By
Nze David N. Ugwu
Elections and the Question of Democratic Legitimacy
In democratic systems, elections remain the primary—indeed the only—legitimate mechanism for the transfer of political power. Whether in presidential or parliamentary systems, elections serve as the procedural foundation upon which authority, consent, and governance are built. The democratic promise is simple but profound: leaders derive their right to rule from the freely expressed will of the people.
Yet, the integrity of elections is not merely a technical issue; it is a moral, psychological, and political cornerstone of governance. When elections are perceived to be credible, leadership authority is strengthened, compliance with laws is enhanced, and social cohesion is reinforced. Conversely, when elections are fraught with irregularities, disputed outcomes, or allegations of fraud, a crisis of legitimacy emerges—one that can haunt leaders throughout their tenure.
Even authoritarian or semi-authoritarian leaders, such as Russia, China, Cameroon and even Rwanda often maintain the ritual of elections. Though widely criticized as managed or symbolic, these exercises underscore a universal truth: power without electoral validation struggles for legitimacy, even in authoritarian contexts.
This article explores how legitimacy crises affect democratic leadership, using the experience of Nigeria and, in particular, the President as a contemporary case study. It examines the conceptual foundations of legitimacy, the consequences of disputed elections, and the structural challenges facing leaders whose authority is persistently questioned.
Understanding Legitimacy in Democratic Theory
Political legitimacy refers to the recognized right to rule—the belief among citizens that a government has lawful and moral authority. Max Weber famously categorized legitimacy into traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational forms. Modern democracies rely predominantly on legal-rational legitimacy, grounded in constitutional processes, laws, and, critically, elections.
Elections perform several legitimacy-conferring functions:
- Authorization – granting leaders the mandate to govern
- Accountability – allowing citizens to reward or punish leaders
- Consent – symbolizing popular acceptance of authority
- Stability – reducing incentives for extra-constitutional change
When these functions are compromised, legitimacy weakens. Importantly, legitimacy is not only legal but perceptual. A leader may be legally sworn in, yet socially contested. This distinction lies at the heart of democratic legitimacy crises.
Electoral Irregularities and the Birth of Legitimacy Crisis
A legitimacy crisis arises when a significant portion of the population doubts the fairness, transparency, or accuracy of electoral outcomes. Such doubts may stem from:
- Voter suppression or disenfranchisement
- Manipulation of electoral technology
- Intimidation or violence
- Biased electoral management bodies
- Judicial controversies over election petitions
In such contexts, leaders are no longer merely political actors; they become defensive incumbents, preoccupied with proving they deserve power rather than exercising it effectively.
Notably, legitimacy crises are not confined to emerging democracies. The disputed 2020 elections in the United States revealed how even consolidated democracies are vulnerable to erosion of electoral trust, polarization, and delegitimization narratives.
Nigeria’s Democratic Context: A History of Contested Mandates
Nigeria’s post-1999 democratic experience has been marked by persistent electoral controversies. While elections have improved incrementally, public trust remains fragile. Each electoral cycle is often followed by:
- Prolonged litigation
- Public skepticism
- Claims of institutional bias
- Ethno-regional polarization
This environment has normalized electoral disputes, making legitimacy challenges a recurring feature of Nigerian governance. Leaders are frequently perceived not as national consensus builders, but as products of contested arithmetic and elite negotiation.
President Tinubu and the Burden of Disputed Legitimacy
The emergence of President Tinubu occurred within this broader context of democratic skepticism. While constitutionally affirmed, his election generated intense debate over process, technology, judicial interpretation, and institutional credibility.
As with many leaders facing legitimacy questions, the challenge is not merely whether power was legally acquired, but whether it is socially accepted. This distinction profoundly affects leadership behavior and governance outcomes.
How Legitimacy Crisis Affects Leaders
- Governing Without Psychological Authority
Legitimacy confers more than legal power; it provides psychological authority. Leaders perceived as illegitimate often struggle to persuade, mobilize, or inspire. Policy initiatives—even well-designed ones—are met with suspicion. Opposition to policy becomes opposition to the person.
