I want to see communicators who manager our leaders take it from where the President stopped. We should regularly see our President, governors, and even leaders of the legislative assemblies talk to the people from behind the podium, when they receive visitors or are engaged in very serious issues of state, better still when there are developments that affect even the individual. Lunatic and misdirected young men stormed a school in the United States a few weeks back and took lives; President Barack Obama did not ask his Press Secretary to write a press release commiserating with the families.

He appeared himself behind the presidential podium in his office to say how he felt and how the nation should see the development. The same posture is adopted when they have serious national issues, debates and disagreements. Here, many of our image managers are very afraid of their bosses to even tell him emphatically what to do. Ministers and governors must learn to open up and talk, not waiting for the formal times to crowd so many things in one outing.

The other thing, and which for me is very important, has to do with criteria. President Jonathan set the tune when he said there was need to develop a marking scheme. The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) rose quickly to say Nigerians don’t need a marking scheme to know the leader that is doing well. That, for me, was too cheap a response coming from the camp of those who should be social democrats. Social democrats have their strength in the brain. What they don’t have in cash they make up in brain. At times, this group is the true nation builders, while conservatives do the consolidation.

Somebody in a radio interview last Tuesday asked me, “Is assessment criteria (marking scheme) necessary in ascertaining development, and if so whose responsibility is it to draw up one?  Criteria are very important. Setting it is a collective affair. What I am saying is that government, aspirants, economic, professional, religious and other social groups, all have something to do with it.

The man aspiring to run for office should tell us in very specific terms what his plans are, then he should go round to find out what the community issues are and what the expectation of groups are also, and then set the goals with timeline. A nation should have a “marshal” or rolling plan emanating from all interests. It is in the implementation of these plans that verdict(s) could emerge.

We muddle up things here because we have discarded the big issue of national plan. Those who come to power wangle their way into office manipulating all of us into big confusion like we are seeing again – Nigeria Governors Forum – writing agreements over which zone produces who, and who is a bad or ineffective leader. We magnify these negative indices well and above more serious matters like what are your credentials and what specific vision do such aspirants carry.  All of us are witnesses to how Obama ascended power in America.

It is true many desired a black man to taste the seat, but it did not come on a platter of gold. Obama has a rich background, but in spite of this, he had to rigorously prove he understood the American dream and, above all, has something new to add. He talked about reversing job losses; bring back troops in foreign lands within time periods. He talked about health care, working with Europe, changing the educational content, alternative energey and at every point he was judged on that.

Obasanjo again said we should not mind Jonathan and his statistics, because they do not show on the peoples’ life. Again, that, for me, is missing the point. What I would have loved to hear is that the statistics reeled out were fake. Let me start by saying that we need more statistics in our planning.  It is unfortunate that today we rely only on what the World Bank, United Nations, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, FISH and other kinds of bodies from Western nations dish out as statistics about our development.

We cling to them in spite of what we ought to know of them and their intention over the years. Those statistics make us keep fighting on different fronts every two or three years.  No nation develops that way.  We deserve our own statistics that speak our language and fashion our development according to our resources and peculiarities. That is the truth.

Our statistics, if they are true, may not have direct bearing on our lives always, not because what is claimed is not happening, but because the lack of ideology and strict attachment to foreign imposed conjectures produce great contradictions that make nonsense of the improvement in lives that our leaders claim is the goal. Let me take the health sector to illustrate what I am saying; provide all the equipment and expertise and make the cost very prohibitive, it won’t make meaning because the huge population of unemployed would not be able to access it.  Roads are not receiving massive attention and relevant speed because the government is waiting for the private sector. The few that are done hardly cover the main arteries.

So, big gaps are often left, leaving the people wondering if anything is being done.  In these days, too, how many of the Nigerian families can afford to train their children in the kind of private schools we have, that goes with high fees amidst a huge population that has no jobs? That is the issue! It is not that statistics lie (where leaders act with decency). In the case of Jonathan, as one economist noted, it may well be that major activities have been restricted mainly to particular sectors, especially the oil sector.

Yet, in making this observation, we must also acknowledge that when a government constructs roads, establish new schools, or revives the rail system; statistically, lives are also being positively affected. I have called for a national plan, building of a synergy among the three tiers of government on priority areas, and benchmarks to all our activities. This is the way what we spend can show in things we really need.  The press, I demand again, must dedicate itself to bringing the change we need, especially in doing away with issues and fights that are not important.

People’s parliament (1)

Re: Obasanjo: What does he want again?

Thank you for today’s write-up on “What does Obasanjo want again?” I am always encouraged by your write-ups, hence I buy Sunday Sun. On what Obasanjo wants, everybody knows he is looking for relevance because he knows he failed woefully as President of Nigeria during the years he wasted in office. Please, continue with your frank assessment of events in Nigeria not minding whose ox is gored. Whether they like it or not, Jonathan is surpassing what past leaders achieved, whether civilian or military. –07086988933

Ralph, God bless you for your balanced write-up “Obasanjo, what does he want again?” This nation’s past rulers should by now accept their failures; they should be giving suggestions to the President rather than trying to pull him down. They should also first remove the log in their eyes before the speck in the President’s. They should watch their utterances. –08037082 2954

Ralph, I acted against your injunction by skipping SMS trying to reach you. Words can’t convey adequately my appreciation of your write-up in the Sunday Sun today. I still need to chat with you. Steve E. – 08023069010

Mr. Ralph Egbu, Happy Sunday! God bless you for what you wrote about Obasanjo. Look, Jonathan is doing his best. Look at the rail line from Kaduna to Abuja, Kano to Lagos every week, Kano-Offa every week. Read Deuteronomy 16:19-20. It is for you. Remain Blessed. – 08135600316

Until Obasanjo thoroughly disgraces himself he would not go and sit down. Nigerians have become more discerning. The treatment he received from Lamido will nail his coffin.  – 08033017801

Ralph, Obasanjo’s grouse with President Jonathan stemmed from the fact that what he couldn’t achieve in eight years of draconian democratic rule was achievable by the incumbent with less noise in two years. Uche – 08066097465

Ralph Egbu, stop criticism, say something to make Nigeria move forward. Obj! Obj!! Obj!!! Since una dey talk, waiting happen? There is tension in Nigeria, reduce it with your good advice, not Obj! Obj!! Or, can you tell us what to do to him (Obasanjo)? –08036064846

Ralph, I sympathize with your worries about ex-leaders talking down on present one’s shortcomings, even when in your estimation, which is subjective, they did not perform well enough when they were in charge. I commend your courage at also chastising your colleagues who give feathers to what you consider as irrelevances and attack even performances by government on higher bidders platform. They are in greater number. But, both the “inept” past leaders and affluent pressmen are considered right and fully covered by fundamental right of expression, which if denied, would attract condemnations by the press.  Ralph, set national celebrations are optional in Nigeria. To some, Democracy Day is June 12, not on national official date, and no one can change that. Lai Ashadele – 07067677806

Wow! Ralph, to say I am impressed is an understatement. If only we can continually have you portray His Excellency’s true image and great “Transformation Agenda”, focused determination processes, progress and prospect like you stated on your Sunday Sun column, then I’m sure the great light I see through your pen will conquer the critics of power, who meant Nigeria no good, but feel they now have a tool to fix this great project, Nigeria. President Jonathan will prove them wrong with astonishing performance before the end of 2014. I love you Ralph. Keep the flag flying! Israel A. B. – 08037436373

Dear Ralph, it is unfortunate that you have joined the group of President Jonathan’s sycophants. Your piece on “Obasanjo: what does he want again?” has portrayed you as a critic.  The economic scorecard of this administration does not need to be declared by the former president. Any patriotic Nigerian knows that unemployment and poverty has eaten deep into our nation and if growth in GDP is being taunted as an achievement in the face of unprecedented insecurity, avoidable Boko Haram insurgency, it simply means this administration needs a more realistic assessment. Where could the growth in GDP have come from when the economy of a section of the nation has been grounded since inception of this administration? Please, try and be a fair umpire. –Tola Babalola.

