₦airaland Forum

USA, Russia, China, Germany and France all abolished monarchy, these countries became even more developed as a result and you want us a developing country to embrace it?

And who told you a King dedicates his life to rule the people in a monarchy? The king's viziers rule the people, the king mostly does nothing but pretend to be a god.

And what happens when the king dies? Then every single son-distant relative he has will start vying for the throne along with their courts and favourites.

Nigeria needs to abandon ALL traditional systems, South South, West, East or North

Sheuns:
Monarchy cannot work for regions. Take South West for example: who will be the paramount ruler of that entire region? Is it Ooni or Alaafin? What do you expect of other Kings in that region? The Soun, Timi of Ede, Akran of Badagry, Awujale of Ijebu, Alake of Egba?

Do you think these monarchs will submit to be under any other king as chiefs?

Monarchy can only work for a very small region of people with the same ideology.

The other way to have a sole king is by going to wars and battles.

Democracy is still the better option.

I actually meant smaller regions being led by their own traditional leaders, in a modern sense so without the backward practices of the past like human sacrifices. So for instance, Awujale of IJebu leading Ijebuland, Ooni of Ife leading Ife, Alaafin of Oyo leading his Oyo territory. Then all of these monarchs united under a federalized monarchy for the benefit of all Nigerians. We can also say some sort of federalized committee if being under a federal monarch system will just be too unacceptable for them.

Fenrir:
Steadygo,

You are accidentally far more honest than you realize.

You say you took my coronation as a joke, yet your reply is the punchline because you have positioned yourself as exactly what I implied the jester who takes himself seriously.

A jester doesn’t know he is the entertainment.
He thinks he is part of the throne room because he stands near the king.
He mistakes proximity for power.

That is you.

Now, let us dismantle your argument piece by piece.

1. Your “multiple monarchies” already exist and already failed

You speak as though Nigeria has no kings and needs new ones.

Are you unaware of what country you live in?

You already have

Obas
Ezes
Obis
Emirs
Tor Tiv
Amanayabo
Olu
Sarki
And dozens of equivalents across over 371 tribes

Nigeria is a monarchy farm.
There are more crowns than functioning roads.

If traditional authority were the magical solution you imagine, Nigeria would be utopia by now.

Instead, what do these kings do

Fight over land
Collect homage
Meddle in marriages
Sell endorsements to politicians
Turn culture into commerce
Weaponize identity for influence

Your proposed return to monarchy is not innovation. It is expanding a system that is already failing on a tribal scale into a national catastrophe.

2. You want a unifying monarch in a country where tribes cannot tolerate each other

You proved my point without realizing it

“I suspect we will still need a unifying system”

Nigeria cannot unify around

Language
Religion
History
National holidays
A flag
A name
Even the pronunciation of jollof

Yet somehow your solution is

“Let’s crown more kings”

That is not politics.
It is cosplay with consequences.

3. Your worldview is not monarchist. It is tribal isolationism wearing royal perfume

Your every reply follows the same pattern

Attack the outsider
Prioritize tribe over logic
Use culture as a shield from accountability
Pretend criticism equals disrespect

That is not the mindset of a monarchist.

It is the mindset of a gatekeeper terrified of foreign scrutiny.

Your rhetoric reveals the truth

You do not want a king.
You want a tribal referee who silences perspectives you dislike.

A monarchy cannot exist in a mind that treats every foreign thought as an invasion.

That is not unity.

That is xenophobia with grammar.

4. Monarchies require trust. Nigeria has suspicion baked into its DNA

Historical monarchies thrived because subjects believed

The king represented them
The throne was sacred
Identity flowed upward

In Nigeria identity flows sideways

People are Yoruba first, Igbo first, Hausa first, Fulani first and Nigerian only during football matches or visa applications.

Your argument collapses on contact with reality.

You are trying to build a skyscraper on quicksand and ego.

5. The checkmate

You unintentionally confirmed the original claim

Nigeria does not reject monarchy because it is Western.

Nigeria rejects monarchy because Nigerians cannot agree on who deserves to rule even in theory.

Your response proves it

You could not engage the argument without attacking identity.
You could not debate without defending tribe.
You could not imagine leadership without suspicion of outsiders.

A nation that cannot tolerate criticism cannot enthrone a king.

And the man who reacts to foreign presence like a territorial rooster is not proposing monarchy.

He is auditioning for head jester.


Your suggestion is not visionary.
It is nostalgia dipped in insecurity.

You do not defend monarchy.

You defend a tribal echo chamber where unfamiliar voices must be mocked, minimized, or dismissed.

A king needs loyalty.
A jester needs an audience.
Your replies make clear which one you are.

The jester is always the loudest in the hall because he is the only one who fears silence.

Are you not aware that a lot of the monarchies, in their real sense, which you dismiss as "failures" fell after colonization and the monarchies we see in Nigeria today have little to no governing powers but are mainly ceremonial? Are you also not aware that many Nigerian monarchs are doing more for their people today considering their limited power than the federal government? Yes, the monarchies failed but you skip the fact that they failed due to attacks from external western powers. It is one of the reasons that in my post I mention there should be a form of federalization that recognizes and empowers the multiple traditional polities yet links them in a unifying framework.

You accuse me of being insecure but if I am throwing any attacks, you are the one throwing far more than me. Indeed, the majority of your post is insults and attacks not objective responses.

olowofariwo:
I think monarchy in Christian/secular countries is ceremonial unlike Muslim monarchy in which they use Quran and Sharia.
Does UK king have eny big say in government runnings?

You dey read your bible well so

danvon:
USA, Russia, China, Germany and France all abolished monarchy, these countries became even more developed as a result and you want us a developing country to embrace it?

And who told you a King dedicates his life to rule the people in a monarchy? The king's viziers rule the people, the king mostly does nothing but pretend to be a god.

And what happens when the king dies? Then every single son-distant relative he has will start vying for the throne along with their courts and favourites.

Nigeria needs to abandon ALL traditional systems, South South, West, East or North

The development of the countries you listed can’t seriously be explained by they abolishment of monarchy. Their wealth and power come from things like early industrialization, access to global trade . Also, in the case of the western world much of their wealth is due to imperialism; slavery, colonial extraction as well as the resources they are able to get cheap today.

In fact, much of the military and industrial capacity that allowed for European imperialism was built while those states were still in monarchies. Britain, France and others developed their ships, guns and financial systems under kings and emperors, and used them to dominate global trade and colonise other regions. Germany’s core industrial boom happened under the Kaiser. Russia’s 19th-century industrialization was driven by the Tsarist state. France also had major economic and infrastructure growth under regimes like the Second Empire.

The United States started as a British colonial extension under a king. They later grew rich as a republic but after already inheriting industrialization from Britain and still relied heavily on slavery, and as native land seizure, and unequal integration into the world economy. China's industrialization is different and more modern, it followed the industrialization model of the western world so it doesn't take away from the larger point.

I don't put this down to at all defend slavery, imperialism or colonization but only to show that the historical record doesn't support the idea that abolishing monarchy automatically causes development. Many states built their power under monarchies and only later changed their regime type.

steadygo:
Are you not aware that a lot of the monarchies, in their real sense, which you dismiss as "failures" fell after colonization and the monarchies we see in Nigeria today have little to no governing powers but are mainly ceremonial? Are you also not aware that many Nigerian monarchs are doing more for their people today considering their limited power than the federal government? Yes, the monarchies failed but you skip the fact that they failed due to attacks from external western powers. It is one of the reasons that in my post I mention there should be a form of federalization that recognizes and empowers the multiple traditional polities yet links them in a unifying framework.

You accuse me of being insecure but if I am throwing any attacks, you are the one throwing far more than me. Indeed, the majority of your post is insults and attacks not objective responses.

Steadygo,

Your reply confirms one thing with perfect clarity: you do not understand the system you are defending.

You argue that Nigerian monarchies failed because colonial forces destroyed them. Yet you simultaneously praise today’s ceremonial monarchs for doing more for their people than the federal government. You cannot have it both ways. If the pre colonial monarchies were functional, and today’s version is powerless, then your argument collapses into contradiction. You want to revive something that no longer exists, yet you cannot explain how the revived system would avoid becoming exactly what we see today: tribal figureheads with crowns, titles, and no structural authority.

