PERSPECTIVES ON NIGERIA’S LEADERSHIP CRISIS

                          By

                                       

 

                    Olufemi ADELUSI (Ph.D)

                                   and

                        Hassan SALIU (Ph.D)

ABSTRACT

This chapter examines the various perspectives on  the Nigerian Leadership crisis. It situates the crisis at the footsteps of visionary- fewer leaders that have governed Nigeria since her independence in 1960. The main causes of leadership failure  in Nigeria were highlighted. These include the crisis of followership, poverty of thought, social injustice and the cult of mediocrity, and compromise of principles. The consequences of the observed failure of leadership on the State were also analyzed in terms of stunted economic development and growth as well as fraudulent foreign policy and external image.

          The study concludes that every Nation-State gets the type of leaders that it wants. Nigeria is no exception. It posits that visionary leadership will emerge in Nigeria when the volition expressed by the people to be led consists of upward-looking, loving and a desire for justice, peace and harmonious relationships.

I-               INTRODUCTION

“ Our rulers have ruined not only our economy, but  they have also snapped the little thread which bounds the very many peoples of this country together as a Nation in the embryonic stage” (Aguda.A;1993).

“The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership. There is nothing basically wrong with the Nigerian character …..The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the personal example which are the hallmarks of true leadership”.(Achebe.C;1983:1).

The above statements although made at different times in the past best describe the situation in Nigeria today. The country has suddenly fallen from from her enviable position in the world to that of scorn. Thus, these days either in Africa or outside,when an African affair comes up for discussion, it is most probable that it will be the inability of the once liberator of the continent to liberate herself from the intractable crisis of political succession (Mugabe.R.1995).

One common feature of a mature political system however is its ability to recruit its leadership among the contending forces with relative ease. Thus when the election date is approaching in the United States and the Great Britain, the various peoples of the world follow events in these countries with keen interest. What really baffles people is that despite the bickering that go with electioneering campaigns, the processes of political succession are usually concluded without litigation or a serious threat to the existence of those States. Elections in post-colonial countries have always been a difficult assignment to conduct. One is not only being disturbed by the negative/foul means which the politicians use , rather the scars of elections are retained long after they have been concluded thereby plunge the military into the political arena.

The Nigerian case, which is the subject of this chapter, seems to reveal more about the crisis of political succession. It is rather sad that despite the long history of  Statehood, the country is still unable to resolve the basic issue of who succeeds who. At the roots of this national malaise is the failure of  leadership. One agrees  that leadership cannot be divorced from the socio-economic system being operated in a society and also that leadership is one among several  other factors  that  may  impinge on a Nation’s progress. The abysmal performance of the leadership has supported a view, which this chapter shares that the real problem with Nigeria is the failing leadership. The cloud of uncertainty, which now pervades the Nigerian State, is fundamentally caused by the leadership. Hardly would one pass through the news stand these days without seeing a caption that reveals the apparent leadership crisis in Nigeria.

In this chapter, therefore, we seek to contribute  to the debate on Nigeria’s leadership crisis by highlighting some of the perspectives which people have taken on the crisis. We will proceed after this introduction to look at the emergence of indigenous  leadership, performance of Nigeria’s leadership, causes of its failure on the State and lastly, the Conclusion.

II-            THE EMERGENCE OF INDIGENEOUS LEADERSHIP

When the British came on colonization, it was not their immediate intention to grant independence to the colonized territories. Consequently, at the initial stages , no effort was made to prepare Nigerians for leadership roles. The deliberate policy of using the traditional rulers fitted into the scheme. The preference of the British  for these largely unlettered traditional  rulers  at the expense of the few available educated  elites was ably demonstrated  in some sections of the country. In the North, for instance , the flourishing  traditional emirate system  initiated after the Usman Dan Fodio jihad was a tempting cause for the British to establish the indirect rule system of government. The Emirs as they were and still called commanded a lot of respect. Indeed, their words were laws unto themselves. The convenience which the emirate systemprovided for British exploitation made the imposing colonial authorities to shut out the large expanse of land in the North from activities of the missionaries who had pioneered the establishment of western schools in other parts. Surprisingly, the colonaial administration discouraged the establishment of educational institutions even where islamic education would take precedence over western education.

