POOR LEADERSHIP CULTURE IN AFRICA

Senathon Ipia (senaipia@gmail.com)
+234 (0) 7052802574

Leadership is known to have accelerated or retarded development in any political or economic system. Good leadership often leaves nothing but legacies and resourcefulness that future generations of the system in which it existed can bank on.

American’s greatness and the well-being of its people, envied globally, are a product of good leadership of the past. Various American leaders have blueprint of having thought of and implemented policies that have remained on the sands of time, with the American people reaping the unending benefits.

One of such is John F. Kennedy. While still the president of the United States, he announced one day to the American people that America will put a man on the moon in ten years’ time. He worked assiduously with faith and enthusiasm to realize this dream. Most people believe that America’s path to greatness – her becoming a superpower –

began that day.

Another legacy of an American leader that is worthy of mention is that of Franklin Roosevelt. It was his policy on social security, which enabled every American to enjoy prosperity and material well-being even during periods of economic downturn, when some American would have experienced untold hardship.

Former president Barack Obama had said this about the benefits of Franklin Roosevelt’s social security policy:

“The New Deal (i.e. social security policy) gave the laid-off worker a guarantee that he could count on unemployment insurance to put food on his family’s table while he looked for a new job. It gave the young man who suffered a debilitating accident assurance that he could count on disability payments to get him through the tough times. A widow might still raise her children without the indignity of charity. And Franklin Roosevelt’s greatest legacy promises the couple who put in a lifetime of sacrifice and hard work that they would retire in comfort and dignity because of social security”.¹

Legacies of past leaders that revolutionize a nation, even long time into the future, are not limited to the United States. The present technological revolution in India and indeed economic revolution are born out of the legacy of the Indian government. Some decades ago, the Indian government pursued vigorously science education programme for it citizens both at home and abroad. A number of Indian citizens studied science courses overseas, especially in the United Kingdom. That initiative produced Indian scientists, science-based professionals and science teachers in large number. In fact, science teachers from India were present even in countries outside Asia. For instance, in Nigeria, there were science teachers who were Indians in some secondary schools, colleges and universities.

What drives technology is scientific knowledge. Or put it another way, science is the foundation of technological prowess. The outcome of Indian’s investment in science education came into play some decades later. And India as a country, not just the individuals who benefited from the scheme, is reaping the benefit of that laudable education initiative – a benefit that has put India on the path to technological development. 

America had a similar initiative when they wanted to go ahead of Russia into space. They poured millions of dollars into a national education initiative that graduated thousand of scientists and engineers. The result of that initiative was that more than 20,000 small and medium scale engineering companies were formed to achieve excellence in different areas. ²

Before then, Europe was ahead of the United States in technology. Yes, good leadership takes a country to new heights.

Laudable national education initiatives do have a far-reaching result, even across geographical boundaries. America’s John F. Kennedy’s initiative that trained thousands of scientists and engineers for the space project had tremendous positive effects on micro-electronic industry around the world.  The benefit of India’s mass science education initiative transcended the Indian society. At least Nigeria benefited – science teachers from India taught in Nigerian schools.    

The Nigerian government had some education initiative in the 1960’s to the early 80’s which ensured that citizens enjoy tuition-free scholarship and free meal at colleges and universities. Today, the once beneficiaries of such initiative, having become leaders and policy makers themselves, have jettisoned that initiative and have not formulated let alone implemented anything similar. 

The real difference lies in having a purposeful and sustained good leadership that leaves enduring legacies and makes policy decisions that turnaround the fortunes of a country.

Right from the year each African country gained independence; many African leaders have left no legacy that has given their countries a competitive advantage in a competitive world.   

Though it is typical to praise the effort of the African nationalists that fought for the independence of their respective countries, it is true that most of them did not leave a legacy beyond the legacy of having independent countries.

After the colonial masters bowed out, power struggle became the preoccupation of the nationalists – the nationalist were mostly interested in who takes over power from the Europeans.

Power struggle caused instability in the polities of African countries where it existed, prompting military intervention and takeover of power in each case.

The military, on their own part, were very much ill-equipped to handle the task of political governance, as it is outside their constitutional responsibility, and more importantly, training. In the hands of their militaries African countries fared worse.

After much effort, the military succumbed to pressure from outside and within and stepped down. Though the military relinquished power, traces of military rule were still evident in the political lives of the people. In some African countries, the military were in power for decades, so military politics engulfed their national lives. And because the military way of doing things got deep into our political life, we still see it manifest in our democratic setting.

In Africa, we have a common leadership culture – the culture of not using a country’s resources to create enduring legacies. I remember, though during the military era, that the oil boom of the 1970’s brought so much money to Nigeria. But some of the money was poured into organizing Festival of Arts and Culture (FESTAC) in 1977, so that we can boast that we hosted different countries in a cultural fiesta, spent so much money, and therefore we are the giant of Africa. A country is not a giant because it so claims; it is a giant because it has a system of things where every thing seems to work at its best.

Had the money spent on organizing FESTAC 1977 been used in a national project of investment in education or infrastructure, the legacy would have been there for us all to see today.

Good leadership avoids economic waste; ensures judicious use of resources that has lasting benefits to the people.                       

Threats to Good Leadership/Governance

Resource persons for leadership manpower training argue that dearth of leadership manpower accounts for poor leadership in Africa. And for the inaction of political leaders, “lack of political will” is usually mentioned as the reason. But leadership failure is not always due to absence of leadership capacity, neither does inaction arise in itself. One thing that causes them is: conflict of interest.     

Conflict of interest arises from consideration of self-interest, tribal and ethnic interest vis-à-vis national interest, even as a public office holder. Where a person charged with governance tilts towards self-interest or tribal and ethnic interest, he is on his way to recording poor leadership.

Self-interest conflict is two fold: acquisition of money and other material gains and to maintain relevance in the ability to exercise control or significant influence in the polity or scheme of things, even after leaving power. Even when most African leaders unjustly satisfy the former from state resources, their preoccupation turns to the latter.

Conflict of self-interest of acquisition of money and other material gains with national interest accounts for the diversion and embezzlement of public funds earmarked for infrastructure and human development programmes. The subtle existence of conflict of interest in previous policy formulation and implementation had made citizens not trust their leaders, hence the continuous clarion call for sincerely of purpose of African leaders from their citizens.    

        

Reference:

¹A passage from Barack Obama’s speech entitled: “HOPE TO FULFIL”, delivered in Washington DC on April 12, 2005, published in the book “Barack Obama’s Great Speeches, a primer by David Olive. Beuland Publications, Benin City, Nigeria. P. 110

² Extract from an interview with Ahmed Rufai of the Nigeria Communications Satellite 1, published in The Nigerian Tribune Newspaper, Wednesday, August 13, 2008. P. 36

AN APPEAL:

If you found the content of this blog valuable, please support the development and maintenance of a website, where many subject-matters would be discussed in categories. Please contact me on: +234 7052802574 or at senaipia@gmail.com. No donation is too small!