The moment you acknowledged that Nigeria’s monarchies were dismantled by external powers, you admitted the core point you tried to deny. If a system collapses the moment pressure is applied, it was never stable. A monarchy that depends on perfect isolation to survive is not governance. It is nostalgia.

You claim a unified structure can be built by empowering multiple monarchs through federalization. That is the same system Nigeria currently suffers under. It already has hundreds of rulers with localized loyalty, none with national legitimacy, and every tribe convinced its leader is the only one worthy of authority. You did not propose a solution. You proposed scaling up the very fragmentation that prevents nationhood.

You are trying to create national cohesion using the architecture of division.

Your logic is as follows

Nigeria fails because tribes fight for dominance
Therefore give every tribe more autonomous power
Then find a king who unites them

That is not political theory. That is a mathematical impossibility. A system based on fragmented identity cannot produce unified authority. You cannot assemble a nation out of leaders who only lead inward.

You say monarchs today do more than the federal government. If that were true, Nigerians would not be migrating, protesting, or begging politicians for basics. A functional traditional leadership structure is not measured by nostalgia, poetry, or ceremony. It is measured by infrastructure, security, accountability, and continuity. Where are the monarch built roads? Where is the monarch enforced rule of law? Where is the monarch led economic transformation?

If monarchs are your solution, produce monarch results.

Your final claim, that I attack you more than you attack me, reveals the real problem. You do not differentiate between argument and ego. You believe critique is insult because your identity is welded to your opinion. You are so emotionally invested in your worldview that logical pressure feels like aggression. That is why you never engage the content. You defend your feelings instead of your reasoning.

You say I insulted you. I dismantled your position.
You say I attacked you. I exposed the contradictions.
You say I am insecure. I am the only one answering the question.

A man who cannot separate himself from his ideas cannot improve his ideas.

Your own responses prove why monarchy cannot succeed in Nigeria. You cannot imagine power without personal injury. You cannot imagine disagreement without hostility. You cannot imagine leadership without tribal suspicion. If one conversation triggers defensiveness, how do you expect an entire nation to bow to a single authority without war?

Monarchy requires unquestioned legitimacy. Nigeria does not possess a shared identity capable of granting it. You can decorate the idea with history, nostalgia, and wounded pride, but the mathematics remains unchanged.

A fractured people cannot produce a unified throne.

Until you confront that reality, you are not proposing monarchy. You are romanticizing fragmentation and calling it tradition.

Now, if you want to continue, address the argument rather than my tone. Produce a structural model where multiple tribal monarchies willingly submit to a central crown without accusations of marginalization, ethnic dominance, or secession threats. If you cannot, then your idea is not a solution. It is a story you tell yourself to avoid facing the present.

Your move.

steadygo:
The development of the countries you listed can’t seriously be explained by they abolishment of monarchy. Their wealth and power come from things like early industrialization, access to global trade . Also, in the case of the western world much of their wealth is due to imperialism; slavery, colonial extraction as well as the resources they are able to get cheap today.

In fact, much of the military and industrial capacity that allowed for European imperialism was built while those states were still in monarchies. Britain, France and others developed their ships, guns and financial systems under kings and emperors, and used them to dominate global trade and colonise other regions. Germany’s core industrial boom happened under the Kaiser. Russia’s 19th-century industrialization was driven by the Tsarist state. France also had major economic and infrastructure growth under regimes like the Second Empire.

The United States started as a British colonial extension under a king. They later grew rich as a republic but after already inheriting industrialization from Britain and still relied heavily on slavery, and as native land seizure, and unequal integration into the world economy. China's industrialization is different and more modern, it followed the industrialization model of the western world so it doesn't take away from the larger point.

I don't put this down to at all defend slavery, imperialism or colonization but only to show that the historical record doesn't support the idea that abolishing monarchy automatically causes development. Many states built their power under monarchies and only later changed their regime type.

I partially understand your point but i disagree

Russia was very backward compared to the rest of Europe, but after the Tsar was overthrown it actually led to rapid industrialization that placed Russia and Soviet Union on par with the USA, that industrialization could have never happened under the Tsars.

USA was created for the very sole purpose of escaping the limitations of a monarchy society, limitations like one prince inheriting very large estates, estates that would otherwise have been used for agriculture or manufacturing but under monarchy it becomes a symbol of influence and power; being barred from certain places and opportunities simply because you didnt possess the right honorific; waging a war every time a King dies etc

China under Qing dynasty seriously stagnated and this led to the century of humiliation, China had to abandon monarchy and learn somethings from USA.

Germany's industrial boom didnt happen under the Kaiser, it happened under Otto Von Bismarck.

France industrial global peak began during the French revolution and Napoleonic era.

You made a point that the industrial capacity was already in those countries before they overthrew the monarchy, this is true but in those countries of high industrial capacity you'll find out that the monarchy was severely weakened to the point of being a status ceremonial symbol because the monarchy system by itself is usually opposed to industrial capacity and merely tolerates it when it becomes unavoidable.

The very idea of being a king is that you are born with a special and greater destiny than everybody else, how do you reconcile the principle of democracy and equality with such an idea?

How do you promote industrial capacity in a society where any work aside from warfare and politics is seen as degrading, fit for peasants and slaves?

How can a country know its industrial capacity if it doesnt eliminate certain parasitic elements from its society?

steadygo:
Yes, of course a single king cannot rule of Nigeria. My post was to imply our forms of monarchy before colonization, which was not a single king but multiple kings across many independent tribes. I think that system worked better and when I think of it, I see no reason why it cannot be updated to work today as opposed to the western form of democracy we have now. I do think that even across all tribes of Nigeria and their monarchies or traditional systems for tribes which do not have monarchies, we still will need a unifying system. And I suspect a monarchy-like system will also be better for such a unifying system.

I take your suggestion of being the ruler of Nigeria as a joke.

Excellent points. Nothing stops us from returning to executive monarchies at regional level.

The trick is what to do at national level.

Fenrir:
Steadygo,

Your reply confirms one thing with perfect clarity: you do not understand the system you are defending.

You argue that Nigerian monarchies failed because colonial forces destroyed them. Yet you simultaneously praise today’s ceremonial monarchs for doing more for their people than the federal government. You cannot have it both ways. If the pre colonial monarchies were functional, and today’s version is powerless, then your argument collapses into contradiction. You want to revive something that no longer exists, yet you cannot explain how the revived system would avoid becoming exactly what we see today: tribal figureheads with crowns, titles, and no structural authority.

The moment you acknowledged that Nigeria’s monarchies were dismantled by external powers, you admitted the core point you tried to deny. If a system collapses the moment pressure is applied, it was never stable. A monarchy that depends on perfect isolation to survive is not governance. It is nostalgia.

You claim a unified structure can be built by empowering multiple monarchs through federalization. That is the same system Nigeria currently suffers under. It already has hundreds of rulers with localized loyalty, none with national legitimacy, and every tribe convinced its leader is the only one worthy of authority. You did not propose a solution. You proposed scaling up the very fragmentation that prevents nationhood.

You are trying to create national cohesion using the architecture of division.

Your logic is as follows

Nigeria fails because tribes fight for dominance
Therefore give every tribe more autonomous power
Then find a king who unites them

That is not political theory. That is a mathematical impossibility. A system based on fragmented identity cannot produce unified authority. You cannot assemble a nation out of leaders who only lead inward.

You say monarchs today do more than the federal government. If that were true, Nigerians would not be migrating, protesting, or begging politicians for basics. A functional traditional leadership structure is not measured by nostalgia, poetry, or ceremony. It is measured by infrastructure, security, accountability, and continuity. Where are the monarch built roads? Where is the monarch enforced rule of law? Where is the monarch led economic transformation?

If monarchs are your solution, produce monarch results.

Your final claim, that I attack you more than you attack me, reveals the real problem. You do not differentiate between argument and ego. You believe critique is insult because your identity is welded to your opinion. You are so emotionally invested in your worldview that logical pressure feels like aggression. That is why you never engage the content. You defend your feelings instead of your reasoning.

You say I insulted you. I dismantled your position.
You say I attacked you. I exposed the contradictions.
You say I am insecure. I am the only one answering the question.

A man who cannot separate himself from his ideas cannot improve his ideas.