Consequently, the indigenous political class emerged earlier in the south than the North. The few educated elites in the south had necessarily seen themselves as the inheritors of the colonial masters. This explains the vibrancy and militancy which their nationalist agitations assumed especially after the Second World War. As asserted by BABAWALE(1992), despite the heated nationalist activites in the south, nationalism started in the North in the 1950’s. The late start of nationalism has been blamed on the slow pace of western education in the North. This contradicted with the situation in the south, where the4 initial nationalists were not necessarily from the royal class. Indeed, they were sons and daughters of the working class who through the dint of hardwork had made it to the tops educationally. This reality impacted on the emergence of indigenous leadership in the country. Instead of developing a Pan-Nigerian outlook, the nationalists who Babawale(1992) has criticized for betraying their initial Pan-Nigerian outlook when they lapsed into ethnic chauvinism, felt that their early access to western education qualified them to speak for the North which its access to western education and the entrenchment of the Native Authority had successfully eliminated the chances of “revolutionaries” developing in the region. This has been considered as a serious oversight on the part of the southern leaders(Tijjani,1994).

In 1953, when Chief Anthony Enahoro moved a motion for independence and the motion was modified by Ahmadu Bello, the Northern members of the legislature were booed and jeered by the Lagos crowd. This incident raised the level of mutual suspicion far beyond the level the Akintola-led delegation to Kano could contain.

In this apparent show of contempt, the masses from both sides were at the receiving end. Babawale(1992:63) argues for the Northern leaders:

“These leaders, given their feudal aristocratic background, saw a coalescence in their ambition to maintain effective colonisation of the people of Nigeria, most especially in the North. Thus , they willfully supported the British effort to create an unbridgeable gulf between the North and South of the country, through the mobilization of prejudices against the south and the heightening of the people’s fear of southern domination.”

The gains of this manipulation of prejudices, of course, were the consolidation of the political power and the easy access to wealth which it guaranteed its perpetuators.  Not only that, the ethnicization of politics under colonial rule in a way enabled the Northern leaders to hide their apparent failure to canvass for national support beyond the confines of the North(Babawale,1992:63).

One fundamental event, which really gave out the British as working against the emergence of a national leadership, was the proclamation of the Macpherson constitution in 1951. Its provisions, among others, included; the creation of regional assemblies, which removed all pretensions from the hitherto tribal or ethnic leaders who had been masquerading as national leaders. The National Council for Nigerian Citizens and the Cameron’s(NCNC) which had grown from the debris of the Nigerian Youth Movement(NYM), was later to become identified with the Igbos, the Action Group(AG) grew out of the Egbe Omo Oduduwa and the Northern Peoples Congress(NPC), an off-shoot of Mutane Arewa never for once, claimed to be national both in context and operation. All these political platforms assisted in executing the provisions of the clearly anti-unity Macpherson constitution. Therefore, when the post of a Prime Minister  was created in the West, East and the North under the constitution , Sarduana of the NPC held sway in the North, Awolowo of the AG in the West and Azikiwe ran from the West to the East to  assume the premiership under the then Igbo dominated NCNC(IGE,1994:14).

The tripod held tenaciously to their regional roots. Although Azikiwe and Awolowo later moved to the centre to play largely regional politics, Sardauna pushed Tafawa Balewa to represent the NPC at the centre. These arrangements continued throughout the days of the post independence government in Nigeria. On the surface of it, the two Grand Alliances formed for the 1964 Federal elections in a way was an admission of failure of the then national leaders to lead political parties that could make their impact felt beyond their original regions. The disputations that followed the elections and the inability of the alliances to endure in the face of pressures should create little difficulties in discerning the tribal roots of the initial Nigerian leadership.

The personal interest of Nigeria’s leadership was not only initially reflected at the level of power play. The management of the economy also reveals the stark reality that our leaders did not only emerge as parasites but also as agents of colonial exploitation (HASSAN, 1995).

Originally, colonialism was an economic enterprise which needed political support to endure. Little wonder, after the subjugation of the Nigerian territory by the British lethal power, the imposing colonial administration began to have an unhindered access to the nation’s resources. This continued until the rank of the educated elites began swollen with the attendant prosperity. At this point, the elites began to recognise the importance of uniting their factions in all sectors of the economy. Being relatively prosperous, the elites in the economic sector began to be the providers of funds to their political counterparts. In return, the political elites assisted in publicising the grievances of the Nigerian businessmen against the British colonial administration in its management of the economy. The granting of local buying agent licenses to Europeans at the expenses of burgeoning Nigerian economic class was advantageously capitalised upon to the displeasure of the British. It is important to stress here what local buying agent means for a better appreciation of the term. Essentially, it refers to a person who has no business with the process of production. His primary role, rather, is to serve as the intermediary between the British conglomerates and the Nigerian consumer (OKOLO,1987). The incorporation of Nigerians into the local buying agent structure in a fundamental sense served as the take-off point for the present day commission agents in the country.

Surprisingly, the ruling class has preferred to play this role even after the attainment of independence, perhaps because of its low risk content. BABAWALE(1992:61), argues further,” the realities of Nigeria’s history have shown that the ruling class has no root in productive activities but rather in distributive trade…” The whipping up of sentiments rather than ideas, emphasis on the areas of difference not commonalties, have become the ready tools in the hands of the leadership to sustain itself in view of its vulnerability(JOSEPH,1991).

