Whether it's full, flawed, or hybrid, democracy is the most dominant form of government that is practiced all over the world. And so far, it has delivered to a certain extent because there would've been protests and resistance against it if it was flopping.
Democracy in its purest form is supposed to liberate citizens under the rule; it serves as an avenue to lend a voice to the voiceless. That is why the simplest definition of democracy, as we were taught in the basic school, was that it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. However, this definition is just scratching the surface. It doesn't factor into the equation the ridiculous amounts of bottlenecks that has to be navigated to have a smooth democracy.
Generally, democracy is a good thing. I can relate to that because I witnessed the military rule in my country, and I can attest that it wasn't the best of times. Even as a young lad then, the sight of soldiers scared the shit out of me. It wasn't because of their mean gaze or bulky frame, no. They were scary back then because I know once a person was arrested by those mean machines, even if the person was lucky enough to escape death and be released, the amount of beat down and punishment the person would've endured means the person will never be normal again. They were dangerous, unaccountable and unhinged. And that's me being modest in their description.
Though things are not perfect here, and people still fear soldiers, the reality is a lot different now. They no longer wield the insane power to disappear anyone without facing the possibility of backlash. That makes me feel safer. So based on this and some other factors, I think democracy isn't doing too badly. And, yes, it has improved the well-being of people. These days, anyone can go online and criticize a sector of the government that's doing poorly. Those who tried that with Abacha and his predecessors ended up dead or unlawfully detained.
Probably the most important win for democracy is the protection of fundamental human rights of citizens. During the military regime, there were attempts to unify the country under the religious umbrella by forcing everyone to become Muslims. People got wind of the plan and that worked against them. Now, no one will try such in a democratic era because even Presidents understand they do not wield absolute power, unlike the previous military Heads of State who acted with impunity and did whatever they wanted.
Now, considering the state of play in Nigeria and the persistent issues that have crippled the country, I think Federalism can save the country. Nigeria is so diverse that it looks irresponsible to squeeze people of different tongues, tribes, values and opinions into a singular government. This has led to nepotism and sabotage of the growth of the country. With Federalism, where power is shared between a central and regional or state government, things will get better.
With each state government fully controlling the fate of its state, there will be accountability. Also, it may bring healthy rivalry amongst state governments as they try to outdo themselves to provide a better life for their citizens while having full control of the resources at their disposal. The funny thing is, our lawmakers know this, and they've discussed it on several occasions. However, the majority of those who can push for this to happen are the ones benefiting the most from the chaotic nature of the country. So why would they fight for a better life when the chaos in the country is adding serious zeros to their net worth? Unfortunately, we're stuck with the greedy lots.