Your own responses prove why monarchy cannot succeed in Nigeria. You cannot imagine power without personal injury. You cannot imagine disagreement without hostility. You cannot imagine leadership without tribal suspicion. If one conversation triggers defensiveness, how do you expect an entire nation to bow to a single authority without war?

Monarchy requires unquestioned legitimacy. Nigeria does not possess a shared identity capable of granting it. You can decorate the idea with history, nostalgia, and wounded pride, but the mathematics remains unchanged.

A fractured people cannot produce a unified throne.

Until you confront that reality, you are not proposing monarchy. You are romanticizing fragmentation and calling it tradition.

Now, if you want to continue, address the argument rather than my tone. Produce a structural model where multiple tribal monarchies willingly submit to a central crown without accusations of marginalization, ethnic dominance, or secession threats. If you cannot, then your idea is not a solution. It is a story you tell yourself to avoid facing the present.

Your move.

You don't seem to understand my points but are taking out from it and building your own ideas.

What gives you the idea that Nigerian monarchies were in "perfect isolation"? Lol. A system that collapses because it was faced by an even more powerful external power does not mean it was 'non functional' or in "perfect isolation". By your logic every nation that has been conquered would have prior been 'non functional' and every non-European one would have been in "perfect isolation". Even today in the modern world, there are countries that would be considered stable yet do not have as strong military might such as nuclear power. If a nuclear power decided to attack such countries, they will be conquered. Is it now fair to say those countries were 'not functional'? For monarchies to be doing as well for their people as they are doing today despite being stripped of their governing power, does not suggest those monarchies were 'not functional' in the pasts but suggests they had value. that people are.

People begging politicians for basics does not mean monarchs are not trying for their people, what it shows is that the monarch no longer have governing power. The people who actually control the budget, the laws, the security forces and the big economic decisions are the politicians. If those same politicians were not corrupt and were genuinely serving Nigerians, people would not need to beg them for money, or flee the country, or keep protesting every few years.

Even the “protesting” you mentioned actually supports my point, not yours. As 9 times out of 10, Nigerians are protesting failures and abuses that come from the federal or state governments, not from traditional rulers. That should tell you where the failure is coming from.

Now, in spite of not having any real power or authority, there is still visible work we can see these African (Nigerian) monarchs doing for their community. We see palace-led committees organizing funds for boreholes, schools, clinics and settling disputes.

It is not tribal wars or tribal conflict that is the main issue with Nigeria, it is a corrupt and ineffective federal government. And they hide behind tribal and religious statements to distract people from their own incompetence.

You did not "dismantle my position" or "expose my contradictions", you have not even begun to. It is not that I believe critique is insult either. It is that what you are producing are insults. Statements like "You are a jester", "You are nostalgic and insecure", "You cannot separate feelings from ideas", "Auditioning for head jester", and so forth lol. These are not analysis but attempts at character assessment. Continue this and I will treat you as unready for a serious discussion with me, and cease replying to your posts all together.

Kushites:
Excellent points. Nothing stops us from returning to executive monarchies at regional level.

The trick is what to do at national level.

Thanks. Exactly, executive monarchs with a clear constitutional limitation. For the head at the national level, I am now leaning towards a sort of committees led by a single official.

danvon:
I partially understand your point but i disagree

Russia was very backward compared to the rest of Europe, but after the Tsar was overthrown it actually led to rapid industrialization that placed Russia and Soviet Union on par with the USA, that industrialization could have never happened under the Tsars.

USA was created for the very sole purpose of escaping the limitations of a monarchy society, limitations like one prince inheriting very large estates, estates that would otherwise have been used for agriculture or manufacturing but under monarchy it becomes a symbol of influence and power; being barred from certain places and opportunities simply because you didnt possess the right honorific; waging a war every time a King dies etc

China under Qing dynasty seriously stagnated and this led to the century of humiliation, China had to abandon monarchy and learn somethings from USA.

Germany's industrial boom didnt happen under the Kaiser, it happened under Otto Von Bismarck.

France industrial global peak began during the French revolution and Napoleonic era.

You made a point that the industrial capacity was already in those countries before they overthrew the monarchy, this is true but in those countries of high industrial capacity you'll find out that the monarchy was severely weakened to the point of being a status ceremonial symbol because the monarchy system by itself is usually opposed to industrial capacity and merely tolerates it when it becomes unavoidable.

The very idea of being a king is that you are born with a special and greater destiny than everybody else, how do you reconcile the principle of democracy and equality with such an idea?

How do you promote industrial capacity in a society where any work aside from warfare and politics is seen as degrading, fit for peasants and slaves?

How can a country know its industrial capacity if it doesnt eliminate certain parasitic elements from its society?

Thanks for your excellent points. I'm very exhausted now but will respond to them tomorrow.

Fenrir:
Ah yes, at last someone has finally recognized my destiny.

As a Norwegian, I graciously accept your invitation to become King of Nigeria. It’s only logical. My Viking ancestors were practically born with crowns and axes, and the word “viking” already contains “king,” so clearly, fate has spoken.

Don’t worry, I’ll rule benevolently. I will sit on a golden throne made of melted down generators, declare NEPA illegal, and ensure that all roads are paved before my coronation feast of suya and lutefisk. I will also knight the first person who teaches the entire country how to pronounce “Svalbard.”

Norway has absolutely nothing Nigeria needs except snow, fish, and unsolicited opinions, but I’ll bring them anyway. By the time I’m done, Nigeria will have the punctuality of Scandinavia, the bravery of Vikings, and the calm patience of someone who has queued for JAMB results.

As my first royal culinary decree, Nigerian jollof rice shall be officially recognized as the best in the world. Let Ghana say whatever it wants. The crown has spoken.

Of course, every great kingdom needs entertainment, so I will appoint a royal jester. Preferably someone who thinks monarchy is the solution to Nigeria’s problems. At least they are already experienced in telling jokes.

Please prepare the crown, the royal palace, and a ceremonial goat. My longship is already parked at Tarkwa Bay.

Royal Decrees of the Kingdom of Nigeriask

By the authority vested in me by my Viking blood and impeccable sense of drama, I hereby issue the following decrees for the amusement, terror, and occasional enlightenment of my subjects:

Sex shall be a spectator sport. All participants must wear matching velvet capes and top hats. Commentary shall be provided by the royal jester. Tickets are mandatory. Popcorn will be served.

All cows must learn to waltz. Those who refuse shall be conscripted into the Royal Ballet of Bovine Elegance.

Nap time is compulsory at 3 PM daily. Anyone caught refusing a nap shall be sentenced to reading Norse poetry aloud while standing on one foot.

Every citizen must own at least one ridiculous hat. The more feathers, bells, and glitter, the higher your social standing.

All meetings must begin with a dramatic entrance. Failure to do so results in immediate exile to the ceremonial goat pen.

Royal proclamations shall be delivered via interpretive dance whenever possible. Traditional speech is considered barbaric and highly uncivilized.

All official disputes shall be settled by competitive yodeling. Judges will be appointed by the royal jester.

Nigerian jollof rice remains the official food of the kingdom. Anyone caught questioning this shall be forced to eat only lutefisk for one month.

Sunday mornings are reserved for dragon riding. Helmets and mandatory Viking war cries are required. Failure to comply will be met with royal eye-rolls and sarcastic applause.

Every citizen must bow to my longship upon sight. It has feelings too and deserves recognition for its loyalty.

These decrees are final, binding, and utterly ridiculous. Any complaints should be addressed to the royal jester, who is legally required to laugh at you.

