By Alabi Williams
DEMOCRACY as a concept used to be the most interesting to define in elementary studies. It sounded engaging and inclusive that one was not likely to forget it when it propped up in a question. The government of the people by the people for the people. So easy.
But it is in the current practice that the meaning gets confusing, if not totally lost, particularly across Africa. Increasingly, democracy has not lived up to what it professes, as the people may no longer be the critical mass that is fundamental to its operations. The people have allowed themselves to be sidelined.
Former President Obasanjo has had to wade in severally on why democracy is failing and dying in Africa. In his March 2025, remarks at a politician’s birthday parley, the former military and civilian president reasoned that democracy, being a government of the people ought to work for the people, rather than serving the needs of a privileged few.
He said: “If you are talking about democracy failing in Africa, democracy in Africa has failed. And why has it failed? Because in context and in content, it is not African. It does not have any aspect of our culture, our way of life, what we stand for, what we believe.Today, we have democracy, which is the government of a small number of people, by a small number of people, over a large number of people who are deprived of what they need in life. That is not democracy that will endure.”
But who is to blame; is it the workman or the tools? Democracy is the tool to achieve mass participation in governance. It provides the means to attract multiple players. It is not supposed to be complicated. Remember the option A4 voting model of June 12, 1993. But if the political class decides to complicate and hijack the concept, and restrict democracy to themselves, friends and families, to the exclusion of the people, can we be correct to blame the system entirely, because we think it is not African?
Some have debated that African kingship mentality does not conform with norms of democracy. They argue that since African kings perpetuate themselves until they die, tenure limitation, which is a basic requirement in a democracy does not offer modern African leaders enough legroom to indulge. Even that is not an intelligent excuse.
The theory of Divine Rights of kings was not formulated in Africa; meaning that other jurisdictions that are now democracies in Europe and Asia were once centuries-old monarchies. But when their citizens got tired of the rule by one man, they chased them out. They now have more plural ways of sharing power to include women and youths. That’s democracy. It’s not a one-size fits-all, but the bottom-line is that the people can decide who leads them and for a limited time.
When former President Obasanjo referred to culture and context that make democracy unfit for Africa, is there something in the DNA of African leaders that makes them loot their economies and ferry the proceeds to safe havens in Europe? Is it part of African culture for their leaders to be perpetually addicted to foreign medical tourism and foreign education for their children, while tertiary institutions in their home countries are in a mess? Is it also part of African culture for their countries to be perpetual borrowers, not serious players in the global economy?
The difference between democracy in Africa and in places where the system is seen to work, is that democratic principles are respected. The will of the people is allowed to prevail. Constitutional term limits are adhered to and the good for the majority is what drives policies. In such places, leaders don’t seek to manipulate the constitution to remain in power for a lifetime.
There are quasi-democracies and dictatorships that seem to work elsewhere. For forms of government, let people decide. But if we have decided that it is democracy, let it be democracy. Let’s stop cutting corners and endangering the system.
Part of the problem with leadership in some African countries is the failure of leaders to scrutinise themselves and take responsibility for their failure. They blame others. The African big man does not imagine himself losing an election.
The recent presidential election in Uganda was a charade. There was a crackdown on rallies and Internet blackout to frustrate the youthful opposition led by 43-year-old Bobi Wine. On election day, state enforcers intimidated and flogged helpless voters in the glare of the media. Yoweri Museveni, the president was a pathetic sight, as he struggled to defend the high-handedness.
At 81, he had just won his seventh term and had held power for 40 years. He manipulated the constitution to allow him stay in power until he physically expires. He said that as long as he is alive, Ugandans should take advantage of his leadership and that is why voters keep returning him. On shutting down the Internet on election day, he said it was targeted to stop criminals. In any case, the government built it and can decided when to shut it down. Absurd.
The United Nations said the election was marked by widespread repression and intimidation. The world body called for restraint and respect for rights. But how does the democratic opposition survive under one man, where the son is the army chief and his ethnic kit and kin in charge of sensitive positions in government?
