Democracy as a Prerequisite to Development: A Complex Relationship
By George Omagbemi Sylvester

The age-old debate on whether democracy is a prerequisite for development continues to divide political thinkers, economists, and development practitioners across the globe. While some argue that democratic governance is indispensable for meaningful and inclusive development, others point to the dramatic economic transformation of non-democratic states as evidence that democracy, though desirable, is not necessarily a precondition for prosperity. What is undeniable, however, is that the relationship between democracy and development is anything but linear—it is deeply complex, context-dependent, and riddled with contradictions.

The Case For Democracy as a Prerequisite to Development
1. Accountability and Transparency
At the heart of democratic governance is accountability. Elected leaders, conscious of the electorate’s power to remove them from office, are often compelled to act in the interest of the people. Transparency becomes not just an ideal but a necessity. Institutions such as the judiciary, legislature, press, and civil society act as watchdogs, exposing corruption and ensuring checks and balances.

As former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan once noted:

“Good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development.”

This is evident in nations like Finland, Canada, and New Zealand—consistently ranked among the least corrupt and most developed countries in the world. The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (2023) show a direct correlation between democratic accountability and control of corruption.

2. Protection of Human Rights
Democracy provides the institutional framework for safeguarding human rights, including civil liberties, freedom of speech, gender equality, and access to healthcare and education. These rights are not just moral imperatives; they are development accelerators.

Political philosopher Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate in Economics, argues:

“Development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom… the denial of political liberty, the neglect of public facilities, and the intolerance or overactivity of repressive states.”

In other words, democracy isn’t just a value; it’s a vehicle for human progress. Countries such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark—where democratic institutions ensure access to social services and rule of law—consistently top the Human Development Index.

3. Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Democracies tend to foster environments where innovation thrives. Freedom of thought, speech, and association—hallmarks of democratic systems—encourage creativity and entrepreneurship. Start-ups, think tanks, and civil society groups flourish in open societies where information flows freely and the rule of law is upheld.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel-winning economist, emphasized this dynamic:

“A vibrant civil society is necessary for economic development, and it is best supported by democratic institutions.”

The United States, with its open democratic environment, remains a hub of technological innovation. According to the Global Innovation Index 2023, democratic countries dominate the top ten, linking political freedom with innovative capacity.

4. Social Justice and Equality
Democracy, when functional, allows historically marginalized voices to be heard. Through electoral representation, legislative action, and judicial recourse, democracies work—however slowly—toward greater inclusion.

South Africa’s post-apartheid transition is a clear example. Nelson Mandela, in his inaugural speech, reminded the world:

“Let there be justice for all. Let there be peace for all. Let there be work, bread, water and salt for all.”

While the country still struggles with inequality, democracy has provided the tools for continuous reform and dialogue—a contrast to authoritarian regimes where dissent is often criminalized.

The Case Against Democracy as a Prerequisite to Development
1. Economic Growth Without Democracy
History is replete with examples of nations that achieved spectacular economic growth without democratic governance. The People’s Republic of China is perhaps the most cited. Since initiating economic reforms in 1978, China has lifted over 800 million people out of poverty, according to the World Bank.

Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father, famously stated:

“I do not believe that democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy.”

Singapore, under his leadership, transformed from a struggling port to one of the most efficient and developed economies globally—without full political liberalism.

2. Authoritarian Efficiency
Proponents of authoritarian development argue that such regimes can implement long-term policies without the disruptions of electoral politics. They can bypass political gridlock and enforce discipline in public administration.

This sentiment is echoed by political scientist Fareed Zakaria, who warned:

“Democracy is flourishing; liberty is not. Many democracies have become illiberal, where elections are held but civil liberties are absent.”

Authoritarian regimes often tout their efficiency, but that efficiency can come at the cost of liberty, human dignity, and sustainability.

3. Cultural and Historical Context
Not all societies are culturally or historically aligned with Western democratic values. Attempts to impose democratic structures on societies with complex traditional governance systems often yield chaos instead of order.

As African scholar Mahmood Mamdani puts it:
“Democratization without decolonization is a form of recolonization.”

Countries like Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan demonstrate how fragile and dangerous externally imposed democracy can be when not aligned with indigenous socio-political realities.

Democratic Successes and Authoritarian Exceptions
There is no shortage of success stories on either side of the divide. Norway, ranked first on the Human Development Index (UNDP 2023), exemplifies the best of democratic governance: transparency, prosperity, and equality. Its wealth, including oil revenue, is managed through one of the most transparent sovereign wealth funds globally.

Conversely, China’s economic miracle—despite its authoritarian political structure—cannot be dismissed. President Xi Jinping asserts that China’s model represents an alternative path:

“We have found a development path that suits China’s national conditions and reflects the will of the Chinese people.”