Long live the Kingdom of Nigeriask 👑🛡️🛶

The Royal Return: A Proclamation from the Longship
Subjects, Jollof enthusiasts, generator whisperers, and those still trying to pronounce "Svalbard" without summoning ancient demons:
I HAVE RETURNED!
After a brief sabbatical spent consulting with the Great Polar Bears of the North (who send their regards and asked why you lot don't just eat the crude oil instead of fighting over it), attempting to teach Norwegian reindeer the fine art of "danfo dodging," and explaining to my Viking ancestors why I traded my fur cloak for a breathable agbada that makes me look like a well-dressed curtain, your King has docked his longship once again at Tarkwa Bay!
My journey back was TREACHEROUS. We were nearly capsized by a rogue tsunami of "unsolicited wedding invitations," attacked by a kraken made entirely of expired MTN data bundles, and briefly detained by customs who demanded to know why my longship was registered as a "luxury keke napep." But the sacred aroma of spicy Suya acted as our North Star, its smoky tendrils guiding us home through the fog of generator exhaust to this blessed land of 24/7 sunlight and 0/24 electricity.
The State of the Kingdom: A Royal Assessment
I have observed the realm in my absence, watching from afar with a telescope made of disappointment and Viking tears. My heart bleeds like a sliced tomato in a Thermomix set to "apocalypse mode."
I see you STILL struggle with "Nigerian Time." As your King, I find this categorically unacceptable and a personal insult to my punctual Nordic soul. From this day forward, "5 minutes" shall actually mean "5 MINUTES" not "sometime between now and the heat death of the universe."
Exception: If you are waiting for a tailor, wedding planner, or NEPA, the laws of physics, time, and basic human decency remain suspended by divine decree. These professions exist in a quantum state where promises are both kept and broken simultaneously until you show up angry.
New Royal Mandates (Effective Immediately Upon Pain of Yodeling)
To celebrate my glorious homecoming and the fact that the ceremonial goat survived my absence without staging a coup, I hereby add the following non-negotiable brilliance to the Royal Decrees of Nigeriask:
1. The Great Infrastructure Swap
Since you have too much sun and we have too much ice (seriously, we have SO MUCH ice, we don't know what to do with it), I am proposing the Trans-Atlantic Temperature Pipeline Project.
We will send you massive blocks of Norwegian glaciers via royal longship to:
Cool your beer to optimal drinking temperature
Provide air conditioning for exactly 6 minutes before melting
Create the world's first "Ice Skating Rink in Lekki" (operational hours: 6am-6:02am)
In return, you will send us enough concentrated Lagos heat, traffic rage, and "I said FIVE MINUTES" energy to make Oslo feel like Oshodi at 2pm in July. Our Vikings are tired of being frozen. They want to sweat! They want to complain about heat! They want to experience the joy of saying "this sun is not smiling today!"
2. The National Anthem Revision
The anthem shall now be performed EXCLUSIVELY on a talking drum accompanied by a heavy metal Viking guitar solo, three confused violinists, and one very aggressive triangle player who takes their job far too seriously.
It MUST be played at a volume that ensures:
The neighbors in Ghana can hear our superiority
Dogs in Cameroon start howling
Satellites briefly lose signal
Your ancestors wake up confused
3. Currency Reform: The Suya Standard
The Naira shall henceforth be backed by the Suya Standard™ (patent pending, all rights reserved, Ghana can cry about it).
Official exchange rate:
1 stick of kidney = 5 sticks of beef
1 stick of chicken = 3 sticks of beef (chicken is for the weak)
1 gizzard = Parliamentary immunity
Inflation will be permanently solved because everyone will be too busy eating, arguing about yaji spice levels, and fighting over the last stick to print more money. Economic crisis: SOLVED. You're welcome.
4. Royal Transportation Overhaul
Public transport shall be IMMEDIATELY replaced by:
In Lagos/Coastal Regions: Domesticated whales in the lagoons, trained to navigate Third Mainland Bridge traffic. They don't require petrol, only moss, fresh fish, and occasional compliments like "You're doing amazing, Oluwakemi the Whale."
In the North: Armored battle-reindeer equipped with:
Anti-pothole hooves
Built-in GPS (because unlike humans, they're PUNCTUAL)
The ability to side-eye danfo drivers
In Abuja: Giant royal eagles that only land for senators. Everyone else walks. This builds character.
5. The Ceremonial Goat Promotion
The ceremonial goat, having survived my absence with dignity and only moderate property damage, is hereby promoted to Lord High Chancellor of Recursive Bleating.
His responsibilities include:
Attending all state functions
Judging anyone who brings "just passing by" energy to a party
Eating all official documents he deems "unnecessarily boring"
6. Mandatory National Siesta
Every day at 3 PM, the entire nation STOPS.
All generators are silenced by royal decree
Traffic lights turn to "nap mode" (which looks identical to their current "not working" mode)
Anyone caught refusing a nap will be sentenced to reading Norse poetry aloud while standing on one foot and balancing a bowl of eba on their head
This is non-negotiable. Even armed robbers must observe siesta. Crime can wait. Sleep cannot.
7. The Great Hat Renaissance
Every citizen must own at least one RIDICULOUS hat. The more feathers, bells, jingle jangles, LED lights, and structural engineering violations, the higher your social standing.
Boring hats (baseball caps, berets, normal fedoras) are hereby BANNED. Your hat must:
Make people question your sanity
Require a building permit
Have its own weather system
The Royal Hat Inspector will conduct surprise inspections. Failure to comply results in mandatory enrollment in "Interpretive Dance Appreciation Classes" taught by the royal jester at 5am.
8. Meeting Protocol Reform
All meetings business, family, church, even accidental eye contact with your ex MUST begin with a dramatic entrance.
Acceptable dramatic entrance methods:
Kicking down the door (repair costs on you)
Arriving via zip-line while playing a saxophone
Emerging from a cloud of harmless but excessive smoke
Cartwheeling in while someone beatboxes your theme song
Failure to make a dramatic entrance results in:
Immediate exile to the ceremonial goat pen (he's judging you)
Being forced to attend every family meeting for the next year
Having to explain to the Royal Hat Inspector why you're so BORING
9. Dispute Resolution Reform
All official disputes land cases, marriage conflicts, "who makes the best jollof" arguments shall be settled by competitive yodeling.
Judges will be appointed by the royal jester, who is legally required to wear awig made of dried stockfish during all proceedings.
If yodeling fails (it won't), we resort to:
Synchronized swimming in a kiddie pool
Extreme ironing competitions
Whoever can explain NEPA billing the fastest
10. The Jollof Supremacy Act
Nigerian jollof rice remains the OFFICIAL, UNDISPUTED, UNQUESTIONABLE food of the kingdom.
Anyone caught:
Questioning this fact
Suggesting Ghanaian jollof is "also good"
Even THINKING about Senegalese jollof
Shall be sentenced to eat ONLY Norwegian lutefisk (fermented fish jelly that smells like industrial accidents) for one calendar month while we play "Sweet Mother" on repeat but only the instrumental version so you can fully contemplate your crimes.
A Stern Warning to the Royal Jester
I see the Royal Jester has been busy during my absence. GOOD. Keep it up. Your job security depends on the nation's laughter levels remaining above "mild chuckle."
However, if the laughter stops, I might actually have to start GOVERNING, and trust me, NOBODY wants a Viking trying to fill out civil service paperwork. It involves far too many axes, not enough staplers, and someone always ends up crying about "proper documentation" when I've clearly just solved the problem with fire and intimidation.
So keep juggling! Keep joke-telling! Keep the people entertained! Your life depends on it! (Not really. Maybe. Probably. Let's not test it.)
Final Royal Commands for the Homecoming Feast
PREPARE THE FEAST! I want:
47 goats (46 for eating, 1 for moral support)
Jollof rice prepared by exactly 12 grandmothers arguing about measurements
Chin-chin that could break teeth (the good kind)
Suya enough to feed an army of confused Vikings
Chapman that's 60% Fanta, 30% Sprite, 10% "what is this and why is it delicious"
WASH THE CEREMONIAL GOAT! He smells like poor life choices and must be presentable for his new role as Lord High Chancellor.
SUMMON THE ROYAL DJ! Tell them to play:
"Sweet Mother" but with MORE Viking war chanting
Fela Kuti remixed with Norwegian death metal
Every Wizkid song simultaneously (this is a test of the speakers)
ALERT THE TAILORS! I need new royal agbadas with:
Pockets big enough to hide emergency suya
Embroidered Viking runes that say "I am your King, bow accordingly"
Ventilation because THIS HEAT IS NOT PLAYING
INFORM THE NEIGHBOURS! Let Ghana know we're back. Let them HEAR IT. Turn up the music until they file a formal complaint, THEN turn it up more.
Long live the King!
Long live Nigeriask!
Long live Suya!
Long live the ceremonial goat!
🇳🇬🇳🇴⚔️🐐🍖👑
The King has spoken. The longship is parked. The generators are confused. The goat is promoted. Order is restored.
Now somebody PLEASE explain to me why NEPA changed their name but kept the same energy.

steadygo:
I think monarchy is may be the best system of government. It allows for a leader to dedicate their entire life to serve you whereas in a presidential system, leaders only have a few years in office and can be easily influenced or even installed by the corrupt wealthy individuals. Going deeper, in a monarchy, the current monarch can pick an heir from birth and prepare them from the earliest stage of life to become a capable ruler. The heir also has a first-person view to the reigning monarch's rule; they are able to learn directly, every day, by watching them lead. Monarchy gives us the best prospects for a great leader. What do you think?