You want Obasanjo and others to accept your preference and at the same time demonizing the right of others to make choices? How reasonably selfish! Dan – 08033045520

Oga Ralph, you are a man of truth! Tell them to hear and hear well as you did today on page 70 – 08180252009

I just read your write-up on what does Obasanjo want again. I want to say that with writers like you, there is hope for this country. May the good Lord continue to guide and protect you. Truth shall always prevail. God bless you, Ralph. – 08088114919

Ralph, I read your piece in the Sunday Sun on OBJ and it looked more like a paid job, which is not helpful for progress in our polity. How would you expect OBJ to prefer Democracy Day with empty speeches to a well-focused economic forum? Gabriel – 08037881573

Sir, I just read your piece in today’s Sunday Sun and I must say there is hope yet for Nigeria. Thank you for such balanced judgment and writing. Bolarinwa – 08082477787

On Obasanjo and Lamido economic Summit, you are one of the few critical thinkers of the year.  – 08023117248

Just read your article. God bless you for the spirit of discernment. I am a journalist for over 26 years starting with The Guardian in 1985. In all my years I have not seen mediocrity, ignorance and mischief practiced the way it is today in our profession. Is it the case of the highest bidder?  –08099400194

OBJ should go and rest, leave the political scene to others that are yet to contribute their own quota. Was not him that brought President Goodluck to Nigerians? Why is he calling for his head against second term?  – Gordon Chika A. Nnorom – 08179322168

Obasanjo is pushing his luck too far, he must learn to respect authority or he will be hurt. Now, lots of changes have taken place in Nigeria and the press should be credible arbiters and not to do the job of APC or ACN.  Thanks for your write-up.  –08096349435

The process is further muddled up by the fact that many of those we assess did not tell us anything in specific terms before they were voted into power and when it is assessment time, they tell us anything they feel is an achievement and we accept. And when we don’t agree, we embark on the usual endless and directionless debates. The worst is that many of the assessors allow fringe benefits to come between serious issues, so judgements appear to be tainted to the advantage of the biggest spender or those who set out very early to cultivate compromised relationships knowing that judgement day will come. I feel strongly that time has come to correct this trend that certainly is counter-productive. I had to drop the work for this because of some critical observations I saw or could discern from reactions to President Goodluck Jonathan’s stewardship account, which took place in Abuja last Wednesday.

I was particularly piqued by the kind of prominence the media gave to a small but highly provocative speech former President Olusegun Obasanjo gave in Dutse, capital of Jigawa State, the same day and about same hour that his “boy” President Jonathan, was in Abuja, giving his stewardship account in a manner that no civilian president under democracy had done in this nation before. I had thought Obasanjo was supposed to be in Abuja instead of Jigawa. In his address, which I watched on the Africa Independent Television (AIT) service, he made very startling revelations, which I thought should be of concern to everyone who truly desires the wellbeing of this nation and her people. The first disturbing disclosure was that the people of this nation have no sovereignty as should be the case under a democracy. He said, to the obvious consternation of the crowd in the small hall, that Sule Lamido had no ambition and interest to be governor of Jigawa State, but he had to take the decision to force him to be; and he was thankful to God he took such steps and that Lamido accepted.

He went ahead to thank the British Ambassador to Nigeria, who was physically present in company of some members of British Parliament, for British assistance to our nation, which led to debt cancellation and subsequently opening new channels for fresh borrowings. Talk of subjugation of national interest, health and growth to foreign control and you won’t be wrong. That done, he cleared his throat as usual and sought advance understanding for what he believed would be an embarrassment to come and then the bombshell: “Growth in Gross Domestic Product without increase in employment opportunities, wealth creation, and poverty reduction is meaningless. You can help anybody to find a job; you cannot help him to do the job… Hen hen!”

I heard him say those words and I could not properly place the words and what they were supposed to mean. I know the concept that says a messenger should be credible for his message to have believability. I thought of it and did not in all seriousness know where to place what I was hearing. The messenger, is he an ordinary person? No. Has he had opportunity to teach and practicalise the concepts he was talking about? Yes, was the answer. Then, what did he make of it? If out of 53 years of nationhood, one man had over 11 years of it and some of them more recent, and after, we are saddled with the most unimaginable kind of negative scenario and our messiah is still talking about old lessons in a new era; what should we term this? I rested the thought on the advice my senior pastor gave me recently when, after reading through a copy of the Sun, he said, “Ralph, it is time we beware of modern messiahs, who, when they had the opportunity could not understand what their mission was.”

I had thought by now we should be tired of critics who only yesterday had chance to place us where we ought to belong, but failed woefully. But from what I see, I am forced to believe there is a mystic in the air that makes a good number of us love and appreciate the old path and styles that has kept us where we are in chains and in ruins. I am even more troubled by the reaction of my constituency, the press. In a pattern that is becoming our style, my colleagues took and gave larger attention to the part of the address which was obviously intended to rubbish the incumbent president’s efforts at explaining things to Nigerians; and made it a cardinal story. The question could be, after all, he is a former president whose words should carry weight. Yes, but past leaders’ quality and activities, including known antecedents should equally be taken into account before giving their speeches prominence. When their posturing would detract from moving along the path of progress as in this instance, it should be down-played, not ignored. In this case, the day and the key event certainly belonged to the President, Dr Goodluck Jonathan, who was giving what could be rightly termed the state of the nation address. If democratic boundaries are to be extended, it is imperative that he be heard, and in full. That seems not to be the case in the situation at hand.

I am of the strong view that a little interpretative journalism would have brought to the fore that even the choice of date for the Nigerian Governors Forum election and the supposed Jigawa Summit on investment were carefully chosen to deliberately diminish and distract from the President’s outing. Those who chose the Governors’ Forum election date knew it won’t end well given the altercations that surrounded it, so what to do; bring it close so that its ugly fallouts would eclipse the date the president would have with Nigerians. The intention was to foul the atmosphere and make bad news overshadow everything else. Then, Sule Lamido, another governor deep in the controversy, in place of having his own Democracy Day, was hosting an Economic Summit in which, like he said, the former president was more than a special guest. Those like me who watched that programme and saw the exchanges that went between Obasanjo, who said he was originally billed for Morroco, but had to “obey” an order (“whenever Lamido invites me it is an order”) and Lamido, would be ashamed of what we have made of “god-fatherism” in our body politic.

I have nothing against a group of Nigerians choosing to meet, but I get pissed off when in spite of massive underdevelopment, killings, great sufferings, and backward integration we see in our developmental march, you still see leaders, who should be in the forefront of bringing genuine changes, engage in anti-progress activities, including postures that worsen an already bad situation. Waking up to deliberately place obstacles where none exists or to deliberately undertake actions that demean another just to achieve political advantage are tactics we ought to have discarded many years ago. This era should be for issue-based campaigns. I am convinced that the media ought to join also in this crusade.

As to the transformation event, I must say I am very glad the way it was staged. The preparation and execution shows we know about world standards and can indeed achieve it if our leaders set their minds to it. However, the aspect of getting cheer groups in uniform should be discarded. It is banal and belongs to the primitive society. Since the president was not going to give a full address, the Ministers of Planning, Finance and Secretary to Government who spoke should have been given enough time. Next edition let the others who are fine speakers do the explanation first and let the President by himself give the details. This way, you have full media account. Again, that account should have been circulated two weeks ahead. Many just heard the scanty excerpts and are basing their reviews on it.

The President himself expressed surprise on the ratings of some of his ministers. I have written and I know many have also written; the President’s men hardly talk. We don’t see them on television breakfast shows, just as we don’t see special reports on televisions and newspapers. There is a disconnect; I am sure that even the account given last Wednesday never hit the e-mail boxes of many editors, columnists, commentators and chieftains in various field of endeavours. Yet, this is what it should be, because the times have since changed, and information management strategies ought to change. Let me hope the Federal Government will buy pages in newspapers to let Nigerians see what the President and his men were talking in clear terms. This should be within this week.

Did the President have some scores? Of course! Minister of Planning gave some good scores, which the media played down to my discomfort. Why? I believe that all cards should always be on the table in their right colour and shape. He spoke of improvements in power supply. It may not be exactly to the extent we want, but it is true. He talked of improvements of some vital roads like Benin-Sagamu, Enugu-Port Harcourt, etc. I am one of those who complained about some of these roads, having travelled frequently on them; I attest that I have witnessed vast improvements. What is happening on the Lokoja-Abuja road is great; even around Abuja I see massive road construction going on. They talked about airports and the rail system. These are some of the vital issues we have always complained bitterly about, so when we see turnarounds, good conscience demands that we equally acknowledge them. No society can be built on criticisms and the concepts that nobody is effective. Little drops of water, they say, make a mighty ocean. It is our responsibility to encourage our leaders to improve on the small goods we see rather than waste years looking for the imaginary big visionary leader; which we are not sure when he will come given the way we also do things here.

