I see this as not a criticism of Nigerian politics alone, it's a criticism of democracy in general, which is an expensive system of government to run. American and western politics is controlled by lobby groups who donates to candidates' campaigns, and in turn the candidates institute policies, bills, and laws which favors the interests of the lobbyists. Similar stuff happens in Nigeria to candidates who cannot fund their campaigns, they find political godfathers who invest in their "political entrepreneurship", and in the event they they win, they have to return the favor by fulfilling the demands of their godfathers. The politicians often faces a massive conflict of interests, they have a duty to serve citizens, they have to fulfill the requests of their godfathers/lobbyists, they have to fulfill requests from their political parties, and at the same have their own personal selfish agendas to pursue (often financial). Resources available are limited and can only go so far, and the wise thing to do from the politicians interest pov is to first answer to his own interests and the powers that be, the little scraps that remain can be thrown at the suffering masses.
Any working solutions must address the root of these issues, else we'll just be putting bandaids on deep wounds.
This is exactly what I came here to say! The structure of democracy favours criminality, Nigerian politicians are just less dignified about it. In their own case, they probably might never have to institute policies, only lean into their bogus projects or when it gets hot in the kitchen, blame it on a snake, faint, or disappear. And even then, efforts to bring them to account will often end in theatrics. It is always a win win situation.
Could this be making a case for the merits of alternative rule? Who knows? No structure made up by man could hold the world up forever.
Your last statement is quite true. Humans are flawed creatures by nature and biology; therefore, anything created by humans will have its flaws. I really do not think that systems are the issue; it's more about the humans running those systems. Don't get me wrong, there are bad systems, but even if decent and moral people run bad systems, the failures would be minimal.
What Nigeria need is both, patriotic, visionary, ruthless and disciplined leaders who can do an overhaul of the existing corrupt and failed system, design a new one with minimal loopholes, and also find a way to ensure that those that would run the system in the future would be patriotic, masses-serving individuals. The society also has to be structured in such a way that it uphold the integrity of the system.
I feel the tentacles you are putting out and I agree with you. But one thing with these systems is that they are flawed in different ways; they require specific situations to flourish. This means that if the society were not suited to the system, well...I am not an absolutist and I know there are outliers, but I also believe that the people who are eventually picked out by those systems become as flawed as those systems. It is natural selection. Democracy competes for public acceptance, is a slow and expensive process, and favours the elite more than the main occupiers of a territory. It is not the vote of the people...it is who has more cunning. Who has enough resources to appear to be a saviour. These qualities mean that it requires (a bit of) deceit to be a successful politician, it is held to account by an existing middle class, and therefore a sufficiently developed logical society to see through these leaders and vote in those with the least evil tendencies and who would serve more, ironically, not the interests of the middle class that perhaps have a hand in actualizing their aspirations, but those who own/monopolize the resources.
Why it is dangerous for Nigeria and most African countries is that we are not developed enough; our society is split into two economical factions (the rich, who have monopoly of every resource, and the poor, who just want to survive and has no time for descernment, or be rich). Democracy needs an educated middle class that first has to be formed sufficiently by autocratic rule...a single minded authoritativeness that would institute progressive policies without the need for the slow grind of legislature. This could be a poor analogy, but building something from the ground is often from its being concieved and often, planned, within a single mind...a figure head whose words are law. I like to refer to el salvador and Nayib Bukele and how he needed to subvert democratic convention to rid his people of criminals. That is what is required in this time even though it has its own potential consequences depending on who gets on that seat. But at least it is simple. We know who to attack if it all goes wrong or when we feel like it. Think Libya versus Muammar Gaddafi. He was a good example of the benefits of autocratic rule, but was it not easy for the rebels to destroy their nation? Here, it is not just corruption, it is entrenched, stratified corruption. Again, perhaps alternative rule has a bit of merit?
