Skip to main content

Reasons for Representative Democracy in Nigeria

In the context of a nation as large and diverse as Nigeria, representative democracy is the most practical and effective form of governance. Unlike direct democracy, which is ideally suited to small communities where every individual can participate in decision-making at mass meetings, the representative model is uniquely designed to address the complexities and logistical challenges of governing a populous state. In Nigeria, where millions of citizens live, work, and interact within an intricate social and cultural fabric, direct involvement in every aspect of governance is simply unfeasible. Instead, the system of electing representatives—individuals who have the time, expertise, and commitment to understand and address the nuances of public policy—serves as the backbone of democratic governance.

At its core, representative democracy is built on the belief that elected officials are capable of developing the skills and knowledge necessary to make informed decisions on behalf of their constituents. These representatives, acting as trustees rather than mere delegates, are entrusted with the responsibility to act in the public interest based on their superior understanding of complex issues. In a country like Nigeria, where the challenges of economic development, social inequality, and national security are ever-present, it is critical that decision-making is undertaken by those who have both the capacity and the time to deliberate thoroughly on these matters. This system ensures that policies are crafted not out of impulsive reactions or fleeting popular sentiments but through careful consideration of long-term benefits and the overall public good.

Furthermore, the reality of modern life means that most citizens are too preoccupied with their daily responsibilities to engage actively in the minutiae of political decision-making. In Nigeria, as in many other large nation states, the average citizen’s primary focus is on earning a living, supporting family, and managing everyday tasks. It is therefore both practical and efficient to delegate the continuous and detailed work of governance to those who have dedicated their lives to public service. By simply choosing their representatives through periodic elections, citizens are able to exert influence over government policies without being burdened by the relentless demands of direct political participation. This delegation of power is not an abdication of democratic principles but rather an adaptation to the modern realities of a fast-paced society.

The representative model also offers a buffer between the emotional impulses of the electorate and the sober responsibilities of governance. In a vibrant society where issues can evoke strong passions and emotions, having a layer of decision-makers who are removed from the immediacy of daily public opinion can help foster a more balanced and pragmatic approach to policy formulation. This separation is crucial in preventing the tyranny of the majority—a situation where decisions are driven solely by transient popular sentiments rather than by careful analysis and long-term planning. Elected officials, by virtue of their specialized training and expertise, are better equipped to deliberate on contentious issues, negotiate compromises, and arrive at decisions that serve the interests of all citizens rather than merely reflecting the passions of a vocal minority.

Critics of representative democracy argue that the process of voting every few years can sometimes be little more than a ceremonial act—a democratic ritual that gives the appearance of public participation while effectively leaving the reins of power in the hands of a select group of elites. They contend that this system can foster a disconnect between the government and the governed, with politicians often coming from narrow socio-economic backgrounds that do not reflect the broader diversity of society. In this view, the trustee model, which assumes that elected officials know best, can come across as patronizing, suggesting that the ordinary citizen’s understanding of their own needs is somehow inferior to that of their representatives. Such criticisms raise important questions about legitimacy and accountability, and they underscore the need for ongoing vigilance in ensuring that the system remains truly representative and responsive.

Despite these valid concerns, the strengths of representative democracy are evident, particularly when considering the practical requirements of governing a large nation like Nigeria. In many modern democracies, it has been observed that elected officials often bring a level of expertise and judgment that far exceeds that of the general populace. For instance, a significant proportion of Members of Parliament in various democracies are highly educated, with many holding advanced degrees. This phenomenon is not accidental but rather a reflection of the need for sophisticated understanding and analytical capabilities in order to navigate the intricacies of contemporary policy issues. While some may criticize this as elitism, it is important to recognize that the expertise brought by these representatives is essential in addressing challenges that are too complex for widespread public deliberation.

