Democracy is not a finished building. It is a perpetual construction site. It is constantly being built, repaired, expanded and sometimes reconstructed in response to the changing needs and aspirations of the people.
This is why disagreement is not necessarily a sign that democracy is failing. Rather, the health of a democracy can often be measured by the quality of its disagreements and, more importantly, by its ability to transform those disagreements into constructive outcomes.
As the Igbo expression goes, “ochichi onye kwuo uche ya” —governance belongs to the people. Where people are free to express their views, disagreement is inevitable. “Ikota onu na ese okwu”—people coming together and disagreeing—is therefore part of the democratic experience.
The critical question is not whether citizens will disagree. They certainly will. The question is whether our disagreements will produce better ideas, stronger institutions and improved living conditions or whether they will degenerate into hatred, misinformation, violence and political paralysis.
This brings us to two important ideas that increasingly shape democratic discourse: agonistic pluralism and factual criticism.
Agonistic pluralism, associated particularly with political theorist Chantal Mouffe, recognises conflict as an inherent feature of democratic politics. It argues that societies consist of people with different identities, interests, ideologies and aspirations. These differences cannot simply be wished away.
The democratic objective, therefore, should not necessarily be to eliminate disagreement but to create institutions through which disagreement can be expressed peacefully and productively.
In a healthy democracy, political opponents should be treated as adversaries, not enemies.
This distinction is fundamental. An adversary is someone whose political position one strongly disagrees with but whose right to participate in the democratic process one recognises. An enemy, on the other hand, is regarded as someone who must be defeated, silenced or eliminated.
When political competition crosses that line, democracy becomes dangerous. Elections become existential battles, opposition is treated as treason and political disagreement becomes a justification for intimidation or violence.
Nigeria must guard against this tendency. Our constitutional framework provides considerable space for democratic contestation. Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, guarantees fundamental rights that create the environment for citizens to participate in public discourse.
Section 38 protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Section 39 guarantees freedom of expression and the Press, while Section 40 protects the right to peaceful assembly and association. Section 41 guarantees freedom of movement.
These freedoms are not merely legal provisions. They are the oxygen of democratic participation.
Citizens must be free to think differently, speak differently, organise differently and associate with people who share their aspirations. Political parties, civil society organisations, professional associations, the media and community groups all provide platforms through which competing ideas can enter the public arena.
However, freedom without responsibility can become destructive. This is where factual criticism becomes indispensable.