Every year, at its independence anniversary, Nigeria’s leaders gush out platitudes about the country’s prospects, about Nigeria’s presumed greatness. This year, at Nigeria’s 59th independence anniversary, they were at it again. For instance, the vice president, Yemi Osinbajo, talked recently about “the uniquely confident way we stand out”, calling it “the Nigerian swag.” But what is it to brag about? If Nigerian leaders are not self-referential, if they are not judging themselves by their self-set standards but by the universal standards of public governance, they would acknowledge that this country has been, and is being, appallingly governed.
At its independence in 1960, Nigeria was favourably compared with many of the Southeast Asian countries, such as South Korea, Indonesia and Malaysia. But, today, it lags behind these countries on several socio-economic indicators. Take Indonesia, the country’s GDP is $1 trillion, compared with Nigeria’s $397 billion, and Indonesia’s per capital income is over $4,000, compared with Nigeria’s $2,000.
In his Independence Day speech, President Muhammadu Buhari hailed what he described as Nigeria’s “robust” reserve of $42.4 billion. But if that was robust, how would he describe Brazil’s current reserves of $388bn, Indonesia’s $124 billion or even Malaysia’s $102 billion? Clearly, Nigeria is a Lilliputian compared with countries like Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia, not to mention China, which, marking the 70th anniversary of the Peoples Republic this month, can boost of having one of the most impressive development records in history, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, while Nigeria is the poverty capital of the world!
But the comparison with the middle-ranking countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, doesn’t give a true picture of Nigeria’s utter misrule and failure. In a recent speech entitled “Economic and institutional restructuring for the next Nigeria”, Charles Soludo, former governor of the CBN, referred to the fragile and failed states index by the US Fund for Peace, which assessed countries’ vulnerability to collapse. The index assessed Nigeria’s vulnerability along four clusters of variables, namely cohesion, economic, political and social, and showed that Nigeria’s ranking has deteriorated from 54 in 2005 and now stands between 13 and 15.
What’s more, according to the index, Nigeria is now in the red alert category with countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Guinea, Syria, Yemen and Somalia. Where, for goodness sake, is the basis for the “Nigerian swag” when the country is wallowing in utter hopelessness with fragile and failed states like Afghanistan and Somalia?
The truth is that Nigerian leaders are in denial. That the denial or lack of self-awareness was evident in President Buhari’s democracy day speech. He said he was “elected to deliver positive and enduring change” but did not acknowledge that his administration has failed woefully to deliver any change to achieve “a united, prosperous and purposeful nation,” capable of facing “21st century opportunities and challenges.” The president’s speech writers may be good at using buzzwords and lingos, but nothing in the speech tells us why the “positive and enduring change” is still elusive.
Well, in truth, the president gave us a clue. According to him, “this change can only be delivered if we are united in purpose, as individuals and as a nation”. So, the “positive and enduring change” he was elected to deliver is predicated upon having unity and a sense of purpose. But where is the role of leadership in this? What role is he playing to inspire that sense of common purpose and to engender the national unity?
Truth is, Nigeria needs radical political, economic and institutional transformations, and only the president can articulate, lead and drive the process. Yet, there was nothing in his speech about political reform, which is the starting point in engendering peach and unity in Nigeria. Instead, President Buhari is threatening people who “abuse technology” through hate speech on social media and trampling on judicial independence and the rule of law in the name of national security. He said that whilst he would uphold the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and associations, “we will take firm and decisive action where the purported exercise of these rights … threaten to undermine our national security.”
This, of course, was a restatement of President Buhari’s comment last year that the rule of law must be subordinated to national security. So, if your statement is believed to threaten national security, which includes, as recently reported, “insulting the president”, you could be clamped into detention and intimidated, as Omoyele Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, has been for weeks for mouthing the word “revolution”, even though there is no evidence he organised, or intended to organise, an armed insurgence. Yet, protests, even rabble-rousing and ill-tempered protests, are part of the fabrics of a true democracy.
Centuries ago, Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote several theses on how to run a country. In his book, “How to run a country: An ancient guide for modern leaders”, Philip Freeman drew out some of the key lessons from Cicero’s writings. It is the failure of Nigeria’s leaders to learn these lessons and demonstrate the relevant qualities that have, for decades, caused the utter misrule of this country.
Truth is, Nigeria needs radical political, economic and institutional transformations, and only the president can articulate, lead and drive the process. Yet, there was nothing in his speech about political reform, which is the starting point in engendering peach and unity in Nigeria
The first of these lessons is that the best form of government embraces a balance of power. Cicero argues that a just government must be founded on a system of checks and balances. But where, precisely, are the checks and balances in Nigeria’s governmental system, when the president could easily ignore court orders, or the legislatures simply become poodles of the executive? Cicero warns us to “beware the leader who sets aside the rule of law claiming the need for expediency or security”. Isn’t that familiar? President Buhari has said that expediency or security trumps the rule of law. But no country can be run well without the rule of law!
Another wisdom from Cicero is that leaders who would govern a country must possess great courage, ability and resolve to bring about change. As Cicero says, governing a country is like steering a ship, and the captain must steer it to safety. If President Buhari can only respond to Nigeria’s political and economic challenges by threatening the citizens with arrests and detention and by trampling on the rule of law and individual liberty, truth is, he is not steering the Nigerians ship of state well.
As Cicero also says, compromise is the key to getting things done. Building a national consensus for positive political and economic change is key to running a country. A lesson for President Buhari is that he must lead the national discourse, and build the national consensus, for the political, economic and institutional transformation of Nigeria. He must, as Cicero also says, keep his friends close and his enemies closer; that’s how to govern a multi-ethnic state like Nigeria.
But here, for me, is Cicero’s key lesson on how to rule a country, but, unfortunately, it’s a lesson that has no traction in Nigeria. Cicero says that “those who govern a country should be the best and the brightest of the land.” According to him, “if leaders don’t have a thorough knowledge of what they are talking about, their speeches will be a silly prattle of empty words and their actions will be dangerously misguided.” Interesting!
To be sure, Nigeria has suffered enough from leaders who govern by sheer whim rather than by knowledge or intelligence. And that’s why, if you ask me, Nigeria is badly governed, even at 59! Nigeria will be governed well when, as a starting point, it gets capable leaders!