The recent experiences of other nations provide useful lessons that can be applied to the Nigerian context. During the run-up to major referenda in various parts of the world, including the European Union, there were striking demonstrations of how public debates can sometimes devolve into emotionally charged and, at times, uninformed exchanges. In these instances, critics pointed out that the public’s reliance on simple slogans or populist rhetoric often led to decisions that did not reflect a deep understanding of the issues at hand. In contrast, elected representatives, who are expected to study and debate policies in depth, are in a position to make more balanced and rational decisions. The benefits of this approach are clear: by entrusting policy-making to individuals who have demonstrated their capacity to understand complex matters, the government is more likely to enact measures that are both effective and sustainable.

Another significant advantage of representative democracy lies in its inherent accountability. In Nigeria, as elsewhere, the very fact that elected officials are subject to periodic elections and public scrutiny means that they have a constant incentive to perform well in office. This accountability mechanism ensures that if an elected representative fails to act in the best interest of the people or becomes too disconnected from the realities on the ground, there is always the possibility of being voted out of office in the next election cycle. In this way, the system creates a continuous feedback loop between the electorate and their representatives, fostering a dynamic where power is both granted and, if necessary, withdrawn by the people.

Moreover, the representative model is particularly effective at mediating between the diverse interests that characterize a multifaceted society. Nigeria is a country of remarkable diversity, encompassing a wide range of ethnic, religious, and cultural groups. In such an environment, it is inevitable that different segments of the population will have varying and sometimes conflicting interests. Elected representatives serve as intermediaries who can negotiate these differences and work towards policies that, while perhaps not perfectly satisfying any one group, provide a balanced approach that benefits the nation as a whole. This mediating function is essential for maintaining social cohesion and ensuring that no single group is able to dominate the political agenda to the detriment of others.

It is important to acknowledge that representative democracy, like any system of governance, is not without its challenges. The criticisms concerning the limited direct control of the populace, the risk of elite dominance, and the potential disconnect between representatives and ordinary citizens are significant and warrant serious consideration. Yet, when these concerns are weighed against the practical demands of governing a nation as complex as Nigeria, the case for representative democracy becomes compelling. The alternative—attempting to implement a system of direct democracy in a society where continuous and widespread participation is neither practical nor feasible—would likely lead to inefficiency and instability. Instead, by channeling the collective will of the people into the hands of capable and accountable representatives, Nigeria can achieve a balance between popular sovereignty and expert governance.

In practical terms, the success of representative democracy in Nigeria depends on the commitment of both the elected officials and the citizens. For the system to function effectively, representatives must continuously strive to understand and address the needs of their constituents, while citizens must remain engaged, informed, and vigilant. This dynamic interaction helps ensure that the government remains responsive to the public interest, even as it operates through a layer of mediation that is necessary for managing the complexities of modern governance. It is a system that requires both trust and accountability, where the power of the people is not diminished but rather transformed into a form that is capable of addressing the challenges of a large nation.

Ultimately, the adoption of representative democracy in Nigeria is not merely a matter of convenience; it is a strategic necessity. The size and diversity of the nation, coupled with the demands of modern statecraft, necessitate a system where decision-making is entrusted to those best equipped to handle it. While the model is not perfect and must continually be refined and reformed to address emerging challenges, its fundamental principles—accountability, expertise, and the mediation of diverse interests—are indispensable for the effective governance of a nation as dynamic as Nigeria. By empowering elected officials to make informed, rational decisions, representative democracy provides a framework that not only sustains stability but also fosters progress and inclusivity in a complex and ever-changing world.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Seven (7) Reasons for the Adoption of Federalism in Nigeria

INTRO: Federalism has been approached with variegated definitions to the extent that one might argue that there are as much definitions of federalism as there are authors on the subject. This notwithstanding, the concept of federalism boasts of a very popular definition by an American scholar, K.C. Wheare who contends that it is a system where powers are shared between central and regional governments so that each is in a sphere cordinate and independent. Reasons for the adoption of federalism in Nigeria include: 1. The Plural nature of Nigeria : Nigeria is a plural society of over 250 tongues and tribes. Besides the Big Three - Igbo, Hausa and Yoruba, there are other macro and micro ethnic minorities in the country. Federalism was favoured among other systems of government in a bid to allay both fancied and real fears of domination among the minorities. 2. The Size of Nigeria : This is another reason for the adoption of federalism in Nigeria. With the total area of...

