The theme of the Goodluck Jonathan Foundation Dialogue in Bauchi this Month — “Beyond elections: Can political parties and the judiciary save African democracy?” — is not merely a subject for intellectual debate. It is a question that speaks directly to the condition of democracy in Nigeria and across Africa, and one that deserves a candid examination. At a time when democratic institutions on the continent are facing growing public distrust, political parties are struggling with internal contradictions, and citizens are becoming increasingly skeptical about whether elections can deliver meaningful change, we must ask ourselves a more fundamental question as to what happens to democracy after the votes have been counted?
By Shu’aibu Usman Leman
The theme of the Goodluck Jonathan Foundation Dialogue in Bauchi this Month — “Beyond elections: Can political parties and the judiciary save African democracy?” — is not merely a subject for intellectual debate. It is a question that speaks directly to the condition of democracy in Nigeria and across Africa, and one that deserves a candid examination. At a time when democratic institutions on the continent are facing growing public distrust, political parties are struggling with internal contradictions, and citizens are becoming increasingly skeptical about whether elections can deliver meaningful change, we must ask ourselves a more fundamental question as to what happens to democracy after the votes have been counted?
For too long, our understanding of democracy has been reduced to elections. We register voters, conduct campaigns, cast ballots, announce results and, where disputes arise, approach the courts. We then congratulate ourselves for having sustained democracy. But democracy is much larger than the electoral process. Elections are undoubtedly its most visible feature, but they are only one component of a much wider system of governance founded on constitutionalism, accountability, respect for fundamental rights, institutional independence and the peaceful management of political differences. The real measure of a democracy is not simply how leaders emerge, but how they govern once they have emerged, how institutions constrain their power and how citizens are treated when they disagree with those in authority.
From my perspective, the real test of democracy begins the morning after an election. During campaigns, almost every politician speaks the language of democracy. Candidates promise to respect the rule of law, protect citizens’ rights and strengthen institutions. But the true test comes when the campaign is over and the responsibilities of governance begin. Can the victor tolerate criticism? Can the opposition accept defeat without resorting to violence? Can institutions operate independently when their decisions become inconvenient to those in power? Can journalists report freely without intimidation? Can citizens question government without being labelled enemies of the state? These are the questions that reveal whether democracy is genuinely taking root or merely being periodically rehearsed.
READ ALSO:
Osun governorship poll as proxy war for 2027
Political parties must occupy the centre of this conversation because they are the principal vehicles through which political power is contested and transferred. Unfortunately, many of our political parties remain more personality-driven than institution-driven. Internal democracy is frequently compromised by money, influence and political patronage. Candidate selection can become a struggle between powerful interests rather than an exercise in choosing the most capable representatives. Party members may be consulted only when their votes are needed, while important decisions are taken by a small circle of influential individuals. This weakens democracy at its foundation.
We cannot build democratic societies through political parties that do not practice democracy internally. If a party cannot accommodate disagreement among its members, it is unlikely to tolerate opposition when it controls government. If its internal processes are opaque, it will struggle to promote transparency in public administration. If political loyalty is valued above competence and principle, public service will inevitably become vulnerable to patronage. Our political parties must therefore look inward and reform themselves. They must become institutions where ideas compete, members have a voice, leadership is accountable and political ambition is subordinated to public interest.
There is also a need for political parties to rediscover the purpose of politics. Politics should not simply be a route to political office, access to public resources or personal influence. A political party should be able to tell citizens what it believes, what policies it proposes and how those policies will improve their lives. When political parties become indistinguishable from one another except for the personalities leading them, elections become little more than contests over who controls the machinery of government. That is not the kind of democracy our continent needs.
The judiciary is equally central to this debate. In every functioning democracy, the courts must serve as an important safeguard against the abuse of power. When elections are disputed, when constitutional boundaries are crossed or when citizens’ rights are violated, the judiciary must be able to act without fear or favour. Judicial independence, therefore, is not an abstract legal principle. It is one of the foundations upon which public confidence in democracy rests.
But judicial independence must be matched by judicial integrity. The judiciary must not only be independent; it must be seen to be fair, consistent and courageous. Judges must have the freedom to make decisions based on law rather than political pressure, while the judiciary itself must remain conscious of the enormous confidence that citizens place in it. Once people begin to believe that justice depends on political connections, wealth or influence, the damage goes far beyond the courts. It weakens faith in the entire democratic project.
