulate the human emotions of fear and insecurity with regard to
a populace. This is often carried out in an attempt to influence
citizens to support a particular association or opinionated
movement. Conversely, nationalist movements are often turned
ultra-nationalist by social or economic cries from a populace, the
emergence of a charismatic authoritarian leader or beliefs of long
standing national superiority. An example can be noted through an
observation of Germany’s political milieu after World War I. After
World War I Germany existed in a realm of economic turmoil riddled
by the dimensions of poverty due to the fact that post war
compensation forced the administration of this constituency to pay
billions of dollars back to the countries it engaged with violently
during the War. Consequently, the emergence of Adolph Hitler and
his promise of a stronger Germany and the racial superiority of the
Arian race ultimately gained such a large following that he and his
National party were able to ascend to the role of leadership. (To
be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Fascism is not defined by the number of its victims, but by the
way it kills them”. (Jean-Paul Sartre).

By Mike Ozekhome, SAN

INTRODUCTION

An American science fiction writer, Frank Hubert, once rightly
stated that “good governance never depends upon laws, but upon the
personal qualities of those who govern. The machinery of government
is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that
machinery. The most important element of government therefore, is
the method of choosing leaders”. So far, we have discussed three
forms of government. They are: democracy, autocracy and oligarchy.
Today, we shall be x-raying DIARCHY or DUUMVIRATE as another form
of government. Upon conclusions of same, we shall commence
interrogation of another concept of government infamously known as
FASCISM.

MEANING OF DIARCHY

Diarchy (or diarchy), from the Greek word ‘Di’ meaning,
“double” and αρχια, “rule”, is a
form of government in which two individuals, the diarchs, are the
heads of state. In most diarchies, the diarchs hold their position
for life and pass the responsibilities and power of the position to
their children or family when they die.

ORIGIN OF DIARCHY

Diarchy is one of the oldest forms of government. Diarchies are
known from ancient Sparta, Rome, Carthage as well as from Germanic
and Dacian tribes. Several ancient Polynesian societies exhibited a
diarchic political structure as well. Ranks in the Inca Empire were
structured in moieties, with two occupants of each rank, but with
different status, one hanan and one hurin. In recent practice,
diarchy means a system of dual rule, whether this be of a
government or of an organization. Such “diarchies”
are not hereditary. Examples of diarchies are the principality of
Andorra, whose heads of state are the President of France and the
Bishop of Urgell; the Republic of San Marino, with two collegial
Captains Regent; and the Kingdom of Swaziland, where the joint
heads of states are the king and his mother.

DIARCHY WAS FIRST INTRODUCED IN INDIA

This system was first introduced in India through
Montague-Chelmsford reforms in 1919. This form of government, the
executive branch of each provincial (now state) government is
divided into two sections. The various fields of administration
will be divided between these two sections.

In British India government, Provincial governments included
British members (Executive Councilors) and Indian members
(ministers from Legislative council). In order to provide
administrative authorities to Indian members, the diarchy was
introduced and the concept of transferred and reserved subjects was
introduced.

The transferred subjects include matters of high importance like
law and order, revenue and justice. Reserved subjects include
matters of local administration like education, public health etc.
In this way, Indians got some powers to administer themselves yet
the crucial subjects were dealt by British executive
Councilors.

Diarchy as a novel form of government was introduced in the
Indian provinces in 1921, it operated for sixteen years between
1921 and 1937. Finally diarchy was replaced by provincial autonomy
in 1937. During the period of its operation in Bombay Presidency,
many inherent weaknesses and drawbacks of diarchy which proved
detrimental in its functioning came to light. Due to the
combination of its defects with the adverse conditions under which
diarchy had to function, the ultimate failure of diarchy was
brought about. However, despite its ultimate failure diarchy did
make several positive achievements in various fields in Bombay
Presidency.

ADVANTAGES OF DIARCHY

Diarchy has been suggested as a pragmatic way of resolving the
incessant political instability in Nigeria. It is a formula by
which civilians and the military share the governance of the
country in equal terms. The Army is therefore introduced into the
political administration of the country on permanent basis. The
rationale of the odd arrangement is the hope that by such
participation, the ambition for political power on the part of the
military might be curtailed.

DIARCHY IN OTHER SPHERES

The proposal hit the headlines when the great
Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe raised it in a Sunday newspaper of 29th
October 1972. Since then, it has generated intense debate
and widespread controversy. One political association lately
reflected that concept in its manifesto.

The diarchy formula is simply an arrangement of expediency. Its
proponents expect that it will solve our stability crisis and give
the nation a breathing space to move forward. But does it provide a
lasting solution to contemporary Nigeria’s political crisis?
Diarchy is at best a palliative not a solution.  If the army
as an institution is introduced into governance as of right, why
not other institutions or professions? After all, the Nigeria
Police, the academia or the Church is as entitled to a share of
political authority as the Armed Forces. Experience elsewhere shows
that expedient accommodation of this sort may create more problems
than they solve. A
soldier interested in partisan politics should relinquish his
appointment and go into politics like any other citizen. This is
the vogue in the United States of America, Israel and nearer home
in Ghana and Chad. It is a better way than participating in
governance through the back door.

