The consolidation of democracy in Nigeria
Toward the end of my article last week on the democratisation of democracy in Nigeria, I suggested the need for certain modifications to make democracy truly our own political system
Toward the end of my article last week on the democratisation of democracy in Nigeria, I suggested the need for certain modifications to make democracy truly our own political system and recognised as such. Here I elaborate on some of the necessary modifications.
One is to reorganise the federating units and devolve powers to them with accompanying financial resources. Make the six geopolitical zones the federating units and let each one handle its constituent states and local councils as it wishes. The six zonal Development Commissions could be used as the springboard for the reorganisation. Allocate at least 60 percent of the resources to the federating units.
The rationale for this reorganisation is self-evident. Reduction of the power and resources of the centre will make it easier for the legislature to discipline or override the executive without fear. At the same time, it will reduce the amount of sleaze in the National Assembly repeatedly decried by the people. Moreover, by increasing the resources of the federating units, more attention will be drawn to the federating units, thus reducing the dependence on the federal government for solution to every problem. It may not remove the centre from the eye of the storm, but it will at least reduce the gaze.
Moreover, the reduction of federating units to six is the most effective way of curbing waste at the state level. There are far too many states right now, many of which are not even financially viable. Besides, we know that state operatives are corrupt and that the large number of 36 states only allows for multiplication of state-level corruption by 36! Within this context, the idea of creating more states is preposterous.
Moreover, a less powerful and less resourced centre will allow the legislature to discipline or override the executive without fear. At the same time, it will reduce the amount of sleaze in the National Assembly. But then the legislators need reorientation about their oversight functions. Like police patrol on the roadways, legislators currently see oversight as a way of making money (see Excessive oversight and bureaucratic delays, The Nation, March 4, 2026). At the same time, voters must be well educated about the type of politician to send to the National Assembly or to any political office for that matter.
Second, the present military-inspired constitution needs to go as it is an unworkable constitution in several respects. For example, the constitution recognises the President as the Chief Security Officer of the nation, which is why he is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, while the same constitution recognises Governors as the Chief Security Officers of their states. The President’s constitutional role is to protect the territorial integrity of the nation, and the security forces he needs for that role are the Armed Forces and the Intelligence Agencies.
As the Chief Security Officers of their states, the Governors’ mission is to protect state residents and their property. What they need to perform this function effectively is the duo of the Police Force and the National Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC). However, in the present constitution, both are controlled by the President. The Inspector General of Police, appointed by the President, supervises and deploys police personnel across the nation, while the NSCDC is domiciled in the Ministry of Interior, also under the President. As a result, Governors have no constitutional powers over these agencies in their states. It was this situation of helplessness in the face of rising insecurity that led many states, led by the Southwest, to set up regional security outfits, such as Amotekun in the Southwest and Ebube Agu in the Southeast. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu recognises this constitutional incongruity, which is why he is pushing for state control of the police.
State control of the police is only one of several changes needed to the constitution. Indeed, the entire constitution needs to be changed instead of the present piecemeal approach. This will require an executive bill from the President to the National Assembly. In order to facilitate the construction of the bill, a powerful committee of constitutional lawyers, former legislators, seasoned statesmen, historians, and others could be charged with developing a new constitution, drawing upon various documents, including the present constitution; various reports of national political conferences; and various books and media sources, such as Adamolekun’s Reflections on Governance and Development in Nigeria, 2025. Here’s how Adamolekun summarises his opinion about devolution of powers: “Only devolution can unleash the forces for consolidating democracy and achieving accelerated socioeconomic progress in Nigeria. The alternative to devolution will likely be the death of the federation.”
A third and critical modification lies with political parties. At the moment, Nigerian political parties are hardly performing the typical functions for which parties are set up in a functioning democracy. Such functions include developing platforms that will attract members to the party; recruiting and nominating candidates for public office; contesting elections; mobilising voters and educating them on issues; fostering civic participation; providing opposition, when not in power, and offering alternative policies.
To be sure, ours is not a problem of too many political parties. Brazil has about 30 registered political parties, while India has over 280. However, only a handful of these parties are nationally recognised in each of these countries. Nigeria has 21 registered political parties, Like Brazil and India, only a few of these parties are nationally competitive. Nor is our problem that of a one-party state, because some politicians are defecting to the ruling party as it often happened in election season in Nigeria.
Read Also: Senate raises alarm over COVID-19 case, flags gaps in Nigeria’s emergency response system
Rather, our problem is the use of political parties as platforms for seeking public office or, better still, for grabbing power, not necessarily to help the people but often for self-enrichment. That is why election season in Nigeria is often the “season of migration” (to parody my late friend, Kole Omotoso), when politicians shop for political parties for a ticket. We are in the season now, and we all know what is going on with defectors and power grabbers.
The fluidity of membership in our political parties is a clear sign of lack of a shared goal in moving the nation forward or some shared programme of social development. Rather, it points to politicians shopping for party tickets. What is worse is the lack of internal democracy within the political parties. While the idea of consensus candidacy may allow party leaders to select candidates for public office, often through negotiations, it also could stifle democracy by forcing some aspirants to swallow their ambition by falling in line. Alternatively, the experience with direct primary in the country has never been a happy one. There were often stories of preconceived outcomes.
At the end of the day, to consolidate our democracy, it is necessary to reorganise the country and devolve powers to the federating units; draw a constitution that fits the reorganised country; and stabilise our political parties.
