Opinion

The Oracle: Democracy And Autocracy – The Missing Link (Pt. 4)

Published

5 years ago

July 30, 2021

Eric

By Chief Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

Last week, we saw that autocracy is not just a mere form of government, but one that conquers the mind, and subject the people to underlings and minions. The people are helpless against an autocrat, who dominates them with power and might. Today, we shall dissect this form of government in such a way and to show its limitation vis a vis democracy.

TYPES OF AUTOCRACY (continues)

In all this is hardly a selection process that will lead to the noble and just reaching ultimate control. Still there is no reason to believe that the winners have bad motives. They are unusually ambitious, but not necessarily wicked in any other respect. They are as likely to choose a government policy that will benefit those subjected to the dictatorship as is a democratically elected president. In both cases intelligence, energy, ambition, and a lack of too many scruples are necessary. Once he has achieved power the autocrat will realize that the higher officials in his government would like to replace him. They are the instruments that he must use in governing but they are also his rivals. Keeping the system balanced so that he makes use of their talents while preventing one of them from making use of him as a stepping stone to ultimate power for himself is a difficult task, and one which he must master if he is to stay in power. Of course any knowledge of the history of such autocracies will show that not all of them succeed in that task.

Normally such a dictator has the best interest of his country and his citizens in mind, but it must necessarily take second-place to protecting his power. In this sense he is like a democratic president. The president normally aims at the good of his country, but he normally is more concerned with winning the next election. The two objectives do not necessarily conflict, but when they do, the president is apt to give winning election priority. Similarly a dictator will give preventing a coup or revolution priority over simply benefiting his subjects.
One thing that should be kept in mind dealing with either hereditary or non-hereditary autocrats is that their attitude to what are commonly called public goods is radically different than that of the ordinary person. For them many public goods are actually private goods. An improved road can be regarded as a public good from the standpoint of the citizens or the economic analysis, but it may increase the wealth or security of the autocrat and hence is a private good from his standpoint. This is of course one of the reasons why autocrats in fact provide so much in the way of public goods.
This should not be oversimplified, however. The autocrat like a democratic politician is aware of the fact that the road will benefit the country as a whole but also special-interest groups in it. Thus like a democratic politician he selects the public goods in part in terms of what they will do in benefiting influential individuals and groups who may repay that benefit by support. It is doubtful that by simply examining the road network or other collections of government expenditures on public goods one would be able to tell whether the government was a dictatorship or a democracy. If the democracy is not particularly corrupt, one could tell by examining such things as the Swiss bank accounts of the “President.”

Examining the personal life of the ruler is usually one way of telling whether he is a president or dictator. The dictator has far more facilities to keep things secret than does an elected president. He can have a spectacular mistress or even a harem; palaces much more elaborate than the White House, and take long vacations without the public finding out about them. Of course if he wishes to stay in power he will find that leaving his government to take care of itself for any length of time is likely to lead to his being replaced by one of his high-ranking subordinates.

The Oriental myth in which the ruler sits under a bare sword supported only by a thread is not a bad description of the life of such an autocrat. Many autocrats, Stalin and Mao Sze Dung are examples, have died naturally. Many others have died either by assassination or as the result of a successful coup. Finding it necessary to retire and live on their illicit gains in some place safer than their own country is also quite common. Trying to arrange a peaceful succession followed by a luxurious retirement is difficult.

The conventional wisdom assumes that dictators provide bad government. In the earlier part of my life, particularly during the 1960s, however, the orthodoxy held that certain dictators; specifically Stalin and Mao Sze Dung provided very much better governments than capitalist democracies. Many intellectuals genuinely believed that Ho Chi Min would give a better government than would any elected alternative. Yet, all such favored autocrats were mass murderers and all of them favored an economic system which, if at the time was fashionable, is now realized to be seriously defective. Ho’s rivals in the South were victimized by street riots in the United States that eventually led successive American governments to abandon them. In the case of one of them, Diem, President Kennedy actually organized a coup to get rid of him. Altogether uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.

