ACROSS Africa’s contemporary political landscape, democracy is not collapsing through military coups alone; in many places, it is being gradually reshaped from within. Increasingly, scholars and observers have noted that the most serious threats to democracy today come not from overt authoritarianism but from the manipulation of state institutions by those in power. In other words, elections still occur, constitutions are maintained, and democratic language is invoked – but the instruments of the state, such as security agencies, electoral commissions, and anti-corruption bodies, are deployed selectively to weaken political competition. This phenomenon has raised concerns across several African countries and has generated anxiety in Nigeria, where democratic consolidation is still a work in progress.
Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in their seminal work How Democracies Die, argue that modern democratic erosion often occurs through legal and institutional channels rather than violent overthrow. Governments may manipulate the electoral process, co-opt institutions, or deploy regulatory bodies to disadvantage opponents—all while maintaining the outward forms of democracy. Larry Diamond similarly describes this trend as “democratic recession,” noting that the decline of institutional impartiality, shrinking opposition space, and weakened civil liberties often precede overt authoritarianism. African political analysts such as Claude Ake have also stressed that democracy on the continent must move beyond procedural elections to substantive governance and citizen participation. Without institutional neutrality, elections risk becoming rituals that legitimize power rather than mechanisms that distribute it competitively.
Nigeria occupies a particularly important place in this discussion. Since the transition from military rule in 1999, Nigeria has made significant strides in democratic consolidation. Competitive elections, vibrant civil society, and a relatively independent press distinguish it from several peers. Yet the potential for regression exists. Allegations that ruling parties seek to weaken opposition through inducements, defections, or selective deployment of security agencies echo patterns seen elsewhere in Africa. Political observers warn that even the perception of institutional bias can erode public confidence, especially among youth and first-time voters, whose engagement is critical to sustaining democratic norms.
Several recent electoral experiences in Africa illustrate the relevance of these observations. In Tanzania, the 2025 general elections unfolded in an environment that observers described as heavily restrictive. Key opposition figures faced legal and administrative challenges prior to the polls, limiting their ability to campaign effectively. The ruling party secured an overwhelming victory, with President Samia Suluhu Hassan winning by a margin widely criticized as implausibly high. Following the election, protests erupted in major cities and were met with a forceful crackdown by security agencies. International observers and human rights groups reported multiple arrests, restrictions on movement, and intimidation of activists. These events demonstrate how electoral manipulation and the selective use of security forces can transform what should be competitive contests into symbolic exercises of power. For Nigeria, such developments are particularly alarming, as they illustrate how the fusion of state authority with partisan interest can produce outcomes that are technically legal yet politically coercive.
ALSO READ: OUT OF THE WOODS? NO, MR PRESIDENT, WE ARE BURNING IN THEM!
In Uganda, the pattern is even more entrenched. President Yoweri Museveni’s extended tenure has repeatedly coincided with the suppression of opposition voices, particularly during electoral periods. Prominent opposition leaders, such as Robert Kyagulanyi (Bobi Wine), have reported arrests, harassment, and restrictions on rallies, while independent media covering these events have faced intimidation. Scholars of African politics often describe Uganda as a case of “electoral authoritarianism,” a system in which elections occur but the playing field is so uneven that competition is largely symbolic. Political theorist Andreas Schedler argues that such systems maintain the veneer of democracy while eroding its substantive meaning. For Nigeria, a country with a vibrant civil society and history of competitive elections, the Ugandan example serves as a cautionary tale of what can happen if institutions are perceived to favor incumbents.
Kenya provides a slightly different but equally instructive case. In the 2022 general election, opposition leader Raila Odinga challenged the declared victory of William Ruto at the Supreme Court, alleging irregularities in the tallying process. Four of the seven electoral commissioners dissented, creating a public perception of institutional bias. Although Kenya did not witness large-scale suppression or arrests of opposition figures, the dispute highlighted how fragile public trust can become when state institutions appear divided or politicized. Scholars such as Nic Cheeseman have noted that even procedural disputes over transparency can generate lasting political tension, especially when citizens perceive that democratic rules are applied selectively. In Nigeria, the lesson is clear: maintaining institutional credibility is as crucial to democracy as the act of voting itself.
ALSO READ: The Middle Belt: A Conflictual Arena For The Nigerian Left; By Aminu Habibu Jahun
In Togo, elections are often conducted under conditions of heavy security presence and limited political freedoms for opposition parties. Voters frequently report fear and skepticism, perceiving that outcomes are predetermined. While arrests may be less frequent, the environment constrains meaningful participation, creating a form of passive suppression. Political scientists have highlighted that such constrained electoral environments can gradually erode citizen engagement, reducing democracy not through overt repression but through systemic discouragement. Nigeria, with its large youth population and historically high electoral enthusiasm, risks similar erosion if citizens begin to perceive that political competition is merely symbolic.