This is a thoroughly enjoyable read! Replace Nigeria with any other African democracy and the article remains very relatable. I have also done an article that tries to explain why such people succeed in African politics:
I see this as not a criticism of Nigerian politics alone, it's a criticism of democracy in general, which is an expensive system of government to run. American and western politics is controlled by lobby groups who donates to candidates' campaigns, and in turn the candidates institute policies, bills, and laws which favors the interests of the lobbyists. Similar stuff happens in Nigeria to candidates who cannot fund their campaigns, they find political godfathers who invest in their "political entrepreneurship", and in the event they they win, they have to return the favor by fulfilling the demands of their godfathers. The politicians often faces a massive conflict of interests, they have a duty to serve citizens, they have to fulfill the requests of their godfathers/lobbyists, they have to fulfill requests from their political parties, and at the same have their own personal selfish agendas to pursue (often financial). Resources available are limited and can only go so far, and the wise thing to do from the politicians interest pov is to first answer to his own interests and the powers that be, the little scraps that remain can be thrown at the suffering masses.
Any working solutions must address the root of these issues, else we'll just be putting bandaids on deep wounds.
This is exactly what I came here to say! The structure of democracy favours criminality, Nigerian politicians are just less dignified about it. In their own case, they probably might never have to institute policies, only lean into their bogus projects or when it gets hot in the kitchen, blame it on a snake, faint, or disappear. And even then, efforts to bring them to account will often end in theatrics. It is always a win win situation.
Could this be making a case for the merits of alternative rule? Who knows? No structure made up by man could hold the world up forever.
Your last statement is quite true. Humans are flawed creatures by nature and biology; therefore, anything created by humans will have its flaws. I really do not think that systems are the issue; it's more about the humans running those systems. Don't get me wrong, there are bad systems, but even if decent and moral people run bad systems, the failures would be minimal.
What Nigeria need is both, patriotic, visionary, ruthless and disciplined leaders who can do an overhaul of the existing corrupt and failed system, design a new one with minimal loopholes, and also find a way to ensure that those that would run the system in the future would be patriotic, masses-serving individuals. The society also has to be structured in such a way that it uphold the integrity of the system.
I feel the tentacles you are putting out and I agree with you. But one thing with these systems is that they are flawed in different ways; they require specific situations to flourish. This means that if the society were not suited to the system, well...I am not an absolutist and I know there are outliers, but I also believe that the people who are eventually picked out by those systems become as flawed as those systems. It is natural selection. Democracy competes for public acceptance, is a slow and expensive process, and favours the elite more than the main occupiers of a territory. It is not the vote of the people...it is who has more cunning. Who has enough resources to appear to be a saviour. These qualities mean that it requires (a bit of) deceit to be a successful politician, it is held to account by an existing middle class, and therefore a sufficiently developed logical society to see through these leaders and vote in those with the least evil tendencies and who would serve more, ironically, not the interests of the middle class that perhaps have a hand in actualizing their aspirations, but those who own/monopolize the resources.
Why it is dangerous for Nigeria and most African countries is that we are not developed enough; our society is split into two economical factions (the rich, who have monopoly of every resource, and the poor, who just want to survive and has no time for descernment, or be rich). Democracy needs an educated middle class that first has to be formed sufficiently by autocratic rule...a single minded authoritativeness that would institute progressive policies without the need for the slow grind of legislature. This could be a poor analogy, but building something from the ground is often from its being concieved and often, planned, within a single mind...a figure head whose words are law. I like to refer to el salvador and Nayib Bukele and how he needed to subvert democratic convention to rid his people of criminals. That is what is required in this time even though it has its own potential consequences depending on who gets on that seat. But at least it is simple. We know who to attack if it all goes wrong or when we feel like it. Think Libya versus Muammar Gaddafi. He was a good example of the benefits of autocratic rule, but was it not easy for the rebels to destroy their nation? Here, it is not just corruption, it is entrenched, stratified corruption. Again, perhaps alternative rule has a bit of merit?
This is a thoroughly enjoyable read! Replace Nigeria with any other African democracy and the article remains very relatable. I have also done an article that tries to explain why such people succeed in African politics:
https://open.substack.com/pub/africatalystblog/p/the-tyranny-of-the-extraordinary?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=58ppmn