MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3154293007 · doi:10.14288/1.0396648

Deliberative democracy and problems of democratic governance in Nigeria

2021· article· en· W3154293007 on OpenAlexaff
Oluwaseun Ajaja

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyPolitical scienceDeliberative democracyCorporate governanceDemocratic governancePublic administrationEconomicsLawPoliticsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problems of democratic governance in Nigeria are traceable to the impact of colonialism on, the prevalence of identity politics in, and the skewed structure of Nigeria’s constitutional framework. Previous scholars who have inquired into these problems had mostly concluded by either recommending the alteration of Nigeria’s constitutional composition or proposing the (re)enactment of the Nigerian constitution. However, both proposals had proven futile, as previous attempts to actualize them had resulted in several ethnoreligious conflicts - including the ongoing Boko Haram menace in northern Nigerian and the Biafra secession agitations in eastern Nigeria - both of which continue to undermine the prospect of genuine nationhood in Nigeria. Analyses of these challenges reveal bottlenecks that neither constitutional amendment(s) nor alteration of Nigeria’s constitutional order could address. For instance, the theme that runs through the Boko Haram menace and the Biafra secession agitations is the dissatisfaction of marginalized Nigerians with the governance of Nigeria and its political economy. Against this backdrop, this thesis examines and proposes means through which the voices of marginalized Nigerians could henceforth become central to the norms and integral to the tactics that the Nigerian government would subsequently rely on to govern. In democratic and political theories, only deliberative democracy - which emphasizes inclusivity and civic dialogue in the decision-making process - has the potential to actualize the above-noted aspirations. Deliberative democracy intermittently achieves said inclusivity by strategically manipulating and maneuvering civil discourse to ensure that participants in public spheres reach agreements that express and reflect their collective desires. Despite the potential of deliberative democracy to address Nigeria’s endemic democratic governance problems, several challenges undermine its fruition. These challenges inter alias encompass governance practices of elite domination, corruption prevalence, and the unwillingness of the Nigerian government to accommodate and encourage civil disobedience of Nigerians. Conceptualizing how and modifying the precepts of deliberative democracy to address these problems is this thesis’s overall objective. To guarantee that subsequent democratic decisions in Nigeria would produce fair and just outcomes for all Nigerians, this thesis concludes by arguing that confluence and not consensus should be the ultimate aspiration of deliberative democracy in Nigeria.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.028
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0000.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicSocial Media and Politics→French-language works237,207→