I have seen in the last few days everybody talking GDP and unemployment as if improvement in roads, power supply and rail system don’t create new jobs on their own, or that in four years we would attain total reversal from the bad situation. My disposition is that we should leave out dirty politics and learn to look out for little progress so that collectively we can magnify them to the benefit of all. President Jonathan may not be there yet, but I can see great determination in the right direction. I see signs showing that he has stabilized and gained on experience. My advice would be for them to use the foundation to widen the scope and speed. He should take into account some views from the Nigeria Labour Congress, home grown economists and decide clear areas where he can score very excellently before the end of 2013. Besides, Jonathan must learn to speak more positively and inspirationally. Positive attitude has contagious effect. There is no need dwelling on who has wronged you or how terrible one feels; after all, leadership is a burden, no matter how we look at it.

The strong affirmation of excellent performance from those who rule over us many times too, is irrespective of whether the policies and programmes they executed within a time frame had direct relevance to our everyday living or not. What matters to them is that something has been done and the pauperized citizens “must” be happy for the intervention of a Daniel, who supposedly decided out of great benevolence to come to judgement. So, looking at the season, something told me this is the season of stewardship accounts and the right thing would be to fulfill a promise I made earlier by taking a look at it. It is important I restate this here. For democracy to have real meaning, three cardinal features must be seen. The first is conception stage, where if things are properly done should include meeting with the people to find out what they desire. The outcome is intelligently merged with the vision of the leader to produce a workable policy outline with some work plan. Good work plans should have specific programme outline and verifiable benchmarks. The ordinary citizen looking at it should at a glance know what to expect and when to see progress and conclusion. There is always time zone for all that is to be done.

The second is the execution stage and the last is the accountability period when leaders in well-calculated fashion, reel out what they have done on behalf of the people using their funds. It is gradually being believed that the accountability level is becoming the most important, because it forms the basis on which democracy draws real life. If the leader likes, he or she can waste all the time attending parties, summits, and fighting superficial political fights, but as soon as this stewardship account period comes, it carries with it the great verdict as to whether the leader in question has done well and is qualified for new trust, or has performed woefully and deserves a recall to go back and retrain himself or herself with whatever he or she was doing before gaining public trust.

This is what real democracy is supposed to be and that is what gives democracy its true essence, where it is practised in full. Here, do stewardship accounts matter? How many of our leaders care about feedback mechanism? In places where real democracy is in practice, we see elected officials particularly the President and governors mount the rostrum within their offices to talk to the people over important meetings, policy positions, results, fears and anticipations. How many times do we see that happen here? Even the spokespersons become tin-gods and run away from core responsibilities. Many would not answer calls directly, that is if their phones are open at all. Most times they are “busy”, so busy they never return calls. Some of them say they can’t talk to purveyors of news, creating a rule that whatever you desire, get about it by text: if you get a reply, fine.

I know this period of assessment would come, and given what I know about what we should do to promote democracy, I set about it on time. In this column, many weeks back, I requested that aides to the President, Ministers, and Governors send into my email box whatever it is their principals were doing. To the point of writing this first part, not one of them responded. That was partly why I had a little problem casting my headline. I thought about Report Card, report card from where? What about Democracy Governance and Accountability, I was almost settling for this when a group of very intelligent friends saw my dilemma and said, “You want to write about stewardship; why do you want to waste your time on that? What have they achieved?” You can now guess how I came about the title for today’s piece. The question came down like a thunderbolt and left deep impression on my subconscious.

Consequently, I began to ask myself, could it be true that our leaders are just there and don’t have any achievements? Can this be possible? I told myself it is not possible. Mere occupying the seat is an achievement, do people not undertake elaborate ceremonies for being elected or appointed into high political offices? Even no achievement is an achievement; I am sure not many of us know this. On the other hand, I tried to figure out whether such views are because our leaders work, but the people either don’t know or can’t comprehend the significance. I told myself there could be some points here. The Minister of Works, whom I can now confirm is doing very well of recent, was on Channels TV the other day, he said the Minister of Information, Labaran Maku’s team on Good Governance was on the much talked about Benin-Sagamu Expressway and they were  surprised at the degree of rehabilitation work that has been done. I heard it and laughed. Not too long ago, I overheard a presidential spokesman, Bolaji, say on Radio Nigeria that “my principal is working, look at what he is doing at the Kubwa-Abuja road, and those using it still say he is doing nothing.”

When I hear such positions, I laugh. Why? Information management in a democracy is a scientific venture. You gauge the mood of the people to determine the strategy for transmitting the message. A hungry man whose major concern is food, does not care how much roads you build. So, he may walk on them or even stand on them, and still be saying you have done nothing. In this instance, it is the responsibility of governments to tell their stories and show how those programmes change the story of hunger, lack, and want. Whatever the situation, it is the big responsibility of the leadership to tell its stories and to a reasonable extent give the facts motivating the action and the accompanying interpretations. The stories told at the appropriate time receive better attention and appreciation. The absence of this accounts, perhaps, for why majority of the citizens ask questions in the negative almost always.

I must commend some leaders who have done well in this regard. Governor Akpabio of Akwa Ibom State is a leader in this direction. He has used various avenues, including hosting conferences to tell his story well. Few weeks back, he celebrated his May Day using all communication means to great effect and advantage. Fashola, too, has done very well; his stewardship ventures are mature, well prepared and timely. They have substance. It has shown in his ratings. Rotimi Amaechi has shown effectiveness in this regard to some extent. From the East, Okorocha is moving strong except that he generates controversies that muddle the gains. From the North, I see only Sule Lamido, yet, he’s not giving it his all.

If our democracy would have meaning, the leaders must have a deep synergy with the led, and this bond will not come unless the people at all times know what is happening, why it is happening, the implications and the cost. History has shown that the veritable channels for realizing this, is effective and credible communication. Communication is capital intensive, even then, no amount devoted to it is a waste. After all, development is not only about constructing roads and building gigantic buildings: it is more about those things that can’t be materially quantified. Silence is not all that golden. It may make sense at the individual level sometimes, and I am certain it is not at all times, but it does not apply at the level of governance. Leaders who close their mouths end up closing their destiny. Why? It is communication that bridges that gap in distance. A man in Aba can hardly know what the developments are in Sokoto except he has the right information. This is made very real by visuals. For indeed, only fools doubt proofs. Our leaders must therefore learn to talk, especially if they have something tangible to talk about. Let me stress this point; talking is good and of great value when there are clear evidences of practical performance. No need repeating that media aides must be creative in providing ways they can talk back to the people. If we can’t create new formats, we can at least match what we see others do elsewhere. It would be great if we learn how to fill emails with activities of our leaders or even use text messages. I will count it a vast improvement the day I see media aides begin to respond to inquiries in written forms.

I have tried to dissect the challenges of proper assessment of our leaders in public offices so far; next week, I will touch a few more obstacles to effective feedback system, then Jonathan period (two years in office), what I know and what my position is. This is wishing my readers, Happy Democracy Day celebration in advance.

For instance, I knew that the way we take matters of religion in this part of the world promotes trouble than the consolation and succour we desire. More than this, it was very clear to me that we play bad politics. Our political process is more like a gang war than efforts by patriots to do something good. So, any good scholar would readily tell that big trouble was ahead. It is this knowledge that makes me feel bad anytime I hear security experts say what is happening is new and was unexpected. Part of the task of policing the state includes being pro-active and part of pro-activeness is the ability to read the trend and interpret it accurately. In our circumstance, we did not read the signs at all talk less of doing so accurately.

Now, that is not the issue because by what we are seeing, we have gone past that level.  From what I see, what we have on our hands is no more a security crisis, but a clear and present danger over our sovereignty. President Jonathan got it correctly when he described it as war against the state. We can talk of security crisis when miscreants, hoodlums and economic hard-ups cause increase in house breakage, banditry like arm robbery, but not when groups rise and clearly chose targets where they destroy lives and property in the most abominable manner. This cannot be described as security challenge; it is a clear and serious affront on the sovereignty of this great nation. It will amount to great disservice to the nation and the people to see what is happening today in the same old fashion of insecurity. It is not. It has grown into an assault and a deliberate one at that.

