Does Nigeria deserve the leadership it has had?

Putting it another way, have Nigerians been getting the leadership they deserve? But has Nigeria actually had leaders, in the real sense of that word?

W.G.Bennis defines leadership as the capacity to translate vision into reality while F.G.B.Rodgers defines it as the ability of an individual through his actions to motivate others to higher levels of achievement. In the context of these definitions, has Nigeria had people at all levels of governance with vision, who act to motivate others? Unfortunately no! All we have had in Nigeria have been a succession of rulers, from the Colonialists to their native inheritors, who governed like potentates ensconced in gilded cages far removed from the realities of life for the ruled.

In such a situation, can he have visions of actions to take to motivate his subjects to higher achievements? Is it any wonder Nigeria's growth has been stunted, a baby unable to stand up, not to talk about crawling, at the age of 48.

Living in this unreality, surrounded by court jesters to advise him, he is shielded from interaction with the generality of his subjects and, as has been the situation in such an arrangement, these court jesters have filled the leadership vacuum, constituting themselves into a feudalistic cabal. They determine who sees the Potentate, who gets what appointment thus using this to place their collaborators and acolytes in strategic positions. Paradoxically, over time, relishing the power they have skilfully acquired, they started enthroning even the Potentates who pilot while they navigate.

But why have Nigerians not tried to throw out these pretenders since it is said that power belongs to the people? The French Revolution highlighted that power. Why can Nigerians not muster the power to determine their leadership? Please post your contributions on this site as it will help in determining whether Nigeria will succeed as a nation.

 

 

Where would Nigeria be today if...?

Where would Nigeria be today if Nnamdi Azikiwe had stayed back in the West and provided a rallying point for his teeming supporters, in that Region, who were even more disappointed with the way their votes were rubbished by the cross-carpeting episode? He would have kept his supporters together to confront the unsavoury actions, of the cross-carpeters, politically. His reaction in running back to his ethnic enclave created another problem for that Eastern Region. He ousted a minority as the Party Leader and created a strong disenchantment and a crisis of relevance in Eyo Ita's minority group as well as in other minority groups of that Region. That crisis dogged the Region and led to the COR state movement and the Adaka Boro uprising. In fact, it sealed the fate of Biafra; Biafra was stillborn even before conception..

Had Eyo Ita formed the government for the party he led to victory, would those dissents have been fostered? At least in that Region, a feeling of camaraderie, of oneness, would have been enthroned in the polity. In the same vein, if Zik had stayed in the West to fight on, the Western Region would have sustained their epoch-making and commendable rejection of an ethnically-grounded Party; Nigeria would have turned out differently.

As for Obafemi Awolowo, where would Nigeria have been today if he had accepted the loss in the Election and prepared to lead a formidable opposition in that Western Region that would have kept the ruling party on their toes and his party as a credible alternative? He would have enthroned the culture of running back to the drawing board and living to fight another day, instead of encouraging the cross-carpeting of members of other political parties to his to enable him form the government there.

Had Zik, who operated in the West as a native, speaking the language idiomatically, formed the government for the Party he led to victory, would the continuous crisis thereafter in that linguistically homogeneous Region have occurred? At least in that Region, the concept of Power to the People and culture of electoral democracy would have taken proper root instead of the subsequent sloganeering that has been trying to replace deep-seated perceptions and empirical conclusions.

The Western wetie crisis, which eventually led to the debilitating Military intervention, flowed from the incongruities of that cross-carpeting episode; the people learnt that their votes do not count in choosing their leader and the politicians confirmed that the end justifies the means. For the polity, unbridled desperation for power has been enthroned, the voters be damned.

As for Ahmadu Bello, where would Nigeria be today, if he had accepted his preachment to Zik and understood the difference between the North and the South in terms of Western-educational exposure? The culture of favouritism introduced to address his fear of educational inadequacy in his North in order to have Independence, need not have arisen since it reduced the scholarly excellence of the northern elites in the estimation of their peers. That culture subsists till today and continues to undermine the Nigerian polity decisively.