Yes, I agree that Monarchy is the best system of Governance for only Yorubas, Hausas and Fulanis up north..

steadygo:
I think monarchy is may be the best system of government. It allows for a leader to dedicate their entire life to serve you whereas in a presidential system, leaders only have a few years in office and can be easily influenced or even installed by the corrupt wealthy individuals. Going deeper, in a monarchy, the current monarch can pick an heir from birth and prepare them from the earliest stage of life to become a capable ruler. The heir also has a first-person view to the reigning monarch's rule; they are able to learn directly, every day, by watching them lead. Monarchy gives us the best prospects for a great leader. What do you think?

Wobblystop my royal jester.... I summon you..


The King's First Press Conference: Addressing the "Naysayers," Complainers, Confused Citizens, and That One Guy Who Asked If Vikings Accept Transfers
Subjects, petitioners, professional "passing-by" visitors, those currently hiding their Ghanaian passports in rice bags, and whoever keeps asking if my longship has Bluetooth:
I HAVE SEEN YOUR COMMENTS.
My royal scrolls (WhatsApp groups I was added to without consent) are FULL of your concerns, complaints, and deeply unserious questions. Some of you are asking for "palliatives" (which I assume means free things you didn't work for). Others are asking if my longship has space for Uber passengers (it does not, it runs on Viking rage and the tears of people who say "I'm coming" but never come).
One BRAVE soul asked if the Viking Battle Reindeer can survive on a diet of Gala sausage rolls and Lacasera. The answer is NO. They require PROPER nutrition: moss, Norwegian dignity, and the occasional motivational speech about how they're better than horses.
And someone SOMEONE had the audacity to ask if I accept "transfers" like I'm running a betting app.
Let me address these concerns with Royal Clarity, Brutal Honesty, and Just Enough Sarcasm to Make You Question Your Life Choices:
1. On the "Luxury Keke Napep" Longship Incident
To the customs officer at Tarkwa Bay who tried to "collect something small for the boys" when my longship docked:
I. HAVE. NOTED. YOUR. FACE.
Your punishment is as follows:
48 hours in the "Room of Punctuality" where EVERY clock actually works, meetings start on time, and there is NO "Nigerian Time" to save you from the soul-crushing boredom of efficiency
Mandatory attendance at a seminar titled "Why Asking a Viking for Bribes is a Terrible Idea: A Survival Guide"
You must personally explain to the Ceremonial Goat why you thought shaking down a Norwegian King would end well for you
The Goat is VERY disappointed. He expected better.
2. On the Suya Standard™ Currency System
Yes, gizzards are now a legal form of bail.
If you are arrested for:
Not wearing a ridiculous hat
Being late to your own wedding
Suggesting Ghanaian jollof is "not bad actually"
Pronouncing "Svalbard" like you're having a stroke
You may pay your way out with:
Three (3) sticks of perfectly grilled gizzard
A sincere, tearful apology to the Ceremonial Goat (he's still mad about the customs thing)
One interpretive dance explaining what you've learned
HOWEVER, if you attempt to bribe the Royal Court with BURNT gizzard or gods forbid CHICKEN gizzard when you clearly have access to cow, you will be sentenced to:
One month of eating only Norwegian brown cheese (it tastes like sweetened depression)
Reading all Nigerian road safety manuals out loud
Explaining to a group of confused Vikings why "I'm coming" doesn't mean you're actually coming
3. The Great "NEPA Name Change" Investigation
I have conducted a THOROUGH royal investigation into why they changed from NEPA to PHCN to DisCo to whatever incomprehensible acronym they're hiding behind this week.
My findings:
It is a classic Viking military tactic known as "Changing Your Shield So The Enemy Doesn't Recognize You While You're Still Not Giving Them Light."
Brilliant strategy. Terrible execution.
They thought if they changed names, we'd forget they've been stealing our money while the generators do all the work. WRONG. We remember EVERYTHING. We have spreadsheets. We have RECEIPTS. We have ancestors taking notes.
The Royal Solution:
I shall personally wire the entire national grid to:
A team of 5,000 angry Norwegian electric eels (they're VERY motivated)
The collective rage of every Nigerian who ever bought petrol for a generator
Three Vikings with degrees in electrical engineering who are TIRED of excuses
The Ceremonial Goat's pure, judgmental energy
If this doesn't work, we're switching to whale-powered turbines. The whales are already in the lagoon. They're ready. They're WILLING. They just want health insurance and Thursdays off.
4. The Royal "Giveaway" (This is Definitely a Trap)
I hear it is customary for "Big Men" to do "giveaways" when they return from abroad, throwing money at crowds like they're feeding pigeons and expecting applause.
Fine. I am a generous King.
I am giving away 1,000 blocks of Premium Norwegian Glacier Ice™ (estimated value: priceless in Lagos heat, worthless in Oslo winter).
Collection Details:
Location: The EXACT middle of Third Mainland Bridge at 2 PM on a Friday (because I hate you all equally)
Time: 2:00 PM sharp. Nigerian Time is NOT accepted. If you arrive at 2:01, the ice has already melted and you've failed.
Requirements to Claim Your Prize:
You MUST bring your own cooler (industrial sized preferred, because these blocks are the size of a Danfo)
You MUST perform the "Viking Shuffle" a sacred dance combining:
Azonto hip movements
Norwegian war chants
The emotional intensity of someone who just survived Lagos traffic
At least one (1) dramatic axe swing (imaginary axes accepted)
You must shout "LONG LIVE THE SUYA STANDARD" three times while maintaining eye contact with the Ceremonial Goat (he will be watching from a helicopter)
IMPORTANT LEGAL DISCLAIMER:
If the ice melts before you successfully navigate:
Third Mainland traffic
A surprise police checkpoint asking for your "particulars"
Four danfo drivers trying to cut you off
That one hawker selling everything from phone chargers to live chickens
Then that is "THE WILL OF THE GODS" (and also basic thermodynamics + Lagos heat + your poor life choices).
No refunds. No complaints. The King has spoken.
5. To The Person Who Asked About "Transfers"
NO.
I do NOT accept:
Bank transfers for royal favors
Crypto (I don't trust money I can't hold)
Promises to "send it later"
Prayers (appreciative, but not legal tender)
IOUs written on torn notebook paper
I ONLY accept:
Suya (must be fresh, well-seasoned, and delivered with RESPECT)
Ridiculous hats as tribute
Sincere apologies for wasting my time
Proof you've read the Royal Decrees and aren't just here for chaos
If you're asking about transfers because you think the King runs on bribes like some politicians, let me remind you: I am a VIKING. We take what we want and leave strongly worded poems about it. We don't do "small small" negotiations.
6. On National Infrastructure (Or Lack Thereof)
Several of you have complained about:
Roads with potholes the size of small villages
Traffic that makes you question your will to live
The persistent, soul-crushing disappointment of NEPA/PHCN/DisCo/Whatever They're-Calling Themselves Today
The Royal Response:
Go forth! Pave the roads with:
The bones of our enemies (metaphorical, mostly)
Decent asphalt (practical, preferred)
The crushed dreams of corrupt contractors who thought they could pocket the budget and leave us with gravel
OR, if you're feeling particularly Viking about it:
Melt down all the abandoned, rusted generators and turn them into smooth, beautiful, rage-fueled pavement
Use the tears of every Nigerian who ever said "NEPA has taken light" as industrial adhesive
Employ the Ceremonial Goat as Quality Control Inspector (he's VERY thorough)
I want roads so smooth that even the potholes feel ashamed and fill themselves in out of peer pressure.
7. To the Royal Jester: A PUBLIC WARNING
I see you laughing in the back row. I HEAR you giggling like this is all a joke.
Your wig of dried stockfish is CROOKED. FIX IT before I:
Make you the official "Svalbard Pronunciation Coach" for the entire Nigerian Police Force (good luck explaining "å" to someone who just wants to collect "something for the boys"
Sentence you to teaching Norwegian grammar to a stadium full of Lagos taxi drivers at 6 AM
Force you to explain to my Viking ancestors why you think this is all funny (they don't have a sense of humor, they have AXES)
You have ONE job: keep the nation laughing.
If I hear ONE complaint that the jokes have gotten stale, you're being reassigned to:
NEPA customer service (a fate worse than death)
Ceremonial Goat grooming duty (he bites)
Reading terms and conditions out loud for all government contracts
Shape up, Jester. The stockfish wig is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.
8. The Royal Nap Decree (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY)
Now that I have addressed your NUMEROUS complaints, concerns, and deeply unserious questions, I am going for a nap.
Do NOT wake me unless:
The jollof rice is ready (and I mean READY perfectly cooked, seasoned by at least two arguing aunties, with the correct smoke-to-rice ratio)
A dragon is spotted flying over Ikeja (in which case, WAKE ME IMMEDIATELY so I can tame it and add "Dragon Rider" to my list of royal titles)
The Ceremonial Goat has escaped and is threatening a coup (unlikely but not impossible he's been getting IDEAS lately)
Ghana has FINALLY admitted Nigerian jollof is superior (I will wake for this, do a victory lap, then go back to sleep)
DO NOT wake me for:
"Just passing by" visits
NEPA excuses
Traffic reports (I KNOW it's bad, I have EYES)
Your uncle who "has a business proposal"
Questions about whether the longship has AC (it doesn't, we're VIKINGS)
FINAL ROYAL COMMAND:
The press conference is OVER.
Go back to your lives. Wear your ridiculous hats. Practice the Viking Shuffle. Prepare for the Great Ice Giveaway Trap. Respect the Ceremonial Goat.
And PLEASE, for the love of Odin and all the aunties who've ever asked when you're getting married:
Stop asking if I accept transfers.
Long live the King!
Long live Nigeriask!
Long live the Suya Standard!
Long live the Ceremonial Goat's judgmental stare!
🇳🇬🇳🇴⚔️🐐👑🛶
The King has spoken. The stockfish wig has been adjusted. The ice is melting. The goat is watching. Chaos continues as planned.
Now someone PLEASE explain why my longship keeps getting parking tickets.