Still, authoritarian regimes often face hidden vulnerabilities. Venezuela, under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, squandered its oil wealth and plunged into hyperinflation and humanitarian crisis—proof that centralized control without accountability can be devastating.

Conclusion: Context Is King
To assert that democracy is always a prerequisite to development is to ignore the intricate and diverse pathways nations take. Yet to discard democracy as irrelevant is to flirt with the erosion of rights, freedoms, and dignity.

Democracy—when it works—is the best system for balancing growth with human freedom, equity, and justice. But it must be supported by strong institutions, civic culture, legal integrity, and responsible leadership.

In the words of former U.S. President Barack Obama:

“Development depends on good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places for far too long. That’s the change that can unlock Africa’s potential.”

In the final analysis, development requires more than roads and GDP growth. It requires justice, participation, and freedom. Whether under democratic rule or otherwise, what ultimately matters is whether power is used to serve the people—not oppress them.

Tensions Boil Over: Suspended Senator Natasha Accuses Akpabio of Assassination Plot—”A Desperate Cry for Help”

ABUJA — A political storm is raging in Nigeria’s upper legislative chamber as the suspended Senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has fired back at a petition by Senate President Godswill Akpabio, who accused her of criminal defamation and incitement.

Akpabio, in a petition dated April 3 to the Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, and copied to Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), claims the embattled senator falsely accused him of plotting her assassination—a charge he calls a “heinous lie” and a “deliberate attempt to incite unrest.”

The explosive allegation stems from Natasha’s comments made on April 1 in Kogi State, where she accused Akpabio of instructing former Governor Yahaya Bello to “eliminate her,” under the guise of an attack from her own constituents.

“This is not only a heinous lie but a reckless and deliberate attempt to damage my reputation, endanger my life and incite political unrest,” Akpabio wrote. “It’s a calculated act of blackmail and character assassination.”

But Natasha, through her legal counsel Victor Giwa, has responded firmly, insisting that her claims were not political theater, but a desperate cry for help.

“She has received the petition and responded. That statement wasn’t a political gimmick—it was a plea to the public,” said Giwa, who also condemned the Senate President for ordering the withdrawal of her security details after her suspension.

Giwa blasted the decision, calling it dangerous and irresponsible:

“You say she committed misconduct, fine. But what does that have to do with withdrawing her security? She’s still a politically exposed person. She has a life outside the Senate.”

The controversy has sparked fierce debate nationwide, as some view Natasha’s suspension and the subsequent petition as an attempt to muzzle a vocal critic of Senate leadership.

Meanwhile, a pro-Akpabio group, Movement for National Accommodation and Consensus for Continuity (MONACCO), has launched a nationwide sensitisation campaign aimed at defending Akpabio’s “jovial and misunderstood” character.

Speaking in Gusau, Zamfara State, MONACCO President Salisu Isah described Akpabio as a friendly leader whose casual demeanor is often misread—particularly by women.

“He’s a jovial man. Some people take advantage of his openness to paint him in a bad light,” said Isah, warning that public misinterpretations could be weaponized for political gain.

He drew comparisons to U.S. politics and past Nigerian political scandals, urging caution in speech by public figures. Still, he stopped short of directly absolving Akpabio, admitting:

“Careless talk can cost a life.”

Isah maintained that the Akpoti-Akpabio drama is a politically driven distraction meant to divide the Senate and mislead the public.

As MONACCO tours the country to boost Akpabio’s image, the legal and political fate of Senator Natasha hangs in the balance. With national attention locked on the case, questions continue to swirl:
Is this a case of whistleblowing—or a dangerous political game?

A Case for Peaceful Separation: Rethinking Nigeria’s Forced Unity

By George Omagbemi Sylvester

For over a century, Nigeria has struggled to hold together the patchwork quilt of nations stitched into a single entity by British colonial interests. Despite decades of independence, national identity remains elusive. Ethnic rivalries, regional marginalization, and economic imbalances continue to tear at the fragile fabric of this artificial federation. While many still advocate unity as a moral imperative, a growing number of Nigerians—both at home and in the diaspora—are beginning to explore an alternative path: peaceful separation.

Contrary to widespread fear-mongering, separation is not synonymous with war. History is replete with examples of nations that have dissolved their unions with dignity and peace. The United States split from Britain in 1776; Belgium separated from the Netherlands in 1830; Singapore parted ways with Malaysia in 1965 over ethnic and religious tensions; and in 1993, Czechoslovakia executed the “Velvet Divorce,” birthing the Czech Republic and Slovakia without a single drop of blood.