Had Sarduana accelerated Western education, especially in the core North, to close that gap fast while allowing other Nigerians, especially the Northern minorities who had early exposure to Western education, to fill up for the North in critical appointments without discrimination, the Tiv uprising and other feelings of domination that cropped up in the minorities would not have been fostered, meritocracy would have been enthroned in the psyche of the citizens. We may even have gotten our Independence earlier and, who knows, the Independence date would have been more favourable.

Mostly, it affected the polity in many ways. First, the beneficiaries do not see the need to exert themselves, to compete equitably, for positions in the polity. Secondly, and most importantly, it created strong disenchantment in the people of other Regions who are passed over for the less-qualified in the name of balancing. Lastly, the otherwise suitably-qualified Northerners are forced to work extra hard in order to prove they are eminently qualified for the position they are holding in the polity. In the end no one gained, and most importantly, Nigeria lost; it did not engender any nationalistic feeling in the citizens of Nigeria as that pervasive equity on which nationhood is anchored, was subverted.

Having identified and analysed momentous missteps of our founding fathers, how much did individual Nigerians contribute to hobbling Nigeria? Your comments are very much expected, as usual, and would be appreciated.

Where did Nigeria get it all wrong?

For a human being so it is for a nation, even more so! At any point in life, one comes to a crossroad and is confronted with a decision on the right direction. Whatever fate befalls one thereafter depends on the decision taken at that critical moment, for destiny may be one's final point but fate is a conscious choice. How you arrive at your destination in life, especially how fast, is the sum total of all your conscious choices. Fortunately, life provides for one at each crossroad an opportunity to take the right branch, an opportunity to redirect oneself on the nearest and the fastest path to one's destiny.

Sometimes if one proves intransigence or incapable of redirecting oneself on the right path to greatness, Providence contrives a crisis situation calculated to shock one back to reality. It happened to both Nigeria and Ghana.

For Ghana such a situation arrived when their economy collapsed and they had to troop to Nigeria and overseas for sustenance. Just like it happened to the Israelites at one time or the other in their history, they saw so much deprivations and maltreatments abroad that, by the time they had to go home, they had acquired a more nationalistic view of their country. They had paid for the iniquities of encouraging the profligacy of their leaders, particularly of encouraging Kwame Nkrumah in deviating from his soul-inspiring nationalistic teachings. In recompense, Providence threw up Jerry Rawlings and the rest is history.

For Nigeria, the military intervention was meant as a providential chastisement but it was hobbled by ethnic baggage and character failures. Since we refused to get it right, more crises was thrown into the mix which was eventually prosecuted by a born-again nationalistic Gowon who may have lacked the spiritual wherewithal to complete his divine assignment. In comes Murtala Mohammed who could not be allowed to stay for various reasons, chief of which was that Eve and Adam had tasted the forbidden apple; the reformer has become worse than the problem and a musical chair ensued in the military. All these were contrived to wean the people form their now-military mentality. But Nigerians had joined the debauchery of the Military elite, turning into the fly that was following the corpse to the grave. They could not even understand the spiritual significance of Abiola's election, on a Muslim-Muslim ticket, nor its political advantages. It needed the jackboot of Abacha to highlight the aberrations of a military rule. Obasanjo entered with so much promise but, coming through an unwholesome election and suspicious democratic credentials, he could not be allowed to deliver on his assignment and the squandering of Nigeria's earnings under his watch is eloquent on the nobility of his soul and regime. The actions or inactions of his hand-picked successor do not bear any comment, until his tenure ends; you cannot gain something from nothing! It is a spiritual law; it is inimitable.

How was Ghana recoupable and Nigeria's case intractable?

Apart from the Abiola debacle of recent memory, there have been some particular moments in the early stages of Nigeria's political development when decisions were taken by our founding fathers that may have diverted us from the glorious path of greatness. Maybe we would have been better than the Asian Tigers who we had dusted in the developmental race at that time.

