Donald Duke’s nostalgia about military rule

THERE is something striking about hearing a prominent member of Nigeria’s political class declare that Nigerians were better off under military rule. It is even more striking when the person making the statement is Mr Donald Duke, former governor of Cross River State and presidential candidate of the Peoples Redemption Party. Duke’s intervention, however, deserves more than outrage. Understood, his argument is less a recommendation of military government than an indictment of what Nigeria’s political leaders have made of democracy. But Duke himself should make it unmistakably clear.

His questions are legitimate. After 27 years of uninterrupted civilian rule, are Nigerians better educated? Is healthcare better? Is electricity more reliable? Are there enough productive jobs? Is the ordinary citizen more secure and prosperous? Duke’s answer is largely no. He argues that many of the problems Nigeria faced in 1999 remain unresolved, while some have worsened. These are questions Nigerian leaders should have been asking themselves long before Duke became a presidential candidate. The distress is difficult to deny. Millions of children remain out of school. Poverty is widespread. Healthcare is beyond the reach of many families. Electricity remains grossly inadequate, while unemployment, underemployment and insecurity diminish opportunities. When Duke asks whether Nigerian democracy has delivered enough to justify the hopes raised in 1999, the political establishment should answer the question rather than attack the messenger. But the comparison with military rule must be carefully demarcated.

Military dictatorship may appear cheaper partly because it abolishes or sidelines institutions democracy requires. There are no truly competitive elections or elected legislatures, and no obligation on those who seize power to obtain the people’s consent. Under military rule, constitutions were suspended, elected institutions dissolved, journalists detained, politicians imprisoned, and decrees used to override civil liberties. Nigerians should not allow today’s economic hardship to erase yesterday’s repression. Democracy has given Nigerians freedoms that should never be treated as minor achievements: the right to criticise the President, organise politically, challenge government in court, contest elections and periodically remove governments without soldiers appearing on television to suspend the Constitution. Nigeria has also enjoyed 27 years of uninterrupted civilian rule. In 2015, an incumbent President conceded defeat and power passed peacefully to the opposition. Yet it cannot become an excuse for democratic underperformance.

The existence of a National Assembly, courts, political parties and periodic elections does not automatically mean democracy is functioning well. Institutions must perform the purposes for which they were created. On this point, Duke’s criticism deserves attention. Nigeria’s elections suffer from a crisis of public confidence. When citizens believe votes do not matter, democracy loses more than turnout; it loses legitimacy. The legislature must be more than an institution that validates executive preferences, while the judiciary must command confidence in impartial justice. Duke’s reference to the speed with which the former national anthem was restored in 2024 also raises a fair question. Whether one supported or opposed the change is besides the point. Nigerians may reasonably wonder why some matters move through the legislative process with astonishing efficiency while reforms affecting electricity, education, healthcare, security and livelihoods remain unresolved for years.

READ ALSO: Nigerians better off under military rule, says Donald Duke

Still, Duke must also look into the mirror. He is not an outsider commenting on a political class to which he never belonged. He governed Cross River State from 1999 to 2007—eight of the 27 years whose democratic performance he now questions. Before that, he served on the National Economic Intelligence Committee during military rule. His experience gives weight to his criticism, but it also imposes responsibility. What could his generation have done differently? Why were stronger institutions not entrenched when they had the opportunity? What lessons has he learnt? There is also the matter of timing. Duke had raised governance concerns before, but he is now a presidential candidate. Nigerians are entitled to ask whether his intervention is statesmanship or partly electoral positioning. That does not invalidate his argument, but it makes clarity essential. He should state without ambiguity that he is not advocating a return to military rule. Nothing in his reported remarks necessarily amounts to such a call. His point appears to be that politicians have failed to make democracy meaningful in the lives of ordinary Nigerians. But in a region where military takeovers have reappeared, careless nostalgia can be dangerous. The answer to a poorly performing democracy is not military rule. It is a better-performing democracy.

Nigeria does not need another sterile argument over whether soldiers governed better than politicians. It needs serious introspection about why, after nearly three decades of civilian rule, electricity remains unreliable, schools inadequate, healthcare weak, insecurity persistent and productive opportunities insufficient for a rapidly growing population. Government must become more accountable. Elections must command greater confidence. The legislature must exercise oversight. The judiciary must inspire trust. The cost of governance must be reduced without reducing democracy. Political office must return to public service rather than a permanent occupation. Duke also recalled the warning that a time could come when the rich would not sleep because the poor had not eaten. The warning should not be dismissed. Hunger, inequality, unemployment and loss of faith in institutions are dangerous ingredients in any society. Time is running out for politicians who believe Nigerians can endure indefinitely without consequences.

Donald Duke has made an important intervention, even if his comparison is imperfect and his own record invites scrutiny. The response is neither to romanticise military rule nor pretend that civilian rule has performed well simply because soldiers are no longer in power. Democracy must be defended, but it must also deliver. Nigeria fought too hard to escape military rule to return to it. But its leaders must understand that the strongest defence of democracy is not another speech praising it. It is making democracy work for the people.