steadygo:
I think monarchy is may be the best system of government. It allows for a leader to dedicate their entire life to serve you whereas in a presidential system, leaders only have a few years in office and can be easily influenced or even installed by the corrupt wealthy individuals. Going deeper, in a monarchy, the current monarch can pick an heir from birth and prepare them from the earliest stage of life to become a capable ruler. The heir also has a first-person view to the reigning monarch's rule; they are able to learn directly, every day, by watching them lead. Monarchy gives us the best prospects for a great leader. What do you think?

Hehe jester wobblystop. Used my wifes account 😂

Fenrir:
A monarchy sounds romantic until you remember one critical detail: Nigeria is not a homogenous country. You do not have one people with one identity who see themselves first as Nigerians. You have multiple ethnic blocs, each with its own history, heroes, grievances, and suspicion of the others. Now imagine placing a crown on just one head. What happens next?

If the king is Yoruba, the Igbo will scream marginalization.
If the king is Hausa Fulani, the South will accuse him of domination.
If the king is Igbo, the North will demand secession before breakfast.
If you rotate the crown, every tribe will still see the king as a temporary enemy in a robe.

Monarchy depends on one thing Nigeria does not have: a unified cultural loyalty. Monarchies survive when the citizens believe the crown represents everyone. Nigerians do not even trust each other over rice recipes, talk less of eternal national allegiance.

In fact, Nigeria would not have a king. Nigeria would have a tribal warlord with a better wardrobe.

And here is the irony: the same people shouting for monarchy are the same ones who cannot tolerate a governor from another tribe. You want a king? A permanent ruler? In a country where people argue over flags, names, borders, language, food, history, and even the correct way to pray?

A monarchy in Nigeria would last three weeks before:

One tribe claims the king is biased,
Another calls for self determination,
Someone somewhere shouts "not my king,"
And the South East forms a committee to create their own crown.

Unless of course, they make me king.

I have no tribe here, no ancestral enemies, no uncle waiting for a contract, and no hidden agenda. My only loyalty would be to my throne, my royal goat, and ensuring no one cooks jollof rice without a license.

In summary: monarchy in Nigeria is impossible, impractical, and guaranteed to collapse faster than NEPA power supply… unless King Sven rules. In that case, everybody gets suya and nobody fights. Problem solved.

A monarchy can work if it's planned properly and with patience. FIRST, you need to change the name Nigeria. Create an indigenous-sounding name along the lines of "Wazobia", but more elegant. Like Kanduga.

Then build a new, forceful national identity around the name.

You then form a ruling council of monarchs from all sections of the country. They will elect among themselves temporal kings for say 10 years to 15 years.

Intermarriage will happen among those monarchical families.

UNTIL a Royal Child emerges from them whose DNA comes from monarchies of AT least the Igbo, Yoruba, and Hausa, and he is presented to the Palace Oracle.

THAT BOY WILL BE CROWNED The First King of Kanduga.

FIRST DYNASTY.

More Royal Intermarriage will continue among the Council of monarchs until such a time when a Kanduga Royal Strain, coming from all nooks and crannies of the country, will be the seed of Royal Descent, of the Kingdom of Kanduga.

Traditional religion will become standardized, updated and modernised, with beautiful temples built nationwide.

No more relegation of African spirituality.

BECAUSE YOU NEED BOTH GOD AND THE GODS TO SMILE ON THE KING.

Fenrir:
A monarchy sounds romantic until you remember one critical detail: Nigeria is not a homogenous country. You do not have one people with one identity who see themselves first as Nigerians. You have multiple ethnic blocs, each with its own history, heroes, grievances, and suspicion of the others. Now imagine placing a crown on just one head. What happens next?

If the king is Yoruba, the Igbo will scream marginalization.
If the king is Hausa Fulani, the South will accuse him of domination.
If the king is Igbo, the North will demand secession before breakfast.
If you rotate the crown, every tribe will still see the king as a temporary enemy in a robe.

Monarchy depends on one thing Nigeria does not have: a unified cultural loyalty. Monarchies survive when the citizens believe the crown represents everyone. Nigerians do not even trust each other over rice recipes, talk less of eternal national allegiance.

In fact, Nigeria would not have a king. Nigeria would have a tribal warlord with a better wardrobe.

And here is the irony: the same people shouting for monarchy are the same ones who cannot tolerate a governor from another tribe. You want a king? A permanent ruler? In a country where people argue over flags, names, borders, language, food, history, and even the correct way to pray?

A monarchy in Nigeria would last three weeks before:

One tribe claims the king is biased,
Another calls for self determination,
Someone somewhere shouts "not my king,"
And the South East forms a committee to create their own crown.

Unless of course, they make me king.

I have no tribe here, no ancestral enemies, no uncle waiting for a contract, and no hidden agenda. My only loyalty would be to my throne, my royal goat, and ensuring no one cooks jollof rice without a license.

In summary: monarchy in Nigeria is impossible, impractical, and guaranteed to collapse faster than NEPA power supply… unless King Sven rules. In that case, everybody gets suya and nobody fights. Problem solved.

I disagree with you on this.

The Royal Family of England are historically Germans, before they were Germans they were French, before they were French they were Normans, England hasnt had an English king in over 900 years, yet most English have respect for their royal family, even when Germany was bombing England.

Usman Dan Fodio ruled the North but he was Fulani not Hausa, and even the Royal Family he overthrew were not Hausa.

A monarchy can stand multiple ethnicities infact it might be an advantage but a monarchy cannot stand multiple sects, philosophies or religions; because a monarch is a divine and anointed ruler. And if people cannot agree on which God did the anointing...

The king of England could be German as long as he was Protestant not Catholic, Usman Dan Fodio could be Fulani as long as he was Muslim.