Seven (7) Reasons for the Colonization of Nigeria

INTRO: Colonialism is a consistent theme in the history of Africa. It laces through the formative tapestry of the majority of African states today, Nigeria inclusive. Colonialism as a concept could be seen from different perspectives. Generally however, it may be defined as the practice or policy of controling a weaker nation by a stronger nation especially for socio-economic and political gains. The territory known today as Nigeria was colonized by Britain. The reasons for the colonization of Nigeria are  simply the same with the rest of African countries. In his masterpiece, "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa," Walter Rodney stated that Europe came to Africa with three Bs: Business, Bible and Bullet. These items represent perfectly the reasons for the notorious European incursion into the pristine and tranquil African continent, which are broadly categorized as economic, socio-political and religious reasons. A. Economic Reasons 1) Search for Raw Material : The ...

Nine (9) Reasons for the Adoption of Indirect Rule in Nigeria by Britain

INTRO:  The British colonial administrative policy in Nigeria known as the indirect rule was devised and adopted by the renowned British colonial officer, Lord Lugard, (although, there were semblances of the policy before Lugard). Lord Lugard was appointed the High Commissioner of the Northern Protectorate in 1900 following the revocation of the royal charter in the same year. The royal charter was given to the Royal Niger Company (RNC) in 1888 by the British government, to act on behalf of the government, chiefly towards instituting effective occupation in the colonies, as resolved in the Berlin Conference of 1884/85. Simply put, indirect rule is an administrative system in which the British colonial officials administered Nigeria through the intermediaries, the native authorities. According to Murray (1973, p. 1), indirect rule was an administrative policy that utilized native customs, traditions, institutions and people by fitting them into the British framework of colonial ad...

Seven (7) Reasons for and Causes of Political Apathy in Nigeria

INTRO:  Simply put, political apathy means lack of interest in politics, i.e. the activities of the state. More often than not, voter apathy is used interchangeably with political apathy. The interchangeable usage is understandable because voting is the hallmark of political participation, but then, it is careless to do so. As a matter of fact, every voter apathy is political apathy, but not every political apathy is voter apathy. Voter apathy is a subset of political apathy, together with other subsets of political apathy such interest apathy, and information apathy. A voter apathetic person does not go to cast vote in an election, interest apathetic person does not show interest in political activities such as referendum, demonstration, or rally, etc., and information apathetic person does not go for political news, or engage in political discussion. From the foregoing, it is observable that political apathy is the opposite of political participation. Democracies all over the wor...

Seven (7) Reasons for and Factors of the Nationalist Struggle in Nigeria

INTRO:   Nationalism has semantic nuances which range from patriotism to struggle for independence. As a matter of fact, all attitudes and actions for preservation of national identity and/or achievement of political independence are nationalism. Thus, xenophobia, ethnicity, terrorism, irredentism, separatism, and similar issues, all things being equal, are nationalist in nature. The term “nationalism” therefore is generally used to describe two phenomena : (i)          the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (ii)        the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. Nationalism in Nigeria was directed against the colonial masters, first by the notable Nigerian chiefs who resisted, although unsuccessful, the loss of the sovereignty of their kingdoms, chiefdoms, and societies. Worthy of mention was ...

