Nigeria needs strong men

Mr Godwin Obaseki, Edo State governor, in his valedictory address to members of the Edo State Transition Committee during the past week, said only strong institutions and not individuals could save Nigeria from the prevailing socio-economic challenges.

The governor had said, “I don’t see one man, whether he is president or not, who can change Nigeria overnight; it is not possible. We should stop looking at the change that will come into this country from the perspective of some strongmen or one man.

“Nigeria has passed that stage. It is only strong institutions, systems and processes that can change Nigeria; there can’t be any miracle. Forget about everybody aspiring to be president.”

Interestingly, many Nigerians share the governor’s view. But my considered opinion is that the governor is wrong. Nigeria needs a strong man because it is only strong men that build strong institutions. You can’t have the latter without the former. So, for as long as we keep harping on having strong institutions without first looking for people who are strong enough to build the strong institutions, our search will be in vain.

I draw examples from two countries; Singapore and Ghana.

Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore, inherited a weak, wobbling and very corrupt country from the British colonialists. He realised that if the future of the new country would hold any promise for the people, the leadership had to answer some very difficult questions and follow through with sincerity of purpose on the answers to the questions. He decided to build a new country that would be very different from the one handed over to him. He decided to canvass an attitudinal change, focusing on three major areas of the Singaporean life, which are work ethics, social and religious harmony and political freedom. These were well-articulated and communicated to the people. The government did not just pay lip service to the vision; it took the lead in exhibiting commitment to ensuring its success.

In Singapore, as a result of the determination of the government to promote the right work ethics, people are rewarded based on their ability and not their ethnic or religious affiliation; nobody needs any godfather to move up. Neither quota system nor federal character has any place in the country; everybody gets their due. What this has done is to throw up the best people from the country and attract the best hands to the country; there is a healthy competition among all categories of people because they know that what they get eventually is a function of what they contribute. Most people put in their best knowing that the system would not allow their efforts to go down the drain.

Ghana’s immediate past is not any better than the current experience of Nigeria. Ghanaian economy was run aground by greedy rulers; corruption and nepotism became a way of life, while rule of law was thrown to the dogs. But the situation has since changed. Now, Ghana is a model. Its embrace of good governance has resulted in development. Now, everyone wants to identify with the country’s success.

The credit for this transformation goes to the late Jerry Rawlings.

Rawlings started as a military ruler who had the will to change Ghana. His strength was not in his military background but his character. He walked his talk; he was able to punish infraction because he refrained from committing same. Rawlings was able to build a new Ghana because he rose above sentiments. He placed himself so much above sentiments that when leaving office after eight years as an elected president, his party lost the presidential election, a rarity in Africa.

Right from the time Rawlings became Ghanaian leader, Nigeria has become Ghana’s antithesis. Nigeria has been sliding steadily into a banana republic, while Ghana is becoming a virile and veritable nation. In the past, Ghanaians longed to be in Nigeria, but now Ghana has become Nigerians’ Mecca.

Unfortunately in Nigeria, weak people are at the helm of affairs. Our leaders are integrity deficient, morally bankrupt and primordially sentimental. They worship at the altar of lust, offer sacrifices at the temple of perfidy, pay obeisance to the god of self-indulgence and genuflect to tribal and religious demons. They fail to understand that occupants of high offices should be above board. A leader that will build strong institutions must understand the demands and responsibility of high office.

A leader ought to set the pace and show the way. But if all he does is render the lullaby of corruption and play the card of nepotism, the people are left with no choice but to dance to his tune. Rot in a fish starts from the head.

Paradoxically, while weak institutions protect weak leaders, strong institutions are the bulwark of the society and its systems. So, there is no motivation for weak leaders to build strong institutions; it will be self-defeating. A man’s action is a reflection of his conviction; a corrupt man cannot crusade against corruption; a weak leader cannot advocate for strong institutions.

One way to strengthen institutions is to build an effective justice system such that anyone caught acting contrary to the laws of the land finds no shield anywhere. This will not happen naturally; it will happen when political leaders, especially at the highest level of government, are courageous enough to step on toes and punish every breach. But how can leaders with soiled hands come to equity?

Building strong institutions starts with a strong man who is able to say no to his weaknesses and is ready to curb the people’s excesses. The institutions initially will require the protection of strong leaders from manipulation but eventually they get so strong that they no longer need the shield. Then, on their own, the institutions can defend the people’s patrimony without being at the mercy of a few persons, including the benevolent strongman. That is what happened in Singapore.

Until we have leaders who are strong in character and can discipline themselves, the hope of having strong institutions will remain forlorn.

The story of every country is the story of its leaders. If a country has weak leaders, it will be a weak country but a country that takes the pains to get strong leaders cannot itself be weak. Fellow countrymen, it is time for a mind shift.