In the next three weeks, I will devote considerable attention to the question of power, leadership and governance in the democratic transition in Nigeria, which having emerged, is now in the process of being consolidated. The attraction of this subject to me is two-fold: a proper examination of the implementation of policies and the execution of programmes and projects that have far reaching impact on the nation, particularly the marginalized Igbo people, by the Obasanjo administration and Yar’Adua successor regime, and the relationship between these three variables.

Of course, the relationship between power, leadership and governance is an organic one which is substantially governed by the basic Laws of dialectics and inter-dependence. Power is the ability of a group of people, acting through a political party, in a constitutional order, to secure the legitimate authority and the influence this guarantees, in overseeing the affairs of a people for a clearly defined and predictable period of time. Power is thus the transfer of authority and sovereignty by the whole people, through elections, to a set of executive and legislative representatives who now possess their mandate to lead and govern.

In the same vein, leadership is the ability of those who wield legitimate political power and authority to provide vision, direction and guidance to the state; to inspire the people with noble and patriotic acts and conducts; to show by example, high standard of morality and ethics; and to generate and put to effect ideas that are capable of transforming society and improving the living conditions of the people for the better. By extension, governance flows directly from power and leadership because by acquiring power. Legitimately and leading the people wisely, governance becomes an effectuation and execution of pledges and promises by those who are possessive of this power, authority and leadership.

Affectuation and execution of pledges mean one thing and one thing alone in this context: a deliberate and conscious implementation of the following derivative objectives of state principles: a regime of respect of due process, rule of law, constitutional governance and human rights and freedoms; and the empowerment of human security and human infrastructure in the areas of poverty reduction, wealth creation, energy, roads, public infrastructure, health care delivery system and affordable housing and education.

In practice, as examples abound in Nigeria between 1999 – 2007, there are two limit-situations that negate the idea of responsible power, popular leadership and governance. The first is the suspicious, debatable, dubious and questionable legitimacy of those in power. This was clearly demonstrated in the 2003 general elections at the presidential level, a situation that was more than amplified in the 2007 general elections.

When there is disconnect between the exercise of power and leadership secured through a dubious mandate and the true intentions of the electorate whose choices have been twarthed, the possibility of those in power performing very well becomes remote. Because they never truly have the support of the people, and because their contract with the governed has already been rejected, their moral standing is diminished, and this haunts they and impacts upon their leadership for as long as they remain in positions they shouldn’t occupy in the first place.

The second limit-situation deals with a basic human failing: incompetence. Even when the legitimacy of some of those in power is not in doubt, the exercise of power and authority, and of leadership and governance, will be hampered by the in-competence and ineptitude of power-wielders. We have seen this situation in its various manifestations in Nigeria since independence in 1960, but most notably in the worship of banality, triviality, mediocrity and in-competence by the 8-year long Obasanjo administration. We note this in the poverty in the land, in the poor state of public infrastructure, in the sheer absence of human security, law and order, in the violent conflicts which that regime provided fertile ground to thrive, and in the state of the energy sector.

In the area of leadership and governance, every regime must leave a score card with which it is judged and evaluated. And in examining this score card, the background of that regime must be noted, as well as its political platform and the core personnel that drive its agenda. In examining the sorry report card of the Obasanjo administration, for example, I am reminded about the tremendous goodwill that regime and its Chief Personnel enjoyed within the length and breadth of Nigeria on assumption of office.

By mid 1998, Nigeria was clearly at the crossroads of history. The Gen. Sani Abacha dictatorship, which had inherited substantial political and economic problems did a lot in further complicating them. It alienated large positions of the military and political elite and distanced itself from the mass of the people. It violated and abused human rights and initiated a transition programme that was lacking in credibility. Yet by 1998 that regime had exhausted all its possibility, the final act of which was the death in office of its principal architect.

A month down the line, the presumed winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election also died.
Those two events created further stresses, pressures and complications in the political system but opened up immense opportunities for the nation and her people to move forward. The search for such a new beginning led the political elite to erect a capacious political plat-form-the PDP-as an engine that is capable of powering the new national vehicle.

While there were two other credible political parties in contest with it in 1999, which we formed with guts and courage and invested heavily in, was in a class of its own. It was very predictable even before the presidential election that the party will form the government at the Federal centre, and also has tremendous human resources, talent and competence to provide the requisite leadership the people so desperately yearned for. For its choice of a presidential flag-bearer, the party finally settled for Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, a strategic decision that was reinforced by his national and international stature and appeal, his democratic credentials as a prisoner of conscience, his ability to successfully fulfill his pledge of returning political power to civilians in 1979, and his being perceived as a de-ethnicised Yoruba person-the geo-political zone that was a clear front runner in the search for a Nigerian president given the fate that befell the June 12, 1993 presidential election.