Maybe if Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe had not run back to his laarger after the cross-carpet episode, maybe if Chief Obafemi Awolowo had not played the ethnic card that gave rise to that episode, maybe if Sir Ahmadu Bello had not baulked at self-rule because he feared his people would be at a disadvantage, maybe if the British had enthroned a national ethos during their watch as the Colonial Master, maybe... maybe...maybe!

A thousand maybes but two issues crop up on careful analysis. One, there is one streak running through the actions of the big Nigerian masquerades above: ethnicity, no pan-Nigeria decision. Two, right through the actions, of the three, can be discerned another common streak: inordinate craze to stay politically relevant, to stay in power and in control.

These decisions may be more relevant than people think; they are conscious choices that direct our paths. Where you are entrusted with some spiritual responsibilities, it becomes even more important. One may not like Rawlings' style but the effect was patently therapeutic and Ghana is the better for it today; if you do not cut open and express out a painful boil you may not get any effective relief!

Where would Nigeria be today if Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo and Ahmadu Bello had enthroned the culture in the polity of accepting setbacks as temporary and a challenge to return to the drawing board for the next opportunity? Please post your comments as it would help in this project of re-inventing Nigeria.

 

 

 

 

How did the Ghanaians succeed while Nigerians failed?

Nigeria and Ghana went through the same colonial experiences but Ghana has got it all right while Nigeria still totters. Where lies the fault?

The fault lies with us.

An experience this writer had while on an international course may provide some insight into this. I had noticed that the four Ghanaians on the course always discussed in their local language while the three of us who are Nigerians could only use English to communicate with each other. Intrigued, I had to ask one of them if they conversed in their lingua franca and what he told me made me ashamed of the path we may have taken to nationhood. He revealed that each of them starts a conversation in his own dialect which the others went along with, even though they had their own dialects. He even told me how they were amused when we, the Nigerians, could only use a foreign language known to all, to even discuss our private strategies.

The willingness and ability to understand and/or speak the language of your neighbour helps to overcome what has been the bane of many fractious countries: suspicion. It becomes even more prominent when the average person is insecure and believes that the next discussants may be disparaging him. In the Ogoja area of Cross River State of Nigeria, this mutual understanding of the neighbours' dialects plays itself out too, as I discovered while on a course with some people from that area. It is clear that even if a neighbouring group were to be churlish, the mere fact that they cannot plan in secret, places a strong restraint on them.

The fault may also lie in colonialism.

While on the international course I mentioned earlier, the French-speaking African participants started expressing misgivings over some issues in the course, most of which, it later turned out, was that the course was being conducted in English. Even though they all spoke English creditably, as it was a requirement for participating in the course, their grouse was that the use of English gave ascendancy to that language over their dear French. After some analysis, it came out that their action was merely a continuation of the English-French supremacy war and they have been so indoctrinated. Other non-English-speaking participants did not complain as it is well-known that with America's neo-colonialism, English is the language of Technology.

It was this same divide-and-rule tactics, used to fractionalise Africa, that was used in the now-fractious emergent countries (including Nigeria) to control them; the various entities within these countries were goaded into suspecting and fighting each other while the visitor carted away their patrimony.

The fault may have been from our founding fathers.

It could lie in the vision of the colonial inheritors of these "independent" countries: Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah for Ghana and the triumvirate - Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo and Ahmadu Bello - for Nigeria. It could not but lie in their collective world-view.

In Ghana, there was only that one focal point for nationalistic fervour so his world-view could not be moderated to absurdity by some other big masquerade. In Nigeria, however, there were three focal points, as mentioned above, around which gravitated ethnic feelings that were not exactly discouraged so the polity was ab initio fractionalised and Nigeria has not recovered from that misstep.

