It often troubles the mind why Nigeria is yet to get it right in the political leadership scale. But the answer is not farfetched. Last week, the Bishop of Catholic Diocese of Sokoto, Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah gave an insight into why other democracies succeed and ours wobbles. Kukah, we must acknowledge, is not an ordinary priest. He’s a man of wit and wisdom.
Wherever he goes, either to deliver homily or lecture, that place goes aglitter. It’s because of the depth of his understanding of history and society. And, if you happen to be in that gathering, it will profit you because your guest speaker is a revelation of the innermost heart of a down-to-earth priest who almost always speaks the gospel truth. He also speaks truth to power.
He’s like an apple from a tree. He wears his heart on his sleeves. Nothing to hide. So it was at the recent Joint District Conference and 10th Anniversary celebration of Rotary International, District 9125,Jos, Plateau state, where Kukah spoke on “Inspirational Leadership and Humanitarian Service”. There was a pain cry in his emotions as he provided a thought-provoking insight into why our Presidents, past and present, have failed to deliver on the important task of serving the public. The answer is simple: No Nigerian President ever prepared to serve. They were more or less, forced or foisted on the people. And since success has a pattern, you have to be well prepared or you prepare to fail. According to Bishop Kukah, since the return of democracy in 1999, Nigeria has not got a President who was indeed, prepared to serve the nation. For instance, he said Obasanjo was “ picked from the prison and he became a President. Umaru Yar’Adua was preparing to return to the University to lecture but was forced against his will and he became president. Almost the same trajectory with Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, who, as Yar’Adua’s veep became President through a “Doctrine of Necessity” after the death of his principal.
That was why Jonathan was perceived in his first tenure , by a section of the country as “illegitimate president”, or to borrow President Lyndon Johnson’s phrase, “a naked man with no presidential covering”… For President Muhammadu Buhari, we all knew how he contested the presidency three times and lost, vowing not to contest again, but was drafted, perhaps against his will, to contest for the fourth time and he won. In Kukah’s thinking, none of these Presidents contested election based on his conviction. We may also add former President Shehu Shagari to the list.
That’s how Nigeria came to this terrible present of having pretenders to the throne. No puns intended. The home truth of how Nigeria posts a miserable rating in leadership, one must reiterate, is troubling indeed. No country gambles with the selection of its leadership and gets tangible results. And no leader comes by chance and offers ennobling legacy worth talking about. Consider how these three leaders, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama (USA) and Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore) emerged as extraordinary leaders of their respective nations. A portrait of Clinton and Obama shows leaders who deliberately decided early in life to devote their intellectual and political gifts and capacity for hard work, to serving the people.
It shows us the progress of two remarkable Americans, who, through their enormous energies and personal efforts, made the unlikely journeys from their modest backgrounds, to the White House. Again, I say, it was by chance. For Lee Kuan Yew, his famous book, “From Third World to First”, shows how a political leader of insight, intellect and vision, led a tiny country to a prosperous modern society. His remains a textbook in the world on how to build a nation. Compare these leaders to what we have in Nigeria as Presidents. The difference is clear, isn’t it?
That was why, when this column made its debut on October 28,2008, it started with this poignant headline: Is Nigeria proving too hard for Yar’Adua? It was a headline necessitated by the tempers of that time of the then President’s torrid tenure caused by his ill health that was making it almost impossible for him to govern effectively. Coupled with the fact that he never prepared himself with the enormous required, the country looked direction less because the man in the saddle was leery and nervous.
He behaved and acted like a stranger in the seat of power. Yar’Adua is long gone. May Allah bless his soul. But his successor, Jonathan was much different. Talent isn’t enough to function effectively as President and Commander-in-Chief. Raw power won’t do it either. Jonathan lacked firmness in critical decision-making. He didn’t know when to invoke the prestige of the presidency and when to hold it in reserve. Oftentimes, he maintained imperturbable calmness when urgent action was needed.
But, if you ask me, our leadership mistakes began in 1999 when Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was foisted on Nigeria by the combination of the military leadership and the PDP at the party’s national convention in Jos, Plateau state. The political leadership perhaps overrated the man’s ability and capacity to heal the nation’s wounds caused by the sudden death of Chief MKO Abiola, the acclaimed winner of the annulled June 12,1993 presidential election. OBJ overused power, largely because he was prepared to be President. Nothing much has changed with the present leadership. You don’t give what you don’t have. This is true, because, the presidency is not, as President Gerald Ford, said in his memoir,”a prize to be won, it’s a duty to be done”.
Altogether, I don’t see Nigeria’s leadership problem to change anytime soon until the political leaders understand what public office entails- an unfaltering commitment to serving the public and a resolute determination to prepare oneself early on to have an impassioned interest in the political process and not to win at all cost. The pain of how we have come short of good leaders is partly because our leaders squander public trust, and believe that power is what money can buy.
The consequence of this is that leaders emerge, and Presidents elected, not really through the sanctity of the ballot but through other undemocratic means, thereby creating unusual, torrid election petitions which outcome might not serve public interest. In all of this, a President authority serves public purpose when it comes from the public belief in his right and ability to govern and the decisions/judgments he makes.