Nine (9) Reasons for the Creation of Local Government in Nigeria  

INTRO :  The nature and character of l ocal government in Nigeria today (except for few infractions) is largely the product of the 1976 Local Government Reform by the Murtala/Obasanjo regime. The Reform is marked with bringing uniformity to the cacophony and disharmony that once reigned on local government system in Nigeria. In the 1976 Local Government Reform Guidelines, the Federal Government of Nigeria defined local government as “Government at local levels exercised through representative councils established by law to exercise specific powers within defined areas.” The powers which the local representative councils can exercise within their jurisdiction are local affairs “(including staffing) and institutional and financial powers to initiate and to determine and implement projects so as to compliment the activities of the state and federal government in their areas, and ensure through devolution of functions to those councils and through the active participation of the people...

Five (5) Reasons for the January 15 1966 Coup in Nigeria

INTRO:   The January 15, 1966 military coup in Nigeria happened because of corruption by the officials, Western Nigeria crisis, intention to install Awolowo as the Head of State, the domino effect from coups outside Nigeria, and personal ambition of the coup plotters for joining the army. It was the first military coup in Nigeria. In its simplest terms, coup d'etat can be defined as the unconstitutional and violent overthrow of an incumbent government, especially, by the armed forces. Coup d'etat is more often than not, treated with scorn in the international comity of nations perhaps because it is believed that military in politics is an aberration. Nigeria, this central disapproval of military rule notwithstanding, has witnessed several coups and counter coups starting from January 15, 1966 when the military made its debut in the politics of the country. The coup toppled the coalition government of Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) and National Congress of Nigerian Citizens ...

Authors Give the Reasons Why Students Join Cults in Nigeria

Cultism in Nigeria is a pervasive social issue deeply entrenched in the nation’s socio-economic and cultural fabric. This phenomenon, particularly widespread in educational institutions, neighborhoods, and even political arenas, is marked by violent behaviors, initiation rites, and criminal activities. Its origins, as documented, trace back to 1952 with the establishment of the Seadog Confraternity (also known as the Pirates) by Nobel Laureate Professor Wole Soyinka and six others at the University of Ibadan . Initially set up as a peaceful and non-violent confraternity, it later evolved into secret cults characterized by violence and bizarre rituals. Today, cultism has morphed into a significant challenge in Nigeria, driven by a range of factors that appeal to different segments of the population. One of the primary reasons students join cults is peer pressure and social influence. In schools, students often face immense pressure from friends or acquaintances to join cult groups, esp...

Six (6) Reasons for the Relocation of Nigeria's Capital City from Lagos to Abuja

INTRO:   Several countries of the world have experimented with changing of the location of their capital cities. Countries such as Brazil moved her capital city from Rio de Janeiro to the built-for-the-purpose Brasilia in 1961; Kazakhstan moved from Almaty to Astana in 1997; and Cote d'Ivoire moved from Abijan to Yamoussoukro in 1983. In the year 1991, Nigeria joined the ranks of countries that for one reason or another relocated their capital cities when she moved her capital city from Lagos to Abuja.   The move was initiated in 1975 by the military government of General Murtala Mohammed when he set up a 7-man panel under the chairmanship of Dr. Akinola Aguda to examine the issue of a new capital city for Nigeria. The panel after  their studies recommended Abuja and the military government under Decree No. 6 of 1976 established the Federal Capital Development Authority to midwife the planning, designing and developing of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The ...

Nine (9) Reasons for and Causes of the Electoral Malpractices in Nigeria

INTRO : One of the features of the Nigerian democracy is periodic elections which come at the intervals of four years. Hence, there were general elections in Nigeria in 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, and 2023 as at the time of this article. There are many component elections in a general election viz.: Presidential election, gubernatorial elections (i.e. governorship elections), National Assembly elections (i.e. the elections of the members of the Houses of Representatives and Senate), and State Assembly elections (i.e. the elections of the members of Houses of Assembly of the States of the Federation). Since 1999, electoral malpractices have tainted these variegated elections in Nigeria. Electoral malpractices simply mean “illegalities committed by government, officials responsible for the conduct of elections, political parties, groups or individuals with sinister intention to influence an election in favour of a candidate(s).” (Ezeani, 2005, p. 415). These illegalities incl...