with Olu Obafemi

SMS only:08033341157, [email protected]

ONE of the most pressing challenges of good governance in democratic Africa, with specific reference to Nigeria, is the issue of leadership. And in spite of the criticism levelled against it, the Mo Ibrahim Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achieve­ment in African Leadership, perhaps the biggest single prize in the world today (far outclassing the highly covetable No­bel Prize, at least in material worth, though not in recognition, universality and status, by any means) is undoubtedly one of the ways of inspiring and challenging serving leaders of nations in Africa to govern with collective social vision, re­sponsibility, transparency and accountability.

The criticism that the Prize throws much-needed fund for mass development–poverty eradication, mass employment, and so on, at the opulently and absurdly rich politicians, may have its validity but it hardly touches the sole purpose and lofty ideals of the Prize.

This is why, it is startling, if not entirely disheartening, that in spite of the size of the Prize, more often than not, there are no suitable candidates for the Prize, such that, in its nine years of endowment (since 2006) and nine years of compe­tition, only four former African Heads of government have won it; Joaquin Chissano of Mozambique (2007) who got it, in Kofi Anan’s evaluation, for being ‘a powerful voice for Africa on the international stage’ and the important role he plays in ‘pushing debt relief up’; Festus Mugae of Bo­tswana (2008) who was adjudged by the distinguished Panel as having provided outstanding leadership for his country through ensuring that the country enjoyed ‘continued stabil­ity and prosperity in the face of HIV which threatened the future of his country and people’; Pedro Pires of Cape Verde (2011) whom Salim A. Salim, former Secretary-General of the United Nations, found worthy of the Prize for providing the vision for the transformation of ‘Cape Verde into a model of stability and prosperity’; and Hifi Kepunye Pohamba of Namibia (2014) who was hailed by the Panel for his ‘sound and wise leadership’ in accomplishing his Presidential man­date through impressive humility throughout his Presidency.

For the rest of the Award years, 2009, 2010, 2011 2012 and 2013, no past President of democratic Africa was found to be ennobled with the power of collective vision, wisdom, humility, and the capacity to provide the re­quired model for democratic governance shared among those African leaders who clinched the Award. Those other democrat­ically elected former Heads of government who got close to winning the Prize such as, among others, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, John Kufour of Ghana, Thambo Mbeki of South Africa and Goodluck Jon­athan of Nigeria, may have been blemished even when they possessed some of the requi­site attributes of their luckier colleagues pre­viously in power. It is particularly intriguing that all those who have won the Prize, with the exception of Cape Verde, come from South­ern Africa—countries previously enmeshed in protracted revolutionary struggle for lib­eration. Also noteworthy is the fact that no Nigerian former President ever won the Prize. This is certainly not the concern of this present column, however attractive it is for discourse analysis or rhetorical deliberation.

Why, for instance, did Chief Obasanjo not get it? Was it just, as some have argued that his undoing was his obsession for a third-term in power? Yes, OBJ had the larger-than-life presence on the African continuity with posi­tive political motions and making appreciable impact but it is difficult to confidently credit him with the visionary eloquence of Pires or the humility of Pohamba. Nobody can deny him of the incredible energy and round-robin marshalling of a surveying monarch across the continent, but the star-studded Panel prob­ably saw through the thinness of his vision and his rough-shod ride over his immediate and extended electorate in Nigeria and the continent. Yet, the Panel did not seem per­suaded that he deserve the Prize. I am not sure I can find the failings of Kufour and Mbeki, even though the latter’s light was dimmed by the bewildering glow of Madiba Mandela before him. As for Goodluck Jonathan who must have been considered for his contribu­tion to the on-going stability and continuity of Nigeria as a united entity by the uncommon ease with which he conceded power to the in­cumbent President Buhari, and of course the country’s literal and metaphorical trouncing of Ebola even beyond the way Mugae han­dled HIV in cape Verde, his outrageous cav­alier towards rampaging corruption taken to its unprecedented heights in the country under his watch more than nullified his candidature for the Prize meant for leaders of vision, driv­ing courage and strength of character.

Related News

A commitment to leadership, especially structural leadership, as a critical tool for good governance, propelled Mo Ibrahim to throw such mammoth sums at men and women who have led their countries in democratic governance.

With particular reference to Nigeria, lead­ership has been generally considered as the key impediment to our national development and it is perhaps an unwitting hunt for a new leadership vision and strategy to transform our nation to a truly great nation that drove the Nigerian electorate into the arms of Muham­madu Buhari- a man known for his integrity, discipline of character and patriotic zeal. Will Buhari, if we may wager, merit Mo Ibrahim’s Prize at the end of his tenure in power, be it in 2019 or 2023? Time will tell beyond his achievements in waging war against corrup­tion and insecurity. The economic hardship on the land, foist in part by the declining revenue from crude oil, the threat to national stability by renewed militancy in the Niger Delta, the fresh cry for the resurgence of Biafra and the herdsmen new terrorist garb need to be con­fronted decisively with the duration of his ten­ure in authority and power.

No matter, the search for appropriate lead­ership—situational, political and structural, such that informed Mo Ibrahim to set up the coveted Prize, will continue on our continent.

All this implies that, as a nation, we should have a vision or national objectives or goals as articulated in our constitution ( and beyond it) and our optimum dream is to see them mani­fest in the lives of the people. The expectation therefore is that our leaders must have a clear­ly defined vision of where we are going and how we can get there. As Napoleon Bona­parte put it, “A leader is a dealer in hope”. It is this hope that empowers the nation to keep faith with the leadership that there is a defined destination and there is need for collective ac­tion by all sectors of our social economy as we advance towards that destination.

it is, however, pertinent that the leaders on this journey must know the way, be com­mitted to towing the way, and also, must be willing to show the people the way, but most importantly, they most go all the way with the people. However, as Rosalyn Carter observes, “A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don’t necessarily want to go, but ought to be”. In this process, there must be trust between the people and the leader. The people, according to John Maxwell, “buy into the leader before they buy into the vision. The credibility of the leader therefore is essential in effective lead­ership. In the words of Winston Churchill, “the nation will find it very hard to look up to the leaders who are keeping their ears to the ground”.

a visionary, strategic, transformational leadership is essential for good governance and socio-economic transformation. Having journeyed as a nation for more than five de­cades, to what extent have we produced and developed such leadership that should have led us to the path of fundamental national de­velopment? It is against that we must contin­ue to commend people like Mo Ibrahim for giving thought to inspiring ideals that serving Africans must imbibe and pursue as they lead this continent and as Nigerian leaders face the challenges posed for them by history and their own aspiration to lead—whether the meet the requirements and criteria set for winning lead­ership prizes or not.