DEVELOPING A NEW LEADERSHIP: AN IMPERATIVE FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA (II)

The debate on the issue of leadership as the major bane of Nigeria’s development has continued unabated for years. Some, like the late Chinua Achebe, in his book, ‘The Trouble with Nigeria’, have categorically laid the blame of Nigeria’s poor performance on national development squarely on the poor quality of national leadership. Others, Odia Ofeimun […]

The debate on the issue of leadership as the major bane of Nigeria’s development has continued unabated for years. Some, like the late Chinua Achebe, in his book, ‘The Trouble with Nigeria’, have categorically laid the blame of Nigeria’s poor performance on national development squarely on the poor quality of national leadership. Others, Odia Ofeimun in particular, do not perceive leadership purely from the prism of political leadership. The perspective of the governed is also crucial in leadership conception. After all, this latter group contends, controvertibly, that there is the saying that the society gets the leadership it deserves. This way of looking at the problem of Nigeria’s national development and the cultivation of leadership is instructing. It reminds one of the riddle of the hen and the egg. Which one comes first? Ofeimun contests Achebe’s contention that bad leadership is the sole cog on the nation’s wheel. He argues that the problem with Nigeria is “not just bad leadership… It is about the values a people uphold, as such, it is not only the protagonists, the entrepreneurs who are allowed to have power and authority” (in short, the governing elite); a perception which inexorably involves the governed who in the production of their lives are ‘moulders and defenders of society.’ He pontifies the artists and the religious leaders as frontline creators of values, even ahead of politicians/political leaders. It is the core values that should determine the emergence of leaders. The summary of these positions is the inextricability of leaders and leadership from the enduring values and collective vision that create them.
At the root of the challenge of leadership and national development in Nigeria is the political history of the country. While, one may be tempted to look back at the colonial period, it may be escapist to attribute all our development problems and burdens to colonialism. This year, we are celebrating Nigeria’s centenary and we cannot but remember the birth of the Nigeria state when the Southern and Northern Protectorates were seemingly amalgamated. My friend, Jibo Ibrahim recently evokes Professor Emeritus, Ade Ajayi to argue that there was no real political amalgamation of the Protectorates in 1914. Before 1914, the Protectorates were administered as separate political entities. Even with the amalgamation, they were not only administered separately, they developed along different patterns. Different political and administrative policies were applied. As Nnoli (2003) asserts, the British colonial administration deployed divide-and rule policies/tactics to not only mobilize and manipulate ethnic consciousness, but also as a strategy to curb nationalism and anti-colonial uprising in favour of their imperialist hegemonic interests. Osaghae (2011) has also alluded to the way colonial policies of separate development has created a chasm in our political development. While nationalist movements began in the early twentieth century in Lagos and some parts of southern Nigeria, political and nationalist movements were deliberately suppressed in the North and the first political association emerged only in the 1940s. This development therefore did not allow political leaders to go through the same experience and level of political consciousness at independence. There was certainly some level of imbalance in political and socio-economic development and differences in orientation between the Northern and Southern regions. 
Paden (1986) confirms the differing “approach of politics” and the political party competition and elections in the 1950s between the north and the south.  he reported,
“northerners viewed the approach of politics with more of a sense of deep anxiety, not because they don’t want ‘independence’ but because they thought circumstances were stacked against them and were genuinely fearful that they would be trading one set of rulers (the British) for another set of rulers (southern Nigerians).
 This exaggerated narrative reflects the wide development gap between the north and the south, and it captures, appreciably, the stark political realities of the country at the time. However, it does not tell the whole story. Truth is that by 1939, the Northern People s Congress (NPC) has been in its embryo, from the effort of the Katsina Old Boys, presided over by Alhaji Dogon Daji. By 1948, in Zaria, the NPC had become a formal political party, led by Dr. Dikko and others. It was not until 1951 that the Sardauna and Balewa joined the party formally. Between 1931 and 1948, the emerging elite from the north had begun to carry out anti-colonial and anti-imperialist activities that had caused the colonial authorities considerable disquiet.
It is ostensible that British colonialism laid the foundation for modern Nigerian state. Egwu (1999) has argued that colonialism played a critical role in the process of ethnic formation and the political use to which such identity or consciousness was expended. This was obvious as the colonial administration invented and promoted a sense of social distance among the various Nigerian peoples. This led at independence to the emergence of regional and ethnic leaders rather than national leaders. It was no wonder, therefore, that political leaders on the eve of independence made statements that challenged the rationale for forging a nation out of the diversities of the people and cultures. This fact remains with us today when leaders cannot rise above ethnicity, religion and other primordial predispositions.
At independence, political leadership was confronted with the challenge of building a nation out of the diverse, complex groups and nationalities. However, Nigeria since independence, has been characterized by “a long-drawn-out decay or decline” as evident in political instability, a low level of national cohesion, and economic crisis, all of which are mutually reinforcing (Osaghae, 2011). Leadership crisis since independence has also been characterized by political instability in terms of the high turnover of political leaders, both civilian and military, especially the protracted interregnum of military dictatorship, interspersed with short-lived civilian rule thwarting the growth of a democratic culture in the nation.
More than five decades after independence, the issue of national cohesion remains a major challenge in the nation. This is evident in the recent setting up of a committee on the national question and the forthcoming national dialogue in 2014 (certainly not the national conference that the progressives demanded and anticipated). The leaders, over the years, have been overwhelmed by the crucial necessity to handle raging issues such as ethno-religious conflicts, minority and citizenship rights, separatist movements, resource control and distribution, political marginalization, free, fair and credible elections, terrorism and insurgencies etc. Politics revolves around the contestation for control of and access to national resources. 
It can be emphatically stated that since independence, there has been real and imagined quests by the various governments and leaders to set a pace for socio-economic transformation through various national development plans, programmes and projects. However, it is obvious that in spite of all these efforts, the nation has not experienced any fundamental transformation in comparison with her enormous potentials. When also compared with her peers, the Asian economies, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore with similar characteristics which remarkably transformed over a space of 50 years, Nigeria has fared rather poorly (Sanusi, 2012). The success of the Asian economies can be attributed, largely, to the significant role that committed, patriotic, courageous and visionary leadership played in the revolutionary transformation of these countries. It is obvious that visionary and transformational leadership, as demonstrated by the leaders of these countries, led to their socio-economic development.