Nigeria @ 50: Politics, Leadership and Governance

After swagging from one military coup to another in the greater part of her existence, Nigeria now has a democratic leadership. With the advent of democracy, the country has faced a lot of challenges ranging from ethnic and religious crises, militancy at the Niger-delta, spate of killings and kidnapping of innocent Nigerians and foreigners alike. Amidst the good, bad and ugly experience of Nigeria, the citizenry in diverse culture and ethnicity seldom work in unity.

According to UN Report of 2009, Nigeria has a growing population of 154.7million with an area of 923,768sq.km. Major languages in Nigeria are English (official), Yoruba, Ibo and Hausa. And the citizenry is grossly divided into Islam, Christianity and indigenous beliefs. UN Research group went further to state life expectancy in Nigeria as 47years and 48years for men and women respectively.

Across the world, it is an acceptable opinion that if we do not have any reason to celebrate the golden jubilee of the nation called Nigeria we should do it for the sake of unity which entrenched in the country in spite of all odds. In approaching this subject amply, I shall do the write-up in a reverse order. In succinct terms, this arrangement will instill better understanding of the topic.

GOVERNANCE
History affirmed that Nigeria passed through several stages of governance ranging from colonial administrations to self government. Most African countries that got independence in the 1960s have faced herculean tasks of converting colonial institutions into national organs or replacing them altogether. Consequently governance in Africa came with inherent problems of conflicts and contradictions. In actual fact, African countries like Nigeria did not experience true governance which is bound to define expectation, grant power and verify performance after their independence from colonial rules. Hence many of them embraced military governments between the 60s and 90s. Typical example is Nigeria which has experienced both civilian and military administrations at various periods of her political development since independence in 1960.

Alas, the incessant political crises that greeted the attainment of sovereign national government in African countries provided scholars and political commentators a point of discourse on the appropriate style of leadership for governance in the African continent. However, governance in Nigeria has been characterized by the crises of various form of transitions: colonial rule to civilian rule; civilian government to military regime; military administration to interim national government; interim national government to military regime; military regime to democratic government. It is sad to note that these transitions are not devoid of bloodletting and bloodbath. Terrible experiences which contribute to making governance a back-breaking task in Nigeria.

It is a fact beyond shadow of doubt that ethnic factor constituted a major problem to governance in Nigeria and other African countries alike. No one will forget in hurry, the Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda; the Hausas, the Ibos and the Yorubas in Nigeria. In spite of this factor the Military played a major role in the history of governance in Nigeria since 1960 of her independence. The 'unsolicited' intervention of the military certainly truncated various democratic experiments in Africa. Several African countries such Nigeria, Rwanda, Liberia, Somalia etc experienced civil wars which constituted the dilemma of governance in Africa even in the recent years.

Statistics shows that governance of Nigeria has been in the hands of the military for more than two thirds of our country 60 years of independence. Over the years, it has become a debatable issue as to whom to blame for the woes of nation in the area of poor governance. Some political commentators are of the opinion that the inherited colonial infrastructure are responsible for the unsuccessful democratic governance in Nigeria. Indeed, one could state categorically that one of the main feature of independent Nigeria is the fragility or lack of political institutions to support genuine democratic governance.

The first form of government in Nigeria was parliamentary system of government which was bequeathed on us by the colonial masters who never consulted us through our then leaders to know the nature of government that will be suitable for a multi-ethnic nation. No doubt, parliamentary system thrives in Britain because it is British national ideology. And while it worked for Britain, it failed in Nigeria. This is because the crisis of governance in Nigeria can not be totally divorced from our historical experiences and the character of the post colonial ruling elites. In Nigeria today, presidential system of government is being practised. Surprisingly, this form of government has been criticised greatly by the progressives especially. They are clamouring for a reversal to the condemned and abandoned parliamentary system of government. This attitude is uniquely Nigerian. We easily forget and seldom give new experiment a chance.

In this context therefore, what is required to tackle some of our problems including ill-governance is visionary leadership and a cohesive civilian elite with a sense of mission.

LEADERSHIP
Rhetorically, this section will follow the notion of Nigerians who attribute the major problem of Nigeria to leadership. We all have the idea of what leadership should be but we rarely talk about the aspect of followership which dictates the intensity of leading as an activity. But let us leave that aspect for another day and face the topical issue at hand which is leadership.

What is leadership and who is a leader? According to WordWeb, leadership means an act of leading; the body of people who lead a group; status of a leader and ability to lead. In the same vein, a leader is a person who rules, guide and inspires others. According to John C. Maxwell, a leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way. He went further to describe as influence. All these definitions are applicable to both animal and human social settings. However, the greater complexity of human interaction enable us to develop and practise our leadership style at a higher level.