The emergence of indigenous leadership in Nigeria was characterised by the politics of ethnicity, mutual distrust, deceit, and greed e.t.c. all taking their roots during the period of colonial rule. The ruling class, of course, was formed by the people who had no faint ideas on the productive sector of the economy. All these would be expected to have serious repercursions on the state later. The performance on the leadership which is considered in the section that follows illustrates this point.

III-THE PERFORMANCE OF LEADERSHIP  

While it is true that leadership, among factors, impringe on development, one strongly shares DUNMOYE’s view (1994:1) that poor leadership can vitiate the attainment of human resources for development….”(DUNMOYE,1994:1) In the Nigerian context, the performance of leadership could be assessed according to the way it has managed the economy, and how it has been able to keep the multi-ethnic societies together in one state.

With regards to the economy, it is lamentable that the leadership has fared badly. Really, the huge resources at its disposal do not justify what it has been able to put on the ground. A once vibrant economy in the 1970’s has now been grounded by the inept leadership. ROBINSON(1995a:12) has commented on the issue. “ After 35 years of oil exports, valued at $210 billion,  Nigerian today has a per capita income of about $250, down from $1000 in 1980.”

Although economic mismanagement and corruption were abundantly levied against the Balewa government (1960-1966), in our view, the constitutional crisis of the time coupled with the political outbursts in some sections of the country substantially contributed to the early termination of the regime. It is however difficult not to carpet the regime for its apparent failure to realise the complimentary role which industrialisation can playto agriculture. The heavy reliance on the regime on agricultural earnings and its feeble pursuit of industrialization via the western preferred import substitution strategy worsened the foreign exchange position of the country.More and more foreign exchange were taken out to import foods, spare parts, machinery and indeed personnel under the import substitution policy. The legacy of the regime in this regard is progressive increase in Nigeria’s import bills in the face of declining export receipts.

On the social policy, the regime despite its infancy, made desperate efforts to unite the whole country behind it. This was evident in the unsuccessful attempt of the Prime Minister to woo the Action Group(AG) to participate his government after the 1959 presidential polls. Unrelenting, the head of government reserved the foreign affairs portfolio for Anthony Enahoro of the AG. It was the failure of the latter to accept it that made the Prime Minister to passit to the NCNC,the junior partner in the coalition administration. The conciliatory gestures of Balewa have been interpreted in some quarters(GAMBARI,1980) as borne out of the high regard he has for the southerners This reasoning however seemed to collapse with the decision of Balewa to declare a state of emergency in the western Nigeria in 1962 and the eventual trial and sentence of Awolowo and others, accused of treason felony. The manner in which the Western regional crisis was approached by the regime and its aftermath would suggest the low rating of the regime on this score.

It is difficult to say however that the Gowon’s regime managed well the national economy. Despite the oil boom that crept in shortly after the civil war, it could not develop the economy.Due to the amateurish way in which the oil windfall was managed, lack of imagination and vision seemed to have taken a firm root in the lexiology of leadership in the country(Dudley, 1982). What seemed to matter most was the concept of personal accumulation (Dunmoye, 1994:6). The leadership during this period enjoyed complacency at the expense of vital national projects which should have given its support. Thus, the Ajaokuta steel project, Liquefied Natural Gas and the economic diversification policy were not nurtured to fruition by the buoyant Gowon administration.

The short-lived Murtala Mohammed regime somewhat attempted to give an ideal leadership. Under him, Nigeria was further Balkanized into nineteen states. The democratic question which had acted as an albatross on the previous administration was promptly addressed through the inauguration of the constitution Drafting Committee in 1975.Corruption and indiscipline were effectively tackled. All the military governors who had served under Gowon were probed with only three rising above board. The great purge of the civil service was hailed as a good step. For the Obasanjo regime that inherited the Murtala Mohammed’s legacies, the decision of the government to abide by its handing over date marked it out as sufficient in honesty, integrity and honour.

The Shagari civilian regime was the immediate product of the Obasanjo transition programme. The regime did not only polarise the people, its economic policies produced reckless results because they were poorly formulated and executed. For example, its Open General License Policy of 1980 contributed substantially to the depletion of the exchange reserves from N5.5 billion in 1980 to about N0.025 billion by March 1982(SALISU,1995). As a panicky measure, the economic stabilisation law was passed in April 1982. But as available statistics have shown, the policy was late in coming and mild in effect. Consequently, the debt overhang rose from N1,611.5 million in 1979 to N10,200.0 million in 1983(SALISU,1995).

All these poor economic readings necessarily worsened thelot of Nigerians. With a high unemployment rate, hyper-inflation to contend with, the government on its own alienated the people from it and thus giving a different meaning to Umaru Dikko’s concept of landslide electoral victory.

