Two key ideas from that speech have consistently resonated with me. The first is the assertion that “Africa does not require strong men, but rather robust institutions.” The second is the claim that Africa’s destiny will not be shaped by “giants like Nkrumah and Kenyatta.” Whether or not Obama had specific leaders such as Nkrumah and Rawlings in mind remains uncertain.
However, addressing the Ghanaian parliament, Obama spoke to an audience deeply familiar with Ghana’s political history-where figures like Kwame Nkrumah and Jerry Rawlings epitomized the “strongman” archetype. In this context, his remarks seemed to subtly reference these two leaders. Nkrumah, Ghana’s first Prime Minister, was a visionary who led the country to independence but eventually suppressed opposition, transforming Ghana into a one-man autocracy rather than a one-party state.
Autocracy, by definition, is the domination of a single individual who convinces or coerces the populace into accepting his near-divine authority. Such governance stifles the democratic spirit that unleashes a society’s developmental potential. When people’s energies are harnessed through democratic freedom, their communities flourish with realized talents and capabilities. Unfortunately, one of the persistent challenges undermining democracy and development across Africa has been the prevalence of autocratic rulers.
While some autocrats may have acted with sincere intentions, autocracy inevitably breeds paternalism-a rigid, authoritarian control that demands conformity to the leader’s vision, who is often seen as an infallible strategist simply by virtue of holding power. This Ghanaian example is emblematic of a broader continental pattern.
Like many African nations, Ghana has endured the consequences of autocratic leadership, both military and civilian. After Nkrumah, Jerry John Rawlings emerged as a self-styled anti-corruption champion. Rawlings first entered Ghana’s political arena through a coup, overthrowing General Frederick Akuffo, who himself had ousted General Ignatius Acheampong in a palace coup.
Rawlings’ initial tenure ended with elections that brought Hilla Limann to power on September 24, 1979-just days before Nigeria’s President Shehu Shagari succeeded General Olusegun Obasanjo. Limann’s government operated under the shadow of Rawlings, who acted as a de facto overseer. Yet, on December 31, 1981, Rawlings returned via another coup, abruptly ending Limann’s administration.
Rawlings’ second rule lasted longer and was marked by repression so severe that no formidable opposition could arise. Consequently, when elections were eventually held, Rawlings stood as the dominant presidential candidate and was elected civilian president. Like Nkrumah, Rawlings governed with an iron fist, suppressing dissent and imposing his governance model on the populace. For many young Africans today, these leaders are historical figures often idealized as heroes, yet they exemplify the dangers of the “strongman” myth.
Focusing on Rawlings, it is notable that his death closely followed Nigeria’s #EndSARS protests, which symbolized a rejection of police and military abuses. However, the root issue extends beyond the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) or the police force itself.
The core problem lies in the relationship between the government and its citizens, and ultimately, the constitution that defines this relationship. Governments exist to safeguard citizens’ rights, and constitutions are designed to establish institutions that protect these rights. Unfortunately, Nigeria’s 1999 constitution is frail, creating weak institutions incapable of shielding citizens from authoritarian tendencies.
This weakness explains why successive Nigerian administrations have been accused of human rights violations. Despite the formal end of military rule, governance often resembles military-era repression. When the government leads in violating rights, agencies like SARS inevitably perpetuate abuses. Moreover, Nigerians face oppression not only from the police but from officials across all levels and branches of government, as well as from each other.
Police officers act as state agents, so the fundamental question is: what kind of state does Nigeria have? Does the 1999 constitution foster a citizen-friendly government? The slogan “The police is your friend” is a cynical falsehood for many Nigerians, who experience police checkpoints as sites of harassment rather than protection. An unfriendly government breeds hostile institutions, including the police. Police brutality is thus a symptom of systemic impunity within the government.
Addressing police violence through presidential orders alone is insufficient. It reflects deeper constitutional dysfunction. Nigeria’s hostile state arises from a constitution that empowers government over citizens, resulting in fragile institutions. The real challenge is not the police, judiciary, or executive individually, but the weak constitutional framework that enables authoritarianism.
Our urgent mission is to rethink our society’s foundations: to rewrite the constitution, redefine nationhood, and reimagine institutions like the police. Without this fundamental overhaul, efforts to improve governance will remain superficial. Nigeria’s vast size and population demand strong, decentralized institutions rather than centralized control from Abuja. The brutality of security forces highlights the absence of mechanisms to protect citizens effectively.
Rawlings’ legacy embodies the contradictions of military rule and its inherent violence in Africa. For example, after seizing power in a coup on June 4, 1979-following a failed attempt in May that nearly cost him his life-Rawlings and his military council executed eight senior military officers, including former heads of state, on corruption charges without fair trials. This tragic episode underscores the dangers of weakened democratic institutions under strongman rule.
Such actions, while possibly justified in intent, reveal the peril of bypassing due process and democratic safeguards. The absence or erosion of these institutions paves the way for autocracy and undermines the rule of law.
To be continued.