For Nigeria, the path forward is clear: political competition must remain substantive, opposition voices must be protected, and state power must serve the constitution rather than individual parties. If victory is achieved through persuasion, policy, and tangible service delivery, democracy deepens. If it is perceived to be secured through coercion, inducement, or institutional manipulation, public trust erodes and the democratic experiment weakens. Africa’s future, and Nigeria’s in particular, hinges on this choice.
Cameroon offers yet another cautionary example. Following the 2025 presidential election, widespread protests erupted in response to perceived irregularities and the dominance of the incumbent, Paul Biya. Security forces responded forcefully, dispersing demonstrations and arresting activists. Scholars have observed that such post-election crackdowns undermine trust in democratic institutions even when the voting process itself has been formally conducted. For Nigerian policymakers, the Cameroonian experience underscores that democracy is not only about the mechanics of voting—it is also about how dissent is treated and whether citizens feel free to express political disagreement without fear.
ALSO READ: Programmed Withdrawal Or Annuity? A Legal Perspective; By Ivo Takor
Taken together, these examples highlight a troubling pattern: when ruling parties rely on state mechanisms—particularly security agencies—to neutralize opposition, democracy becomes procedural rather than substantive. The consolidation of power through coercion, intimidation, or institutional manipulation may produce short-term political advantage, but it weakens long-term legitimacy and stability. As political theorist Larry Diamond emphasizes, robust democracy requires not only free and fair elections but also accountability, institutional independence, and protection of opposition rights.
Nigeria occupies a particularly important place in this discussion. Since the transition from military rule in 1999, Nigeria has made significant strides in democratic consolidation. Competitive elections, vibrant civil society, and a relatively independent press distinguish it from several peers. Yet the potential for regression exists. Allegations that ruling parties seek to weaken opposition through inducements, defections, or selective deployment of security agencies echo patterns seen elsewhere in Africa. Political observers warn that even the perception of institutional bias can erode public confidence, especially among youth and first-time voters, whose engagement is critical to sustaining democratic norms.
The stakes are high. Democratic theory emphasizes that incumbency advantage should derive from governance performance: economic management, infrastructure, social welfare, and public accountability.
ALSO READ: Exodus To Benin Republic: When A Country Abandons Its Citizens; By Zainab Suleiman Okino
Middle Belt’s Pull-out Advocacy And The Neoliberal Plunder Of The Nation; By Aminu Habibu Jahun
Governments that deliver tangible improvements earn legitimacy and popular support. Conversely, when opposition parties are fragmented, arrested, or intimidated—or when anti-corruption and security agencies are perceived as partisan—the social contract between the state and citizens is undermined. Nigerian scholars, including Rotimi Suberu, have argued that electoral democracy without institutional fairness risks producing “pseudo-democracy,” where the form exists but the substance is hollow.
African intellectuals such as Claude Ake, Chuka Onwumechili, and Eghosa Osaghae have long emphasized that democracy must be built on pluralism, tolerance, and equitable access to power. When incumbents manipulate institutions to consolidate dominance, they undermine not only the immediate election but the long-term credibility of governance structures. Ake, for instance, argued that African democracy must be judged not solely by elections, but by how governments engage with dissent, enforce rights, and maintain institutional neutrality.
ALSO READ: The New Industrial Policy: The Cart Cannot Drive The Horse; By Abadom Lawrence Amechi
So Shall It Be, Renewed Hope Without End; By Owei Lakemfa
The consequences of ignoring these lessons are visible across the continent. From Tanzania to Uganda, Kenya to Cameroon, and Togo, the use of state instruments for partisan advantage has created cycles of mistrust, protest, and instability. Citizens lose confidence in the integrity of elections, opposition parties become fragmented, and political discourse is increasingly securitized rather than democratic. For Nigeria, with its large, politically active youth population, the risk is that democratic erosion could begin subtly, through perceptions of unfair advantage, defections under pressure, and selective enforcement of laws.
Ultimately, the health of African democracies, including Nigeria, will depend on the independence of state institutions and the willingness of political leaders to prioritize governance over coercion. Democracies rarely collapse overnight; they often erode incrementally, as political actors substitute performance with pressure and intimidation. Scholars consistently highlight that sustainable democracy requires not only competitive elections but also a level playing field, respect for civil liberties, and institutional neutrality.
For Nigeria, the path forward is clear: political competition must remain substantive, opposition voices must be protected, and state power must serve the constitution rather than individual parties. If victory is achieved through persuasion, policy, and tangible service delivery, democracy deepens. If it is perceived to be secured through coercion, inducement, or institutional manipulation, public trust erodes and the democratic experiment weakens. Africa’s future, and Nigeria’s in particular, hinges on this choice.
Comrade Danlami popularly known as Baba Lawan writes from Haliru Umar Street, Dorayi Karamar Unguwar Yamma, Gwale LGA, Kano State, Nigeria. He can be reached via email: lawanmusa363@gmail.com