Even the understanding and rationalisations of these three Nigerian masquerades did not help matters as exemplified by this reported exchange where Dr Azikiwe had urged Sir Ahmadu Bello to forget their differences but Sir Bello was reported to have riposted that they should rather understand their differences. Both of them are correct but it takes a certain mindset to forget the differences while, ordinarily, people would want to remember them; they would not even try to understand them.

America may have trod this Zik's desirable path until the advent of the Obama phenomenon created a re-think in line with Ahmadu Bello's realism. The challenge was to identify a cross-over candidate who majority of his compatriots would love to hate but would, on rationalisation, love to vote in, since he towers over ethnic jingoism and parochial interests. That is the essence of popular voting where the love of the majority wins.

Nigeria has had one such in the person of Abiola but that providential opportunity was lost, through irredentism and parochialism.

America, in electing Obama, had lived the dreams of its founding fathers for a nation that would be the bastion of equal opportunities, of pervasive equity. Not that the differences are not there but they exist for the decrepit souls who are crippled by hate occasioned by poverty, poverty of thought and accomplishment. Providence always throws up nobler souls as the operators of such systems.

As long as Nigerian system is not operated by nobler and providentially endowed souls so long shall such a nation continue to flounder rudderless, its mammoth endowments notwithstanding. That is the tragedy of the Nigerian situation.

Maybe the fault is in our stars!

The aficionados believe strongly that the stars direct our steps and that when the stars are favourable, all actions taken succeed. I doubt if anyone had actually assessed the favourability of 1^st October, 1960 as a zodiac-favoured date; it may have been the day or the year. This is brought up in the context of the delay of Independence occasioned by Sir Ahmadu Bello's continued assertion that the North was not ready for self-rule. Two factors may have underpinned his position. First, the North did not need self-rule since they already had self-rule with the introduction of indirect rule, for the North only, by the Colonialists. Secondly, there was some understandable fear that the yawning gap between the North and the South (the Western and Eastern Regions) in their grasp of the emblematic western education may place the North in a very disadvantaged position to explore and exploit the benefits of Nigeria's independence.

If we had the Independence when it was initially mooted, as early as Ghana had it, would Nigeria have trod a different but favourable path?

Does the fault lie just in one place or does it lie in a combination of factors? Where then did Nigeria get it all wrong? Your contributions would be most welcome and appreciated.

 

What expectations would the citizens have of a re-invented Nigeria?

A re-invented Nigeria is expected to be a nation in all its ramifications!

For every nation-state, its desirability is underpinned by the quality of life within it while its viability is measured by the quality of economic activities it generates that impacts positively on the quality of life within it as well as on its Gross National Product (GNP). Thus, the common denominator in assessing a nation's desirability and viability is the quality of life within it, for its citizens.

Therefore, the first expectation of the Nigerian citizen would be an acceptable quality of life within the Nigerian State. What, then, are the parameters that determine the quality of life of a citizen?

From copious studies conducted by various organisations over time, the basic needs of man for a sustainable life can be subsumed under the following headings:

1. Food
   
2. Shelter
   
3. Security
   
4. Clothing.
   

Where these needs are guaranteed the citizenry, by any nation, to an acceptable and general level then that nation is viewed as viable and desirable. It is this desirability that creates a sense of pride in the citizens; it is this pride in the nation and its potentials that results in patriotism, especially when strongly interlaced with the belief in the ability of the nation to protect its citizens unflinchingly, wherever they may be.

How far is the Nigerian State guaranteeing these basic needs for its citizens?

As presently configured, Nigeria is a failed state despite its multiplicity of resources since it has not been able to guarantee an acceptable quality of life for its citizens. Damningly, some 90 years after it came into existence by colonial fiat, its citizens are yet to believe in the existence, or viability, of the Nigerian State even though it was not the only one that came into existence through that same process; our next door neighbour, Ghana, is a very apt example

If we agree that the Nigerian system has failed us since its creation in 1914, then its operators have failed and one of the main reasons for system failure is the inability of its operators to empathise with the processes within the system. But the operators of the Nigerian system are its human elements, its citizens.