How do I know, when groups rise in great numbers to attack choice targets; that is not insecurity. Insecurity is when individuals pushed by inequality in the system take to house breakings, robbery and armed robberies. When such acts escalate in terms of frequency then we can talk of insecurity and increased security challenges. But when misguided elements rise to attack homes, churches and communities with arms that only the state should be in possession of, that is certainly a different kettle of fish. I have heard some governors say the cause of the mayhem is traceable to poverty and this position has come mainly from some of our northern brothers. American government has bought a bit into this, and curiously the blame is put on the doorstep of the present administration. Can this be the truth? How many years have the Jonathan administration been in power? This nation has been governed by those who complain most and in all these years no concrete effort was made to change the economy from a dependent one to a productive one. Some of us enjoyed and still enjoy a situation where we make easy money and prefer to give “dash” to the few who pester us enough to cause us to part with something. It is the gap our past leaders left and bad politics that is threatening to swallow us up.  Remove bad politics and normalcy would return with dispatch.

I must also state that I have not been very pleased with the opposition’s disposition to the security development. I have only seen an attitude to reap advantage without appropriate levels of deep concern about the bestiality going on. What the level of carnage and brigandage going on demands is serious condemnation, proffering of solutions and taking of responsibilities, not the blame games I see while precious lives are lost, some even add the ridiculous by blaming hunger, yet, the hoodlums have new vehicles, carry sophisticated arms and possess the intellectual ability to create cells across many states.

Jonathan would have to take many more drastic actions now that even lives of security personnel are not guaranteed and the bug is spreading like wildfire.  Something positive should be done. What about the state of emergency just declared the past week? Some say it is not the solution. Yes, it is not the total, wholesome solution we desire, but it is certainly part of it. From what I can see, the situation was getting out of hand.  What we describe as insecurity was becoming a real threat to the survival of the Nigerian State. Enemies of the State were expanding in an unbelievable manner. It was beginning to appear as if we have no leadership. With the state of emergency just declared, the President has re-asserted authority. The action has brought some degree of confidence back to the citizens. The declaration, the way I see it, provides a platform for predictable, harder decisions to come. Some say the political structures should have given way. Good point, but not very expedient at this point. Jonathan would have been accused of political interest if he had gone that way. But now governors whose states are boiling must see the need to give full co-operation or be ready to vacate the seat if things don’t improve. That is what I see as the larger implication of what has just happened. Once again, the blame game must stop. Playing politics with the situation must cease forthwith. Those who have solution must put them on the table as well as take manifest responsibility.

The governors, who last week said no to state emergency, did not tell us how much responsibility individually and collectively they were ready to assume. If your desire is to get to power and keep it, you must stand up to the cardinal responsibilities for which you were elected. Nations I know go to war even over one soul. As things stand, I advise the President to make this issue an all-party affair (All Political Party Summit may be desirable), and then pursue the amnesty option with vigour. Amnesty is not a sign of weakness, instead it is an attestation that he is ready to do anything to save lives and restore order. Such moves would serve him in good stead if the very hard alternative becomes inevitable. That is my submission. No decent person with a living soul should condone what is happening security-wise in this nation. Not at all! Every Nigerian has a right to live and no amount of displeasure over the system can justify the annihilation of another. The President from now must be seen to be in control.

Even with this, we have managed to achieve a level of beauty that still tickles the heart greatly, especially if you are coming in from the many “slums” we still describe as cities in other states within our federation. This notwithstanding, I am worried that the concept we had about Abuja is gradually slipping off our hands.  The city is getting dirtier everyday. Motor parks are all over the place and traders (petty) are setting up shops in every corner. Locations where we used to find green grasses have turned to thick bushes, yet officials are looking and giving the impression they don’t understand that what they see is ugly. A particular respondent commended my highlight and requested that the press take deeper interest in the land allocation activities of the Ministry of Federal Capital Territory.

He spoke of the AGIS, whatever that means, and how they have cornered everything relating to land acquisition and are, in fact, allocating lands to friends and relations, against the policy that Abuja lands should be allocated on basis of states. I was educated that today it is difficult to prosecute a land case because the official departments charged with land matters know little or nothing of the transactions going on. Who will take up this task? Should how lands are allocated not be public knowledge, an information we should have on our finger tips? Why are the streetlights dead? How come we don’t see enough traffic wardens to manage traffic on the many speed lanes with deadly junctions that dot the city?  I commend President Jonathan for pursuing with vigour the Motor Rail project; how about creating undergrounds now that the city has not be overcrowded and few compensations can be paid to effect corrections. The few private housing estates I see make me wonder if truly we are developing.

Compare these private estates with Gwarimpa Estate, also in Abuja, and you ask yourself question about an ill-prepared private sector leading us into the era of sound development that we all cherish and talk about almost every minute. In Germany, the change that made Berlin a ultra modern city is championed by government agencies, with funds deducted every month from workers’ salaries; whether nationals or foreigners working in that country.  What does that tell us? I expressed concern about the ministers coming almost all the time from a section of the country and one respondent asked me if the same people told Jonathan to be appointing ministers from the zone. What a great question!

Now, to the issue of the day: the Jonathan/Amaechi fight. Governor Dickson of Bayelsa State said in one publication last weekend that there is no fight, and his reason was that a President can’t take on a governor; that the gap was too much to contemplate such a development. This position would have been tenable if in this nation we were used to doing things in the right manner and with pure motives. In a sane atmosphere where decorum has meaning, a President should at all times be seen to have enchanting rapport with the governors.  When they have reason to disagree on policy direction, the dictates of decorum and its twin brother, discretion, would compel each party to show good sense in the way and manner they carry their differing positions to the centre stage. In fact, each knows the limits of his powers and much more, does everything to respect the dignity and rights of the other party.

Here everything is politics, and regrettably, not politics of development but politics of who takes or retains power. This is why we don’t fight over development of housing estates, free but qualitative education, modern health care system, road rehabilitation, jump-starting the economy into a productive one, power supply and rewarding foreign policy like we would fight and even kill over who occupies which political office. Somebody, a close relation of Gen. Azubuike Ihejirika, our Army Chief of Staff, who stays abroad, simply called Kayce and with whom I traveled last week, told me that the struggle for private gains is normal path of growth for any nation. I told him it is true, but that nations that have the benefits of history zoom over this stage very fast.  Those who found America had this philosophy of not allowing the evils they saw in Great Britain repeat itself in the new territory.

When Americans boast about freedom, it is a product of experience and history. In fact, not too many people know that a black man, one Carson, led the first riot towards the fight for independence and that that struggle hinged around old experiences that nations subjected to loans and dependent economy never had a progressive and stable development. So, at every point, America’s early leaders made strenuous efforts to stop their nation from taking to the old path. This disposition you find where people take the lessons of history very seriously. But what do we have here? On the Jonathan/Amaechi issue, we must admit there is a war.  The fight is raging on many battle fronts and unfortunately, on nasty terms. Would the fight stop? It won’t! Why? Amaechi does not belong to the political family of the President. Finish. It is not that Amaechi had a problem with the President’s wife in Okirika, that is not the issue; the development was only to tell Amaechi that, like Sylva, you don’t belong to us and we don’t intend to inherit you. What is more, Amaechi is a deadly fly perching on the scrotum. What you do in this instance is a guess anybody can hazard.  So, as far as politics is concerned, the Nigerian kind, they will fight to finish. The onslaught would become more intense and dirtier as the weeks go bye, because President Jonathan must be able to beat his chest and say he is in firm control of his Niger Delta. The consequences of this war is clear to both parties, this accounts for some of the kind of disturbing tactics we are seeing, and more, like I said earlier, would come. It is from this angle that I see a bigger threat against our democracy. No one should mistake this; the forces arrayed in this war are formidable. It could well mark the beginning of the kind of change we desire, but which nobody is bold to speak about in strong terms. For now, I keep my fingers crossed and limit myself to a review of what we have seen already. The altercation has again raised the issue of sovereignty in both limited and wider sense. It has also raked up the question of federalism. Has the President the right to bark absolutist order to a governor?

