DEMOCRACY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND LESSONS FOR NIGERIA
Why America’s midterm elections should provoke a serious rethink of Nigeria’s democratic practice, presidential system and growing agitation for regionalism.
The 2026 United States midterm elections, held on 3 November 2026, provide an important opportunity to examine the workings of presidential democracy, the
relationship between political power and public accountability, and the capacity of democratic institutions to check the excesses of government.
Unlike presidential elections, which determine who occupies the White House, midterm elections take place halfway through a president’s four-year tenure. They provide American voters with an opportunity to assess the performance of the
incumbent administration and determine whether its party should retain or lose
its legislative advantage.
All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and approximately one-third of the
100-seat Senate are contested. Several governorships and state legislative positions are also decided.
Consequently, midterm elections can significantly alter the balance of political power without changing the occupant of the presidency.
The fundamental significance of the American midterm system is that winning the presidency does not confer an unrestricted mandate to govern for four years. The electorate retains a constitutional opportunity to reassess its representatives,
rebalance political power and demand accountability before the next presidential election.
The verdict of the 2026 elections
The emerging results as of 4 November 2026 are particularly significant. The Democratic Party has won control of both chambers of Congress, reversing the
Republican Party’s previous advantage and delivering a major political setback to President Donald Trump’s administration. Democrats also made substantial gains in congressional districts and governorships.
The outcome is widely interpreted as a voter reaction to economic pressures, rising living costs, dissatisfaction with government policies, immigration enforcement and the administration’s handling of international affairs,particularly the war with Iran. The economy, healthcare and foreign policy
featured prominently in voters’ priorities.
The most important institutional implication is that the president,
notwithstanding his electoral mandate, must now contend with a Congress controlled by the opposition. This creates a stronger platform for legislative
scrutiny, investigations, opposition to policies and negotiations over national
priorities.
It is worth emphasizing that the American system does not necessarily produce
political harmony. Divided government can also generate legislative gridlock.
Nevertheless, it demonstrates that democratic institutions must possess sufficient
independence to challenge the executive when circumstances demand it.
Lessons for Nigeria: The unfinished business of presidential democracy
Nigeria adopted the American-style presidential system in 1979 and retained it under the 1999 Constitution. However, our adaptation has been incomplete,
particularly in the practical distribution of powers, institutional independence,
fiscal federalism and the accountability of elected representatives.
There are several important lessons from the American experience.
1. Presidential victory must not become an unlimited political license.
In Nigeria, political parties frequently approach elections as contests for total political control. The American midterm experience demonstrates the value of an electorate that can independently reassess the performance of the ruling party
while the president remains in office.
Nigeria should strengthen the independence of the National Assembly and State
Houses of Assembly, enabling them to exercise their constitutional oversight
responsibilities without undue executive or party interference.
2. Legislative independence is indispensable to democracy.
A legislature should not merely endorse executive proposals or serve as an extension of the presidency. It must scrutinize budgets, examine public
expenditure, investigate allegations of misconduct and protect citizens’ interests.
The American experience demonstrates that a legislature controlled by an
opposition party can still function within the same constitutional framework as the president, providing an important institutional check on executive power.
3. Elections must be about performance, not merely political loyalty.
American voters have demonstrated that economic realities and public policy
outcomes can influence electoral decisions, even when the incumbent president is
not personally contesting.
Nigeria must move beyond ethnic calculations, political patronage, personality cults and party loyalty towards performance-based politics. Security, employment, inflation, education, healthcare, infrastructure and the quality of life must become the principal measures of political leadership.
4. Federalism must be genuine, not merely constitutional terminology.
This is perhaps the most important lesson for Nigeria. Although our Constitution
describes Nigeria as a federation, the excessive concentration of responsibilities, resources and decision-making powers at the Federal Government has weakened the capacity of states and local governments to respond effectively to their
peculiar development challenges.
The American federal structure gives considerable constitutional, fiscal and administrative responsibilities to individual states. Governors are not simply
representatives of the federal administration; they are independently elected
leaders with substantial responsibilities to their respective populations.
Nigeria must therefore reconsider the practical operation of its federalism,
including resource allocation, revenue generation, policing, infrastructure,
education and economic development.
Regionalism versus federalism:
Is Nigeria looking in the right direction?
The growing agitation for regionalism in Nigeria is understandable. Many
Nigerians believe that the present 36-state structure, with its associated
administrative costs, duplication of institutions and financial dependence on the
Federal Government, has not delivered the desired development outcomes.
However, the American experience invites us to look beyond the debate about the
number of states or regions.
The United States has 50 states operating within a federal constitutional
framework. It does not require a return to regionalism as Nigeria practiced it in the First Republic to achieve decentralization, competitive development and
effective governance.
Nigeria should therefore distinguish between regionalism as a political and administrative arrangement and genuine federalism as a system of constitutional and fiscal autonomy.
The six geopolitical zones could provide a useful framework for regional economic
cooperation, infrastructure integration, security coordination and development
planning without necessarily dismantling the existing states.
Indeed, the more fundamental questions are:
• Can states exercise greater control over their resources and development priorities?
• Can federating units generate and retain more revenue while meeting their constitutional obligations?
• Can states establish appropriate policing and security arrangements within
a nationally coordinated framework?
• Can regional economic cooperation encourage investment, industrialization,
agriculture, transportation and employment?
• Can local governments become genuinely autonomous and accountable to their communities?
These are more important than simply replacing 36 states with six regions
without addressing the underlying constitutional and governance problems.
The bigger lesson: Reform institutions before changing structures
The 2026 American midterm elections reinforce an important democratic principle: the strength of a democracy is not measured simply by the system of
government it adopts, but by the effectiveness of its institutions, the independence of its elected representatives and the power of citizens to hold their leaders accountable.
Nigeria does not necessarily need to abandon the presidential system. Rather, it needs to make the system work as intended.
We need stronger institutions, an independent legislature, credible elections, an accountable judiciary, genuine fiscal federalism, competent public administration
and political parties driven by ideology, policies and national development rather than the pursuit of power for its own sake.
We must also recognize that decentralization without accountability can simply
reproduce corruption and inefficiency at regional and state levels.
My position is that Nigeria should not confuse the clamor for regionalism with the imperative for restructuring. What we urgently need is a properly negotiated, constitutionally grounded restructuring of our federation that empowers the
constituent units, reduces the excessive burden on the center and creates healthy competition for development.
The American experience offers a compelling lesson: a strong federation does not
require a weak center, just as a strong president does not require a weak legislature.
Ultimately, democracy must be about the people, not the politicians;
development, not political convenience; and accountability, not the perpetual struggle for power.
Nigeria must therefore move beyond the argument over whether we should retain
the presidential system, adopt parliamentary government or return to regionalism.
The more urgent question is:
What constitutional and governance arrangements will deliver security, prosperity, equity and accountable leadership to the Nigerian people?
That is the conversation our political leaders, constitutional reform advocates and
citizens must have as we approach another defining chapter in our nation’s
democratic journey.
Analysis By:
Ambassador Akinremi Alade Bolaji
Career Diplomat | Governance and Economic Diplomacy Specialist.