For President Tinubu, economic reforms such as subsidy removal and fiscal restructuring were introduced in an atmosphere of deep public distrust. In legitimacy-deficientenvironments, painful reforms lack political cushioning, making resistance more intense.
- Permanent Political Insecurity
Leaders with legitimacy deficits tend to govern defensively. They constantly “look over their shoulders,” fearing:
- Mass protests
- Judicial reversals
- Elite defections
- Military or security disloyalty
This insecurity can lead to hyper-centralization of power, overreliance on loyalists, and reduced tolerance for dissent. Rather than governing expansively, leaders govern cautiously.
- Weak Moral Authority Over Institutions
Legitimacy affects a leader’s ability to command loyalty across institutions—legislature, judiciary, bureaucracy, and security agencies. When legitimacy is questioned, institutional actors may comply formally but resist informally.
Policy implementation becomes slow, selective, or distorted. Bureaucrats hedge their bets, political allies demand higher rewards, and institutions become arenas of negotiation rather than execution.
- Heightened Reliance on Coercion and Legalism
Leaders lacking broad legitimacy often substitute consent with coercion and moral authority with legal technicalities. Court judgments, security enforcement, and regulatory actions become primary tools of governance.
While legalism is essential in democracy, excessive reliance on it—without public trust—can deepen perceptions of authoritarian drift.
- Polarization and Fragmented National Identity
Legitimacy crises intensify ethnic, regional, and partisan cleavages. Elections cease to be national exercises and instead become zero-sum contests between identity blocs.In Nigeria, such polarization weakens national cohesion and complicates governance, as leaders are seen as sectional rather than national figures.
- Constrained Reform Space
Transformational leadership requires political capital. Legitimacy crises drastically reduce this capital. Leaders become risk-averse, preferring short-term survival to long-term structural change.
Ironically, the very reforms needed to stabilize the state become politically unattainable due to the leader’s contested mandate.
- Legacy Anxiety
Leaders facing legitimacy challenges often govern with legacy insecurity. Rather than focusing on institution-building, they prioritize narrative control, reputation management, and historical vindication.
This can lead to overinvestment in propaganda, symbolic projects, or confrontational rhetoric rather than deep governance reform.
Comparative Insight: Why Even Dictators Hold Elections
The persistence of elections—even in authoritarian regimes—reveals an enduring global norm: power seeks legitimacy. From Russia to parts of Africa and Asia, elections serve as symbolic affirmations that authority flows from the people.
This underscores a paradox: elections can legitimize power only when they are credible. Once credibility erodes, elections lose their legitimizing force and instead become sources of instability.
Rebuilding Legitimacy: What Leaders Must Do
For leaders like President Tinubu, legitimacy cannot be retroactively won at the ballot box—but it can be earned through governance. Key pathways include:
- Radical transparency in decision-making
- Inclusive governance beyond electoral bases
- Respect for dissent and opposition
- Electoral reform to restore future credibility
- Tangible improvements in citizen welfare
Over time, performance legitimacy can partially compensate for electoral legitimacy deficits—but never fully replace them.
Legitimacy as the Lifeblood of Democracy
Democracy survives not merely through elections, but through trust in elections. When electoral credibility collapses, leaders inherit not power alone, but permanent vulnerability.
The case of Nigeria—and President Tinubu in particular—illustrates the profound consequences of legitimacy crises on leadership authority, policy effectiveness, and national cohesion. Leaders emerging from disputed elections govern under a shadow, constrained by suspicion, polarization, and defensive politics.
Ultimately, the greatest threat to democracy is not electoral defeat, but electoral disbelief. Until democratic societies restore confidence in the integrity of their electoral processes, legitimacy crises will remain a defining challenge of modern governance.
Nze David N. Ugwu is the Managing Consultant of Knowledge Research Consult. He could be reached at [email protected] or +2348037269333.
