GLOBAL analyses of contemporary African politics often portray Nigeria and South Africa as the two nations that should drive the continent’s future growth and set standards for its progressive socioeconomic development. This perception emanates from the nature of the historic and demographic benchmarks that have defined the national characters of both nations. Nigeria is the most populous black African nation and is thus the black race’s spiritual as well as geographic homeland. South Africa has evolved from being governed by the most tyrannical and racist system into an ideal model of democratic equity. At the same time, while Nigeria’s enormous wealth of resources, both human and natural, has always given the impression that the nation is poised for an economic take-off, South Africa’s advanced manufacturing and infrastructural endowment has ensured that it can provide economic benefits for some of its people that are well ahead of the normal expectations of most African nations. This dichotomy of expectations has now become the conventional criteria against which analytical comparisons and commentaries are made about public issues in both of these great nations.
Presumptions of the dysfunctional nature of Nigeria’s political realities have become commonplace in the utterances of most analysts who comment on the country’s affairs. One conclusion that has been repeated over and over again is the assertion that most of Nigeria’s problems are caused by deficient leadership. This statement has taken on the characteristic of a received truth. As a result, analysis of the political challenges faced by the nation often focuses on the character and personal objectives of individual leaders rather than on their credibility as representatives
of the public will. For example, in the 2015 presidential election, the coalition of forces opposing the continuation of nearly two decades’ rule by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) demonised the nature and conduct of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan’s tenure as the first Head of State to have emerged from the southern minority ethnic bloc as the main tactic of its campaign strategy. The outcome of the election might in fact be said to have vindicated this tactic when Dr. Jonathan pre-empted the electoral commission and conceded defeat even before the official result was announced. The symbolic importance of that act will reverberate for a long time in the strategic annals of Nigerian politics.
By the same token, the example that was set by Nelson Mandela when he stepped down from his unassailable position as the first black President of South Africa in 1999 has become the bellwether of discussions and observations about that nation’s relevance in African affairs. The developments that surrounded the process of the Mandela withdrawal from active political participation were more complex and far- reaching than anything that has occurred in Nigeria’s leadership process so far. For example, the selection process that led to the succession in which the Deputy President Thabo Mbeki took over from “Madiba” was stringent and controlled within the African National Congress (ANC). While the respect and honour afforded the President did not prevent some elements in the party from making choices that were in opposition to his wishes, the eventual outcome reflected his desire to have the process seen to be transparent and popular. As a consequence, the establishment of a working force of effective and experienced leaders who can keep the flame of popular representative governance alive for the foreseeable future has turned out to be the greatest legacy of his decision to withdraw from power. The recent emergence of Cyril Ramaphosa as President of the ANC and the successor to Jacob Zuma as Head of State is regarded by many knowledgeable analysts as being a landmark of this legacy.
In recent weeks the Nigerian polity has been stimulated by the publication of a series of excitable missives discussing the issue of the state of national leadership. These have been produced by political commentators whose provenance enhances the likelihood of their views influencing public opinion. Based on past experience, many observers are convinced that this outpouring of sentiment and perceptive commentary is a reflection of the deep moral and emotional anxiety that has been provoked by existential conditions in the community at large. In that case, it is being touted, especially since former President Olusegun Obasanjo has added his voice to the mix, that President Muhammadu Buhari should consider the options before him with care and caution before deciding whether he will seek a second term or not. Those who are supporting this position base their advice on the assumption that popular opinion has provided Nigerian doomsayers with enough fuel to provoke a political conflagration during the forthcoming electoral season. However, the real issue at stake is not simply whether the individual who is in power should be changed but rather whether the system that has produced the present leadership is resilient enough to provide lasting guidance and substantial progress for the nation. This latter concern should occupy the minds of all serious participants in the governance process in modern-day Nigeria.
The consolidated legacy of the democratic order that has succeeded the long years of military rule is still being crafted now after nearly 20 years of experimentation and imprecise manipulation. The emergence of President Buhari on his fourth attempt after he had vowed that he would not seek office again is in fact a consequence of the process of the building of this legacy. While his installation in office as a civilian might satisfy his desire to vindicate the choice of the people, an important objectiveof his success should be the establishment of a legacy of public choice for the future of governance as well. It is in this wise that the example of Nelson Mandela’s withdrawal from office and stewardship of the handover of power in South Africa might hold lessons for the process in Nigeria. The result of elections in the West African nation will always provide complex interpretations for the perceptions of analysts because of the demographic and geographic complexities of the nation. However, over and beyond that, many Nigerians are realising that it is the imperative of nation-building that has justified all the unfortunate as well as the fortunate accidents of historic eventuality that have led the nation to this stage in time. Nigeria needs a leader now who will decide just as Mandela did that providing a legacy for the future is more important than holding on to power.
It would be wrong to assume, however, that the removal of the incumbent Head of State is the only solution that can emanate from a decision to install new leadership in Nigeria. It is a profound truism that each nation in the world has its own peculiar political circumstance, and that the action that provides a solution to a problem in one country might aggravate and compound the same problem in another. Change in the process and conduct of public affairs can sometimes be achieved by a change of attitude or decisions rather than a change of personnel. When “Madiba” chose to step down he had a clear plan of succession in mind but it was aborted as a result of opposition from certain factions in his party the African National Congress. Recently, the fall-out from the events that followed Mandela’s withdrawal from office provoked serious dysfunction in the relationship between the ANC and then President Zuma, who had come to be regarded as the main beneficiary of the old man’s withdrawal from active political participation. It is, therefore, clear that, while Mandela’s moral probity is worthy of emulation the methodology for the transfer of leadership, responsibility must be handled with profound caution. In that wise we believe that the Mandela option is a principled stand for patriotic politicians to consider as they contemplate public clamour over the need for change in the Nigerian system of governance. However, it will only serve a worthwhile purpose if it helps those in power to find ways to establish a credible programme of choice and representation. The main objective must be to enable a truly representative, popular, visionary, efficient, and effective leader to emerge through an electoral contest that is notable for its fairness and its selflessness. This is what Madiba stood for and what Nigeria needs most at this point in its existence.