By Omale Theophilus Ocholi,
Political Scientist & Peace and Conflict Resolution Expert with PAAU Anyigba, Kogi State, Nigeria.
E-mail: ocholi.ot@ksu.edu.ng
Across history and in the contemporary world, nations have contended with violent non-state actors whose operations threaten internal cohesion, national security, and the very foundations of political stability. From the Middle East to the Sahel, and from Southeast Asia to parts of Latin America, the manifestations of terrorism, insurgency, and banditry provide rich lessons for developing countries such as Nigeria. These lessons, properly examined, offer sensible inferences on what may befall states that underestimate the potency of extremist groups or mismanage the governance challenges that enable them to thrive.
In Afghanistan, the gradual erosion of central control amidst Taliban offensives culminated in the collapse of a political system once sustained by considerable international support. In Somalia, decades of state fragility created fertile ground for Al-Shabaab to entrench itself as a formidable threat. Likewise, in Iraq and Syria, the emergence of the Islamic State (ISIL) was enabled by institutional weaknesses, elite fragmentation, corruption, and the alienation of local populations, conditions that mirror, in varying degrees, challenges within several African states. These global experiences reveal an unmistakable pattern: where governments fail to exercise proactive vigilance, strengthen national institutions, and build public trust, violent groups often seize the vacuum, sometimes leading to prolonged instability or the demise of democratic systems.
In the African context, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger provide sobering illustrations of how accelerating insecurity, particularly jihadist violence, can precipitate political upheavals, including military takeovers. Despite varying internal dynamics, each witnessed a profound loss of public confidence in civilian authorities, largely attributable to their inability to halt the killings of soldiers and civilians alike. These crises demonstrate that terrorism does not merely threaten physical security; it also undermines the psychological and political fabric of the state, rendering democratic governance vulnerable to collapse.
Nigeria, regrettably, is navigating a similar trajectory. The resurgence of ISWAP and Boko Haram attacks, particularly the ruthless ambushes and killings of Nigerian soldiers, signals a deeply troubling deterioration in national security. Banditry in the North-West and parts of the North-Central further exacerbates the situation, overwhelming rural communities and stretching security agencies beyond optimal capacity. These violent strains, occurring simultaneously, evoke the very circumstances that have historically culminated in the termination of democratic dispensations elsewhere. When security forces (symbols of state authority) become persistent casualties of insurgent violence, the morale of the nation weakens, and the credibility of civilian governance becomes increasingly questioned.
Juxtaposing Nigeria’s current situation with global historical experiences therefore yields clear academic inferences. First, terrorism thrives where governance structures are perceived as inefficient, inequitable, or corrupt. Second, persistent insecurity erodes public confidence in democratic institutions and can embolden undemocratic actors. Third, the weakening of state authority, symbolised by repeated attacks on military personnel portends risks that extend far beyond the battlefield, often threatening the continuity of constitutional rule.
For these reasons, it is imperative for the Nigerian government to intensify its surveillance, intelligence coordination, security sector reforms, and inter-agency cooperation. The preservation of Nigeria’s democratic order hinges on the state’s ability to demonstrate firm, strategic, and credible leadership in confronting insurgency and banditry. A failure to respond decisively may create openings for the same forces that have precipitated democratic breakdowns in other nations. Vigilance, therefore, is not merely desirable but essential.
Nigeria must draw from global precedents, learn from the tragedies of other nations, and act promptly to prevent insecurity from snowballing into a constitutional crisis. No democratic era ends abruptly; it erodes gradually through unattended warning signs. Today, Nigeria stands at such a crossroads. A strengthened, watchful, and accountable government is the first and most critical safeguard against the turmoil that threatens the continuity of its democratic experience.