We now turn to the more common type autocracy, the hereditary monarchy. It should be kept in mind that hereditary monarchies, if more stable than dictatorships, are by no means free of risk. Most of the readers of this encyclopedia will be more familiar with English history than other monarchies, and, as it happens, the English throne was one of the least stable in Europe. It was decidedly uncommon in England for a great-grandson to succeed to the throne peacefully. Most monarchies have been able to pass on their power with less difficulty so that three generations after the founder are reasonably common.

The hereditary king is in personality and ability quite different from the man who was fought his way up the slippery pole to dictatorship. In the first place the accidents of human heredity mean that the son of extraordinarily capable and ambitious person may well be quite stupid and lazy. Louis XVI seems to have been not very much above a moron in intellectual ability. He used to fall asleep at cabinet meetings. Since the United States was given its independence by his support, I suppose we should refrain from criticisms, though he was quickly abandoned by Thomas Jefferson once his purpose had been served. From the standpoint of France, however, Louis XVI was a disaster.

Of course, some hereditary monarchs are of outstanding capacity. Alexander the Great is an excellent example. But on the average hereditary monarchs do not have intellectual or character capacity greater than that of the average citizen. Typically, they receive special training as children intended to prepare them for royal careers. Unfortunately, this special training may educate them in expensive and entertaining ways of spending leisure time as well as in how to govern. In some cases, in fact training in luxury takes full priority over training intended to increase the competence of the future monarch. All this is rather similar to the training of the only son of a wealthy and powerful man in an open society. Altogether the hereditary monarch is quite a different person from the dictator who has achieved power by competition. It is not obvious which of them is better from the standpoint of the average citizen.
“The Prince” is largely devoted to advice to a sovereign ruler on how to retain power. Napoleon liked to keep his generals quarreling. Machiaveli would surely have approved. Mussolini moved his higher officials around and put some of them out of government for lengthy periods. He called this “changing the guard”. Once again he would have met the approval of the author of “The Prince”. Indeed most rulers do rotate the armed men who provide physical security. In Stalin’s time the secret police officers who guarded him and his higher officials would not know where they were to serve on a given day nor with whom would they be serving. These two things were determined by random draws so that they could not conspire in advance to admit dangerous persons.
Precautions like these are more frequently encountered among non-hereditary autocracies than among hereditary monarchies. Nevertheless, crown prince’s have killed their fathers and dynasties have been overthrown. So, at least some precautions are always necessary. It is not obvious that the cost of guarding an autocrat is greater than the cost of guarding presidents and legislatures. Indeed it seems likely that the total cost in terms of office space, living space when that is provided, and guards in Washington is greater than the equivalent cost in Berlin during the Third Reich. The guards serve a different purpose of course. The president does not fear assassination by a senator but by a conspiracy of low ranking people. Nevertheless he requires guards and so do the Senators, Congressman, and high civil servants.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AUTOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY

The decision processes in democracies and in autocracies are quite different. In general, policy debates are conducted rather quietly in autocracies whereas they make a lot of noise in democracies. Further although autocrats sometimes tell their cabinet to vote on policies, the final decision is theirs. There is a myth that when Lincoln proposed the emancipation proclamation his cabinet all voted against. Lincoln then said, “Passed unanimously.” This is a myth but it does show the power that a central single person can have even in so-called democracies.

That the common man has little influence on policies in autocracies is normally regarded as a disadvantage of that form of government. There are, however, a number of cases in which democracies have been overthrown by autocrats with popular support. Both of the Napoleon’s carried off such an operation. So did Mussolini. Normally however autocracies are established by well entrenched and armed minorities that displace democracies by means of coups d’etat.
The view that democracy is better than autocracy is a current orthodoxy. There are cases where everyone favors the autocracy. The citizens of Rome and modern historians think that Augustus Caesar provides a better government than the late Republic. Gibbon lists the period of the adoptive emperors as the happiest time in the history of the human race. Not everyone is as enthusiastic, but it must be admitted that they gave very good government. One of them was also a philosopher of such importance that his work is still taught in modern universities.
There appear to have been three comparatively short periods in which democracy was common before modern times. It is not clear but it looks as if the first civilization, Sumer, had democratic aspects; but these were quickly extinguished. The second was a classical period of Greece Rome and Phoenicia. This ended when the Roman Republic conquered the bulk of the other democratic systems. It itself was replaced by emperors. The third case is a large collection of democratically governed city-states in the Middle Ages. Most but not all of these were replaced by 1600 or earlier. Altogether autocracies were the dominant to form of government until very recently. Whether they will continue to account for about half of all governments, or rise to complete dominance or fall back to a minority form of government is uncertain. I have my own preferences; but there is no evidence that these preferences will prevail. (To be continued).