Another reality in diarchy is that the presence of some military
people in government will not stop others outside it from nursing
ambitions for political power. Nigeria has experienced several
coups d’etat against military governments. As a matter of fact,
such coups are usually more bloody than revolts against civilian
governments. The lust for power, wealth and positions induce
military personnel to seize power by all means. Civilians and the
military are strange bedfellows as colleagues in governance. There
is a basic divergence in culture and orientation between military
and civilian rulers. The army is autocratic with an orientation
towards imposed order, command and a non-political approach to
problems.
Civilians are political, accommodating and willing to bargain and
compromise conflicting positions. A combination of such
incompatibles may not work effectively and indeed harmoniously.
Proponents of diarchy insist that apart from direct participation
of
soldiers in government, the system makes them “watchdogs
over the conduct of politics and public
life”. Advocates of this diarchy option presume that the
military are not partisan themselves or are immune from
corruption.

We cannot pretend otherwise in the light of our experiences over
the last fifty-eight years. Our best gamble in Nigeria is to
embrace democracy by trying to make it work and learning from our
mistakes and failures. It is a culture that develops by trial and
error. The political history of Europe, the United States of
America and Asia shows lessons in the struggle to install
democratic order. Diarchy in any form will only deprive the people
the benefits of the learning process. Democracy may not be perfect,
but diarchy is certainly not its alternative. As Alfred Smith
succinctly affirmed: “All the ills of democracy can be
cured by more democracy.”

MEANING OF FASCISM

Fascism is another form of government, radically difficult to
define because it has no single philosophy. Mussolini’s brand of
Fascism is not exactly like Adolf Hitler’s brand of fascism, which
is different from the neo-fascist views of groups like the
skinheads and post-World
War II^[1] beliefs. However,
there are some core principles that identify a fascist movement. We
shall consider these principles when discussing the characteristics
of fascism.

ORIGIN OF FASCISM

Fascism refers to a form of radical totalitarian rule often
characterized by dictatorial rule and the forcible suppression of
its populace social, economic and physical facilitation’s within
the confides of a nation state. The origin of this phrase was
however first used in 1919 to describe a movement started under the
leadership of Benito Mussolini, who described Fascism as an
ideology of avid moral standing. Nevertheless, the principals of
Fascism rotate around the facilitation of a doctrine based on
totalitarian dogma or system of governance that involves itself
with not only political organizations within a state but the
political tendency of its social environment. Furthermore, Fascism
as a process involves a hostile approach to all peaceful systems of
governance. This veracity can be noted as Fascists often view the
state as an entirely mental construct. Consequently, fascists often
claim the nation is never really made neither can the state attain
an absolute physical form due to the fact the nation-state is
viewed as a mental political manifestation. Robert Paxton a
professor at the Columbia University of New York also known as the
elaborate of Fascism, does however describe this practice as a
distinctive administration which gained wide held acceptance and
popularity in the 20th century. In accordance to his beliefs, this
philosophy involves the invocation of enthusiasm among a populace
through the promotion of refined propaganda techniques based on an
anti-liberal, anti-socialist and expansionist national agenda.
Nonetheless, Fascism in today’s global epoch is commonly associated
with many popular German Nazi and Italian regimes after World War I
in Europe. On the other hand, Fascist ideology does however aim to
create a mixed economy through the creation of a national and
independent economy that is not only sovereign but self-sufficient.
As such Fascists often view, Imperialism, political violence and
war as appropriate means which can be used to achieve national
rebirth. This veracity can be noted as fascist often claim there is
nothing wrong with displacing weaker nations through territorial
expansion.

CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM

1. EXTREME NATIONALISM IN
   FASCISM/ULTRA-NATIONALISM

The first pre-dominant characteristic of Fascism as an ideology
is however known as Extreme nationalism or Ultra nationalism.
Whilst most cosmopolitan conservative ideologies are based on the
principals of international cooperation and an elite culture,
extreme nationalism with regard to the ideals of Fascism does
nevertheless promote the interest of one state or populace directly
over that of another. Extreme nationalist or ultra-nationalists
heavily rely on propaganda as a means to spread information to
achieve a particular goal.

Moreover, advocates of this process use Propaganda as a means to
manipulate the human emotions of fear and insecurity with regard to
a populace. This is often carried out in an attempt to influence
citizens to support a particular association or opinionated
movement. Conversely, nationalist movements are often turned
ultra-nationalist by social or economic cries from a populace, the
emergence of a charismatic authoritarian leader or beliefs of long
standing national superiority. An example can be noted through an
observation of Germany’s political milieu after World War I. After
World War I Germany existed in a realm of economic turmoil riddled
by the dimensions of poverty due to the fact that post war
compensation forced the administration of this constituency to pay
billions of dollars back to the countries it engaged with violently
during the War. Consequently, the emergence of Adolph Hitler and
his promise of a stronger Germany and the racial superiority of the
Arian race ultimately gained such a large following that he and his
National party were able to ascend to the role of leadership. (To
be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Fascism is not defined by the number of its victims, but by the
way it kills them”. (Jean-Paul Sartre).