Peter B. Ogbobine Esq
1st July 2026
” Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” – by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address of 1863
In the make-believe world of Hollywood, a fictional African nation called Wakanda existed in the film “Black Panther”. Wakanda flourished under a stable monarchy until the death of its king triggered a succession struggle and political kerfuffle-. Its socio-political structure was essentially a form of enlightened feudalism, with authority concentrated in a traditional ruling class.
Moving from fiction to reality, there is little doubt that before the colonisation of Africa, many African societies enjoyed varying degrees of effective governance and social order.
Political scientists and historians generally identify two broad systems of governance that existed across the continent.
The first consisted of stateless or acephalous societies, which operated through village assemblies, councils of elders, clan heads, and other communal institutions. Decision-making was largely based on consultation and consensus rather than centralised authority. The second consisted of centralised kingdoms and empires such as the Oyo Kingdom and Kanem-Borno Empire in Nigeria, the Ashanti Kingdom in Ghana, and the Zulu Kingdom in South Africa.
These states possessed organised political structures, established systems of administration, and varying degrees of military and economic power – so effectively there was an organised structural governance in Africa.
The arrival of the colonial powers disrupted these indigenous systems. European colonial administrators introduced their own methods of governance, whether through direct rule, indirect rule, or policies of assimilation. Over time, Africans adjusted and adapted to these foreign structures.
Eventually, the colonial powers granted independence to their African territories, leaving Africans to manage their own political, economic, and social affairs. However, before independence, the colonial authorities had already introduced their religions and, at independence, bequeathed an absolute system of governance that was largely alien to traditional African political culture: democracy.
Democracy was famously defined by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address of 1863 as ” government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The phrase emphasises that political authority originates from the people, is exercised by their representatives, and is intended to serve the interests of the people.
This essay therefore seeks to examine how successfully African countries have implemented democracy since independence. Underlying this inquiry is a simple assumption: in the natural progression of life, a father expects his son to do better than he did. Put differently, have African nations improved upon what their colonial masters left behind, or have they merely inherited and preserved those structures without meaningful advancement or added value?
Since we are speaking of make-believe, let us consider a country that gained independence over three score and lustrum years ago after a long period of British indirect rule. The country’s name was reportedly coined by a British journalist who later became the wife of the big ”Oga” whose surname amusingly sounded as though he spent his days “looking” at the “guards”. The name was derived from a great river that flowed through the territory and the word “area.” it is safe to identify this country by its real name but for the sake of satire let’s assume that this country was also fictitious – in the mould of Wakanda – and is called “ AIREGIN ”.
Airegin will be our case study to analyse the performance of African countries in the practice of democracy.
Airegin has navigated a volatile history, oscillating between democracy and military dictatorships since independence. The implementation of democracy in Airegin has followed a two-fold process: the Westminster parliamentary system at the onset of independence and the American-style presidential system presently. Its institutions consist of the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary—each independent but complementary.
While its constitutional architecture appears robust on paper, the substance of these institutions seems to have been lost in implementation.
At its core, democracy is far more than elections or the presence of institutions. It is founded on citizens freedom to choose their leaders, accountability of institutions, equality before the law, protection of fundamental rights and management of public resources for the common good. On paper, Airegin appears exemplary – citizens vote, legislators’ debate, courts adjudicate, and governments are sworn in through constitutional processes. These principles are enshrined in Airegin’s constitutional architecture.
However, as these principles become weakened, Aireginians have begun to question whether democracy survives only in form whilst devoid of all substance. In fact, many Aireginians joke that because of the egregious bastardisation of these principles, what exists in practice today in Airegin is not democracy but “demoncracy.”
“Demoncracy” is not a recognised concept in political science but a satirical description of a system that retains democratic forms while discarding democratic substance. Under “demoncracy,” elections become costly rituals dominated by godfathers, moneybags, and political merchants. Public office becomes an avenue for prebendalism. Poverty persists amidst abundance, insecurity thrives despite massive security budgets, and corruption grows disturbingly sophisticated.