FUN TIMES

There are two sides to every coin. Life itself contains not only the good, but also the bad and the ugly. Let us now explore these.
“Wife: In my dream, I saw you in a jewelry store and you bought me a diamond ring.
Husband: I had the same dream and I saw your dad paying the bill.” – Anonymous

“A girl realized that she had grown hair between her legs. She got worried and asked her mom about that hair. Her mom calmly said, that part where the hair has grown is called your monkey. Be proud that your monkey has grown hair. The girl smiled. At dinner, she told her sister, my monkey has grown hair. Her sister smiled and said, that’s nothing; mine is already eating bananas.”- Anna Fox

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Aside from the occasional genocide, evil and torture, etc., it is inarguable that public policy could be implemented more rapidly in an autocracy.” (David Harsanyi).

Opinion

A Vindicating Truth: A Factual Presentation on the Supreme Court’s Intervention in the ADC Leadership Matter

Published

2 days ago

May 4, 2026

Eric

By Comrade IG Wala

To All Nigerians, Party Stakeholders, and Lovers of Democracy,

In the life of every great political movement, there comes a moment where the noise of confusion meets the silence of the Law. For the African Democratic Congress (ADC), that moment arrived on April 30, 2026.

For months, the ADC was held in a state of judicial paralysis caused by a lower court order that froze the party’s activities. This order did not just affect a few leaders, it threatened to delete the ADC from the Nigerian political map and disenfranchise millions of supporters ahead of the 2027 General Elections.

Today, we present the facts of the Supreme Court’s intervention to ensure that every Nigerian, from the city centers to the grassroots, understands that Justice has spoken, and the ADC is alive.

The Three Pillars of the Supreme Court’s Ruling:

1. The End of Paralysis (The Status Quo Order)!

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Mohammed Garba, was clear and firm: the Court of Appeal’s order to maintain a “status quo” was improper and unwarranted. The apex court recognized that you cannot freeze a political party indefinitely without a trial. By setting this aside, the Supreme Court rescued the ADC from a leadership vacuum that was being used to justify de-recognition by INEC.

2. The Restoration of Administrative Legitimacy.

By nullifying the appellate court’s freeze, the Supreme Court effectively restored the David Mark-led National Working Committee to its rightful place. This means that for all official, administrative, and electoral purposes, the ADC now has a recognized head. The party is no longer a ship without a captain; the doors of the headquarters are open, and the party’s name remains firmly on the ballot.

3. The Order for a Fresh Trial on Merits.

True to the principles of fair hearing, the Supreme Court did not simply gift the party to one side. Instead, it ordered the case back to the Federal High Court for an accelerated hearing. This is a victory for the Truth. It means the court is not interested in technicalities or stopping the clock, it wants to see the evidence, read the Party Constitution, and deliver a final judgment based on the Right vs. Wrong.

Note: I will drop the 7 prayers made to Supreme Court by ADC in the comment section.

A Message to Our Members and Supporters.
To our members who have felt a sense of fear, apprehension, or a lack of confidence in the Nigerian courts, let your hearts be at peace.

It is a delusion to believe that gross injustice can simply walk through the doors of our highest courts unnoticed. This matter is currently one of the most publicized and people-centric cases in Nigeria. In such a bright spotlight, the Judiciary acts not just as a judge, but as a shield for the common man.

The Law is not a tool for the crafty, it is a searchlight for the Truth.
Inasmuch as they say the Law is blind, it sees with perfect clarity the difference between a lie and the truth, between right and wrong. The Supreme Court’s refusal to let the ADC be strangled by procedural delays is proof that the system works for those who stand on the side of justice.