Where does federal power in a democracy begin and end? What should be the relationship between the states and the Federal Government, and the states and local governments? How should political parties operate? To what extent do state chapters have control over their local affairs? How come elected party officials can be dispensed with just by a wave of the hand? This is why I am worried about court pronouncements which say political parties have the prerogative of picking candidates. I would have loved to see a caveat that would say “all these must be done “in accordance” with party rules and regulations. The inability of Nigerians to fully take their rights is tied to the knowledge that head or tail you can’t go far. The people perceived, and rightly too, that some elected officers of state have turned tin gods who must be worshiped before their existence can be acknowledged. Similarly, you don’t get anything within the Nigeria present system, until what makes you a human being has been taken and destroyed.  This is why Nigerians, including the civil rights crusaders see the huge mis-governance going on in the land and still prefer to look the other way.

Grounding Amaechi’s plane in remote Ondo was not good. Amaechi as a governor carries some benefits of the Nigerian sovereignty. Within this nation he is a sovereign entity to a high extent.  As a sitting governor with immunity, his right to go anywhere at any time is unquestionable. That office carries some dignity with it, which in the interest of state ought not to be tampered with carelessly.  Amaechi’s plane may have the wrong papers, as was alleged, but those are matters that can be handled with proper protocol. It would have been very clean for the aviation officials to approach the appropriate Rivers State government department with the discovered anomaly, than opting for open show over perceived wrongs. That is the way I believe things should have been handled.

The style of throwing police and other security apparatus in a partisan manner must be resisted and discouraged. While holding this view, it is also important to state that time has come when we should return this nation to politics of principles. Having ambition is not bad, but carrying ambition on fraudulent foundation is condemnable. If you don’t like where you are, leave it, or them, and say so publicly and go ahead to do what your heart and head tells you to do. It is equally an injurious kind of politics to want to stray and destroy the old building before moving to a new one.  This brand of politics helps no one, not even the nation. My take: let Amaechi whom I have known to be a fine man, talk with his brother. I have my reasons, which I would not state here, for now. This fight, if you ask me, should be avoided because it has huge capacity to grow beyond those who started it. Jonathan may be angered by what he has seen and heard, and the anger may appear justified by the fact that the source is coming from close quarters. Yet, the truth is that his standing would be in for a fatal blow if he is advised to take to the undemocratic path. That is the truth many know, but would not want to tell him.

The above is the first scenario. There is the second, which from my calculation is more frightening. From what I can see, high level of suffering, deprivation, hunger, and dislocation arising from ineffective leadership has made the citizens to criminalize political participation at the highest levels. Once any individual is elected or appointed into public office he automatically becomes a “thief”.  Even if the man in question did not touch a kobo, any reference to him in the negative is quickly acknowledged and accepted as nothing but the truth. Everyone capable of comprehending events in this nation knows this is the situation and none appears concerned about it. The political class, who are victims of what a relation rightly called “Alaba” market syndrome, knows this and the danger it portends, but by their acts they seem not to mind. They, too, as if condemned by the gods to wallow in shame and possibly die miserably, now use this siege mentality (atmosphere of anything goes) for political gains and advantages. At the slightest of challenges, they rake up baseless allegations and rumours. Nobody cares in all these “madness” to check statistics and how many former political office holders can hold body and soul together six months or year after they exited public office.

Yet, this mob mentality is growing everyday, that just at the mention of stealing, all you hear in response is kill him, banish him, eliminate him! I was contemplating doing a full world on corruption and lack of vision; which one is most dangerous, when the furore over state pardon granted by President Goodluck Jonathan to some citizens took the centre stage. And trust us to resurrect our old ways; like in the past everybody is shouting kill them, banish them, Nigeria is dead and buried; regrettably only very negligible number has spared time to look at the issue holistically and from nationalistic perspective. The worst is that in the 21st century, a leading black nation that should be in the forefront of independence and black contribution to world civilization has opened its hands in surrender, calling on other nations to come in and decode her internal disagreements and contradictions. In 2013 we talk of International Community driving us on how to manage ourselves and our peculiarities. I am even appalled that “agents” of change are still making it look as if once we solve the problem of corruption by mob means the nation would find itself on the path of well-reasoned development. What a simplistic way to think! I don’t know how true this standpoint is, given that some time ago we were told and pushed just like now to believe that misuse of power and abuse of human rights were the issues.

I was in this country and practicing as a journalist when all these were happening. Like now, some Nigerians made name and fortunes from crusading on human rights; that era has come and gone and I am not very sure if we did make any progress in terms of real development. Developing a nation is more than demonizing a small section of the population. I am of the view that this nation must sit down to rationally estimate what the issues are and chart her path to rewarding development. That is my belief, which I strongly think has the backing of history. History of developed nations confirms that nations don’t develop by going forth and back over policy positions. Those that develop define the destination and choose the path and stick to it.

Now, to the issue of pardon; for me, the development raises some fundamental questions and issues. The first is whether we are ready to subject ourselves to the rules and regulations we outline for ourselves. My answer is, if democracy must succeed, the rule of law in all its ramifications must be taken seriously. It must form part of the political culture, in addition to patience. Democracy is about being systematic in approach to things; inclusive in this is that many groups and sections desire different things. So, patience and understanding is required. The second point is that state pardon, from what I can see, is a legal matter, in fact, a constitutional one.  To that extent, the prescriptions on what should be done are very clear. I am intrigued to see many of those complaining agreeing that the law empowers the President to grant state pardon to any category of offenders he deems suitable for such gesture.

I watched Presidential aides labour to explain that the president took the action on the strength of approval from the Council of States stipulated in the constitution. From the dictates of democracy, this can be said to be excellent, even though it does not remove the fact that issues of pardon when strictly applied are within the Exclusive Powers conferred on a President under the executive Presidency; the kind we operate. So, the buck stops on the President’s table.  Was the pardon right? In my view, it is right! What I think many have quarreled about is the morality and timing as it relates to one or two of those pardoned whose offences touch on corruption. The fear being that it can cast a blur on the fight against corruption.  Strong positions they are, and in fact contain some sense.  Yet, equally true is the fact that those alluded to have also passed through the tedious and humiliating paths of accusation, investigation, trial and conviction. Some have served sentences. So, for me, the issue of affecting the fight against corruption is diminished by the fact that no sane person would deliberately desire to pass through this path only to wait for pardon in the statute book. What is more, I do not subscribe to the view that punishments should mean destruction; my lot is cast on the side of punishment being for transformation and restoration.

I want to believe that those who inserted the provision of pardon knew that some valuable personalities could become victims of misconducts and that a way could still be provided to give them the benefit of hindsight, so that heir talents can still be available to the larger society. All of us may be equal, but the reality is that some for reasons of accomplishments and strength of character can be more equal. This is a recognized phenomenon all over the world.  Tony Nyiam at a point was a fugitive for whatever reasons, but today I am one of those very pleased with his quality contributions to the task of national development. This would not have been if he did not receive a pardon. I know what the late General Emeka Ojukwu meant to the wellbeing of the Igbo and to the upliftment of this nation since his return from exile. The greater good we saw from him was possible because the government of Shehu Shagari saw good reason to grant state pardon to a genius. The two instances of pardon mentioned above did not in any way mean encouragement of treason. Commit treason today and you will go to jail. The same way I don’t think Jonathan, by this gesture, is saying go and steal or go and destabilize a government. It has been taken to this level and given wrong interpretations because of the kind of politics we play here; politics that has little or no room for all sides to an issue.

Otherwise this action could have been viewed differently and the aspects of reconciliation and restoration played up. And that is what I see.  In a true federal state, one of the beneficiaries would have been battling with the mood of the people of his state, not the Federal Government. His crime, no matter how grievous, was against his state. And if the politics of this nation is what I know, I don’t think the people in that state would want their son destroyed or incapacitated permanently.  The same way I don’t think the spirit of any good law is to permanently destroy and make useless her citizens. The disagreement, from my deductions, has been more of morality. Unfortunately, as important as it is, morality can sometimes be a very subjective matter. Whatever is the case, what this nation needs most is love. When we love ourselves and nation, it will be difficult to think of doing it harm; let us take up the challenge of re-inventing ourselves by strengthening the institutions and letting the real sustainable change come by way of instilling processes that would allow only sane and equipped individuals, call them the best among us, to climb to power and authority. That is the way to go. Let us see President Jonathan’s action from the standpoint of restoration and reconciliation. Experience tells me that a great joy has been unleashed to the benefiting families, and who knows they may become real arrows in the development of our great nation.

