Leadership integrity as needle in haystack

The task I have been asked to undertake at this seminar is about one of my most difficult tasks ever. For the record, my task is to provide a theoretical identification of men of integrity as Nigeria journeys towards the 2019 general elections. If my task was to identify the path to be trodden for a senator to emerge; to lay a step-by-step route through which a gubernatorial aspirant could walk to the Government House; or even how a Presidential candidate can walk down to the Aso Rock Villa, my task would be much more simpler. As a political scientist, all I then would need to do is to dust up my books on political theory and align them with my experience in government in the last decade or so and promptly, I would satisfy the enquiries demanded of me. But my task is much more difficult. In one fell swoop, I have to assume the task of a seer and a moral/ethical philosopher, with the lens of a political scientist.

Governors meet over minimum wage, Paris Club refund, others

In search of a leader of integrity

Who exactly is a man of integrity? Is the man of integrity we are talking about of the Christian or Moslem faith, but who lays store by integrity? Or an atheist, so far he subscribes to the purity of mind that is needed to do justice to mankind? Put differently, does the integrity of the man we are looking for have to be religion-specific or religion-blind? How can anyone identify a man/woman of integrity? What are the qualifications one needs to satisfy to be so called? If such a man is found, how does he get to occupy a political office? If he occupies a Nigerian political office, how does he retain his pre-government integrity, taking into consideration the murky waters of Nigerian politics? How feasible is it to get such a rare breed of Christians, given the general impression that permeates Nigerian Christendom that politics and the church are strange bedfellows? These are some of the critical questions that I have had to answer in the process of tackling this herculean task given to me.

Integrity and political integrity

The word “integrity” is one that people often assume its meaning off-hand, even when we seldom ponder over it. It is an everyday refrain on people’s lips but whose in-depth meaning escapes the generality of the people. Integrity is a firm adherence to a moral code or widely held societal values. Broken down to understandable fragments, integrity is simply doing the right thing at the right time and acknowledging the feelings of others, as well as factoring the other person into our everyday acts and behaviour. Honesty is one of the canons of integrity and possession of strong moral principles, or moral uprightness is its major ally. Indeed, integrity is a major substance in ethics because it is described as the honesty, truthfulness and accuracy of conformity of a person’s actions with societal estimation. Indeed, internal, rather than external consistency, is a sanctuary where the man of integrity operates. Thus, one who possesses integrity cannot harbor within him values which conflict with or have a discrepancy with values that undergird the operations of society.

Etymologically, integrity, a Latin adjective called integer, means whole or complete. When a man possesses integrity within this context, he possesses an inner sense of “wholeness,” as well as qualities like honesty and consistency of character. The leader with integrity may be adjudged rigid, uncondescending, unbendable, stubborn or hyper-principled, but he works and operates according to values, beliefs and principles. Law in 20th century jurisprudence, gives quite a significant attention to the subject of integrity. John Dworkin, in his book Law’s Empire, dwelled extensively on this and strengthened the position of integrity in law. In the book, he explained how justice views the concept of fairness. In the conception of ethics or moral philosophy, especially in discussion of behaviour and morality, for an individual to be said to be in possession of the virtue of integrity, his actions must have been thoroughly assessed and found to be consistent with an internal framework of ethical principles. However, this framework must also be consistent with and adhere to some logical axioms. One of such is that, the individual’s beliefs, actions, methods, measures and principles must all derive from a single core group of values. Whenever the values are challenged, however, such individual must demonstrate a flexible mind and must be prepared and willing to adjust his held values. By demonstrating such flexibility, the individual is being accountable and demonstrating a moral responsibility which in itself is a virtue.

Apart from its usefulness in day-to-day relationships, integrity is also an important kernel of politics. This is because, as representatives of the people, politicians are expected to mirror the best of the electorate and are to serve them. Indeed, immediately they are elected into offices, the people literally hand over their lives, their today and tomorrow into the hands of politicians. If they must superintend over the lives of the people, it is thus necessary that politicians are properly assessed to ascertain their abidance by the moral codes that have sustained societies for centuries.  If their abidance by the codes of integrity is not properly ensured and society elects into office politicians who are not men of integrity, they will not only use the power bestowed on them for personal gains, they can railroad society generally. More fundamentally, because the powers of political office are very enormous and the resources of society that are at the beck and call of office holders very massive, society runs the risk of its resources being funneled into individual purses if men of integrity are shut out of electoral consideration.

Muel Kaptein, in his book entitled The Servant of the People, made an attempt to describe political integrity and what it entails. According to him, integrity cannot be defined outside the locus of what the political office entails. It is the knowledge of the significance of his office that will make the leader to understand the sanctity of the office he occupies and its inviolability. With this understanding, the office holder will be able to relate to the office accordingly.