Our confidence is not in personalities, but in the Process. We are returning to the Federal High Court not with fear, but with the armor of Truth.

The Handshake remains strong, the vision is clear, and our participation in the 2027 elections is now legally anchored.

Stand tall. The ADC has been tested by the fire of the courts, and we have emerged not just intact, but vindicated.

Signed,
Comrade, IG Wala.
02/04/26. — with Shareef Kamba and 14 others.

Opinion

The Police is Your Friend and Other Lies We No Longer Believe

Published

2 days ago

May 4, 2026

Eric

By Boma Lilian Braide (Esq.)

There was a time in Nigeria when the phrase The Police is Your Friend was not a national joke. It was a civic assurance, a symbolic handshake between the state and its citizens. It represented the ideal of a civil security architecture built on trust, service, and protection. Today, that once reassuring slogan has decayed into a bitter irony. It no longer evokes safety; it provokes fear. It no longer signals partnership; it signals danger. What should have been the soul of Nigerian civil state relations has become a cruel parody of our lived experience at checkpoints, stations, and on the streets.

The Nigerian security apparatus has undergone a transformation so profound that it now resembles a predatory machine rather than a protective institution. The sight of a police patrol vehicle, which should ordinarily bring comfort, now triggers anxiety. Citizens instinctively brace themselves, not for assistance, but for extortion, harassment, or violence. We are not merely witnessing isolated incidents of misconduct. We are watching a pattern of state enabled brutality unfold in real time, a pattern so consistent that it feels like a televised execution of the social contract. In this grim theatre, the Nigerian state often appears not as the protector but as the principal aggressor.

On Sunday, April 26th 2026, the quiet air of Effurun in Delta State was shattered by the crack of a service pistol. What should have been an ordinary Sunday afternoon became the final chapter in the life of twenty-eight year old Mene Ogidi. A viral video, barely two minutes long, captured the horrifying scene. Ogidi sat on the dusty ground, his hands tied behind him with a rope. He was unarmed, exhausted, and pleading in his mother tongue for a chance to explain himself. Standing over him was a man in plain clothes, a man sworn to protect the very life he was about to extinguish. Assistant Superintendent of Police Nuhu Usman raised his pistol and fired two shots at close range into the body of a restrained, helpless citizen.

This was not a confrontation. It was not a crossfire. It was not a struggle for a weapon. It was an execution. A daylight assassination carried out by a state paid officer who felt so insulated by impunity that he performed his violence in front of a digital audience. The collective outrage that followed was not simply about one death. It was the eruption of a nation that has watched this script repeat itself far too many times.

Barely days later, in Dei-Dei Abuja, another life was cut short. A National Youth Service Corps member was shot inside his father’s compound. Authorities described it as a mistake during a crossfire, but the silence that followed spoke louder than any official explanation. These tragedies are not anomalies. They are symptoms of a deep institutional rot, a rot that has turned the badge into a license for violence rather than a symbol of service.

Extrajudicial killings in Nigeria represent a direct assault on the fundamental right to life and the presumption of innocence. When a law enforcement officer assumes the roles of accuser, judge, and executioner, the very foundation of the state begins to crumble. In the case of Mene Ogidi, the Delta State Police Command admitted that the officer acted in gross violation of Force Order 237, the regulation governing the use of firearms. This admission is significant because it reveals that the problem is not the absence of rules. The problem is the collapse of discipline, the erosion of accountability, and the entrenchment of a culture of impunity.

Between 2020 and 2025, Nigerian security agencies were implicated in nearly six hundred violent incidents against civilians, resulting in more than eight hundred deaths. The Nigeria Police Force accounted for over half of these fatalities. These numbers paint a disturbing picture. The institutions funded by taxpayers to provide security have become one of the greatest threats to their safety.

