SELECTIVE BENCHMARKING AND THE BURDEN OF DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA.

Written by George Omagbemi Sylvester

“Why Our Collective Guilt, Loud Arguments, and Even Biases Are Not the Problem; but the Path to National Renewal.”

Nigeria is a country permanently trapped in argument. From insecurity to economic hardship, from electoral controversies to judicial contradictions, every major national event immediately fractures public opinion. Social media explodes, dinner tables become parliaments, and WhatsApp groups transform into ideological battlegrounds. To the casual observer, this constant disagreement may appear unhealthy, divisive, and unproductive. But beneath the noise lies an uncomfortable truth Nigerians rarely admit: WE ARE ALL GUILTY BUT YET OUR GUILT IS ONE OF THE STRONGEST PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY.

This phenomenon can best be described as selective benchmarking though the habit of judging national events through selective moral, political and emotional lenses depending on our political alignment, expectations, or disappointments. When something goes wrong in Nigeria, citizens almost always fall into three broad groups.

The first group blames the government outright. They see every failure as evidence of incompetence, corruption, or deliberate sabotage of the national interest. They highlight institutional collapse, leadership failure, and broken promises. This group is often dismissed as pessimistic, noisy, or anti-government. Yet paradoxically, this is the group that gives democracy its teeth. Without relentless criticism, governments drift easily into complacency or authoritarian comfort.

The second group defends the government. They argue that leadership is difficult, that inherited problems are complex and that institutions require time to mature. They emphasize effort over outcome, intention over impact. This group is equally demonized and often labeled as enablers or apologists. But they too are indispensable to democracy. As political philosopher Edmund Burke warned, “To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.” Defenders, rightly or wrongly, try to preserve belief in the state, preventing total collapse of public trust.

The third group is the smallest and most intellectually seductive. These are the analysts, the balanced voices, the “let us look at it from all sides” commentators. They interrogate context, history, data, and comparative global standards. They resist emotional outrage and partisan loyalty. On paper, they are the most reasonable. In practice, however, they often contribute less to democratic energy. Their neutrality, while intellectually admirable, rarely mobilizes citizens or pressures power. As political scientist Samuel Huntington noted, democracy is not sustained by consensus alone but by “INSTITUTIONALIZED CONFLICT.”

This is the uncomfortable irony of Nigeria’s democratic struggle: the so-called ‘bad groups’ are often more useful to democracy than the ‘good’ neutral observers.

DEMOCRACY IS NOT POLITENESS, IT IS CONTESTATION. One of the greatest misconceptions Nigerians hold is that democracy is about unity of opinion. It is not. Democracy thrives on disagreement, protest, opposition, and constant benchmarking of power against public expectations. According to Robert Dahl, one of the world’s foremost democratic theorists, democracy requires “continuous responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens.” That responsiveness is not activated by silence or neutrality but by pressure.

Nigeria’s problem, therefore, is not that citizens argue. The problem is how we argue.

Too often, selective benchmarking degenerates into tribalism, religious bias, and blind party loyalty. Government critics sometimes exaggerate failures, ignore progress, or frame every issue as ethnic conspiracy. Government defenders sometimes excuse the inexcusable, rationalize incompetence, or attack citizens instead of addressing facts. When benchmarking becomes tribal, democracy weakens. When it becomes evidence-based and goal-oriented, democracy matures.

As economist Amartya Sen argued, “Public reasoning is the backbone of democracy.” Public reasoning dies when facts are ignored and emotions weaponized.

WE ARE ALL GUILTY, AND THAT IS THE POINT. The honest confession Nigerians must make is simple: none of us is completely neutral. We all belong (consciously or unconsciously) to one of the first two groups. We criticize when our expectations are betrayed; we defend when our hopes are invested. Pretending otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

This collective guilt is not a moral failure. It is a democratic reality. In advanced democracies, citizens align with ideologies, parties, or policy preferences and argue fiercely. What separates functional democracies from failing ones is not the absence of bias but the presence of strong institutions, verifiable data and civic discipline.

Nigeria’s institutions remain fragile, which means public debate carries even more responsibility. When institutions are weak, citizens become the loudest checks on power. That is why silencing dissent, labeling critics as enemies, or banning platforms of expression is fundamentally anti-democratic.

As John Stuart Mill famously warned, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” Nigeria must learn to argue fiercely without dehumanizing one another.

SELECTIVE BENCHMARKING VS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Benchmarking itself is not evil. Selective benchmarking becomes dangerous only when it abandons national development as its ultimate goal. The moment insecurity, inflation, corruption, or unemployment becomes an opportunity to score party points rather than solve problems, democracy becomes performative.

Countries that developed did so amid intense internal criticism. South Africa’s post-apartheid democracy, India’s noisy parliamentary culture and even the United States polarized system all prove one thing: development does not require silence; it requires structured disagreement.

Nigeria needs critics who demand accountability and defenders who insist on stability, but both must be anchored on facts, not sentiments. As governance expert Francis Fukuyama emphasized, “Political order depends not just on state power but on legitimacy.” Legitimacy is earned through results, transparency and honest engagement with criticism.

A MESSAGE ACROSS PARTY LINES. This reflection cuts across all political parties whether ADC, LP, PDP, APC, and others. Democracy does not belong to one party or ideology. It belongs to citizens who argue, vote, protest, defend, critique and demand better.

You are not a bad citizen because you criticize government.

You are not a traitor because you defend government efforts.

You are not superior because you claim neutrality.

What matters is intent and method.

Avoid tribalism.

Avoid religious manipulation.

Avoid over-politicising national pain.

Let national development be the benchmark and not party survival.

TOWARDS A MORE INTELLIGENT DEMOCRATIC CULTURE. Nigeria’s future depends on transforming selective benchmarking into selective responsibility. Criticize with facts. Defend with evidence. Analyze with relevance. Democracy is not about being right; it is about being accountable to the collective good.

As Nelson Mandela once said, “A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy.” The same applies to citizens.

So yes, we are all guilty. Guilty of bias. Guilty of passion. Guilty of selective outrage. Though, if properly channeled, this guilt can become Nigeria’s democratic strength rather than its curse.

Happy New Year to all Nigerians; across SDP, NNPP, ADC, LP, PDP, APC and beyond. May our arguments build institutions, not burn bridges.