On democracy in the United States and the chances of its collapse

The chances of democracy failing can be evaluated through public perception and the specific structural vulnerabilities cited by experts.

64% of Americans believe U.S. democracy is in danger of failing, according to a June 2026 Reuters/Ipsos Poll. High public anxiety reflects deep partisan polarisation, though different sides blame different causes.

Concentration of power in the executive branch and non-compliance with judicial rulings. The primary mechanism of modern democratic decline is gradual legal and structural erosion by elected leaders, rather than a military coup. 

The "chances" of complete failure are mitigated by resilient checks. Independent federal courts continue to regularly block unlawful executive orders. There are also future election cycles that could stem the decline, or perhaps even turn things around.

Legal scholars generally emphasise that this decline is not inevitable or permanent. While the risk of moving toward an "illiberal democracy"—similar to developments seen in nations like Hungary under former Prime Minister Viktor Orban—is real, the presence of active public pushback, independent courts, and upcoming decentralised election cycles mean the system retains the capacity to correct itself.

I would like to be as optimistic as some of these said legal scholars are, but I cannot be. The events of January 6, 2021 hold me back in my thinking. I think what happened on that date, together with the presence today of heavily armed federal government agents on the streets under the pretext of immigration enforcement, provide for a foreboding outlook, which is more realistic than a mere armchair optimism premised on what was in the past normal or reasonable to expect.

These are unprecedented times, outcomes going forward are likely to be unprecedented also. I think the United States is well on its way to losing its democracy, and that this backsliding by the world's leading democracy will impact negatively on democracies around the world, and especially on the rule of law. 

Basically, the Russians can be said to have won. To destabilise, polarise, and weaken democracies from within by eroding trust in democratic institutions was always the primary, foundational goal of Russian Intelligence. 

Democracy In Traditional Africa

On this subject of democracy again. This is a subject that is of great interest to me. 

Traditional African societies practiced functioning indigenous forms of democracy, featuring consensus-building, popular participation, and checks and balances, long before modern Western models were formalised. 

While Western political thought often traces democracy exclusively to ancient Greece and Enlightenment Europe, historical and anthropological evidence shows that many pre-colonial African societies possessed robust mechanisms for accountable leadership and community governance. 

Many societies, such as the Igbo in Nigeria or the Chewa in Malawi, prioritised deep discussion until general agreement or consensus was reached, rather than relying on a simple 51% majority that alienates minorities. 

Centralised systems like the Oyo Empire utilised councils of elders and chiefs (such as the Oyomesi) with the power to check royal overreach, sometimes compelling a ruler to abdicate if they lost the confidence of the people. 

The Oromo people of East Africa practiced the sophisticated Gadaa system, a democratic socio-political model that rotated leadership and administrative power every eight years without ballots, ensuring a peaceful transfer of authority. 

Historically, there were significant checks and balances on the power of the Kabaka (King) of Buganda. While the Kabaka held vast centralised authority, he was not an absolute autocrat free from accountability.

Many communities operated without rigid state hierarchies. Village assemblies allowed adult members (varying by local custom) open forums to debate community matters, manage resources, and hold leaders accountable.

European colonial powers frequently dismissed these indigenous systems as "primitive" or "stateless," imposing authoritarian or direct-rule bureaucracies that dismantled traditional mechanisms of accountability. When Western-style representative democracy was later introduced during decolonisation, it was often decoupled from local history and traditions. 

Scholars emphasise that recognising pre-colonial African democracy counters the narrative that Africa was a passive recipient of political freedom, framing modern democratic aspirations on the continent as a revival of ancient communal traditions rather than a mere imitation of the West. 

It is not democracy but rather, military dictatorship that is alien to Africa

Traditional African societies had deeply rooted systems of order, law, and governance long before European colonialism.

Large empires like Mali, Songhai, and centralised kingdoms like the Kingdom of Benin, and the Kingdom of Buganda maintained sophisticated administrative structures, courts, taxation, and military organisation.

Decentralised and Consensus-Based Societies: Many other societies (such as the Igbo or Tiv) operated without single monarchs, using councils of elders, age-grades, and community assemblies to manage disputes and maintain social harmony through consensus.

Checks and Balances: Power was frequently shared between political rulers, religious authorities, and clan heads to prevent tyranny and ensure accountability to the community.

Many pre-colonial African kingdoms used formal systems of checks and balances to prevent kings from becoming absolute rulers.

The Oyo Empire (in modern-day Nigeria) had one of the strongest systems of checks and balances in history.

The Oyo Mesi: This was a council of seven state leaders. They chose the king, called the Alaafin.

The Empty Calabash: If the king abused his power, the council gave him an empty calabash (a dried gourd) or a parrot's egg. This meant he had lost the right to rule and must commit suicide.

The Ogboni Society: This religious group of elders had to approve the council's decision to remove a king. This stopped the council from staging unfair political takeovers.

Military Limits: The head military commander was legally banned from ever entering the capital city so he could not use his army to seize the throne.

The Kingdom of Kongo also divided power between the king and his advisers.

Royal Council: The king ruled with the help of 12 wise advisers chosen for life.

Power to Depose: If the king broke the rules or failed to lead well, these advisers had the power to remove him from the throne.

In the Ashanti Empire the most direct political check was the process of destoolment—the formal deposition of a king. If an Asantehene became tyrannical, corrupt, or physically incapacitated, the council and the citizens could remove him.

The Ashanti Empire (Asante) featured a highly sophisticated constitutional monarchy where power was distributed between the central king, regional chiefs, and powerful queen mothers. 

Here is how the Ashanti system of checks and balances functioned to prevent total rule by a single individual:

The Role of the Queen Mother (Asantehemaa)Kingmaker: The Asantehemaa held the supreme power to nominate the candidate for the position of King (Asantehene). She served as the ultimate adviser to the king and was the only person who could publicly scold or veto him if he veered from traditional law. She maintained her own court, separate from the king's, to hear domestic, lineage, and civil disputes.

The Asantehene could not pass laws, declare war, or make major state decisions without the unanimous consent of the Asanteman Council, which was made up of the paramount chiefs (Amanhene) of the various Ashanti states.

Citizens' Rights: Commoners could voice their grievances through youth associations (Asafo). The Asafo were traditional military organisations made up of the common people (youngmen).

Grounds for Removal: Valid reasons for destoolment included financial corruption, ignoring the council, or displaying cowardice in battle. Several Ashanti kings were successfully destooled throughout history for failing to meet these high standards.

Removal from Office: If an Asantehene or any chief violated the sacred oaths of office, engaged in corruption, or became tyrannical, the council and the people had the right to "de-stool" (impeach) them. In Ashanti culture, the stool represents the soul of the nation and political authority. When a ruler was de-stooled, they were physically separated from the stool, stripping them of all power.

The most prominent political check on the Zulu monarch was the Ibhandla, a grand council made up of hereditary chiefs (izikhulu), senior elders, and wise advisers.

Consensus-Based Rule: While the Inkosi held ultimate executive power, he was traditionally expected to govern by consensus. He could not make major national decisions—such as declaring war or shifting territorial boundaries—without consulting the Ibhandla.

The Voice of the People: Because the chiefs on the council represented the various clans that made up the kingdom, ignoring their counsel risked fracturing national unity and sparking civil war.

This list is by no means exhaustive. It is not democracy, but rather military dictatorship that is completely alien to Africa.