In democratic societies worldwide, voters face a fundamental question that extends beyond policy positions and party affiliations: What kind of person should hold executive power? Whilst competence and experience matter immensely, the temperament of a leader often determines whether their tenure will strengthen or weaken democratic institutions.
The office of a governor, like any executive position, requires individuals who can maintain composure under pressure, build consensus across diverse groups, and represent their constituents with dignity. When candidates display volatile temperaments, make threats, or resort to intimidation tactics, they signal a fundamental unsuitability for roles that demand steady judgement and democratic leadership.
History provides numerous examples of how temperament shapes governance outcomes, with leaders who cannot control their emotions in public settings, often struggling with the complex negotiations required for effective policy implementation.
Such leaders inevitably alienate potential allies, create unnecessary conflicts, and erode public trust in democratic institutions. This pattern becomes particularly evident during political campaigns, where certain behaviours serve as reliable predictors of governing style. When candidates make threats against opponents, display anger during public appearances, or resort to intimidation rather than persuasion, they reveal character traits that are antithetical to democratic leadership.
Consider the implications when the gubernatorial candidate of All Progressives Congress in the forthcoming Anambra State, November 8 election, Prince Nicholas Ukachukwu, allegedly threatened to destroy the vehicles of a sitting deputy governor during their altercation few days ago. Such behaviour demonstrates several concerning characteristics: an inability to handle disagreement constructively, a willingness to use intimidation as a political tool, and a fundamental misunderstanding of democratic norms. If a candidate cannot maintain professionalism during a campaign—when they are presumably on their best behaviour—how can voters trust them to handle the pressures of actual governance?
The consequences of poor temperament in office extend far beyond personal conduct. Leaders with uncontrolled tempers create cascading problems throughout government, with civil servants becoming hesitant to provide honest advice when they fear volatile reactions. Collaboration with legislative bodies becomes difficult when executives cannot engage in respectful negotiation, whilst international relations suffer when leaders cannot maintain diplomatic composure.
At the state level, these temperament issues have direct consequences for citizens. Economic development requires building trust with investors and business communities—trust that erodes when leaders are perceived as unstable or unpredictable. Similarly, inter-governmental cooperation becomes strained when other officials must navigate around a governor’s emotional volatility.
More fundamentally, democracy functions on the principle that disagreement is legitimate and that political opponents are fellow citizens rather than enemies. Leaders who make threats or engage in intimidation undermine these foundational concepts, normalising political violence and creating environments where others may feel justified in responding with similar tactics. The peaceful transfer of power, cooperation between different levels of government, and respect for institutional processes all depend on leaders who understand that their personal conduct affects the health of democracy itself.
Importantly, this concern transcends party affiliation. Regardless of their policy positions or party membership, candidates who cannot control their temperament pose risks to effective governance. Voters within every political party have legitimate interests in being represented by leaders who can advance their policy goals through competent, professional leadership rather than through intimidation or emotional outbursts. The issue is not about ideological differences—robust policy debates are essential to democracy. The problem arises when candidates demonstrate they cannot engage in such debates without resorting to threats, personal attacks, or other forms of inappropriate behaviour.
Citizens have the right to expect certain minimum standards from those seeking executive office. These include the ability to engage respectfully with opponents and critics, maintain composure under pressure, build coalitions and work collaboratively, represent the dignity of their office at all times, and handle disagreement without resorting to intimidation. When candidates fail to meet these basic expectations during campaigns, voters should seriously question whether they possess the temperament necessary for effective governance.
Ultimately, democracy works best when citizens hold candidates accountable not just for their policy positions but for their character and conduct. This means rejecting candidates who demonstrate volatile temperaments, regardless of other considerations. It means supporting those who can disagree without being disagreeable, who can lead without resorting to threats, and who understand that executive power must be exercised with restraint and dignity.
Voters face many complex decisions in any election. However, the question of temperament should not be complex. Candidates who make threats, display uncontrolled anger, or use intimidation tactics during campaigns have disqualified themselves from consideration for the executive office. Democratic governance requires leaders who embody democratic values in their personal conduct, not just in their policy rhetoric.
The strength of democratic institutions depends on citizens consistently choosing leaders who respect those institutions. When we accept candidates with poor temperament simply because they belong to our preferred party or espouse our preferred policies, we weaken democracy for everyone. The health of our democratic system requires that character and temperament remain non-negotiable qualifications for executive leadership.