The first administration that started the process of recouping the losses recorded under Shagari’s government was the Mohammadu Buhari regime. It really succeeded (Gambari, 1994). However, its resort to the use of force in the implementation of its war against indiscipline set the regime a pole apart from Nigerians.

In terms of innovation and adventure, the Ibrahim Babangida regime stands out clearly among others. Either by design or cumulatively, the Nigerian economy suffered its worst under this regime. Transparency and accountability were on piligrimage in Nigeria under president Babangida (Momoh.A,1993:30), (Okigbo.P,Report,1994), (Salisu.H.A.1995). Indeed the collapse of the political transition programme instigated by te regime itself carried with it many repercursions. On the one hand, it brought the issue of leadership to the centre stage. On the other the level of political apathy has taken a worst turn in the country. Nigerians are still not convinced as to why an eight years old transition programme could be subverted by the authors themselves (BUHARI.M,1994). These repercursions have their external dimensions. For one, Nigeria’s image got worsened by the apparent self –serving policies of the Babangida regime. Today, Nigeria is a country of scorn in Western World and a laughing stock in Africa (Obasanjo.O,1994a), (Tutu.D,1995).

The Sani Abacha leadership is not unaffected both by the disease of failing leadership and its long affiliation to the infamous Babangida leadership. Although still in power, it is difficult to divorce it from its roots.All pretensions to the contrary notwithstanding (Abacha.S,1994),(Ofonagoro.W,1995), (Robinson,1995b).

On the whole, a recent World Bank report sheds more light on what Nigerians have come to appreciate about their leaders. According to the report, between 1973-1990 public investment in Nigeria amounted to $115 billion ; 30% of which needed to have been spent (Kehinde,1995). The same bank released a report in December 1993 validating William Keeling’s report on how Nigeria’s leadership squandered the oil windfall occassioned by the Gulf war.

III-          CAUSES OF FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP IN NIGERIA          

Having examined the performances of Nigeria’s leadership through its activities from independence to date, the question that readily comes to mind is; what are the likely causes of leadership failure in Nigeria?

       Too many people have taken to blaming leaders for their failure to achieve goals without sparing a thought on the role of the followers. In order to access correctly the causes of failure of leadership in Nigeria, it is best to first accept some fundamental facts about the circumstances as well as the objectives these leaders seek to achieve. Indeed, if ‘a group’s goal is ill-defined and because of this lack of clarity, it is difficult to determine how to achieve it or to tell if and when it has been achievede’ (LAMPE.S, 1994). We are prone to have thoughtlessly blamed the leaders. It is in order to stress the point that while a leader should accept responsibility for clarifying and explaining a common goal; some situations demand a completely different leader from the one in place- thus necessitating the unfairness and unreasonableness to expect such a leader to succeed. Consequently, the success or failure of leadership would then be assessed against the progress made toward achieving the goal of human existence (Lampe.S, 1994).

          When applied to Nigeria, the causes of the failure of most of the leaders who have imposed themselves over Nigerians since independence must have been derived from the main elements of the arguments put forward above.  Furthermore, it is being argued also that the problem at hand is not just a crisis of leadership but a crisis of a followership as well. Put in another way, one of the main causes of the failure of leadership in Nigeria is that of crisis of followership.

              It follows that no matter how well meaning and how good a leader may be, indolent, irresponsible and undisciplined people cannot be led to greater heights. On the other hand, upward –looking people, imbued with love and a desire for justice, peace and harmony will attract a leader with similar volitions and together they will succeed in building a peaceful and harmonious society. Pushing the  argument further, it has been observed that anybody with a contrary volition (to those expressed above by the people) who seeks to lead would be rejected by the people and would only become their leader through imposition and force. If the people remain steadfast in their good volitions, they would with time be able to get rid of such impostor (LAMPE.S,1994).

              Just as vain glorious and aggresssive people wwould attract a dictatorial and militaristic leader who would fan their fame of vanity, so does, a people who desire material material progress at all costs  and have no regard for moral principles would have as a leader one who holds similar views. The above reasoning leades to a well established fact that the quality of leadership will always be a reflection of the condition of the followers . Accordingly, a people has no right to expect good leadership when it remains indifferent and supericial human beings. This is precisely one of the points being made in Nigeria that “our leaders have failed because we have allowed them to fail us” (Obasanjo.O, 1994b:21). In the same vein, it has also been observed that the

     

  “the abnormal degree of materialism prevailing in Nigeria is one manifestation of the problem of leadership.A warped mind motivates avarice and mindless acuisition. Thought is banished from such a mind. All it thinks is aquire acquire.”  (LAMBO.A,1994:17).

