AUSTIN ANEKE FROM PEOPLES GAZETTE
In recent times, there have been ongoing debates regarding the primary source of Nigeria’s challenges – is it a matter of flawed leadership or systemic deficiencies? Esteemed authors like Chinua Achebe have long asserted that the root cause of Nigeria’s issues lies in its leadership, and this perspective finds resonance among many.
However, an alternative viewpoint posits that leadership is a product of the existing system, emphasising the need for a comprehensive examination of the systemic intricacies before forming a well-informed judgment. Rather than engaging in a chicken-and-egg argument, I aim to draw upon global trends to facilitate a more informed analysis of the issue.
Picture Nigeria as a conglomerate of application software, each representing a distinct facet of the nation (religious, ethnic, regional, nepotism, etc.), akin to apps on a device. The problem, however, is that Nigeria lacks a functional central or system software to effectively manage these diverse and often divisive “apps.” What Nigeria desperately requires is a system software that can harmonise these varied elements.
Let’s delve deeper.
I would like to propose that most countries, especially those with a history of colonisation, undergo three distinct phases of leadership: the Opportunistic leadership phase, the Foundational leadership phase, and the Autopilot leadership phase. Opportunistic leaders are typically those who take the helm immediately after gaining independence from colonial rule.
Foundational leaders are responsible for laying the groundwork, encompassing approximately 80 per cent of a nation’s political, democratic, and economic foundations. Autopilot leaders, on the other hand, come after the Foundational phase and are tasked with maintaining the existing foundations, often without the capacity to institute significant changes.
This suggests that every successful or developed nation first passes through a Foundational phase of leadership, wherein much of the necessary foundational work is accomplished. Subsequent leaders, or autopilot leaders, simply maintain and slightly modify these established foundations.
The strength of the foundational system is what can curb the excesses of leaders, even if they are on autopilot. A weak system, in contrast, provides a playground for poor leadership. So, the question arises – should the blame be placed on the dysfunctional system or the leaders it produces? It was a strong foundational system that tamed the Trump shenanigans in the U.S. It was a strong foundational system that made Nixon resign instead of the country (U.S.) resigning, but someone built that strong system that withstood Trump and Nixon (two U.S. autopilot presidents).
To clarify the competing factors, it is vital to understand what people mean when they assert that leadership is the problem in Africa or Nigeria. Which leadership phase are they referring to? Foundational leaders are characterised by extreme altruism and patriotism, attributes necessary to resist the temptations of post-colonial office and prioritise the welfare of their nation. They play a pivotal role in establishing the core principles, democratic foundations, and frameworks for sustainable development. Postcolonial leaders are typically opportunistic, and their approaches to governance are often conditioned by the systems left behind by the colonialists, which may favour the colonial powers and the local elites rather than the general populace.
Nigeria has yet to witness the emergence of a Foundational leader. All leaders since independence fall into the opportunistic category. They have been unable to destroy divisive elements within the nation and establish a stable, functional system to propel Nigeria toward autopilot governance.
So, the problem of Nigeria does indeed revolve around leadership, as the Foundational leader has not yet emerged. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the colonial system inherited by opportunistic leaders also plays a significant role, conditioning their behaviour to perpetuate policies that benefit the colonisers and the local elite rather than the wider population.
Let’s look at examples of nations that have had Foundational leaders:
Singapore and the United States
Lee Kuan Yew was Singapore’s foundational leader. He laid the foundation for Singapore’s transformation into a developed nation by combating corruption, focusing on long-term planning, emphasising meritocracy, and respecting multiculturalism.
In the U.S., the foundational leaders were the authors of important documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These documents democratised opportunities, institutionalised the rule of law, protected property rights, and upheld fundamental rights and justice.
