The legacy of June 12 presents a mixed picture of progress and setbacks. Nigeria has made significant democratic progress since the return to civilian rule in 1999. The country has sustained uninterrupted democratic governance for over two decades, witnessed multiple elections, experienced peaceful transfers of power between ruling and opposition parties, and maintained a relatively vibrant civil society and media environment.

These are important achievements that should not be overlooked. However, if the benchmark is responsive governance and public trust, the assessment becomes more complicated. Public dissatisfaction with service delivery, persistent insecurity, unemployment, corruption, poverty, and infrastructural deficits suggests that many Nigerians feel that democratic institutions have not consistently translated political participation into tangible improvements in daily life. Trust in political institutions often fluctuates, especially during periods of economic hardship or security crises. The promise of June 12 was not only about the right to vote but also about creating a government that reflects citizens' aspirations and responds effectively to their needs. While democratic procedures have largely endured, the substantive outcomes of democracy have fallen short of many citizens' expectations. Thus, it would be fair to say that the procedural promise of June 12 has been substantially realised, while its developmental and governance promises remain only partially fulfilled.

Does the electorate bear any share of responsibility for continuing to reward familiar faces with familiar agendas?

The electorate bears part of the responsibility, but it would be inaccurate and unfair to place the primary burden on voters alone. In any democracy, citizens play a crucial role in demanding accountability, evaluating candidates critically, and voting based on performance rather than sentiment, identity, or patronage considerations. When voters repeatedly support candidates without scrutinising their records or policy proposals, they can inadvertently reinforce a political culture where politicians face limited consequences for poor performance. However, voter choices do not occur in a vacuum. Nigerian voters operate within a political environment shaped by stomach infrastructure, weak party institutionalisation, limited access to reliable information, vote-buying, ethnic and religious mobilisation, and constrained electoral options. In many cases, citizens are choosing among candidates who offer broadly similar agendas and belong to the same political elite networks. Therefore, responsibility is shared, though it is important to note that political elites in Nigeria are one and have the same motive of getting and maintaining power. Gullible voters are left with no choice and are made to believe that these sets of elites are just in separate camps, merely to offer voters the choice of which candidate to vote for. A mature democracy requires sincerity of purpose from both leaders and citizens. While the electorate has a role to play, the deeper responsibility lies with the institutions and political actors who shape the choices available to the public.