I am interested in this historical examination of facts because the tragedy of the Obasanjo administration is a painful lesson to all Nigerian people, particularly those who aspire to lead the people. It is equally instructive that Nigerians should devote considerable time in analyzing the character of their potential leaders, not from a romantic perspective but from an objective standpoint. It would appear on hindsight that the bulk of the Nigerian elite over romanticised the prospects of Obasanjo being a good leader, and clothed him with the garb of qualities he ill possesses.

We would have noted that even in the 1980s Obasanjo had decried the idea of multiparty democracy in his book, Constitution for National Integration and Development in which he also showed his abhorrence for dialogue, contrary views and perspectives. We would also have observed that he has transformed, over time, from being a believer in collective leadership to being a self opinionated, trenchantly inflexible pseudo-messiah who knows it all. Finally, we would also have noted that Obasanjo’s belief in democracy, human rights and constitutional governance was an act of self-promotion because the moment the reins of power fell into his hands, he began to manifest a despotic and totalitarian mindset never witnessed before in the annals of Nigerian history.

For eight years, and if not for the courage and commitment of certain national patriots to the true meaning of democratic governance, for as long as he lived, Obasanjo would have flicked on the nation an exercise of power that was brutal, brutish and uncaring; led unwisely and negated all the true principles, tenets and values of good governance. He unleashed a reign of terror on all those who dared oppose his tyranny and despotism or who shared contrary views. He abused the very elite that summoned tremendous courage in rehabilitating him politically, a venture he had no capacity to do for himself, insulted the people and injured their true interests.

And at the end he left office with a trail of broken promises and unfulfilled hopes and expectations, and clearly left the polity worse than he met it.
What about the party that put him in power, a party we toiled day and night to build, to nurture and to position as the leading force in national transformation? Before long, the party’s spirit was broken by the repeated, self-inflicted blows delivered at its heart. It lost its way, and by destroying its original vision and philosophical base, became a mere shadow of its former formidable self both in the areas of human resources available to it, and in the quality of its agenda and view points on national issues. Systematically, internal democratic principles and processes were cast over board, to be replaced by a commandist, garrison mentality and institutional structure loyal only to its Chief Hegemon and a handful of very ordinary yes men. When we realized that the party had virtually squandered its goodwill and exhausted its historical possibilities and potentials, it was too late. Incalculable harm had been inflicted on its core. The internal battles we fought to restore honour and dignity to it, came very late in the day, and by the time we fled or were forced out of such a sinking ship, it had monumentally corrupted the very essence of power, leadership and governance.

What are the effects today of this unbecoming situation as a new set of people grapple with power, leadership and governance? For a start, an energy emergency has been declared on the people and by the people, even when the government lacks the courage and resolve to do so. The collapse of the energy sector which the Obasanjo administration squandered over one trillion naira on, is an eloquent testimony to the wrong application of power, failure of leadership and bad governance. Such a collapse has had its spiral effect on industrial capacity and other levels of capacity utilization; on the closure of several SMEs (small and medium scale industries); on quantum leap in unemployment because of lack of energy-based industrial, manufacturing and commercial outlets; and in the loss of millions of man hour as government and other businesses remain undone or unattended to because of power outage and erratic power supply. As Nigerians grapple with the absence of power supply in their sleeping and waking moments, they are constanly reminded about an eight – year failure in leadership, and are also increasingly losing patience about the capacity of the incumbent administration to fix this critical national sector even six months after assuming office.
Another issue worth pointing out here is that of the state of federal roads, especially in the Eastern part of the country.

So much has been said say about this, but so little has been done. As the yuletide season approaches with its migratory phenomenon, the people are reminded that their roads are little more than broken up bush paths, yet the maintenance of public highways and the construction of new ones is the responsibility of government. Under somebody’s watch, hundreds of billions of naira was wasted in this venture with little return. And those who dared to speak up about this evil situation, like myself, have been harassed, hounded, intimidated and financially disempowered for over seven or so years. Again, nothing better illustrates the incompetence, corruption, decadence and ineptitude of the Obasanjo administration than the primitive state of our Federal roads and the horrendous pain and tragedy that attend to road users across the country.

I have endeavoured to underscore the place of power, leadership and governance in the Nigerian democratic process and attempted to locate these issues in a concrete historical time frame. In doing this, I have only examined two or so issues pertaining to this vital subject. In the next two series, I intend to take a closer and deeper look at some other aspects of power, leadership and good governance as we labour to consolidate our democracy.