There are some bitter truths that those in the temporary house of power may not like to hear. One such truth is the fact that democracy is not a sure fire assurance that a country will prosper. Autocracy, its supposed opposite, is also not guaranteed to lead to misery. If Democracy was an infallible system of government, how does one explain the fact that China, a ‘autocratic’ state, is about to upstage America, the land of the free, in the world pecking order? What is responsible for the situation where Uranium-rich Niger, a democracy until the military struck some weeks ago, ranks 7th among the world’s poorest countries with about half of its  population living in extreme poverty?

When Nigeria’s First Republic came to grief in 1966, close watchers of the country were not surprised. Only the politicians believed that they could carry on with their gangsterism, opulent lifestyles, corruption and atavistic machinations. When soldiers decided to vote with the barrel of their guns, democracy was interred until 1979 when we briefly resurrected it before another ‘gun-slide’ reminded us that our politicians had not learnt their lessons. We retraced our steps in 1999, but no man born of woman can guarantee that Nigeria will remain a democracy forever in the present shape and form.

Those who regurgitate the usual unwisdom that democracy is the only acceptable form of government in the modern world usually don’t have an answer when asked if a flawed democracy is to be preferred to a people-oriented autocracy. What do you do when democracy, as practiced in some countries, leads to the perpetual pauperisation of the people? Is the system operated by democratic Nigeria better than the autocracy (or communism) of  China which is now firmly entrenched as Nigeria’s benefactor and favoured project partner?

Who defines democracy? Uganda is democratic by definition but its president has been in office since 1986. Ugandans have not asked for the help of self-appointed sheriffs of democracy to help them remove the army general-turned president. The man keeps confounding imperialists with his native intelligence and, arguably, unabashed determination to make the country better than he met it. If one is not conceited or arrogant, one must concede that Ugandans are capable of deciding how they want to be governed and by whom. It is their country, after all.