On the African continent, Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993, and South Sudan emerged from Sudan in 2011. Though not all secessions have been peaceful—Yugoslavia and parts of the former Soviet Union being cautionary tales—the possibility of a negotiated and dignified exit remains viable, especially for countries like Nigeria whose internal contradictions are too numerous and too persistent to ignore.

A Forced Union in Crisis

At the heart of Nigeria’s problem is the failure to evolve from a colonial configuration into a truly federal state. The so-called ethnic groups in Nigeria—Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw, Tiv, and others—are not mere “tribes,” as often mislabeled, but full-fledged nations in their own right. In Europe, these groups would be called what they are: distinct nations with different languages, cultures, worldviews, and aspirations.

What unites Nigeria today is not a shared vision but a centralized constitution imposed through military fiat and maintained by successive governments for political expediency. The result is an overburdened federal system where one region’s dominance is perceived—rightly or wrongly—as a source of systemic injustice. The cry for restructuring has been loud and long, but it is now giving way to a more definitive demand: peaceful separation.

Learning from the World

Across the globe, countries have restructured or separated in response to ethnic and economic realities. Norway and Sweden amicably separated in 1905. Iceland left Denmark in 1944. The Soviet Union disintegrated into multiple nations—Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, and others—based on ethnic lines. Even in modern-day Canada, Quebec retains a high level of autonomy with French as its official language, reflecting its cultural uniqueness.

Switzerland, often cited as a model multi-ethnic state, rotates its presidency annually among representatives of four major linguistic groups: German, French, Italian, and Romansh. Its federation is composed of cantons, each retaining significant autonomy. Nigeria, by contrast, continues to centralize power in a federal government that is neither representative nor responsive.

The Nigerian Paradox
Some still argue that all Nigeria needs is good leadership. But that ignores the structural imbalances hardwired into the country’s political architecture. Even the most competent leader will struggle under a system that rewards ethnic hegemony and punishes regional innovation.

Take the Southeast, for example. The five states—Anambra, Imo, Abia, Ebonyi, and Enugu—have a combined landmass of just 29,525 km², less than that of Kogi State alone (29,833 km²). Niger State, the largest in Nigeria, is bigger than the entire Southwest minus Lagos. Yet policy frameworks continue to treat all regions as though they are equally endowed and equally represented.

The same structural flaw affects economic planning. The so-called cattle colony debate reveals how absurd Nigeria’s policymaking has become. Despite not ranking among the top 20 global cattle producers, Nigeria insists on clinging to archaic methods like open grazing—resulting in violent clashes between farmers and herders. Meanwhile, countries like India, Brazil, and Australia—world leaders in cattle and beef exports—have long adopted modern ranching techniques.

According to global data:

India has over 300 million cattle.

Brazil follows with 226 million.

The USA and EU are also in the top five, with mechanized systems that prioritize productivity and safety.

Yet, in Nigeria, the cattle business has become not just a source of conflict, but a symbol of how far behind the nation is in adopting global best practices.

Separation as Development Catalyst
Separation, if well negotiated, can usher in a new era of healthy competition among Nigeria’s regions. Singapore, after its split from Malaysia, transformed itself into one of the world’s leading economies. Bangladesh, which broke away from Pakistan in 1971, has surpassed its former counterpart in several human development indicators.

What holds Nigeria back is not a lack of human or natural resources, but the illusion of unity under a flawed structure. The political elite preach unity not out of conviction but convenience. They benefit from a system that concentrates wealth and power in the center while denying states the autonomy to thrive or fail on their own merits.

A peaceful separation could enable each region to pursue its developmental vision without interference. The North, with its vast landmass, could become a hub for ranching and renewable energy. The South could focus on industrialization and technology. The East could pursue its vision of commerce and manufacturing. Rather than clashing over a failing center, each region could chart its own path.

The Path Forward
Nigeria must confront its truths. The forced amalgamation of 1914 was never about nation-building—it was about administrative convenience for the British Empire. That colonial logic no longer serves the aspirations of the people.

What is needed now is a national conversation—not driven by fear, but by courage. A conference where all ethnic nationalities, civil society groups, youth representatives, and diaspora voices can negotiate new terms of coexistence. Whether that leads to a restructured federation or an amicable separation, the goal should be justice, peace, and prosperity.

It is not enough to quote slogans like “One Nigeria.” Unity, like marriage, must be consensual. It must be renewed with shared values, mutual respect, and equitable governance. Otherwise, it becomes a prison rather than a partnership.

As the world evolves, Nigeria must evolve too. And if evolution means reconfiguration, then so be it. Let us give peace a chance—not just by tolerating each other under duress, but by honoring each other’s right to self-determination.