The psychology behind this brutality is rooted in the absence of consequences. When officers believe that nothing will happen after they pull the trigger, the threshold for using lethal force drops to zero. In the Effurun case, reports suggest that the suspect was even transported to a station after the initial shooting, only to be shot again. This level of cruelty reflects a complete dehumanization of the citizenry. The victim is no longer seen as a person with rights. He becomes a disposable suspect. This mindset is a legacy of the defunct SARS unit, whose methods and mentality continue to shape policing culture. Rebranding SARS into SWAT or the Rapid Response Squad means nothing if the same men, trained in the same violent ethos, continue to operate with the same predatory instincts.

The Nigerian police system has evolved from a flawed institution into what many citizens now describe as a state sponsored cartel. The Zero Tolerance mantra often repeated by the Inspector General of Police, Olatunji Disu, has become a public relations slogan that evaporates at every checkpoint. The immediate dismissal and recommended prosecution of ASP Usman and his team may satisfy the public’s immediate hunger for justice, but it does not address the deeper institutional vacuum that allowed an officer to believe he could execute a restrained suspect without consequence. If accountability only occurs when a video goes viral, then we are not being policed. We are being hunted by a uniformed gang that is occasionally caught on camera.

This raises critical questions. Where were the superior officers? Where was the Area Commander while this culture of execution was taking root? Command responsibility in Nigeria remains a myth. Until a Commissioner of Police is removed for the actions of their subordinates, there will be no internal incentive to reform. The decay is structural. We are recruiting frustrated individuals, training them in aggression rather than professionalism, and unleashing them on a population they are conditioned to view with suspicion and contempt.

The mistake narrative used in the Abuja NYSC shooting reflects this tactical incompetence. A professional force does not mistake a youth corper in his bedroom for a combatant. Nigerians are effectively subsidising their own endangerment, paying for the bullets that cut down their brightest young citizens. A nation cannot survive this level of uniformed recklessness. The state has lost its monopoly on violence to its own agents. When police officers fear the citizen’s camera more than they respect the citizen’s life, the system has failed.

Five years after the historic 2020 End SARS protests, the systemic reforms promised by government remain largely unfulfilled. Only a handful of states have implemented the recommendations of the judicial panels or compensated victims. The National Human Rights Commission reported in July 2025 that it had received over three hundred thousand complaints of abuses. This staggering figure reflects the scale of the crisis. While the current Inspector General has introduced new regulations to align the Police Act of 2020 with operational realities, the gap between a gazetted document in Abuja and a patrol team in Delta remains vast.

The solution to this bloodletting must be radical and structural. First, police oversight must be decentralised. Relying on Force Headquarters in Abuja to discipline an officer in a remote community is inefficient and ineffective. Each state should have an independent, citizen led oversight board with the authority to recommend immediate suspension and prosecution without interference from the police hierarchy.

Second, Force Order 237 must be overhauled to strictly limit the use of firearms to situations where there is an immediate and verifiable threat to life. Under no circumstances should a restrained or surrendering suspect be shot.

Third, Nigeria must address the mental health and welfare of police officers. Men who live in dilapidated barracks, earn inadequate wages, and operate under constant stress are more likely to lash out at the public. However, poverty cannot be an excuse for murder. Welfare reform must go hand in hand with strict accountability.

Finally, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The trial of ASP Usman and others like him should be public, transparent, and swift. It must serve as a deterrent that resonates in every police station across the country. The era of secret disciplinary rooms must end. Nigeria must invest in technology driven policing, not only in weapons but in body cameras and digital accountability systems. When officers know they are being recorded, hesitation replaces recklessness.

A NATIONAL CALL TO ACTION

The era of Orderly Room secrecy must end. Nigeria must decentralise police disciplinary trials, moving them from closed sessions in Abuja to open, civilian led inquiries in the states where the abuses occur. A National Firearms Audit is urgently needed. Every officer must account for every round issued, and any missing ammunition should trigger automatic suspension for the entire chain of command.

The National Assembly must fast track the Victims of Police Brutality Trust Fund, ensuring that compensation becomes a legal right funded directly from the budgets of offending commands. Nigeria must stop being a nation of post script outrage. Command responsibility must become law. If an officer under a Commissioner’s watch executes a handcuffed suspect, that Commissioner must lose their job alongside the shooter.