How did Ghanaian citizens succeed in nurturing their nationhood while the Nigerians failed? Please your comments would be appreciated as it would help in this project of re-inventing Nigeria.

 

 

Can Nigerians have the spirit to re-invent Nigeria?

Yes, we can!

The lesson from the American experience is that nationhood cannot be decreed, since it gives rise to the notion of a geographical expression as ascribed to the Nigerian State by one of its leaders, Gen Gowon. Nationhood can only evolve over time or otherwise by design which would, of course, be preceded by a comprehensive system analysis.

Earlier, it had been established that by re-inventing, it is admitted that the prior creation was done haphazardly and not systematically. To revisit that creation gives an opportunity to design the system afresh, for that action to be done systemically. Such a system design starts with system analysis to identify some of the idiosyncrasies of the elements of that system. For a nation, understanding such idiosyncrasies (particularly that of its primus inter pares – the human elements) would help to determine what drove the extant system (the Nigerian State) to its present sorry state.

We must identify where the rain started beating us so that we can now know how to avoid it. Most importantly, we must identify the idiosyncrasies of the various entities – cultural, religious and political – in the Nigerian State so as establish their traditional expectations and thence use these parameters to create a national character of the Nigerian person. Such an average or conceptual Nigerian would be maximally identifiable with each of its constituent entities such that he can be a template for projecting his expectations from the Nigerian nation. The average Nigerian must approximate closely to this conceptual Nigerian for any new nation crafted on it to be feasible and viable.

The spirit to re-invent Nigeria will come from a belief in Project Nigeria, a belief in the ability of a re-invented Nigeria to guarantee his expectations from the Nigerian State.

Dear Reader, what do you think should be the expectations of this new Nigerian from the Nigerian State? And what characters can be imbued in the ordinary Nigerian in order to get him to develop to the unbounded patriotism that the ordinary American seems to exude effortlessly?

Can Nigeria be re-invented?

Earlier,
it was accepted that re-inventing means to look at a creation afresh with a view to fabricating a better entity. Aiming for a better entity is an admission that the earlier creation may have been done badly or the resultant entity (in this case a nation), has not achieved an acceptable or desirable format.

What would be the acceptable form for a nation?

A nation may not necessarily consist of homogeneous land-mass, a homogeneous people or of a homogeneous antecedental experience. It is enough that its constituent entities have resolved to stay together, no matter the nature of their initial constitution. All that is required would be a determination on the part of its founders to forge a common destiny that would engender a common expectation in its citizens from the nation.

The word, forge, implies a creation that originates in a furnace and evokes a process that is irreversible; that gives a product that is a compound mixture and in which the characteristics of its constituent elements may have been largely lost for ever, or significantly modified. This means that for a geographical expression or a country to attain nationhood, it must acquire a homogeneous mien, visible to the world at large and available within the hearts of its citizens. It means that its citizens must think totally as the nationals of that country instead of primarily as members of their ethnic enclave and distantly as citizens of that nation.

It is the structure and the grundnorm of a nation that imbues that suffocating feeling of allegiance in its citizens, that unmitigated patriotism in them as would make them defend its name and its interest unsparingly.

America, a witches' brew of disparate entities, origins and political experiences, has continued to bestride the world, not so much for any innate power, but for its resolve at its formative stages to divest itself of external influence and chart its own course; it crafted a unique constitution based on an analysis and a distillation of its previous experiences moderated by the universal outlook of its founding fathers. They presented a bastion of freedom to the world at large and bade all come to its welcoming bosom. Furthermore, they were imbued with a conscience to recognise that all men are created equal and have worked assiduously to define man as it should be, not as their fathers told them. That is the strength of the American dream; that is what has driven them to fulfil their destiny. That is the secret of their success.

That is the secret Nigeria needs to re-invent itself but can Nigerians muster that guiding spirit? Please give your opinion!