Lack of quality leadership has been a recurring problem in Nigeria’s effort to develop. Right from the period after independence until the unceremonious intrusion into apolitics by the military quality leadership has continually eluded the country. The era of the military from 1966 up to 1979 and 1983 till 1999 left Nigeria, generally, in a state of stagnated development. The late General Murtala Muhammed made a spirited effort to restructure Nigeria and put it on a path of steady and methodical development, but he could not go far as he was brutally killed in a military take-over spearheaded by Dimka. The death of Murtala and the preceding events have remained a watershed in our political history. It will be difficult, if not impossible to forget the valuable contributions of Murtala to the socio-economic and political development of Nigeria.

It may not be out of place to describe his short tenure as Nigeria’s Head of State as revolutionary. He came, he saw and he conquered. He left legacies that have stood the test of time. The civil service system witnessed dramatic turn-around, especially with the introduction of the famous Udoji Award. Painfully, most of the achievements of Murtala have either been abrogated or allowed to go moribund.

The regime of General Olusegun Obasanjo, who succeeded him, did not do much to build future leaders for our country. The focus of his administration was agriculture, even though not much was achieved in this connection. The Operation Feed the Nation, championed by his government, could not fly because the programme lacked depth and the necessary framework for its implementation. The manpower for the programme was not built around the youth who form the most vibrant segment of the population. The Shehu Shagari government could not do much to sustain the initiative since there was not a successive implementation plan.

Indeed the Shagari government did not focus much attention on the development of the youth – who are the leaders of tomorrow. The 4-year tenure of Shagari witnessed more of politicking than governing. Even though he had good plans for the country, which he had wanted to implement in his second tenure as President, but this was aborted by the military coup of December 31, 1983 that saw the emergence of General Muhammadu Buhari/Tunde Idiagbon as helmsmen. Buhari and Idiagbon took the nation by storm and ran what looked like a model of the kind of government Nigeria needs.

Though their tenure was short-lived it had a clear-cut action plan for moral renewal, mainly targetted at the youth to help build their moral base as a way of safeguarding their future. In my thinking, this strategy would have worked because it had already started yielding some positive results before the administration was sacked in yet another military intervention on August 27, 1985. Then enter Ibarahim Babangida – the cerebral, articulate and ingenious military tactician. His government played greater role than its predecessors in trying to empower the youth in many diverse ways. His wife also complemented his effort through her Better Life Programme.

I must state, without any equivocation, that Babangida knew what he wanted to achieve, which prompted his government to embark on multifarious programmes aimed at empowering the youth by entrusting on their delicate shoulders some responsibilities to sharpen their intellect and expose them early to the intricacies of life. It is not contestable that his regime brought some hope to the Nigerian youth, including those who angled for exposure in international politics and diplomacy. Nigeria’s foreign policy under his regime promoted intra-African solidarity and opened a new vista for Nigeria in global politics, particularly in peace-keeping operations across the world.

The worst period for the youth and leadership in this country was under Olusegun Obasanjo. His regime had several youth development and leadership programmes, but none succeeded in making any serious impact on the youths. Even the Child’s Rights Bill is yet to be passed into law by some state houses of assembly. Generally speaking, that regime was the worst for the youth and leadership in Nigeria. I maintain this position for specific reasons. First, corruption, assumed some religiosity under the regime while armed robbery, cultism and other social ills grew in epic proportion.

The recruitment of the youths and other minors as thugs and brigands in elections heightened during his regime. This phenomenon has rendered the youths increasingly vulnerable to manipulation by moneybags and unscrupulous politicians. What I try to do here is to argue in a rational way the reason we should groom new leaders to take over from those politicians who have outlived their usefulness but have continued to occupy sensitive political positions. It is unacceptable that political spent-forces should continue to call the shots in our tight political space.

It is on record that there has never been a serious leadership change in Nigeria. Some of the politicians that fought for Nigeria’s independence still walk the corridors of power like colossuses, and they do not have any immediate plans to quit. The only country in Africa that has witnessed a well-designed power shift is Ghana, though this was carried out through military intervention by Jerry Rawlings. Ghana and Nigeria may possess varied political cultures but they share some affinity in the areas of culture and diplomatic cooperation.

Although South Africa is one of the industrialised countries in Africa it is bedevilled by societal violence that is even threatening the forthcoming World Cup. It has been revealed that at least 20 persons are killed daily in that country due to violent crimes. Sadly, the leadership of that country has not been able to contain it. One of the reasons South Africa is not doing too well in terms of political harmony is the absence of young, enterprising leaders. Since the release of Nelson Mandela from Robin Island Prisons in 1990 the country has never been governed by a youthful, energetic leader. First it was Mandela, then Mbeki and now Jacob Zuma. When will the youth take over the rein of power to reengineer its economy and foster peace, security and cohesion, which it lacks seriously at the moment?