Kemetian:
A monarchy can work if it's planned properly and with patience. FIRST, you need to change the name Nigeria. Create an indigenous-sounding name along the lines of "Wazobia", but more elegant. Like Kanduga.

Then build a new, forceful national identity around the name.

You then form a ruling council of monarchs from all sections of the country. They will elect among themselves temporal kings for say 10 years to 15 years.

Intermarriage will happen among those monarchical families.

UNTIL a Royal Child emerges from them whose DNA comes from monarchies of AT least the Igbo, Yoruba, and Hausa, and he is presented to the Palace Oracle.

THAT BOY WILL BE CROWNED The First King of Kanduga.

FIRST DYNASTY.

More Royal Intermarriage will continue among the Council of monarchs until such a time when a Kanduga Royal Strain, coming from all nooks and crannies of the country, will be the seed of Royal Descent, of the Kingdom of Kanduga.

Traditional religion will become standardized, updated and modernised, with beautiful temples built nationwide.

No more relegation of African spirituality.

BECAUSE YOU NEED BOTH GOD AND THE GODS TO SMILE ON THE KING.

Then make me king.........
Outside blood.
No tribal loyalty.
Single dad to half yoruba daughter so I love the country.
Id complain about you all equally and do the best for my subjects equally.
And it would please me to slightly upset OP as his king.........

steadygo:
I think monarchy is may be the best system of government. It allows for a leader to dedicate their entire life to serve you whereas in a presidential system, leaders only have a few years in office and can be easily influenced or even installed by the corrupt wealthy individuals. Going deeper, in a monarchy, the current monarch can pick an heir from birth and prepare them from the earliest stage of life to become a capable ruler. The heir also has a first-person view to the reigning monarch's rule; they are able to learn directly, every day, by watching them lead. Monarchy gives us the best prospects for a great leader. What do you think?

Find a way to pump up your IQ dude

IbnB:
Find a way to pump up your IQ dude

Are you Nigerian? If you are, tell me how much you've gained from democracy in Nigeria.

danvon:
I partially understand your point but i disagree

Russia was very backward compared to the rest of Europe, but after the Tsar was overthrown it actually led to rapid industrialization that placed Russia and Soviet Union on par with the USA, that industrialization could have never happened under the Tsars.

USA was created for the very sole purpose of escaping the limitations of a monarchy society, limitations like one prince inheriting very large estates, estates that would otherwise have been used for agriculture or manufacturing but under monarchy it becomes a symbol of influence and power; being barred from certain places and opportunities simply because you didnt possess the right honorific; waging a war every time a King dies etc

China under Qing dynasty seriously stagnated and this led to the century of humiliation, China had to abandon monarchy and learn somethings from USA.

Germany's industrial boom didnt happen under the Kaiser, it happened under Otto Von Bismarck.

France industrial global peak began during the French revolution and Napoleonic era.

You made a point that the industrial capacity was already in those countries before they overthrew the monarchy, this is true but in those countries of high industrial capacity you'll find out that the monarchy was severely weakened to the point of being a status ceremonial symbol because the monarchy system by itself is usually opposed to industrial capacity and merely tolerates it when it becomes unavoidable.

The very idea of being a king is that you are born with a special and greater destiny than everybody else, how do you reconcile the principle of democracy and equality with such an idea?

How do you promote industrial capacity in a society where any work aside from warfare and politics is seen as degrading, fit for peasants and slaves?

How can a country know its industrial capacity if it doesnt eliminate certain parasitic elements from its society?

It's true Russia was behind Western Europe, prior to the abolishment of monarchy, but Russia's Industrial growth had already started before the Tsar fell. The Soviet Union did industrialize extremely faster but that was because the state forced it through centralized planning not because there was an inherent flaw with monarchy preventing industrialization.

U.S was not actually created to escape the "limitations of a monarchial society" like so many people think. America's reason for leaving Britain control was mainly due to the British taxing and control their affairs when not being represented by British parliament. They wanted their own colonial assembly that represented them to decide what taxes they pay to Britain so it was initially not an attempt for separation from Britain or the British monarchy but for internal governance. It was only independence got pushed alongside anti-monarchy sentiment when the British King, George III rejected their proposal. The actual development of the U.S came about through factors that have nothing to do with monarchy vs democratic republic but have to do with land seizure (the land the US sits on itself is one big land seizure as it originally belonged to the Native Americans), unbridled exploitative capitalism, and one of the largest slave labour force in recorded history. So it was not the case either that the US development came with "democracy and equality".

In the case of China, after the Qing dynasty ended, modernization did not happen immediately. It fragmented, was destabilized and struggled to build a develop state for decades depending on how you count it, therefore it does not suggest ending monarchy is a cause of development. Indeed, the Qing dynasty attempted industrialization but failed due to constraints such as a weak state capacity which led to industrialization not being able to be enforced nationwide. So your point here has more to do with a weak state capacity than it does a monarchial system as non-monarchial systems and democratic republics can also have weak state capacity and thereby face similar issues.

In Germany, Otto von Bishmarck governed within Germany's monarchial system, under the Kaiser so it is not fair to say Germany's industrial boom did not happen under the Kaiser.

On France, the second empire by Napoleon III was a monarchy in practice, it was still a life-long ruler with centralized executive authority as well as limited parliamentary control. Indeed, what Napoleon overthrew to become sovereign was a republic. So this only helps prove my original point that monarchy is potentially a superior form of government.

In my view, it's not really true that a monarchial system is inherently opposed to industrialization or even usually like you said. Why should it be? Also, a lot of major industrialization happened under monarchies that were not just ceremonial. Germany's Kaiser had real executive power and the industrial boom happened under that monarchial system. Japan in the Meiji era saw industrialization with a monarch who was not merely ceremonial. Russia under the Tsar was not a ceremonial monarchial system and industrialization was pushed.

As to your last point, my view is: Democracy is a system where the people risk the state of their country continually by gambling over and over on which politician would lead them. Monarchy, on the other hand, if approached correctly— is simply a system where the people are wise enough to equip the state to effectively prepare and secure a competent leader/leaders ahead of time, as well as have systems in place that can appropriately check, remove and replace such a leader.

steadygo:
It's true Russia was behind Western Europe, prior to the abolishment of monarchy, but Russia's Industrial growth had already started before the Tsar fell. The Soviet Union did industrialize extremely faster but that was because the state forced it through centralized planning not because there was an inherent flaw with monarchy preventing industrialization.

U.S was not actually created to escape the "limitations of a monarchial society" like so many people think. America's reason for leaving Britain control was mainly due to the British taxing and control their affairs when not being represented by British parliament. They wanted their own colonial assembly that represented them to decide what taxes they pay to Britain so it was initially not an attempt for separation from Britain or the British monarchy but for internal governance. It was only independence got pushed alongside anti-monarchy sentiment when the British King, George III rejected their proposal. The actual development of the U.S came about through factors that have nothing to do with monarchy vs democratic republic but have to do with land seizure (the land the US sits on itself is one big land seizure as it originally belonged to the Native Americans), unbridled exploitative capitalism, and one of the largest slave labour force in recorded history. So it was not the case either that the US development came with "democracy and equality".

In the case of China, after the Qing dynasty ended, modernization did not happen immediately. It fragmented, was destabilized and struggled to build a develop state for decades depending on how you count it, therefore it does not suggest ending monarchy is a cause of development. Indeed, the Qing dynasty attempted industrialization but failed due to constraints such as a weak state capacity which led to industrialization not being able to be enforced nationwide. So your point here has more to do with a weak state capacity than it does a monarchial system as non-monarchial systems and democratic republics can also have weak state capacity and thereby face similar issues.

In Germany, Otto von Bishmarck governed within Germany's monarchial system, under the Kaiser so it is not fair to say Germany's industrial boom did not happen under the Kaiser.

On France, the second empire by Napoleon III was a monarchy in practice, it was still a life-long ruler with centralized executive authority as well as limited parliamentary control. Indeed, what Napoleon overthrew to become sovereign was a republic. So this only helps prove my original point that monarchy is potentially a superior form of government.

In my view, it's not really true that a monarchial system is inherently opposed to industrialization or even usually like you said. Why should it be? Also, a lot of major industrialization happened under monarchies that were not just ceremonial. Germany's Kaiser had real executive power and the industrial boom happened under that monarchial system. Japan in the Meiji era saw industrialization with a monarch who was not merely ceremonial. Russia under the Tsar was not a ceremonial monarchial system and industrialization was pushed.

