ABSTRACT

This essay critically examines the limitations of election-based democracy and advocates sortition as a viable alternative for democratic consolidation in Nigeria. Although elections are widely regarded as the hallmark of democracy, the study argues that electoral systems have increasingly failed to guarantee political equality, accountability, competent leadership, and genuine popular participation. Drawing from the philosophical critiques of thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Karl Marx, Nietzsche, Hannah Arendt, Robert Michels, Joseph Schumpeter, Bernard Manin, Jason Brennan, and David Van Reybrouck, the essay demonstrates that elections often promote elite domination, corruption, manipulation, voter ignorance, and political exclusion rather than authentic democracy. The study further examines the Nigerian democratic experience and identifies electoral violence, vote-buying, ethnic and religious politics, weak institutions, judicial interference, corruption, and political godfatherism as major factors responsible for the failure of electoral democracy and the unconsolidated nature of democracy in Nigeria. Against this background, the essay explores sortition, the selection of public officials through random lottery, as an alternative democratic mechanism rooted in the principle of political equality. The research adopted dialogical research methodology while using historical and contemporary perspectives, the study argues that sortition is capable of reducing corruption, weakening elite domination, encouraging deliberation, enhancing inclusiveness, strengthening civic participation, and restoring public trust in governance. The essay concludes that integrating sortition into Nigeria’s democratic framework can contribute significantly to democratic consolidation by promoting competence, accountability, equality, and the rule of law. Keywords: So