     Thus, besides the first established cause of failure of leadership in Nigeria, which is the crisis of followership, the second most notable cause is what has been described as the poverty of thought” (BOOTH.T,1981:49). Developed further, it has been observed that often, there is the

     “refusal to admit that the quality of thought and reflection within a leadership is vital measure of that leadership’s capacity to sustain practiceto achieve it’s goal” (ANYA.O,1994:29).

This apparently leads to “impatience with ideas and the rigorous intellectual analysis of problems” (ANYA.O, 1994:29) which has been found to have bedevilled Nigeria’s leadership formation right from the onset, that is pre-independence and largely since independence. Put in different word there is this “absence of objectivity and intellectual rigour at the critical moment of a Nation’s formation “(Achebe.C,1983:11). This view point has been well expantiated in the study cited through a review, though restricted, of the thought systems of Nigeria’s leading founders fathers. The conclusion drawn from this was the discovery of “seminal absence of intellectual rigour in the political thought of our founding fathers (Achebe.C,1983:11). While the two founding fathers under examination in the Achebe’sstudy were found to have advancedbeyond scope discovered. The pattern of thought system earlier exhibited by them still perpetuated itself in the generations that followed them (Oladepo.W, 1995:10-15).

      The critical role played by this considered cause of leadership failure poverty of thought is highlighted by the centrality of the warped mind phenomenon that it produces (Lambo.A; 1994:17). Certainly, majority of the leaders at all levels and sectors of the Nigerian Nation had displayed and still displaying this studied tendency.

        Another important cause of leadership failure worth considering is what has been described as “social injustice and the cult of mediocrity” (Achebe.C,; 1983:19) and ‘their inexperience and gullibility “ (Ade-Ajayi.J.F;1993;1). Explaining further whatsocial justice implies, it is “…not only a matterof morality but of sheer efficiency and effectiveness’ (Achebe.C; 1983:19). The significance of this for the current discussion is that "ne“er hire a man to perform an important task unless he is best " for it. Nigeria has been observed to be “a country where it would be difficult to point to one important job held by the most competent person” (Achebe.C, 1983:19). This state of affairs has been aptly described as reflective of “a consistent inclination since we assumed management of our own affairs to opt for mediocrity and compromise” (Achebe.C; 1983:20). Concerning the issues of inexperience and gullibility, it has been critically observed that the aboveissues have reared their heads at most important forum where African leaders nays Nigerians are in parade- The Organisation of African Unity (O.A.U). As

       

               “Formost of the time, the O.A.U has been run, like a club of rulers, many of whom are failures, usurpers and exploiters at home. Many of them have not shared the dream or ideology of Pan-Africanism that political power be used to repair the damage done to the African by the legacy of slavery and colonialism “(ADE-AJAYI.J.F,1993:1).

       Talking about shared dream and ideology, this brings us to an important cause of leadership failure in Nigeria. It has been observed that, societies that have no well articulated values, no clear mission which can be used as sure guides ny leaders and followers alike would always talk of failure of leadership (Lampe.S; 1994:A16). Thinking about the Nigerian case, it is observed rather unfortunately that the Nation has instinctively chosen to extol easy virtues of unity and faith which are amenable to the manipulation of hypocrites “rather than difficult ones like Justice and Honesty which would have imposed the strain of seriousness upon us “(Achebe.C, 1983:13). This lack of well defined nationally held values has often led to leadership which has the propensity for “dishonesty and disposition to speak from both sides of the mouth at both time’(Anya.Y,1994;29). It has also led to a sombre assertion that “there does not exist at present a leadership class, responsive and responsible, with shared values embodied in a shared vision of the society and its future “(Anya.O, 1994:29).

               The variants of causes of leadership failure that emanate from the above point, have to do with compromise of principles by public office holders in Nigeria and those angling for public office (Obasanjo.O; 1994:25).             

      Concerning the compromise of principles, it has been critically observed that “the situation is so bad that it now seems an aberration for anyone to resign from public office on matters of principle “(Obasanjo.O; 1994B: 25). Instead, you find the described situation degenerating into one of “retrogressive-conservatives” who called themselves “progressives “ (Fasheun.F; 1995:12).

Pushed further, “one expected that those who held political office especially elective office both in the SDP and NRC would rally and stand up for political fairness and justice. It is on record that some governors actually threatened fire and brimstone if the annulment of the election was reversed…that was a fundamental Political principle being destroyed, trampled underfoot to suit the greed of inordinately ambitious individuals thereby setting a dangerous precedent “(Uwechue.R, 1995:20)

. Indeed, “that the military government which usurped the position of an elected government found itself being supported and being served by people who actually contested the elections… They went for quick but unmerited political gains “(Uwechue.R, 1995:200.