First in Sussex University, England, and later in City College, New York, United States where he also lectured. When he returned to this country to contribute his quota to the development of our nation I and many others who came in contact with him, found him an embodiment of excellence. He was both intelligent and brilliant. He exuded wisdom of the rare kind and craved rationality as a basis for any stand point and decision. Like Europeans do, he never joked with merit and was very convinced the black man could equal, if not surpass the European in all areas.  Above all these, he courted with zeal the virtues of compassion, empathy, dignity and equality of the human person.  Yet, he had most of his tutorials from foreign universities.

Most well-trained Nigerians who schooled abroad have compassion, sense of good justice as a nature. They love to help the other person and are genuinely troubled when they see the kind of obstacles fellow citizens place on the path of others. These days, these peculiar breeds have beaten a retreat right into their shells because of the new norm of taking advantage of the “soft” hearted individual in our midst. Would some of these gentlemen have used power arbitrarily if they were to be governors and Presidents, because compassion must be out of it? I doubt! In some of the small places they controlled or still control, you find a good mix between firmness, merit and compassion. They alter this chemistry, when the less gifted, full of debauchery, constantly bombard their minds with the refrain that “this is Nigeria, we don’t do things like this here, otherwise they will out-scheme or even kill you”. This is the point we begin to experience costly deviations in the management of power by those who have a good heart and requisite capacity to do things right. That there are aberrations in the management of power at the world stage does not eclipse the fact that there are standard ways of doing things and achieve enduring results. If truth must be told, abuse of power is at the centre of the various upheavals we see around the world. Is this not true?

Similarly, I do know that Nigerians acclaim good leadership once they see a genuine and impactful one.  For instance, the present governor of Lagos State, who I have cause to believe does not like the Igbo, is a fantastic leader, and all Nigerians irrespective of tribe, faith or even political leaning acknowledge this.  Even before his tenure as governor runs out, many already believe he could make great contributions serving at the national level. Godswill Akpabio, minus his sometimes disturbing antics, is also a good leader, and the nation accepts and applauds him as such. The same goes for Rotimi Amaechi, a “revolutionary” in the midst of deadly conservatives (I don’t know whether somebody gets the contradiction) is a good leader and many say so.  Oshiomhole, Shema, Lamido, Chime do also receive acknowledgments. Marwa, the military gentleman who once ruled Lagos, is not Yoruba, but the nation till now acknowledges him as a capable leader. The world saw the way Nigerians, in particular the Igbo, celebrated Ojukwu even in death; or how the same Igbo cherish Zik till today;  the same for the Sardauna and Awolowo, all of blessed memory.

The citizens love to appreciate their leaders, but these days it has become difficult to cheer, because it is becoming increasingly difficult to single out leaders from among the present pack. What can be done? The good thing is that the situation is not beyond redemption. We can change the leadership stereotype if we come to the realization, which I think we should know by now that what we have had is bad and should be changed. Such changes don’t come by themselves; they are propelled by a vanguard. This vanguard can be a part of the current leadership class who see the need to commit class “suicide”, or better still, by the enlightened section of the populace. Call them “civil rights” or civil liberty society. I am one of those who have been wondering how the civil rights community lost their voices after working to have the military quit the political stage unceremoniously. If there is a time they are most needed, it is now when all manner of persons have found good business in seeking public offices, and when few but powerful individuals, if that is what they are, would not allow us have the right to sane electoral system.

This is the time to rise and set new standards for emerging leaders. It would be the right action to demand that our new leaders have experience of good success in their private endeavours and also having acquired experience serve in lower levels of power. This way, we would be sure it won’t be a case of a neophyte coming to take over huge and complicated assignments. Leadership positions should not be training grounds; rather they should be platforms for visionary leaders to stand and take society to new heights. What is more, I support the demand that the level of educational attainment be raised from school certificate to degree. Productive leadership requires a well-tutored mind that goes beyond natural intelligence. Brains that must lead in these modern and complicated times must have capacity for deep rationalism, ability to figure out what the statistics are saying and strength to convert such knowledge or discovery to realistic visions, realizable within a short time.

We need leaders who have strength to move over rudimentary problems of road repairs and/or construction, hospital revitalization, school rehabilitation and other such routine task, who could commence the much desired move of this nation into the era of productive economy and scientific prowess, where we can tackle challenges of nature and provide for our needs on our own terms outside current trend of waiting for outdated positions from the first worlds. That is the challenge and I dare say that weak brains can’t fathom this, let alone comprehend what the intricate issues are. We need brains that can walk past the challenges posed by neo-imperial interferences, which will always be there, whether we like it or not.

We are now at a point where we must insist that what we need should be inspirational leaders. Leaders, who when they speak the nation would have no option but queue behind them. We need captains who would run on a blue-print on virtually every aspect of our life. The leadership question is one area we have talked so much about, but made no effort to see things change. We are about to have elections and yet again, things and processes are moving in the same old order. Those whose responsibility it is to undertake a review and propose changes appear lost on what to do. Suddenly, we are back on the old track talking about agreements, personalities and zones that should produce the next President. Unfortunately, all of us in the media world have again abdicated our responsibility of agenda-setting and have joined the bandwagon. President Goodluck Jonathan has shown enough signs that he desires to run again.  That may well be within his rights, just as it is within our right to sit back and scientifically ask critical questions about his performance and to reach clear conclusions on whether it is enough to see the people grant him another chance. The media and the civil society groups should ask questions, find out the statistics and interact with the people on that basis.

The elections are almost near, but nobody, not even the opposition has asked the Independent National Electoral Commission where they are and what they intend to do? Is the voter register credible? If not, is it not better to start early? What kind of voting system would be in place? How do you recruit workers? Logistics; what do we need? Would it not make sense to procure them early? Also, we are not asking the aspirants questions. I am yet to see an aspirant speak on well-drafted programmes. Nobody is speaking on power, workforce, living wage, incentive for labour, revival of education, insecurity, infrastructural rehabilitation, water, irrigation, aviation, national airlines, airports fixing, sea lines, financial sector, social security, education assistance, veterans welfare, petrol refining, food security, diplomacy and so on.  Nobody is giving specific details; all attention is focused on which zone, and worst still on old facts. I intend to address very soon that outburst from Babangida Aliyu talking about agreement. That statement contains seeds that can inflame this nation. Issues of agreement first came to light during Obasanjo’s presidency and now under Jonathan it is rearing its ugly head again.  It is a confirmation that some people believe, erroneously though, that a few people own this country. Let me leave it at that for now.  However, I am fully convinced that this nation given all the resources can be a first world nation within a period of 15 years, if we have the right leadership with the right brains. If we can have 36 wise men at the states and one inspirational President, banish every other thought, kingdom desire would come.

After independence the concern assumed an entirely different dimension, as each tribal zone sought to define leadership from its worldview. Inability to reach a standard definition saw us go into the path of military coups with all the attendant negative consequences. The temporary triumph of jackboot politics complicated the process for the search for effective kind of leadership. Between the time of independence and now there is no kind of leadership prescriptions that have not been put forward by various personalities, groups and/or fora on this very important question of leadership.

At some points in the history of our nation, summits of various kinds had no other matter to discuss but leadership, and how we could get it right. I practiced my journalism career in one of the best news magazines ever to be published in our nation – THISWEEK magazine. Most of the cover titles in the 80s and 90s had major things, either directly or indirectly, to do with redeeming the bad leadership question. In those days we wrote and analyzed in detail the personalities, the legal frame work, the political processes and even the formation of political parties and their role in functional development of a nation, particularly countries with huge complexities like ours.

We did all that, including collating views from those who should know by virtue of the fact that they have served in strategic positions or are knowledgeable on the subject matter of leadership, and on that basis proffered workable solutions. From what I still see, those efforts registered little or not impact. The reason could be that we have already built a nation where rationalization has little or no place at all. We have allowed shallow minds to install a system that glorifies mediocrity and “ad-hocism” as pathway to seeking sustainable development.

