In the realm of international development and governance, we often think that establishing a democratic regime is the endpoint for a particular nation. Once we have a democracy established, we assume that a degree of human rights protections, equity, and social and economic progress will naturally follow. However, democratic institutions do not guarantee the safeguarding of civil liberties, an accessible avenue for the average citizen to have their voice heard, or any amount of power-sharing or bridging of gaps. This paper will begin by critically analyzing two different conceptualizations of democracy, coined liberal and illiberal; the former being based on protections of the facets mentioned above of social and political equity, with the latter being based on the economic and social self-interest of politicians. Following this distinction, this paper will then compare two geographically and historically similar nations, Ghana and Nigeria; each has developed a different sort of democracy, one liberal and one illiberal. This comparison will lead to a delineation of the socio-political factors that influence the development of either sort of democratic establishment and what facets of international relations, domestic politics, and social realities are most important in determining what sort of democracy a nation embraces. In doing so this paper will conclude that leadership serves as the single most significant part in determining the success and sustaining of a liberal democracy, and as such, approaches to international democratization must take into account the character and longevity of appointed or supported democratic leaders.

Leeza would like to thank her faculty sponsor Dr. Ellen Carnaghan for their support of the project.