The analog between the above described Nigerian event and the “Sao Tome and Principe Progressives shows that in the later case, the politicians are real progressives; they refused to serve the military and under 48 hours, the military take –over collapsed” (Fasehun. F; 1995:12), (Ajasin. M; 1995:20).  This leads us to the last but not the least in our consideration of what are the likely causes of failure of leadership.  This is related to resistance to bad leadership.  In what has been observed and equally described as a consequence of the ‘Law of Homogeneity’ that a people deserves the leaders they get… People who genuinely hate on them.  It should be remarked that if a people do not want dictatorship they must be willing to take the necessary actions to overthrow it; failure to do so is tantamount to an acceptance of it “(Lampe. S, 1994:A17).  It must be added that” to dislodge a dictator does not require violence, several non-violent options have been tried successfully in some countries “(Lampe. S, 1994:A17).

     This factor under consideration has been well observed in the Nigerian setting at two levels.  The first level, opens up “a situation where you do wrong today, lie low for a while and without remorse emerge to a red carpet reception to continue to do greater wrong” (Obasanjo. O; 1994b:23).  At the second level, it has been advocated that “ Evil is no reformable, it must be removed…  Although the present administration …has not yet completely turned evil, the trends and tendencies are obvious.  It is the responsibility of all Nigerians to prevent another government from becoming completely evil”.

     (Obasanjo. O; 1994b:29).  Indeed, this call has earned the caller a coupist label and incarceration in prison for life (Abacha. S; 1995:5 & 11).  The additional method being advocated with regards to resistance to bad leadership is the term passive resistance.  This has been defined as “refusing to cooperate with or promote what you do not agree with” (Uwechue. R, 1995:23).

     This is best illustrated by the example that “when it comes to political appointments and illegal political decisions then the population should say … we don’t agree with this, we are not party to it and are not a part of it “(Uwechue. R, 1995:23).  Extending further our example above, it was observed that if certain leading Nigerians who had been taken seriously until now did not join a government of military dictatorship, the regime would have most probably had much less credibility by now and would have been more prepared to negotiate for a fair and peaceful way out (Uwechue. R, 1995:23), (Fasehun. F; 1995:12).

V.             CONSEQUENCES OF THE CRISIS OF LEADERSHIP ON    THE NIGERIAN STATE.

     The immediate and visible consequences of the crisis of leadership and its attendant crisis of followership on the State are that “a nation of crass materialists should not be surprised if thugs, drug pushers and thieves emerge as its leaders   “(Lampe. S; 1994).  Nigeria has had 25 years of army rule and is going to be 28 years of military rule by October 1998, the year of disengagement by the current regime (Abacha. S; 1995:5 & 11).  Certainly, it has been correctly observed that” our experience with the military regime has shown what problems lack of focus and appreciation of what governance is about as well as over concentration of power can so dismally create “(Ciroma. L, 1994:A19).  The argument has been pushed further by recognising that  “the Nigerian leadership group-political, economic, intellectual e.t.c have consciously or not, for far too long presided over the development of very gross inequalities between persons, classes, communities and regions within the country however one chooses to explain or rationalise the existence of these inequalities” (Ciroma. L; 1994: A18).

     Beside the identified immediate consequence above, another one flows from it, in that;

“the retention of power became the sole motivation of rulers.  It created distracting stresses, leaving no room for either the performance of great deeds or the erection of lasting legacies, the State remained unfriendly, relating to ordinary people as an uncaring force” (Fakaya. M; 1994: 13).

      Indeed, in practical terms, it became obvious that;

“endless defeat at trying to build a steel project at Ajaokuta, through the junkyards that are the Railways and the rot in our schools, the failure of leadership screams loud” (FAKEYE. M; 1994: 13)

     This has been aptly described by the statement, which says;

“the political leadership in Nigeria had been more of the problem than being part of the solution to the country’s development pains “(GAMBARI. A. I; 1995: 1).

     Tracing the relationship between leadership and development of the State, the following problems were highlighted;

 “The mode of recruitment to the leadership class should have been such that merit and a track record of excellence becomes the anchor on which performance and the rules of succession can be elaborated.  How the conservation of the individual experience and the maintenance of continuity in the system can be assured; present climate of instability in both policies and personnel must be contained.  How to pursue a programmed to tackle our present state of technological under development through the linkage of science and technology to the productive capacity of the political economy such that the emphasis shifts from consumption and sharing to production and building and, how to implant and sustain the rule of law in the leadership” (ANYA. O; 1994:25).

     It is precisely the absence of the above that the consequences of the failure of leadership on the State became devastating.  Other observed and illustrate consequences of the failure of leadership on the State include indiscipline which has been defined as

“a failure or refusal to submit one’s desires and actions to the restraints of orderly social conduct in recognition of the rights and desires of others”  (Achebe. C; 1983:27).