It is the same pattern of government by patronage and forced loyalty across the continent. There is just a handful of countries that manage to qualify as stable democracies: Ghana, Botswana, Cape Verde, Mauritius and South Africa.
These countries are listed for building resilience in their democracies. Others are just struggling and perpetually looking over their shoulders. They know that sooner or later, someone is after them.
Where the state’s instrument of coercion is not on flagrant display like in Uganda, the subtle infiltration and encroachment into spheres that ought to belong to the legislature and judiciary by the executive in other countries, equally portend ill for democracy in Africa. A situation where legislatures and judiciaries abandon their constitutional role to check and balance their executives, those democracies are endangered.
The Nigerian legislature, for instance, has surrendered its authority and capacity to hold the executive to account. It surrendered that in exchange for mouth-watering perks in the name of Constituency Projects. Even the opposition in the legislature has grown weak and feeble. But it is still alive. We cannot afford to have one-party rule.
On the ongoing forgery debate regarding the tax laws, a Minority Report has established that the tax laws gazetted by government are different from what the legislature passed, which the executive had manipulated to suit its notorious agenda to fleece Nigerians.
According to the report, key provisions of Nigeria’s 2025 tax reform laws were altered in the version gazetted and circulated to the public, which it considers a breach of the Constitution and an affront on the authority of the legislature. The Minority Committee, which was chaired by Afam Ogene, reported several alterations including: the compliance reporting thresholds, introduction of new conditions for appealing tax decisions, expanded enforcement powers for tax authorities, changes to the definition of federal taxes, and provisions mandating tax computation for petroleum operations in foreign currency.
Ogene said: “There were three different versions of the document in circulation, particularly the Nigerian Tax Administration Act, 2005. The Contentious Portions, especially in the Nigerian Tax Administration Act, include: Section 29(1): On Reporting Thresholds: While the NASS certified version provided for a tax compliance reporting threshold of N50 million for individuals and N100 million for companies, the gazetted version lowered the reporting thresholds for individuals to (N25 million from N50 million) and (N100 million from N250 million) for companies.
“There was an introduction of new subsection 41(8) and 41(9) in the gazetted Act, which imposed a mandatory 20 per cent deposit of disputed tax sums as condition for appealing decisions of the Tax Appeal Tribunal to the High Court, sections which were not in the original version passed by the NASS.”
But the compromised NASS leadership does not see this executive overreach as a deliberate attempt to undermine its authority. It wants the matter resolved quietly without proper investigation and prosecution of offenders. The rubber-stamp lawmakers do not have it in their DNA to confront the executive. The Senate is particularly not interested. They want the sleeping dog to lie peacefully. Democracy is the loser if critical parliamentary debate is abolished.
Forum of ex-Gladiators: In the midst of insecurity, poverty and bad governance in the country, some former legislators met in Abuja. They did not discuss the economy, insecurity or the endangered democracy. Apparently, they were hired to endorse President Tinubu for a second term, using the cover of rotational presidency. There is actually no contention regarding Tinubu’s second term, if cleared by the INEC to contest in 2027.
However, there are fears in government that due to poor performance, a well-organised opposition could turn the table from the North. That is why the desperation to canvass rotational presidency as a constitutional item. Rotational presidency will negate citizens’ fundamental constitutional right to vote and be voted, irrespective of North or South.
It is shameful that of all the troubles that bedevil the country, the former lawmakers did not come out when hundreds of school children were kidnapped. They are not heard making contribution on how to rescue the country from terrorists. They are not bothered that this government has afflicted more than half of the population with misery. What matters to them is how to oil their links to government patronage and largesse. Some of them should be in prison.
When politicians continue to sideline the people, they’re injuring democracy. The people ought to be the defenders of democracy. It’s a shame that Nigerians are still discussing coup matters after 27 years of unbroken democratic rule. It is unfortunately so because it’s been a democracy without the people. And that is not sustainable!
In this article