This democracy

       The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. Niels Bohr.

 In the space of a week, the expression of the people's will to be governed by people they elect showed three different faces. Vastly different nations, political contexts and democratic systems in Nigeria, The Gambia and United States of America presented major variants of a system of governance that sends back many of its students to drawing boards. In Nigeria, a routine constitutional requirement that presidents proceeding on leave notify the legislature and submit the leadership of the nation to deputies was met by President Buhari as he left the country for ten-day leave and medical attention. A few years ago, the failure of late President Umaru Yar'Adua to comply with this requirement plunged the country into a constitutional crisis of such proportions, it required a rare national consensus and ingenious legal brinkmanship to push the nation beyond. In The Gambia, the popular will required a hefty push from barrels of the gun to survive a major setback. In the USA, a president-elect who had defied all conventional wisdom to win was sworn in to lead a nation that is deeply divided over the elections that produced him. 

 The elections of 2015 in Nigeria broke with tradition in many respects. The results were not widely and violently disputed. An incumbent president and a dominant party were defeated, and they yielded power to those elected in a seamless transition. It is difficult to remember that in 2010, Vice President Jonathan only assumed the office of President after a frightful attempt to create obstacles to the activation of constitutional requirements, a transition that represented a triumph of elite consensus around constitutionalism and evidence of a maturing democracy. One year later, the electoral mandate he won was stained with the blood of hundreds of victims of election violence which followed the elections. Nigerians were reminded of the fragility of their democratic process, and you could not fault those who wondered if it will ever be free of the damaging limitations which elections progressively subjected it to. The next general elections then restored confidence that Nigerians could organize credible elections and strengthen the foundations of the democratic process. Those foundations allowed a president to leave the country in the hands of his deputy who himself was out of the country at the time, and hardly anyone batted an eyelid.

 Even as he left the nation in the hands of Vice President Osinbajo, Buhari was aware that the Nigerian military he had dispatched to shore up the popular will of the people of The Gambia was on its way. Nigeria was executing the mandate of nations in the ECOWAS sub region to enforce, if necessary, the will of the citizens of a tiny nation whose landmark decision to reject a leader who was in power for 20 years was in danger of being repudiated. The Gambia was going to test the commitment of many African leaders to the democratic process, but Jammeh may not have been alone in underrating the capacity of Africans to influence the course of history in other nations. Many Africans had thought the freedom to travel long distances to fight in foreign soils and impose different orders belonged only to the most powerful nations such as US, EU countries and Russia. There were many who hoped that the intense lobby of Jammeh will make him budge, because they did not believe that it was prudent and expedient for countries like Nigeria to wage wars in The Gambia over election disputes.

 As it turned out, the threat of the use of force was precisely what was needed to save the democratic process in The Gambia. Tragically, Jammeh shunned the fresh examples of John Mahama and Goodluck Jonathan, but while he shut out the voices of Gambians, he could not ignore the drums of war. A man who could have written his own political future ended up with one imposed on him, even with the elaborate assurances of the ECOWAS, AU and UN that he will be free of persecution. Gambian democracy has been rescued by outsiders who stood with a majority of voters. What does this say of the future of the democratic process in many African countries which, Gambia or not, will experience disputes over election outcomes? Is The Gambia a fluke or a standard? What will be the benchmark for disputes that should force nations to move into action, including the threat or use of force? Can Africans sustain armed threats or use of force against leaders who defy popular will in places such as East and Central Africa?

 It is tempting to believe that the new Gambian president will respond to the historic decision of Gambians to choose him over Jammeh, as well as the resolve of African nations and their allies to enforce that decision, with good governance and a constant reminder of the experience of Jammeh. He will be challenged with the daunting task of liberalizing the political environment that bore the character of Jammeh's prolonged stay in power, and rebuilding an economy that needs fresh confidence and massive investment. The Gambia's rescued democratic processes will be closely policed by neighboring Senegal and other regional powers such as Nigeria. The other major dimension of The Gambia experience is that it places a major burden on shoulders of leaders that went out on a limb to rescue the will of the Gambian people. Big nations such as Nigeria and Ghana will now have to behave with as little blemish as possible, not just because they raised the bar in The Gambia, but because their own messy disputes around election results will almost certainly not be resolved by direct foreign intervention. They cannot afford to yield the higher ground to nations with a little more muscle than The Gambia, where disputes could create real threats of civil wars if foreign intervention is resisted by parties to disputes.

 While Africans were celebrating a victory of sorts, one that required the threat of war to enforce an electoral verdict, a new President was being sworn-in in America. The event was as profound as the swearing in of a black president eight years earlier. In 2008, the American son of an African student became president of the US, suggesting that American people and democracy had matured to a point where race played second fiddle to merit. After eight years, Obama's dignified presidency was handed to a man who will fit the tag of serial offender of all known and unknown sensitivities Americans and the world have come to associate with responsible leadership. A sulking, powerful layer of US voters dragged the presidency from convention and handed it over to a man who offended races, religions, neighbours, allies, women, the media, the intelligence community and just about everyone or thing that can be tweeted into anger or fear. A supreme irony was lost to the world at a time a candidate who had threatened to reject an electoral verdict from US voters if he lost, was being sworn-in, and another in Africa who actually rejected the verdict of voters in his country was being forced to yield to popular vote. It may be just an amusing, academic question to ask what could have happened if Trump had lost the elections and carried out his threat to reject the result. A legitimate question to ask will be if Trump's heresy had in any way bolstered Jammeh?

 US voters got what they wanted. Only time will tell if that will be what the Americans need to reunite a divided nation, with major segments angry and suspicious that they will be engaged in  bruising fights with a president who thinks his mandate is an endorsement of everything he is and of his plans. The world now waits to see the new face of America, an exercise that is tasking, to say the least, because it worries that the future will demand major painful adjustments within the very little room available. People of The Gambia were handed a reprieve, but will now hope that subsequent elections will not require foreign warships and boots to enforce their will. Africans improved their ranking in the league of champions of the democratic system, and will now hope that The Gambia will represent a strong threshold that will determine future conduct in the continent. Nigerians have been further committed to the support of the democratic process, and will now be continuously reminded that you cannot export what you do not have yourself.