The blood of Mene Ogidi and the NYSC member in Dei Dei is a stain on our national conscience. It is a reminder that as long as one Nigerian can be tied up and shot without trial, no Nigerian is truly safe. Silence is no longer an option. Waiting for the next viral video is no longer acceptable. The time to demand change is now.

Opinion

Kwankwaso-Obi Anti-Coalition Alliance and the Perception of the North

Published

3 days ago

May 3, 2026

Eric

By Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba

Let’s not sugarcoat it, what is unfolding is not just political maneuvering for 2027, but a carefully calculated roadmap to 2031. Anyone who believes Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso is acting out of patriotism or prioritizing Nigeria above his personal ambition is simply ignoring the pattern before us. His willingness to deputise Peter Obi is not born out of ideological alignment or national interest, it appears to be a strategic move aimed at one target weakening Atiku Abubakar and ensuring he does not emerge as president in 2027.

Kwankwaso’s real calculation seems anchored in 2031. He understands that as long as Atiku remains active and contesting, his own presidential ambition struggles to gain traction, especially in the North where Atiku’s influence remains deeply rooted. By positioning himself in a way that could undermine Atiku now, he potentially clears the path for himself later, when he can conveniently lean on the “it is the turn of the North” narrative with stronger moral leverage. This is not about helping Obi win, it is about ensuring Atiku is completely removed from the equation.

It is also important to state plainly that Kwankwaso is fully aware of his electoral limitations in this arrangement. He knows he cannot significantly attract Northern votes for Obi beyond a few pockets, even within Kano State. And even there, the good people of Kano are far more politically aware and discerning than to be swayed purely by sentiment. This makes the entire proposition even more questionable, if the electoral value is limited, then the intention behind the alliance becomes even clearer. It suggests that even if he joins an Obi ticket, it is not driven by a genuine commitment to Obi, the Igbo, the South-East or Nigeria but by a broader personal calculation.

Northerners must understand that this is a long game, and every move appears deliberately designed. Kwankwaso seems cautious not to overtly confirm growing suspicions that he is working, directly or indirectly, to the advantage of Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Yet, many are beginning to connect the dots. The belief that there is an underlying alignment is gaining ground, especially when actions repeatedly result in one outcome, a divided North that weakens its collective electoral strength, a repeatation of 2023 in a different style. The alignment of Kwankwaso’s political godson and the governor of Kano Abba Kabir Yusuf with Tinubu only fuels this perception, suggesting a dual-front approach: one operating directly and visibly, the other indirectly and subtly.

This is not the first time such a pattern is being observed. Many Northerners still recall similar dynamics from 2023, and recent developments have only intensified the conversation. In fact, within just the last 24 hours, the level of criticism and open dissatisfaction directed at Kwankwaso across Northern Nigeria has been unprecedented. What was once dismissed as mere suspicion of a quiet alliance is now, in the eyes of many, being confirmed by actions seen as disruptive to any meaningful coalition.

For Kwankwaso, this moment carries significant weight. The long-circulating “sellout” label, which many had hesitated to firmly attach, now appears to be finding a resting place in public discourse. Should he once again position himself outside a collective Northern arrangement, that perception may become permanently entrenched.

The implications for the North are serious. Voting Obi because of Kwankwaso, which is unlikely, could fracture an already consolidated political base, reduce its bargaining power, and ultimately produce outcomes that do not reflect its true strength. The North has never historically rejected a dominant figure like Atiku in favor of a subordinate position, nor has it embraced a configuration where its most established candidate is sidelined. The idea that the region would choose Kwankwaso as a deputy while overlooking Atiku as a president is not just improbable, it runs contrary to established Northern political behavior.

What is at stake goes beyond individual ambition. The North is fully conscious of the stakes and increasingly resolute in its direction. There is a growing determination to stand firmly behind its own Atiku Abubakar, to protect its collective political strength, and to resist any arrangement that appears designed to divide it. The signals are clear, the North has decided, and it will not fall into what many perceive as calculated traps, whether from Kwankwaso or from forces seen as working against its cohesion and democratic leverage….

Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba writes from Kano, and can be reached via drssbaba@yahoo.com