Liberia Practises True Democracy, Why Can’t Nigeria?

By Olu Fasan

Nigerians are quick to react to events in other countries and draw parallels with realities at home. But, despite such inquisitiveness and international awareness, Nigeria never learns the right lessons from other nations. A case in point is Liberia’s recent presidential election.

Everyone hailed President George Weah for conceding defeat in a remarkably close election instead of using his incumbency to rig the election. Indeed, President Weah deserves kudos for conducting a credible election and allowing a peaceful transition of power. But here’s the main lesson: Liberia’s political system allows the will of the majority to prevail.

In the first round of the election on October 10, Weah secured 43.83 per cent of the total votes cast, while Joseph Boakai, his main opponent, scored 43.44 per cent. Weah beat Boakai by 7,126 votes. Under Nigeria’s First-Past-the-Post system, Weah would have been declared winner, and thus re-elected as president, since he had more votes than Boakai. But Liberia operates a majoritarian system under which a winning candidate must secure “more than 50 per cent” of the total valid votes. As result, Weah had to face Boakai in a runoff, which Boakai won on November 14 with 50.64 per cent, against Weah’s 49.36 per cent. 

Of course, the winning margin – 1.28 per cent – was extremely slim, but the runoff conferred legitimacy on the outcome because it reflected the will of the majority of the voters. In his concession speech, President Weah congratulated Boakai and said: “The Liberian people have spoken, and their choice will be honoured and obeyed.” Once elections are genuinely transparent, free, and fair and reflect the will of the majority of the electorate, all parties are likely to accept the adjudged results. But imagine if Weah was declared winner after that first round. He wouldn’t have been the choice of the majority of the electorate. Boakai would have rejected the outcome and felt cheated. Rightly so as he later won the runoff!

True democracy is based on a majoritarian rule, defined as the winner having more than half of the total valid votes cast. As a result, several countries, especially those that directly elect their presidents, operate the majoritarian system. Not only does the system ensure a strong mandate, but it’s also the best way to elect a president in an ethnically, regionally and religiously diverse nation. Generally speaking, the “50% plus rule” ensures that the winning candidate secures the support of a broad cross-section of voters rather than relying on narrow ethno-religious bases that deepen national faultlines and weaken the mandate and legitimacy of a First-Past-the-Post winner. 

Consider February’s presidential election. Of the 24mn total valid votes, Bola Tinubu won 8.8mn votes or 36.61 per cent. Judges of the Supreme Court and the Presidential Election Petition Court should dust off their English textbook and brush up their grammar. They held that Tinubu scored “the majority of lawful votes cast at the election”. How? The total lawful votes cast at the presidential election was 24mn: even a primary school pupil knows that 8.8mn is not the majority of 24mn! Based on INEC’s official results, Tinubu had more votes than each of his main rivals. He had 8.8mn votes (36.6%); Atiku Abubarkar had 7mn (29%); Peter Obi had 6mn (25%). So, Tinubu received a plurality of votes but not a majority!

Now, imagine what would have happened if Nigeria had a “more than 50 per cent rule” and February’s presidential election went into a runoff. Clearly, the eventual winner would have had to solicit and win support across ethnic, regional and religious boundaries, and the 2023 presidential election may not have been characterised, as it was, by deep ethnic, regional and religious polarisations. Furthermore, the eventual winner would have had a strong popular mandate having been elected by more than half of the electorate.

Last week, members of the National Assembly sang Tinubu’s campaign song – “Bola, on your mandate we shall stand!” – when he presented his 2024 budget to the legislators. It isn’t only the utter vulgarity of singing a campaign song, not the National Anthem, in the National Assembly that offends, but also the legislators’ lack of political intelligence. In a democracy, an electoral mandate can either be strong or weak, and both have consequences. How can someone who won 36.6 per cent of the popular vote – rejected by 63.4 per cent of voters – have a strong mandate to excite lawmakers? Tinubu is Nigeria’s president today based on a constitutional technicality not on a popular mandate. But anyone who has even a modicum of political wisdom knows that constitutional technicality alone does not confer legitimacy.

Dr Kayode Fayemi, former Ekiti State governor, recently said: “You can’t have 35 per cent of the vote and take 100 per cent. It won’t work.” He’s absolutely right. Yet, with 36.6 per cent of the vote, Tinubu has absolute power. He rules Nigeria with utter arrogance, treating it as his personal fiefdom. Indeed, he endorsed the imbecilic singing of his campaign song in the National Assembly. “Thank you very much,” he said after the servile rendition, redolent of  “Dear Leader” basking in the adulation of North Korea’s obsequious “legislators”!

Recently, former President Olusegun Obasanjo said: “Western liberal democracy has failed in Africa.” Well, the principles of liberal democracy should be separated from its form. The principles are universal and incontrovertible: rule of law, checks and balances, credible elections, free press, etc. But the form varies. For instance, some liberal democracies operate a presidential system, others a parliamentary or hybrid system; some practise federalism, others centralise power; some operate a First-Past-the-Post system, others proportional representation or majoritarian rule; et cetera, et cetera. So, each liberal democracy has a form that suits its nature. For instance, the US elects its president based on Electoral College, not popular vote, to protect smaller states and safeguard its federalism. 

But what liberal democracy structure best suits Nigeria? Can Nigeria have a president with untrammelled powers yet with a minority share of the popular vote? Can it have a “winner-take-all” system based on a minority rule or a weak mandate? Liberia’s majoritarian system is a product of its tortured history. But Nigeria’s Constitution ignores the country’s history and peculiarities. As I have said repeatedly in this column, Nigeria needs a new political and constitutional settlement. Nigeria needs restructuring. It faces a dire future without it! 

*Dr. Fasan is a commentator on public issues