The list of old and tired leaders who still control the political authority of their respective countries keeps growing. Two examples will suffice: Muammar Gaddafi of Libya has been in power for close to 40 years while his counterpart in Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe has been in office for over 30 years. I wonder what these men are still doing in governance when there are many youths, bubbling with energy, angling to take over from them. Have we forgotten the tragic end of Idi Amin of Uganda, Mobutu Seseseko of Zaire and Omar Bongo of Gabon? They ruled their people with iron fists and accumulated billions of dollars only to die - leaving everything behind.

The same scenario almost played out during the second term of former President Olusegun Obasanjo when he tried in vain to extend his tenure. With the effort of some patriotic politicians who risked their lives Obasanjo was forced to leave office at the expiration of his 8-year reign. I must not fail to observe that Obasanjo’s eight years in office (1999-2007) did not bring any visible democracy dividends to Nigerians. Rather, it succeeded in worsening their woes and estranging Nigeria from the international community. If Nigeria had given a chance to its youths to develop and flourish it would have been impossible for people such as Obasanjo to rule Nigeria twice in a space of 20 years. He was Head of State from 1976-1979 after succeeding the assassinated Murtala Muhammed; only to stage a comeback in 1999.

Because adulation of mediocrity has been a part of our nation’s political life little attention is paid to qualities of leaders who run its affairs. Again, gerontocracy has been entrenched in our socio-political culture such that only persons of certain ages and statuses are viewed as worthy to rule. Nigeria, as a heterogeneous and complex entity, is not designed to be controlled by a cabal as is the case in some African countries, where despotism has been entrenched as a norm.
Let me make it absolutely clear that Nigeria is too big for anybody to mess with. The history of our development transcends clannishness, ethnocentricity and other retrogressive tendencies that have constituted the death-knell of many democracies across the world. In essence, I see no reason anybody should attempt to sidetrack the younger generation of leaders from having a say in what happens in our country? Since the old generation of leaders have not done anything tangible to move our nation to the next level it only makes sense for us to try the younger generation.

As things stand now, we are neither moving forward nor going backwards. In fact, we are stagnated by the visionless leadership of the present generation. Great countries of the world are where they are because they gave a chance to the youth to grow through the institutionalisation of frameworks for their cognitive and moral regeneration. The kind of leaders we plan to have tomorrow must be groomed today.

One identifiable obstacle to our development as a nation is that we don’t plan. Other countries have plans for the advancement of their collective cause. Ours is always characterised by greed and undue rush. There was a time our economic planners designed rolling plans as a strategy for meeting the needs of the nation. Suddenly the thing disappeared and what we have in its place is haphazard, disoriented approach to economic development. Extra-budgetary allocations and other impromptu mechanisms usually affixed to the annual national budgets are all signs of disorientation. I do not want to mention the lack of depth and commitment to duties by our general workforce.

If we take another look at the way things go in Nigeria we will see the urgent need to groom successors to the present crop of leaders. The United States tried experimenting with a new generation of leaders as a way of shoring up its global image and strengthening its economy when it elected Bill Clinton ( former governor of the State of Arkansas) as President in 1992. His presidency was vibrant, virile and action-oriented. The achievements of his administration are yet to be equated with any other regime after his. Even though President George W. Bush (2000-2008) tried his best to reposition the United States he created more controversies than development.

Then came the era of Barack Obama the first African American to attain the enviable position of president in white-populated America! He took the world by storm when he rode to the White House. He was able to make it to the White House through a combination of factors, including his cooler-than-cool leadership style and massive use of the internet. He brought his energy to bear on his campaign by beating the Republicans to their game through discipline, assemblage of the best brains who ran an almost flawless campaign, and a rare sense of candour. That is what I mean by the young generation and their tireless energy to try out new ideas. If Obama had not been given a chance he would not have proved his mettle to the world.

The Obama phenomenon in the United States politics should be a case study in our schools. I wonder who else would have won the presidency and beaten warmonger John Mccain if not Obama. He faced initial obstacles which ordinarily would have overwhelmed a man with a fickle heart. Imagine the son of an African father with a Muslim-sounding name, a Hawaiian childhood, a white-American mother, a degree in law from Harvard University and a short political career, becoming the president of the strongest nation in the world? But he did not allow these seemingly insurmountable obstacles to deter him from venturing into making history.

This is the kind of spirit I want the Nigerian youths to imbibe. Not the spirit of banditry, fornication, corruption, armed robbery, greed, prostitution, drug addiction, and licentiousness that rule our land at present. Our youths should be aware that the future of Nigeria rests squarely on their shoulders. And for this reason, they should work hard to inherit what is rightly theirs.

I know it may be difficult to do away with the old brigade because they will fight ferociously to remain relevant. But the masses, and the voters, have a huge role to play here. They must make their votes count in 2011 by voting and defending their votes. If they vote massively for a new generation of leaders it will be difficult for anybody to manipulate the results. Similarly, if the youths refuse to be used as tools for rigging during elections there is nothing anybody can do to change the wishes of the masses. Election-rigging is successful because the youths allow themselves to be wickedly manipulated by the politicians to cause confusion on the day of election.

Whether anybody likes it or not, we owe it as a duty to our upcoming generation to bequeath to them a nation they can proudly call theirs. Unless we do that now the future may have no place for us and our memories will be wiped out in the Hall of Fame of posterity.