REGIME TYPE AND NATIONAL SECURITY OUTCOMES IN NIGERIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MILITARY AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

This paper examines the correlation between the regime type and national security outcomes in Nigeria between 1966 and 2025 based on the Civil–Military Relations (CMR) Theory. It looks at the dynamics of security in military rule (19661999) and the democratic rule in the fourth republic (19992025), and compares and contrasts their effectiveness in responding to emerging threats. The qualitative research design is a comparative historical-based study, which relies on secondary and documentary sources, and the content and comparative techniques will be used to interpret the findings. The results reveal that military regimes were based on centralized government and coercive force, which allowed responding quickly to the crisis and creating a temporary stability, especially during the civil war. Yet, these achievements were diluted by weak institutions, oppression, politicization of security systems, and low levels of trust in the government. Democratic rule brought about institutional changes, civilian control and diversified security policies including non-kinetic and regional partnership. However, the continued presence of insurgency, banditry, and communal violence are indicative of structural weaknesses, inadequate coordination, and policy implementation weaknesses. The comparative analysis reveals that although military rule brought short-term stability, it was unsustainable, and the democratic regime offers a more sustainable system even with uneven performance. The research comes to the conclusion that effective national security relies not on regime type but on the institutional capacity, the quality of governance, and legitimacy. It advises the reinforcement of oversight mechanisms, intensifying security sector reform, giving primacy to human-centered strategies, and institutional effectiveness to deliver sustainable security outcomes.