Airegin fits this caricature: richly endowed with human and natural resources, yet crippled by poor infrastructure, mass unemployment, insecurity, educational decline, and failing healthcare. The gap between rhetoric during election campaigns and reality in governance after elections gives the perception that democracy has been hijacked by malevolent spirits – juju, necromancers, demons, mami water, etc. – with impunity, hence the cynical label: “demoncracy.” These evil mediums are the spiritual heart of demoncracy: it is not merely that governance fails, but that the failure is sustained by the very institutions designed to prevent it.
But even demoncracy may not fully capture the Airegin experience. There is a third category that Aireginians have coined as “dem-all-crazy.” If democracy is the ideal and demoncracy is the perversion, then dem-all-crazy is the collective, chaotic aberration where governance devolves into a free-for-all. It captures Fela Kuti’s (famous afrobeat musician from neighbouring Nigeria) popular phrase from his 1986 album Teacher Don’t Teach Me Nonsense: a ” demonstration of craze” (“Demo-crazy”)—where the entire political system descends into madness. Under dem-all-crazy, the principle that governance must serve all the people is twisted into a daily reality of ” chop-I-chop ” or ” dog-eat-dog ,” or “ workchop ” mentality ( where-I-dey-work-naim-I-go -chop ) all in local colloquialism. Fela mocked a society where irrationality had become respectable and where people mistook collective insanity for normal behaviour. In much the same way dem-all-crazy describes a political culture in Airegin where every Aireginian condemns the system whilst simultaneously helping to sustain it.
Politicians buy votes because voters sell them. Aireginians condemn corruption yet celebrate corrupt politicians who spray money at weddings and funerals. Political parties ignore ideology but revel in opportunism. Ethnic and religious loyalties frequently override competence and national interest. Government blames citizens, while citizens blame government. In blaming government citizens forget the inaugural address of John F. Kennedy, delivered on January 20, 1961:
” And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country” . And in blaming citizens government ignore the social contract of providing and protecting citizens democratic rights – dysfunctionality.
Absurdities become normal. Voltaire says “ anyone who makes you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” – Aireginians have become so accustomed to absurd govenance that many now devise ingenious ways of circumventing lawful procedures simply to obtain their own share of the national cake. For instance, a politician defects from one party to another and instantly becomes a hero to his new supporters despite having the same character and record. A retired army general drives against traffic and says “ do-you-know who-I-am, when stopped” . Citizens demand accountability from opponents while excusing misconduct by their own ethnic, regional, or religious champions. Elections become contests not of ideas but of identities.
The difference between these three concepts is therefore significant. Democracy seeks the public good through accountable governance. Demoncracy represents the corruption of democratic ideals by selfish elites. Dem-all-crazy goes a step further, suggesting a collective societal breakdown in which leaders and followers alike become participants in the dysfunction.
Based on the above, therefore, when evaluating whether Airegin has successfully improved upon the democratic process inherited at independence, the evidence suggests a stagnation of substance. While the nation has expanded the procedural mechanics of democracy—such as elections and a wider array of political parties—it has failed to deepen the ethical and institutional foundations required for true governance. Rather than evolving the colonial model into a more responsive, indigenous-centered system, Airegin has instead trapped itself in a cycle of “demoncracy” and “dem-all-crazy.” The colonial “father” may have left a rigid structure, but the “son” has yet to infuse it with the transformative values necessary to make it flourish.
Consequently, as Airegin goes through the mix of trinity citizens should objectively consider which is more beneficial for them as an advancement of what their father left them. Such consideration requires a national transformation of attitudes, incentives, and values . Until then, many Aireginians will continue to live in a political system that is democratic in theory, demoncratic in operation, and, on some days, in the seemingly dem-all-crazy in its consequences. Good luck!
Modokpe
aka Yesuo
pbbine@gmail.com
