Presidents and change

Lastly the way that change agents treat resisters is the way the resisters will treat the change agents. The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the head of state and head of the national executive. He is also the Commander in Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces. He also has several duties entrusted […]

Lastly the way that change agents treat resisters is the way the resisters will treat the change agents. The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the head of state and head of the national executive. He is also the Commander in Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces. He also has several duties entrusted by the constitution and legislation. He is responsible for assenting to and signing bills, referring bills back to the national assembly for re-consideration, summoning the national assembly to an extra-ordinary sitting to conduct special business, making any appointments that the constitution or legislation requires  the president to make, appointing commission of enquiry, calling a national referendum in terms of an act of parliament, receiving and recognising foreign diplomatic and consular representatives, appointing ambassadors, and pardoning or reprieving offenders and conferring honours. A cursory look at the list of duties illustrates clearly that the constitution limits the powers of the president.  
Although we claim to practice “American style” presidential democracy the truth is that in Nigeria there is an excessive centralization of power. Nigerians elect leaders to lead, rather than administer, and the “presidency” has grown into an over-bloated organization ascribing to itself powers that it doesn’t have. Our president is directly responsible for change. He is far more powerful than his U.S. counterpart who doesn’t “rule” his country, doesn’t have sycophantic ministers constantly massaging his ego and can’t give an oil allocation, duty waiver or influence the award of contract. The U.S. president can’t even make his best friend a millionaire. As we head into another presidential election it’s pertinent to ask exactly what powers our president has to change our situation. In a nutshell our problems are that insurgents, militants, and armed robbers are better organized and armed than security forces; honest policemen are outnumbered by corrupt ones who aid and abet crime; the ostentatious display of wealth by the political class has created discontentment amongst the populace; government has not articulated any plan to alleviate the suffering of those who have no job, no job prospects, and nothing to live for. It’s been quite correctly pointed out that if General Buhari wins the upcoming election he won’t be able to solve these problems by sitting in an office and issuing decrees which citizens will be forced to obey.
So the question arises – How can he influence change? What can he do that hasn’t been done? Any president who wishes to be a “change driver” must lead by personal example. He must be a person doesn’t care about wealth and who doesn’t back the corrupt. He must have a strong and personal commitment to the cause of change and must be competent, incorruptible and visionary.  He must ensure that there are consequences for acts of corruption and economic sabotage. He must keep in focus the main aim of government which is to enhance the living conditions of the majority of the population. He must show personal empathy to the disadvantaged and oppressed. He must keep close tabs on the treasury and prevent situations in which billions go missing and no one is held responsible. He must patronize the arts and unleash the potentials for employment in that sector. He must concentrate all efforts and force in one particular direction in order to achieve tangible results. Finally he must ensure that the anti-corruption agencies, security and electoral agencies are truly independent. Time they say, changes all things. Some years ago David Mark, now the current Senate President was quoted as saying army sergeants were more qualified for leadership, than university graduates. This of course was at the height of the anti-democratic military impunity which retarded our development as a nation. To those familiar with the inconsistent ways of politicians it comes as no surprise that the new “democratic” David Mark now supports a university graduate contesting election against a retired General!
Military officers generally believe in “states of emergency”, and   “task forces”, none of which has managed to solve any of our problems. In all those years of military misadventure these superficial solutions of motion without movement never worked. Even today the declaration of a “state of emergency” on the power sector has had no effect? Indeed if it provides a solution why don’t we declare a “state of emergency” in the health sector where citizens die unnecessarily every day? In the education sector where we are experiencing the worst ever failure rates? On roads where hundreds die routinely? In the judiciary where corrupt Judges and administrative delays make legal redress unobtainable for the common man?
Or in our Sports, where a once proud sporting nation has been reduced to a laughing stock? Perhaps the Senate president has finally been convinced that the solution to our problems lies in the long and tortuous process of analysis, synthesis, evaluation, design and implementation. The essential activities for implementing successful change are creating a sense of urgency, gathering support, agreeing objectives, clarifying roles, building skills and systems, and operationalising the new environment, none of which is currently happening.