As to your last point, my view is: Democracy is a system where the people risk the state of their country continually by gambling over and over on which politician would lead them. Monarchy, on the other hand, if approached correctly— is simply a system where the people are wise enough to equip the state to effectively prepare and secure a competent leader/leaders ahead of time, as well as have systems in place that can appropriately check, remove and replace such a leader.

For Russia, that very lack of central planning was a key feature of the monarchy, you also didnt mention serfdom, how the vast majority of russians under monarchy were practically not different from a cow.

That part about USA is definitely a lie, USA constitution was anti monarchial, the declaration of independence is a jokingly diss track against King George. For all its flaws USA democracy left it open to self correction, people can protest change, Monarchies dont self correct they crash.

You admit the Qing dynasty had poor state capacity but failed to acknowledge that the weak state capacity was the result of a monarchial system that placed its power in the hands of a concubine and a child.

Napoleon III started out as pro democracy but he slowly shifted to become a monarch which resulted in him being captured and France suffering.

German Kaiser had real power and he used that power to start world war 2, which led to him being overthrown and Germany suffering. Under Bismarck Germany saw its true peak, once he was out, the natural problems of monarchial system took root.

Democracy allows you the option of removing an incompetent or power hungry leader, there is no self correction in monarchies.

danvon:
For Russia, that very lack of central planning was a key feature of the monarchy, you also didnt mention serfdom, how the vast majority of russians under monarchy were practically not different from a cow.

That part about USA is definitely a lie, USA constitution was anti monarchial, the declaration of independence is a jokingly diss track against King George. For all its flaws USA democracy left it open to self correction, people can protest change, Monarchies dont self correct they crash.

You admit the Qing dynasty had poor state capacity but failed to acknowledge that the weak state capacity was the result of a monarchial system that placed its power in the hands of a concubine and a child.

Napoleon III started out as pro democracy but he slowly shifted to become a monarch which resulted in him being captured and France suffering.

German Kaiser had real power and he used that power to start world war 2, which led to him being overthrown and Germany suffering. Under Bismarck Germany saw its true peak, once he was out, the natural problems of monarchial system took root.

Democracy allows you the option of removing an incompetent or power hungry leader, there is no self correction in monarchies.

Once the monarch can be removed by a committee above him or her then there is self correction. The British did not abandon their monarchy at any time and we owe this industrial era to them.
Any leader should work under a committee that can sack the person without ceremony. That is what is important

lawani:
Once the monarch can be removed by a committee above him or her then there is self correction. The British did not abandon their monarchy at any time and we owe this industrial era to them.
Any leader should work under a committee that can sack the person without ceremony. That is what is important

If a monarch can be removed peacefully (without dying) and another appointed in his place, then it is no longer monarchy, at worst oligarchy or at best constitutional monarchy which is basically parliamentary democracy...

And do you think a powerful monarch would enjoy being told what to do, and wouldnt try to play the system to gain/keep more power? He would sit by and let himself be kicked out?

lawani:
Once the monarch can be removed by a committee above him or her then there is self correction. The British did not abandon their monarchy at any time and we owe this industrial era to them.
Any leader should work under a committee that can sack the person without ceremony. That is what is important

The British did not abandon their monarchy but their monarchy became symbolic and lost real power.

steadygo:
I think monarchy is may be the best system of government. It allows for a leader to dedicate their entire life to serve you whereas in a presidential system, leaders only have a few years in office and can be easily influenced or even installed by the corrupt wealthy individuals. Going deeper, in a monarchy, the current monarch can pick an heir from birth and prepare them from the earliest stage of life to become a capable ruler. The heir also has a first-person view to the reigning monarch's rule; they are able to learn directly, every day, by watching them lead. Monarchy gives us the best prospects for a great leader. What do you think?

History has shown that monarch eventually become despots and succession present its own set of problems. Monarchies eventually fail as there they fall out with the people.

Monarchy system doesn't fit into corrupt entities.


Wrong choice

danvon:
If a monarch can be removed peacefully (without dying) and another appointed in his place, then it is no longer monarchy, at worst oligarchy or at best constitutional monarchy which is basically parliamentary democracy...

And do you think a powerful monarch would enjoy being told what to do, and wouldnt try to play the system to gain/keep more power? He would sit by and let himself be kicked out?

Anybody in leadership position should be easily removable. That is the only way leadership can be efficient. Yoruba monarchs were monarchs and they were easily removable. Every town had an Ogboni council and they are the real rulers and they can override the King on any matter. The King is not deferred to during Ogboni meetings.

There were Oyo kings that were removed and later recalled. Same in Ijesa. The Kings reigned, made crucial decisions, lived in affluence and etc but they didn't really rule in Yoruba land. The Ogboni were the rulers. They peer reviewed the monarch. You can't leave the leadership of anything important to just one person. In Rome, they had the Senate. In the US today, the CIA can order the President around. If you leave just one head to run a nation what will happen if the person goes insane? There must be peer review

mrvitalis:
Ji
Some of you sha

Una never allow Igbo president, then think an Igbo king who would pick an Igbo heir?

Sure but we have been under British monarch system after independence from 1960 to 1963, when Nnamdi Azikiwe was the Governor General and he later transite to President from 1963 to 1966, still yet Tafawa Belawa was the Prime Minister from 1960 to 1966.
Back to the topic on ground, Monarchy System of Government can never work well in Nigeria because no region even the minorities (Kanuri, Tiv, Igala, Efik, Ibibio, etc) will allow for one traditional head (Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa King's) to be governing over them, talk more of the majorities, normally Nigeria will be good to if we go back to 1963 constitution where we will have Prime Minister as the head of Government and President as the head of state, both will be check mating each other and also the parliamentary will have very big opinions in the government matters rather than now everything (powers) is in the hand of one person called the president.

steadygo:
I think monarchy is may be the best system of government. It allows for a leader to dedicate their entire life to serve you whereas in a presidential system, leaders only have a few years in office and can be easily influenced or even installed by the corrupt wealthy individuals. Going deeper, in a monarchy, the current monarch can pick an heir from birth and prepare them from the earliest stage of life to become a capable ruler. The heir also has a first-person view to the reigning monarch's rule; they are able to learn directly, every day, by watching them lead. Monarchy gives us the best prospects for a great leader. What do you think?

Monarchy System of Government can never work well in Nigeria because no region even the minorities (Kanuri, Tiv, Igala, Efik, Ibibio, etc) will allow for one traditional head (Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa King's) to be governing over them, talk more of the majorities, normally Nigeria will be good to if we go back to 1963 constitution where we will have Prime Minister as the head of Government and President as the head of state, both will be check mating each other and also the parliamentary will have very big opinions in the government matters rather than now everything (powers) is in the hand of one person called the president.

UzorIyke:
Sure but we have been under British monarch system after independence from 1960 to 1963, when Nnamdi Azikiwe was the Governor General and he later transite to President from 1963 to 1966, still yet Tafawa Belawa was the Prime Minister from 1960 to 1966.
Back to the topic on ground, Monarchy System of Government can never work well in Nigeria because no region even the minorities (Kanuri, Tiv, Igala, Efik, Ibibio, etc) will allow for one traditional head (Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa King's) to be governing over them, talk more of the majorities, normally Nigeria will be good to if we go back to 1963 constitution where we will have Prime Minister as the head of Government and President as the head of state, both will be check mating each other and also the parliamentary will have very big opinions in the government matters rather than now everything (powers) is in the hand of one person called the president.

Britain conquered you u had no option

lawani:
Yes the Oyomesi was the highest council of the Ogboni in Oyo. In Ijesa it is the Agba Ijesa. Every free man in Yoruba land belonged to the Ogboni. However it is not really true that the only way to remove or depose a King is to ask him to commit suicide. You will be asked to commit suicide only if you as a king committed a comeasurate crime. The elder brother of Sango was replaced with Sango but was later recalled after Sango's demise. I have forgotten his name. The same thing was common in Ijesa. If you see the Ijesa king list you will see some names occurring more than once. They were sacked and later recalled.

I thought the Ogboni was like the judiciary.