So, taking time to think is seen as the business of fools. The task of finding a workable definition of leadership at the time was not that of the media alone. I am aware that during the period, in various universities, one could find well-researched and documented studies on what leadership is and what it should be in a nation like ours, where structures are weak and the threats of neo-imperialism are as real as the fire from a neighbour’s kitchen. But who cared about all these? Nobody! Instead, we by collaborative passivity, accepted a situation where all we did and still do is to allow a few individuals to create a process in which might and subversion become fundamental instruments for nomination (not election) of leaders to the very critical and commanding levels of leadership and authority.

They nominate through this perverted form the President and the Governors and then pass them through the charade we believe are elections here and give them the unfettered leverage to go on and replicate their negative species all over the place. This has been the trend and over time it has become the acceptable standard practice, reproduced almost always with relish in nearly all small levels of organizations such as communities, small association social bodies and even within religious circles. This is why lamentation over poor leadership is wide-spread and continuous, and may never abate soon except we decide to take the bull by the horn.

This explains partly why I have been reluctant to push those works forward. I decided to bring up this essay because of two events that took place in separate locations two weeks ago; and on those occasions, leadership question was again in focus. I was inspired (I hope that’s what it is) by statements on leadership made by two distinguished Nigerians on those occasions. The first was the late Professor Claude Ake’s leadership lecture series that took place in Port-Harcourt, Rivers State.

The guest speaker was Mohammed Ibn Chamber, former President of ECOWAS Commission, an international scholar, who the Master of Ceremony, Paulinus Nsirim, my good friend, disclosed was on his way to a fine job at the United Nations. The Chairman for the event was Professor George Obiozor, a well-regarded Igbo son, distinguished scholar, one-time Nigerian Ambassador to Israel and Washington and very close friend of my late distinguished cousin, Dr. Stanley Macebuh, pioneer Managing Director of The Guardian Newspapers.

The next event was General Olusegun Obasanjo’s 76th birthday celebration at Abeokuta, capital of Ogun State. Obasanjo, we know, has been two-time leader of this nation and from my point of view, the leader that wielded power most in the history of our nation, so far. I have taken time to elaborate on these personalities because of what the posturing of such great men could mean to the health of a nation, be it political, economic, and social. Now, the issues: in his magnificent opening address, Prof. Obiozor disclosed that his doctoral thesis at Columbia University nearly ran into trouble when he wrote somewhere in the work about “humanitarian considerations”.

He said the supervisory lecturer was livid at him for using such words. It got to the extent he was asked to look through the window to identify three huge blocks within the campus. He did, identifying one as economic block, another political science, and the last as school of divinity. He said he was taught that where you find “humanitarian consideration” was only in the school of divinity and not in politics. In politics what obtains is enforcement of rules, maximum use of power and authority and sometimes, he stated, abuse of power is allowed if the king’s wish and dominion must be established.

My head boiled badly and my body shook when I heard that from a man who had for years walked through inner recesses of power in this nation. Now to Obasanjo, he said two things that became a source of worry for me. The first: our nation has a huge population but short in supply of effective leadership materials. The second: those in power should never expect acclaim from the people. Those who do would live in frustration. Is this true? From the above statements one can gain insight into the minds of our leaders. We can also see part of the reasons why leaders always turned out to be what we see all the time; poor performers and wicked rulers.

Our revered former President said we don’t appreciate leadership. Is this true? Obiozor said the leader should lack compassion; can this be said to be true? Is it the right orientation? Certainly not! Europeans, including their leaders are symbols of compassion and care. American nation grew from the desire for freedom for the individual person. This is why till the present all their leaders irrespective of political leaning or persuasion must talk passionately about education, health care, feel extremely concerned about unemployment figures, including general comfort of citizens. Acclaimed Presidents in that nation are those whose policies and actions contained the highest degree of compassion, which Dr. Obiozor described as humanitarian care.

Humanitarian care, if I got it right, is not only about the displaced or refugees; it is also about those who for any reason can’t cope with the vagaries in a system. Lincoln is loved because of his position on race and particularly on the slave/master issue. For this issue, he was ready to fight the American Civil War to a decisive end. Kennedy was another example of a leader with the right human soul. A more recent example is Bill Clinton. He had a huge humanitarian disposition to the running of government compared to George W. Bush Jnr., whose philosophy was the use of power maximally irrespective of any hanging moral question. Today, compare Bush Jnr’s acceptance rating with that of Clinton and tell me what you see. Today, touch one European anywhere and see how the home government reacts.

It is true in international politics that these nations tend to throw away compassion and its twin brother, morality, yet, the truth is that the relegation of these vital instruments have contributed a great deal to a world without peace that we have. Features of good leadership should include vision, courage, decisiveness, and of course, full load of humanitarian considerations. When all these are in place, the people without prompting would acknowledge and acclaim good leadership (as Venezuela just displayed for Hugo Chavez).

That is the truth! Our people no longer clap and cheer, because over a long time the people have come to know that our rulers supplant their illusions for development. Beginning from the national level to the smallest unit, our rulers depend on outside advices for ventures that have little or no relevance here. The consequences are huge dislocations and attendant massive sufferings. Look at what “austerity” measures are doing to developed economies and then imagine what we have passed through since the 80s when our rulers began singing the austerity mantra as the only path to full development.

Today, we vote trillions of naira to build official quarters for public officers, but hardly feel any sense of responsibility in devoting same amount towards providing shelter, achieve food security, create an invention-oriented economy, build our roads to the highest standard and provide affordable modern transport system. Our rulers never do these, yet, they expect the dehumanized citizens to applaud them for muscling themselves into public offices to waste the years, shorten life-span and wallow in corruption. Finally, as I conclude this discourse, this nation is not in short supply of persons with high leadership quotient. We have capable men and women with great leadership qualities.

The trouble with our nation is bad electoral process as against bad leadership that has always been chorused. The problem has much to do with negative politics, which is entrenched, which makes the emergence of decent and credible leadership materials a very difficult venture. These are our real problems. When 10 years ahead of any electoral contest, evil men and women gang up to select those who would rule at different levels and go ahead without the people to use state apparatus to subvert whatever is left of sane rules to achieve that objective, what do we expect would be the outcome? Good governance? Never! It is even worst this time, when each successive leader desires to “plant” somebody worse than himself. If we look well, our problem may not actually be corruption as many think; but could well be lack of the right vision and ability, made so by the kind of process we have in place.

The question now is; when will we allow the people to state in a very unambiguous manner what they want? I am aware the people know their sons better than we think. I am eagerly looking forward to the period when our search for effective leaders would be on the cherished pillars of what they know, what they have done in the past, how their past achievements shape their visions of our nation. I am very keen to see emerging leaders who would speak about our troubles in details and give ample evidence to show they have solutions to apply.

In addition, I am of the opinion that time has come when our attention should focus on internal democracy within the political parties and the processes during national elections. I am praying for that era when politicians after playing their dirty games behind the scene would allow the citizens through fair, credible and transparent poll say what they think of the whole situation. Until we get this aspect right: the talk about progressive and productive governance would remain a dream.

The first is whether a merger, alliance or another of such political partnership can ever happen in this country and if it comes through, can it work? Indeed, such collaborations especially merging of parties can happen; and are desirable if the polity would have focus and stability. That merger may not have happened in this nation before now; and feeble attempts at alliance that failed in the past could be situated within the ambits of political experience and development; and we must know that the particular experience of personality cults holding sway is not a trend unique to us.

Indeed, most of the nations described as democratically advanced today had their days when strong men took prominence over great institutions. I discovered through my studies that in America at a time, a democratically elected President, on reasons of deep disagreements eloped with the power won on another party’s ticket to form an entirely new one.  If memories serve me right, this has not happened here yet? But, can it happen? Truly, it can. So, the question that merger or alliances have not happened or happened and failed is necessary to note, but of little consequential significance to what might be happening now.

Before we got to this point, so much water, as they say, had passed under the bridge. The level of dis-configuration has become terrific. Things we used to ignore can no longer be waved aside. By collective default, we have come to the point where the space is virtually closed on nearly everyone.  So, it has become inevitable that we must find an escape route, and this would come in the form of thinking right and resolving to work out our salvation, having sight on realistic alternatives.