At the same time, we should resist the temptation to expect the judiciary to solve every political problem. Courts cannot replace political leadership, functioning legislatures, credible electoral institutions or responsible political parties. Nor should every political disagreement become a judicial contest. There are questions that belong in the political arena and should be resolved through dialogue, negotiation and democratic engagement. The courts must remain the guardians of the constitution and the rule of law, but politicians must accept responsibility for the political choices they make.
Perhaps the greatest challenge before us is our tendency to treat elections as the beginning and end of democratic participation. We pay enormous attention to election day but comparatively little attention to the years between elections. Yet it is during those years that citizens experience the consequences of political decisions. It is during those years that parliament must scrutinize government, the media must ask difficult questions, civil society must demand accountability and citizens must be able to challenge policies without fear.
As a journalist, I consider this particularly important. A democracy cannot be healthy if journalists are expected to report only what those in power want the public to hear. The freedom of the press is not a privilege granted by government; it is an essential part of the public’s right to know. Where journalists are intimidated, harassed or prevented from asking legitimate questions, citizens are denied the information they need to make informed political choices. A democratic society must therefore protect journalism, even when the questions asked by journalists are uncomfortable for those in authority.
The same principle applies to citizens, generally. Democracy must be more than the right to vote. It must include the right to speak, organise, criticise, associate and participate in public affairs. If citizens can vote but cannot freely question their government, then something fundamental is missing from the democratic equation.
The growing frustration among young Africans should therefore concern all of us. It would be simplistic to conclude that young people are rejecting democracy. In many cases, they are rejecting the failure of democratic institutions to meet legitimate expectations. They want jobs, security, justice, accountable government and a political system in which their voices matter. They want institutions that work and leaders who understand that public office is a responsibility, not an entitlement.
We must listen to them.
The answer to democratic disappointment cannot be less democracy. It must be better and deeper democracy. That means strengthening institutions, improving political parties, protecting fundamental freedoms, investing in civic education and making public officials genuinely accountable for their actions.
Perhaps the simplest test of democratic maturity is how political actors behave when they lose. We often celebrate the ability of politicians to win elections, but the willingness to accept defeat may be an even greater indication of democratic maturity. A politician who loses should be able to challenge genuine grievances through lawful channels and, once the process is exhausted, accept the outcome. Similarly, those who win must understand that an electoral victory does not give them permanent ownership of the state. It gives them a temporary mandate to govern within the constitution.
This is where political leadership becomes decisive. The rules that protect an opposition politician today may be the same rules that protect a government politician tomorrow. The institutions we weaken for our opponents may eventually be the institutions we need to protect ourselves. Every political actor should therefore be careful not to destroy the democratic safeguards simply because they are inconvenient at a particular moment.
So, can political parties and the judiciary save African democracy?
My answer is that they can help to preserve and strengthen it, but neither can do it alone. Democracy is sustained by an ecosystem of institutions and citizens. Political parties must become genuinely democratic. The judiciary must remain independent and credible. Electoral institutions must command confidence. Legislatures must exercise meaningful oversight. The media must be free to scrutinise power. Civil society must remain vigilant. And citizens must recognise that democracy requires participation beyond the ballot box.
The challenge before Africa is not simply how to conduct better elections. It is how to build a political culture in which democratic values survive the pressures of political competition and the temptations of power. We must create a system where institutions are stronger than individuals, where constitutional limits are respected by those in office, where opposition is regarded as legitimate rather than treasonous, and where losing an election does not mean the end of one’s political life.
The Bauchi dialogue is therefore an opportunity to widen the conversation. We should stop asking only whether an election was free and fair and begin asking whether the institutions that operate between elections are free, fair and accountable. We should ask whether political parties are democratic, whether courts are trusted, whether journalists can work without fear, whether citizens can challenge government peacefully and whether those in power are prepared to submit themselves to the same rules they expect others to obey.
For me, that is what “Beyond elections” truly means.
The ballot box gives citizens the opportunity to choose their leaders, but what happens after the ballot determines the quality of the democracy they experience. Elections may transfer political power, but strong institutions, responsible leadership, an independent judiciary, credible political parties, a free press and active citizens are what make that power accountable.
Africa does not merely need more elections. It needs a democratic culture that endures every day between them.
And if we are serious about preserving democracy for future generations, that is the work we must begin — and continue — long after the ballot boxes have been packed away.