     The indiscipline of leaders and people in authority in Nigeria is legend (Obasanjo. O; 1977:5-7).  There is the inevitable paralysis brought on the society and State by the cult of mediocrity.  The denial of merit has been recognised as a form of social injustice which can hurt not only the individuals directly concerned but ultimately the entire society (Achebe. C; 1983:21).  Indeed, this cult of mediocrity breeds cases of leadership without vision (Kehinde. F; 1995:7).  There are two illustrations of this phenomenon worthy of mention;

“According to a world Bank report on public expenditure management in Nigeria between 1973 when the oil boom commenced and 1990, public investment in the country amounted to 115 billion dollars (about N4,600 billion then), out of this sum, 30 per cent, about 70 billion dollars (2,800 billion) need not have been spent” (Kehinde. F; 1995:7).

A little arithmetic shows that 45 billion dollars seem to have evaporated with the leadership during the period.

     The second illustration is that, “The ECOMOG was reported to have gulped N360 billion when Nigerian universities need only N165 billion to be on their feet” (Kehinde. F; 1995:7).  This translates to the fact that a mediocre set of leaders without vision chose to engage in huge expenditure which profits a handful of individuals than on education, which would in the future produce Scientists to build the State, and increases its power to carry out wider external operations at a least cost.

     The phenomenon of mediocrity in high places of rulership and leadership had been recognised and cried against earlier in the post independence life of Nigeria by some of her citizens, as observable in statements credited to one of the Nigeria’s five majors who staged the first Military coup’d’etat in January 1966;

“and we must put a stop to blind leadership in this country….  Fancy a nation where a full minister of Defence knows next to nothing about the Armed Forces he is supposed to be responsible for” (Gbulie. B; 1982:46).

     The supposed attempt to stop blind leadership by coups d’etat had left Nigeria with a legacy of vicious cycle of Military regimes succeeding itself.

     A bye-product of the cult of mediocrity is the corruption and corrupts practices by the leadership and followership.  Put in a more robust form;

   “The point is that systematic corruption and the consequential indiscipline in a society social organisation, which is why our deteriorating organisation as a polity is largely a consequence of our corrupt State and its corrupt apparatus, agencies, personnel, collaborators and hangers-on.” (Odekunle F; 1994:404).

     It was submitted that “a real crusade against corruption could never hope to succeed, except our leader’s honesty becomes transparent” (Eso. K; 1995:5).  Elaborating further, on this transparency of leadership, an observer of the government orchestrated and ceremonial campaign, tagged War Against Indiscipline and Corruption’ (WAIC) opined, that;

    “…any campaign to wipe out corruption must not only begin from the top, but must be seen to have begun from the top.  For WAIC to succeed, therefore, the first task before the present members of the Provisional Ruling Council is not only to declare their assets, but also to surrender to the public treasury all excesses acquired over the years” (Akintola. L. I; 1994:2).

     Finally, the perceived linkage between the absence of effective and efficient leadership became glaring when;

“The nation staggered from one crisis to another, with the government appearing to pursue a welter of conflicting and self canceling purposes.  The outcome of policies became erratic and apparently well-intentioned measures and programmes aimed at dealing with socio-economic and political problems seemed increasingly inept and sometimes futile: more fertilisers and agro-business, less food at affordable prices, more electric power stations, less electricity supply; more telephone exchanges, more phone hitches; more schools and universities, less education; more service taxes, less quality services; more policemen with guns and walkie – talkies, more crimes, more drug law enforcement officers, more  drug traffickers; more mosques and churches, less ethnic; more political transition decrees, more political crisis, etc, “ (Odekunle F. 1994, 406-407).

CONCLUSION

     The consequences of leadership failure in Nigeria are innumerable.  The salient identifiable ones which have multiplier effects have been mentioned.  In essence, every country deserves the type of leadership that it has.  Nigeria is not an exception.

REFERENCES

Abacha. S (1995), “Towards An Enduring Legacy” Text of Anniversary Broadcast to the Nation, in The Guardian (Lagos) 2 October.

Achebe. C (1983), The Trouble with Nigeria Fourth Dimension Publishing Company Ltd. Enugu.

Ade-Ajayi. J. F (1993), “Pan-Africanism and the Struggle for Reparation” Text of Lecture at N. I. I. A, cite in The Guardian (Lagos), 2 December.

Aguda. A. (1993), “Just Where Are We Going” Tell Magazine. 7 December.

Ajasin. M. (1995), “Presenting a Common Front” Text of a Speech in This Day (Lagos),27 September.

Akintola. L. I (1994), “Abacha lists pains of Indiscipline at WAIC  launch” in The Guardian (Lagos), 6 May.