It is within this scope that I see the rightness in the coming together of some parties and politicians to give us, the governed, a veritable alternative in our effort to develop the space called Nigeria.  It is indeed, an idea whose time has come. Recall that in one of the discourse on this page I disagreed with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), rising and unilaterally proscribing political parties. My argument was, and remains that such acts even if backed by an obvious bad legislation is anti-democratic. My fear, which is germane going by experiences, is that such regulations and actions that follow them could provide avenues for an ill-tempered President to do the rest of us in.

The argument of most respondents to my position was that negative objectives propelled bad leaders to register all manner of political parties to serve narrow interest. So, what should be done is to use the same unorthodox methods to weed them out. I thought differently and held the view that democracy has a way of taking care of such unwanted intrusions and aberrant political behavours. One of the best ways it does this is for those playing politics to reason well and to take appropriate political actions if the real objective is to serve the people and develop the nation. Without dwelling so long on this, I can say with conviction that the current merger represents adequately one of those democratic options available to right the huge wrongs perpetrated in the registration of political parties by past leaders.

Can Tinubu and Buhari ever work together? My response is why not! By now, like most Nigerians, these personalities would have come to the realization that even their enlightened self-interest (politics is also about self-interest) are better served by a solid nationally based platform. Localized parties place themselves as lame ducks, who could be pummeled at random depending on the mood of the conservatives who know better how to abuse power so long their narrow objectives are served.

Both Tinubu and Buhari know this. More than this; the issues around merger and restructuring of our national politics are certainly more than the two personalities. If you ask me, I see them just as catalysts to what would ultimately blossom to be a truly national project. I have heard arguments that those coming together are strange bed fellows. I retort by asking what is not strange about our national politics. Suddenly, many of us who ask this question forget that PDP is an amalgam of over 30 different political entities.

It is true individuals receive and conceptualize vision, but objectives would always force a fusion of visions. Fusing visions into one is never easy and this is more so in an atmosphere such as ours, where for reasons of pervading poverty and hunger a gentleman can turn a monster overnight if the price is right.   So, when some of us, especially the media celebrate misgivings concerning the merging process, I tell myself we are not helping this nation especially when majority of us had desired to see this day.  Only the unreasoned would not expect some turbulence on an issue such as coming together of separate entities. So, I expect some more troubles.

My position on this is that the development is healthy for our nation. True lovers of this nation must encourage what is about to come.  Like what we saw in SDP and NRC days, focus and streamlining would gain attention in our politics. Ethnicity and religion would begin to take back seat. Charlatans would lose space and grace.  My concern is only the planners being careful to think deeply. Any alternative to PDP should have some cardinal features.

One of it should be that all section of Nigerians should see themselves in it; especially at this take-off period, and seen to have a stake. For now, it looks like a gang-up by a section of the angry North and the vociferous West. The Igbo and minorities are not very visible in the whole show. Reviewed the way it is so far, it is like Action Congress of Nigeria is making strenuous attempt to reinvent itself.

If I may say this, strategic planning should have made the originators do more in the area of head-hunting; this would have availed them many credible politicians sitting on the fence from across the nation, especially from areas where they are not firmly on the ground. They should get new faces to act as spokespersons. I don’t want to believe that the progenitors don’t know the importance of coming out with understandable action plan, different from the vague points of agenda we are used to.

If the new party would make impact, the leaders must know that the style of mobilization must be radical, penetrating and deep. There must be provision to fully consult with personalities of various orientation, placing and cultural organizations. The time has come to play politics of pluralism with emphasis on the desires of professional bodies. They should be ready to fight the media war.

It will amount to a tactical error, however, to stay in Abuja or Lagos, waste all the time talking on television and granting interviews in newspapers, castigating the leadership and system, and believing that current discomforts alone is enough to make the citizens behave in a “sensible” and “sane” manner when the time comes. It does not work this way. The hungry citizen would always desire to move towards where he finds little “lifeline” even if it is not enough to change his situation.

To put such citizens in place would require that the change sought after even though still at the idealistic level, strenuous efforts must be made to create a picture of it.  The alienated people must be able to see its tangibility. How to decode this complex scenario and make meaning out of it is the main challenge facing those who want to provide us with a much desired alternative. I wish them well.

That could be true to some extent if such wars were not between brothers and even if the combatants were no relations at all. Such positions would not hold water if the true objective of fighting such wars was to restore peace and order. Injustice, no matter the clothes it wears can never usher in peace. It has not happened anywhere in history and our nation would not be the exception. Before, we had regions and they did very well.

When we had regions, development was moving at a pace that if it had been sustained we would have been far better than Brazil and the rest of them at that level. We brought in states not because it was the best administrative structure answerable to our developmental needs. We did so in our usual warped thinking to create atomistic entities that would not be strong enough to challenge the government at the centre. Practiced over a long time, state structure has come to stay. It’s not that the man in Abia cannot stay under an administration run from Enugu. It’s just that in my thinking, our psychology, given what we have done with states, has outgrown that level.

So what is to be done? Simple: let the states remain as administrative units like the divisions of old and let the powers at the centre be devolved to the original regional headquarters as supervisory stations. This way, the unnecessary struggle for power at the centre, which is responsible for throwing up all manner of “negatives” would diminish to allow the nation pursue properly, development. This is not my first option, but I have been forced to take it on as first option because of what I know of the political structure and character of the political class. Our structure and orientation as it is, cannot produce the kind of leaders who will run for public offices on account of vision and character.

The kind of system we have allowed to thrive has no role for visions, has no respect for sane characters and loathes intellectualism as a basis for rational prescription of solutions. This is why a credible and transparent electoral process would be difficult to arrive at very soon. So, if allowed to exist at the big level, this nation we know, will disappear, no matter how the few that benefit from the chaos wish the contrary, and this is why I throw my weight behind the clamour that component parts be made to carry some weight including their idiosyncrasies. Even with this, the issue of states would matter and that throws up the need to remedy injustice done first and foremost to the people of the South-East.

On this account, let there be equalization of zones, as they presently exist. It is either the South-East gets one more or action taken to let all the zones have seven states each. Even with devolution of powers, resource sharing would still be along population and the number of states. Let the states determine the number of local governments they want and work to distribute their resources accordingly. Now, issues I see on the question of state creation. Critical sections of the North and South-West do not want to see this happen. The reasons, I believe, are obvious. But overall, I blame Igbo leaders who are busy quarreling among themselves leaving the bigger issues. Instead of reaching out to seek help and understanding from the other regions because this issue concerns the South-East essentially, they are pre-occupied fighting over which presidential candidate to support even without extracting a concession.

The reasons those who do not want states created are what? High cost of governance is one. This position has but small truth in it. From what I know about Nigeria’s governance, staffing government departments and paying emoluments and allowances is not the real trouble. It has to do with our kind of thinking, vision and stealing in various forms. Leaders engage persons even when scientific analysis show there is no vacancy or need. When I first entered government, the ideal thing was to have five Special Advisers in very critical areas and ten Special Assistants.

Today, Special Advisers could be over fifty and “Special Assistants” well over 700. Is the existence of a state responsible for this? Civil Service is not spared as each Chief Executive and other authority wielders compete on who will employ more “hands” into non-existent positions in the service. Our leaders bring no vision to power. They get to power before finding what to do. Pressured by various interests, they waste billions on projects that have no life of their own or reproductive or regenerative capacity. Ask an administration that is ending its second term to show you its achievements: they point to purchase of buses and building of a few office blocks as against development of industries, commerce and mechanized agriculture etc. If you see the figures attached to ceremonies you will scream,

Holy Moses! I don’t want to say that funds attached to doing periphery things like borehole drilling (which is archaic) are more so outrageous that you wonder if we are talking of another planet. Those and many others like inability to collect legal taxes are the issues; not cost of governance or viability of states. We need states and even the politicians know. Their problem has to do with this mindset that the political class does not have need to engage in doing one big thing. Every big and excellent development we have had, had always come from the military. I will talk on this pretty soon. Let me end this discourse by saying that Alex Ekwueme, Edwin Clark and Rev. Gbonigi were very right when penultimate weekend, they told Nigerians this country needs more states and restructuring. It’s a truth we can’t wish away.