Reinventing democracy in Nigeria

The reported deaths of about eight people in Osun State following violent clashes between sacked APC local government chairmen and PDP supporters under Governor Ademola Adeleke’s administration bring into sharp focus the nature of political contestation in Nigeria. The event exemplifies a disturbing pattern where democracy, rather than being a mechanism for peaceful governance, degenerates into a battleground of force, intimidation, and bloodshed. Applying the Critical Default Model of Discourse Coherence (CDMDC) to examine this reality allows us to evaluate democracy in Nigeria not as an abstract ideal but as a contextualized discourse shaped by dominant narratives and power struggles. By interrogating the default elements (widely accepted assumptions) and the critical default elements (systemic realities that sustain or challenge these assumptions), we can assess how democracy is practiced in Nigeria vis-à-vis its fundamental principles.

To understand democracy as a system of government, it is important to trace the origin of government itself. In the absence of government – what Thomas Hobbes referred to as the “state of nature”—life was marked by chaos, insecurity, and constant conflict, making it “nasty, brutish, and short.” To escape this anarchy, people voluntarily surrendered their individual sovereignty to a governing authority through a social contract. This contract mandated the government to ensure the welfare and security of the people; protect life and property; maintain order and enforce laws. In essence, Democracy evolved as a people-centred system of government designed to uphold the principles of the social contract by ensuring that government derives legitimacy from the people. It is ideally defined by government of the people, by the people, and for the people; fair and free elections; rule of law and accountability; protection of rights and freedoms. In other words, democracy ideally, is built on the ideals of popular sovereignty, electoral integrity, rule of law, and peaceful competition for power. This foundational understanding serves as the benchmark for evaluating how discourse on democracy aligns with or deviates from its theoretical ideals.

However, in Nigeria, political discourse often reflects a distorted version of these ideals, where elections are characterized by violence, coercion, and manipulation. A brand of democracy, which is distorted by systemic violence, power struggles, and electoral malpractice, practically deviates from its foundational tenets. The statements made by some prominent Nigerian politicians provide insight into these distortions. In the words of Chief Rotimi Amaechi, “Nigerian politicians maim, and kill to remain in power”. Viewed from theoretical lens of CDMDC, the critical default element implicit in Amaechi’s discourse suggests that Nigerian politics is brutally transactional, where violence is not an aberration but an intrinsic tool for acquiring and retaining power. In other words, violence is institutionalized as a legitimate tool for political survival. Therefore, political actors normalize and justify electoral violence, making it an accepted part of the political process. This statement aligns with the empirical reality of electoral violence, as seen in Osun, and other parts of Nigeria, confirming that political actors prioritize power over democratic ethics.

According to Dr. Kayode Fayemi, “the quarrels of Nigerian politicians are not real; they are meant to entertain Nigerians”. The critical default element implied here is that political conflicts are performative, often a facade to manipulate public perception. Political disputes in Nigeria often serve elite bargaining, not genuine ideological confrontations. Public disagreements are for optics, meant to sustain voter engagement while elite politicians protect their mutual interests behind closed doors. By inference, the Osun clashes, while tragic, also underscore that political actors often use grassroots supporters as pawns in a larger game, settling personal scores while ordinary citizens pay the price.

In this context, the default elements discernible from these discourse excerpts capture surface-level assumptions, which reveal how the ideals of a topic (e.g., democracy) are upheld or deviated from in practice in Nigeria. Cumulatively, the common thread that runs through them is that politics is highly competitive and power-driven; electoral violence is common in Nigeria; politicians prioritize self-interest over the public good. On the other hand, critical default elements expose deeper ideological forces and power structures that sustain or challenge these assumptions in which case, the evolving model of Discourse Analysis moves beyond mere observation to critical interrogation of discourse. In sum, the Nigerian political system normalizes violence as a tool for maintaining power; political elite sustains a culture of impunity, where electoral violence is rarely punished; democracy in Nigeria is compromised by structural corruption, making fair elections nearly impossible. These systemic issues explain why critical default elements persist, exposing systemic distortions that undermine the ideals of democracy.

Read also: Why Nigeria’s democracy is stagnating compared to Ghana, others – Activist

From the foregoing, several inferences – institutionalized violence, legitimation of electoral malpractice, manipulative political discourse, undermining of democratic values – emerge. The repeated references to power retention through violence indicate that electoral violence is not incidental but systemic. Political elites openly endorse undemocratic practices, signaling that the rule of law is ineffective in curbing electoral fraud and intimidation. Political actors deliberately craft their rhetoric to justify unethical conduct, creating a political culture that prioritizes power over governance. The recurring theme of coercion and militarized politics suggests that democracy in Nigeria operates less as a true representative system but more as a politics of conquest.

Democracy in Nigeria operates under a distorted framework. While democracy, in theory, is meant to be people-driven, in Nigeria, it is elite-controlled, with elections frequently reduced to violent contests for power rather than expressions of the people’s will. Political violence is not incidental but systemic. The Osun State killings are not random outbursts; they are symptoms of a deeply entrenched political culture where power is a prize fought over, not a trust given by the electorate. Political rhetoric normalizes electoral malpractice and violence. Statements by some prominent politicians reinforce aggression, intimidation, and manipulation as the means of securing power, making genuine democratic governance almost unattainable. Without these, democracy in Nigeria will remain an illusion, existing only in rhetoric but absent in practice.

In rethinking Nigerian political discourse as an imperative, the Critical Default Model of Discourse Coherence offers a framework for analyzing the language of political power in Nigeria. By exposing the disconnect between democratic ideals and political realities, it highlights the urgent need for electoral reforms, stronger institutions, and political accountability. Democratic ideals must be actively reclaimed. The only way to reverse this trend is through stronger institutions, accountability for political violence, and voter education. Without addressing these critical default elements, Nigeria’s democracy will remain a façade, where elections are mere formalities rather than true reflections of the people’s will.

This recalls the contention of Romy Clark and Roz Ivanic about Critical Language Awareness (CLA), which provides a framework for deconstructing the hidden ideologies embedded in language, as an inescapable option for Nigerians. Through this lens, individuals are not just passive consumers of discourse; they become active participants in interrogating and resisting dominant narratives that serve to manipulate or deceive. After all, modern democracy as a system of the government dictates the rule of engagement – government rules by the consent of the governed (the people) – not by divine right, not by force, and certainly not by deception. As long as discursive culture in Nigeria celebrates force, normalizes deception, and tolerates impunity, the country will continue to witness elections marred by bloodshed. For democracy to be meaningful, the people must demand a paradigm shift from politics of conquest to service-oriented governance. Anything less is a betrayal of the very essence of democracy. Herein lies the value of the intersection of default and critical elements of Critical Default Model in the context-sensitive reinterpretation of discourse coherence of democracy as a concept, with a view to reinventing it in Nigeria.

Agbedo, is a Professor of Linguistics, University of Nigeria Nsukka, and a Public Affairs Analyst