“Society ought to practice the form of government which is best suited to its state in general. Political writers are often unpractical, although they have excellent ideas. But we should consider, not only what form of government is best, but also what is possible and what is easily attainable by all” (Aristotle,322 BC).

There are some who would agree on no other form of government but the most perfect; for this they say is Democracy! Without any reservations, I agree with this too. But democracy does not come without some natural shortcomings, and can only work better with time, especially when combined with strong national values, ideas and
philosophy.

Here is an example of shortfall in a democracy: 109 senators are sitting in a House. 90 of them are thieves. One of them proposes a new law making it legal to share monies (under certain circumstances of course). The 90 Senators vote yea. What happens next is “democracy” in action.

Over the years, our politicians have always made us to believe that democracy alone is the recipe to cure all evils in our society. Despite being relatively better than other forms of governance, pure “democracy” is rule by majority. In effect, it is mob rule. And most times, if the majority is thievery, as in Nigeria, it is Kleptocracy, not Democracy!

Democracy is not universal as the love of democracy may stem from values in a culture that other cultures might not share. Therefore there is need for a people to qualify the concept of democracy and apply it’s fundamentals with necessary modifications.

Despite making no claim to be a democacy in the Western sense, the Iranian government is quite democratic compared to other governments in its region. Its democratic government was designed with strong theocratic elements (Khamenei as The Spiritual Leader). Also, The Vatican City is a theocratic democracy; the Pope is a cleric first, and a political leader. Therefore this might represent various adaptation of democracy.

There is also a model called “Benevolent Dictatorial Democracy”. Although I first heard about this from my lecturer then at National Open University, this concept have long been identified as potentially good system of democratic experience especially for undeveloped African nations. I have equally checked into Google and was amazed how many Nigerians have expresssed this idea as a good recipe for Nigeria. From a foremost entertainer and activist, Charlie Boy, to a group of Nigerian intellects in diaspora.

Benevolence is simply the desire to do good to others; an act of kindness, while dictatorship is a form of government where a country is ruled by one person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure the entity’s power remains strong.

Nigeria as a country is not like other Nations; it is one of most undisciplined nations in the world. There is no need to overlabour on this point. But it seems her situations have been worsened by the last government’s ‘goat and yam’ and ‘stealing is not corruption’ mentality and ideology.

The inefficiency, outright absence from or dereliction of duty and or conspiracy of certain government agencies like the National Orientation Agency (NOA) and similar agencies should not even preoccupy our time here.

The concept of a benevolent dictatorship is, in most cases, a good model for business. The world has a bad view of the word dictator fuelled by power-hungry lunatics like Hitler, Saddam and Gadaffi. These ‘dictators’ were not benevolent, or respected, and their actions were based purely on self-interest and that is never good.

Benevolent dictators, on the other hand, do the right thing- they grudgingly accept the responsibilities that ultimate authority demands and they put their own interests behind the needs of the wider organisation. They also show a readiness to act decisively even in desperate situations knowing the buck stops with them. This only works if a leader is respected.

Respect doesn’t happen overnight but is built over time by proving personal capability and commitment. It doesn’t automatically come with a job title, nor should it.

President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria is increasingly been criticized for being dictatorial by many citizens. They particularly point finger at his statement in a recent media chat on the issue of DSS’s continued detention (under the President’s influence of course) of those released on bail by the courts.

The President was unpretentious in his response; he patriotically expressed his desire to ensure that those released on bail do not escape or jump bail. Nothing more.

As a learned citizen, I cannot profoundly say that I was impressed by Mr President’s disposition. But I must confess, I was endeared to his undying passion for Nigeria (as always).

He seems to be more a philosopher than a jurist, and hopefully, it is not totally impossible for him to be both. For this, he can be excused on the ground that there has never been a real genius without madness.

The President has been ethical, kind, transparent and inclusive but also decisive. He is making sure to focus on building a strong structure to shove Nigeria forward. It is no wonder that a greater number of the masses and the mass media are responding positively to his strong inspirational leadership with a clear vision of the future and the courage and drive to take it there.

Certainly, there might always exist a many who see no sympathy with my view, or as being too idealistic, even pervasive, but if this view sums up a benevolent dictator I wonder if there is anything wrong with that?

———————-

Op-ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija

Opinion article written by Izuchukwuaniagu Aguani