In the context of human beings, the vacuum of leadership must be filled by a willing heart with a person or group of people that willing to be led. Some scholars are of the opinion that leadership position bestows much on the degree of influence while others insist that it is a matter of personality. For this write-up, I will pitch my tent with leadership by influence school of thought. When we talk of influence and power what readily comes to our minds is the source of the power. Power within such a group frequently resides, in whole or in part, in a person appointed or elected by the body to exercise the authority delegated to him by the members. In a normal group relationship, the leader's authority is spontaneously accorded him by his fellow group members, the followers. In spite of this authority, no leader is immune from sanction from the followers if and when he deviates too far from the bounds of acceptable behaviour prevailing in the group.

In sum, leadership role can not be detached from followership. We can only begin to understand the intricate connection between followership and leadership as along as we agree that there can be no leading without following, and of course, no following without leading. In this connection, it is important to view the concept of followership from the perspective of reciprocal responsibilities. That is, in art of leadership, the followers fulfill active roles. In like manner, leaders derive power from the electorates in a true democratic environment. Since independence for example we have only elected 5 out of 14 heads of state/government. In effect, Nigeria spent most of her years of existence in a state of discord between leadership and followership. Experts often refer to our leadership pattern during military regimes as rulership rather than leadership. In succinct terms, the source of power is the basic distinction. The authority of a ruler derives from power, force and coercion which he often exert on his followers while a leader derives his authority from his followers.

Professor Chinua Achebe in one of his numerous write-ups once said that "the trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely of failure of leadership. There is nothing basically with the Nigerian character. There is nothing wrong with the Nigerian land and climate or water or air or anything else. The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability of her leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example which are the hallmarks of true leadership." Alas, at age 60, Nigeria in spite of her natural endowment, she is still striving to realise our potential for greatness. As long as there is leadership crisis, we cannot entirely exonerate the followership from blame. For us as a nation to effectively analyse and evaluate the extent of our leadership problems, we also have to focus some attention on the ability of the populace to play its followership role effectively and responsibly. Sincerely, crux of the problem is the fact that most Nigerians do not know what they want for ourselves and what we want from our leaders. We all want the prize but nobody is ready for the price. One is tempted to ask the question: what are our leaders looking for? They exhibit deadliness in their quest for leadership positions based on selfish and myopic interests at the expense of national unity and peaceful co-existence of our nation.

According to Marian Anderson, leadership should be borne out of the understanding of the needs of those who would be affected by it. In its proper sense, leadership means sacrifice, sacrifice of time, energy and intellect for the greater good. The very essence of leadership is its purpose. And the purpose of leadership is to accomplish a task. The task as laid down in the Nigerian constitution is to take care of the nation and her citizenry. Like never before, Nigeria requires a leader who is pragmatic, realistic and idealistic.

POLITICS
Having talked about governance and leadership which are centered principally on individuals, let us look at the political system and structure of Nigeria and how it has fared in the past 60 years. As a matter of fact, no form of leadership, individual, government sponsored rallies, slogans or jingles can make up for a defective political structure. No doubt, our leaders have had many talents and qualities, but the art of modern government has been rather difficult for them to learn or manage. The popular slogan in Nigeria political arena is 'one nation'. Meanwhile dream has eluded us for long and in pursuit of unity without consensus or the capacity to adequately enforce it, we forgot that unity requires certain objective conditions, that is, certain parameters that must go with unity. Most of our political leaders hide under the tenets of 'one nation' but their intent is regionalism. The prevalent problem of Nigeria has its roots in the conflict between power and principle as conceived by the various sub-groups in Nigeria.

In this kind of political terrain of ours with pervading slogans and wishful thinking we can not achieve true unity. We need a political system conceived in dynamic terms as an active agent with capabilities to perform functions and influence our political environment. We must admit as a nation that changing of political players will not do much as to changing our political system which is faulty in itself. Hence the need for a major reform of our political structure and institutions which in turn will re-awake the Nigerian spirit. Nigeria problems are solved the moment we admit we have problems. However, a problem known is half-solved. The onus is on us all to revitalise our efforts in ensuring that Nigeria is redeemed from its history of chronic political instability and put it on the road to a genuine political integration which will translate into economic growth.

CONCLUSION
In 50 years, Nigeria has had 14 different governments with two successful and successive civilian administrations. But it can not be affirmed that the country has come of age in the area of governance, leadership and politics. We still have a lot 'Ts' to cross and 'Is' to dot. The problems in the Nigerian polity transcend both military and civilian regimes with peculiarities. As a result of this, the Nigerian citizenry has lost faith in the country and its political system. Good spirited Nigerians are not willing to participate in the electioneering process because of the sheer demonstration of melodrama and mediocrity by the political elites.