Anya. O (1994), “Leadership and Development” in The Guardian (Lagos), 18 & 19 April.

Babawale. T. (1992), “Colonialism, Parasitic Elites and The North-South Dichotomy in Nigerian Politics” Nigerian Forum (Lagos: N. I. I. A) May-August.

Booth. J (1981), Writers and Politics in Nigeria (London: Holder & Stoughton).

Buhari. M (1994), “Brief Statement” in A-Mahadi, A. Kwanashie & ET. AL (ed.), Nigeria: The State of the Nation and the way Forward Arewa House. Kaduna.

Ciroma. L (1994), “The Imperative of National Unity and The Responsibility of Leadership” Text of First Annual Sir Ahmadu Bello Memorial Lecture. In The Guardian on Sunday (Lagos), 30 January.

Tutu, D (1995), Africa Today September/October.

Dudley. B (1982), An Introduction to Nigerian Government and Politics. (London: MacMillan).

Dunmoye. A. (1994), “Political leadership, Regime Turn Over and Survival of Democracy in Nigeria” 20^th Annual Conference of Nigerian Political Science Association. 28 February – 2 March.

Eso. K. (1995), “Nigeria and Corruption: Till Death Do Them Part?” Text of a Lecture at the Luncheon of The House of Lords.  Nigeria. Published in Vanguard (Lagos). 8,9,10 & 11 May.

Fakeye. M. (1994), “A case of Madness?:  An Anatomy of What is wrong with Nigeria’s leaders by a New Area of Medicine The News (Lagos), 17 January.

Gambari. A. I (1980), Party Politics and Nigeria’s Foreign policy Under the First Republic (Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University Press.)

Gambari. A. I (1995), “Nigeria Needs Credible Leadership” Third Eye Daily (Ibadan). 20 September.

Gambari. A. I (1994), “Democracy, the Only Way Out” Nigerian Economist 17 October.

GARBA. J. (1987), Diplomatic Soldiering (Ibadan: Spectrum Books Nigeria Limited).

GBULIE. B. (1982), Nigeria’s Five Majors Africaine Educational Publishers Nigerian Limited as Cited in MAINASARA. A. M (1982), The Five Majors = Why they Struck (Hudahuda Publishing Company. Zaria).

HASSAN. U. (1995), “Strains of  Western Democracy in Nigeria” New Nigerian On Sunday (Kaduna), 6 August.

UWECHUE. R (1995), “Triumph of Opportunism” Special Interview, Tell Magazine (Lagos) 11 September.

IGE. B. (1994), “My Fears for Nigeria” NewsWatch magazine (Lagos), 21 November.

JOSEPH. R. (1991), Democracy and Prebendal Politics in Nigeria: The Rise and Fall of the Second Republic (Ibadan: Spectrum).

KEHINDE. F. (1995),  “Leadership without Vision” Third Eye Daily (Ibadan), 10 September.

LAMBO. A. (1994), “Goodness…..The Warped Minds of Our Leaders” Text of an Interview with The News (Lagos), 17 January.

LAMPE. S. (1994), Building Future Societies: The Spiritual Principles Millennium Press as cited in The Guardian (Lagos), 3 April.

MOMOH. A (1993), “The Legacy of Military Rule on Democratisation” CODESTRIA.

MUGABE. R (1995), During his visit to Nigeria as reported on the BBC in September.

OBASANJO. O. (1977), speech at Jaji.

OBASANJO. O. (1994a), Interview with NewsWatch 14 November.

OBASANJO O. (1994b), “Leadership is Our Problem” Text of Keynote Address in A. MAHADI, G. A. KWANASHIE & A. M. YAKUBU (eds), (1994), Nigeria: The State of the Nation and the Way Forward Arewa House. Kaduna.

Odekunle. F (1994), “Corruption and Indiscipline and the Nigerian Polity” in A. Mahadi, G.A.Kwanashie & A. M. Yakubu (eds), (1994), Nigeria: The State of the Nation and the Way Forward Arewa House.  Kaduna.

Okolo. A. (1995), Foreign Capital in Nigeria: Roots of Underdevelopment (Lagos: Heartland Publishers.)

Oladepo. W. (1995), “How Abacha Rules” NewsWatch (Lagos) 25 September.

Robinson. R (1995a), Interview in Tell 10 July.

Robinson. R. (1995b), “Abacha’s Days Are Numbered” Tell (Lagos) 10 July.

Salisu. H. A (1994), ‘Economic Diplomacy as a New Phase of Nigeria’s External Relations: A Critical Assessment’ Ph.D Dissertation. Department of Political Science, Bayero University Kano. Nigeria.

Saliu. H. A (1995), ‘Political Economy of Nigeria’s Transition to Civil Rule, 1985-1993 ECPER Journal Vol. III, No.2.