Theme: A Language of Leaders in Nigeria
By Amin Buba Dibal
It has recently become commonplace vocabulary in our political and public service space discussed in Nigeria that “…Nigerians deserve the leaders they have; I also emerged from the same society like everyone”. This statement is often sarcastically made when persons at the helm of leadership or in a public role of responsibility are called to question ill public conduct or corruption. The statement is largely understood that he or she is corrupt like any other Nigerian.
In its analyzed dimensions, the statement insults Nigerians, self-abdicates such leaders of the need for any pursuit of excellence in leadership, trivializes visionary orientation of leadership, demonstrates seeming myopic understanding of the implications of language in setting the pace for societal outlook on public issues, a medium to connect or disconnect, build trust or weaken it, inspire or demoralize the population.
The statement is very unfortunate because it expresses aspects of the mental workings of many of our leaders, – though many emerged through a process not truly representative of the peoples’ choices, opportunistic or required competence – and sadly Nigerians actually look up to same for the betterment of their many social ills, however caused by the same ill mentality.
Politically thinking, citizens of a state at least in any democracy, except if the citizens are not actually given the chance to truly elect their leaders which is the case in Nigeria at many levels, citizens often elect whom they thought at some level have superior arguments of strategy to ameliorate the social problems of society, some excellence in quality of thought, character, conduct and better perception of where society should progress to for the betterment of all.
Thus, to insinuate that leaders should be as corrupt as some of the worst members of our society is the least leaders should know it ought not form part of their vocabulary. Thinking in very lay terms, leaders who make such statements – “Nigerians deserve the leaders they have; I also emerged from the same society like everyone” – sound literally and childishly true but philosophically and empirically untrue for a number of reasons.
The foundation of the modern social world laid in the days of the Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries), was featured by a radical departure from old ways of reasoning led by intellectual “leaders” in philosophy and arts however understood by all in society and the truths that came out from the new ways of reasoning resonated with the aspired common good of all in society.
The medieval world from which the enlightenment thinkers sprang was in many ways widely archaic in thinking, and corrupt, with feudalism reigning and free thought and expression license to death in many European societies.
However, from this dark depth of the period, vanguards of the Enlightenment emerged and proffered options of how people should think and how society should advance. The philosophers never thought to themselves that they were part of the old order thus maybe used the privileges that could emerge from their knowledge and wisdom or the opportunities they could get to sit in their comfort zones and in shame say we are part of the dark ages, thus society should continue to be at that abyss.
They were men and women of courage, vision, and patriotism and had the understanding that they had the moral responsibility to help liberate their people and society from the clutches that held them back in underdevelopment.
Nigerians are highly religious people, though with a wide gap between conviction and public acts, many Nigerians’ lives are far apart from the two ideals. But one would at least expect that the precepts and prescribed role models in the Abrahamic faiths narrated in the holy books or of African traditionalist oracles and traditions would inspire the speech, public life, and styles of leadership in society and institutions.
In Christianity, we learn of Josiah who restored the nation of Judah to faith when all in society had gone so in-depth in idolatry. In Islam, Umar Ibn Abd Al-Aziz, considered a pious man and revered caliph attempted to preserve the integrity of the Muslim Umayyad caliphate by emphasizing religion and a return to the original principles of the Islamic faith. In many traditional African religious thought, the King, for example, the Chitimukulu in Northern Zambia is perceived as representative of the divine and not a “common”, who is thought of to protect and guide citizens amongst other roles.
It is instructive, to note that the two references in Christianity and Islam for example came from corrupt societies of their times and never thought to remain in the quagmire they found their social milieus but chose to be pace-setters when they came to leadership and leaped their societies to progress as perceived. They never made excuses of previous leaders’ and followers’ ethical bankruptcy as an excuse to perpetuate irresponsibility but moved to revolutionize their societies.
The philosophical foundation of democracy emerged from the thoughts of Cleisthenes to other contributors in the 19th century like Emmanuel Kant. I am particularly drawn to the Kantian theory of leadership in which Kant rejects instrumental and charismatic theories of leadership and focuses on “transformational leadership” and the leader as an “educator”.
Deconstructing and espousing this perspective, as an “educator”, language is one of the key instruments officials at the helm of leadership should pay attention to in the spirit of their ideal meaning. On the transformational aspect of it, it resonates with the perspectives discussed here, that leaders ought to be transformers of their societies and not those who look for excuses from the general ill of society.
In contemporary political history, the popular dictum – “…Nigerians deserve the leaders they have; I also emerged from the same society like everyone”. amongst many leaders or public officials in Nigeria with its irresponsible connotation has also no veracity. A cursory look into the recent history of the transformation of societies around the world would prove this an error, for example in Singapore, Dubai, and Rwanda, not minding deficiencies in their democratic credentials but the capacities of their leaders to transform their societies.
In Singapore, before Lee Kwuan Yua, the Singaporean society was widely corrupt and underdeveloped, with weak institutions of government, low productivity economically, and lacked a clear vision of where the nation should be. From this society emerged Lee Kwuan Yua, and he led the transformation of his nation from a third-world to now a “first-world” country.
The quantum of development being witnessed in Dubai laid under the leadership of H.H. Sheikh Rashid Ibn Saeed Al-Maktoum emerged from a society that was relatively backward developmentally, however, Sheik Rashid did not see himself as one of the worst of society but saw the opportunity of his leadership as a chance to develop his nation and write his name in gold in the history of the emirate.
Emerging from the hate-ridden, underdeveloped, and divided society that led to a catastrophic genocide of Tutsis and moderate Hutus in 1994 numbering a million, Rwanda rose to become a shining example of unity, development, and prosperity among African countries under the leadership of Paul Kagame.
In recognition of the development strides, in August 2023, 19 Nigerian governors were invited by Paul Kagame and supported by the UNDP to participate in a three-day leadership retreat in Kigali.
At the end of the retreat, an aide to one of the governors as reported by The Pan African Review online publication stated that, “…they did not only draw inspiration from infrastructural development in Kigali but also from the level of orderliness and organization displayed by Rwandans”. He further stated that this “reflects a culture of discipline, patriotism, hard work, and respect for the rule of law”.
The transformation in Rwanda is indeed a credit to good leadership. The experience demonstrates good Africa Nations peer review, but also a demonstration of how the mighty… has fallen.
It is thus not surprising that from such mental value structure of some of our leaders abound the lack of passion and vision to facilitate the development and delivery of basic social services for the people. By the inch of every day, our society keeps becoming ethically corrupt in leadership. The situation is bleakly painted by a definition of a corrupt society I stumbled upon on Quora Digest which states:
“A corrupt society is one in which self-centeredness, greed, lust for power, infidelity, suspicion, and prestige dominate human concerns. It is one in which the virtues of faith, compassion, humility, charity, modesty, and trustworthiness are deemed irrelevant— one in which wisdom is forgotten and belief that life is essentially meaningless has left people feeling both faith-less and hope-less.”
Whatever the conviction of leaders who utter such expressions, “…Nigerians deserve the leaders they have; I also emerged from the same society like everyone”, we leave them with the words of Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore’s ex Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at National University of Singapore:
“…My own thoughts – whenever there is widespread corruption, it’s ALWAYS the leadership that is guilty – for allowing it to happen under their watch”.
