Old Leadership, New Leadership

Leadership has become a buzz word for practitioners, bureaucrats and theorists of African development. The term variously means a process of getting work done through people. Leadership may not be science but it is committed responsibility. Africans in civil service, in business schools, in NGOs, in the mass media, in think tanks, in academia, in State Houses, in opposition political parties use leadership as a sort of reality refiner – a way of contrasting past and present, an implement for cataloging out history at a moment of African changes, the flowering of The African Century.
African leadership, being heavily over burdened and scatterbrained, is part of the Old Leadership. For the past 50 years, Africa has been sorting itself up into categories of Old Leadership and New Leadership. We see this in one of Africa’s foremost leaders, Kwame Nkrumah. Prof. A.K.P. Kludze, former Justice of Ghana’s Supreme Court, observes that although President Kwame Nkrumah was a freedom fighter and committed Pan-Africanist, he later succumbed to the Big Man syndrome, turned Ghana into a one-party state and became the life chairman of his ruling Conventions People’s Party and general secretary of the party’s Central Committee. It was considered treason to challenge him. Nobody could stand as a candidate unless his candidature was approved by the General Secretary of the party (read-himself).

The 1960s to the 1990s have become a transforming boundary between one age and another, between a format of things that has crumbled and another that is taking shape. A millennium has come, a celestial divide. Kwame Nkrumah’s era of autocracy of the 20th century is dead; the 21st is a kernel, revealed in continental giant Nigeria’s Goodluck Jonathan. New Leadership-Old Leadership makes a match of lists: what’s in, what’s out in the African experiences. More imperative, it is a way of considering what works (New Leadership) and what doesn’t work anymore (Old Leadership).

The horrible Central African Republic’s Jean-Bedel Bokassa was the Old Leadership. The New Leadership is what we are seeking for – Liberia’s Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson. One-party system and military juntas are Old Leadership. African communism as seen in Ethiopia’s Menghistu Haile Mariam is Old Leadership. Big one-party systems, military juntas and Jerry Rawlings’ emotionally charged aggressiveness style are dead. Democracy brewed from within African experiences is becoming more and more alive as a development fertilizer. Botswana is one example; Mauritius is another.

With over 45 years in Ghana’s and Africa’s turbulent politics, ex-president John Kofi Kufour is more than qualified to examine Africa’s leadership from very close range. His analysis: “Leadership is key to unravelling the problems of Africa. With the right leadership, good policies would be enacted that will create the right condition for economic growth, respect of the rule of law and the conducive atmosphere for business to thrive,” observed Kufour. Kufour said this in South Africa during the launch of “Why Africa is Poor and What Africans can do about it,” written by Greg Mills, Executive Director of the Brenthurst Foundation of the Oppenheimer and Son Group.

Kufour diagnosed the awful Old Leadership this way: “Africa’s problem was that people assumed leadership positions without being adequately prepared for it and they lacked the vision and drive to pursue policies to the benefit of their people … Studies of individual historic leaders exemplified in the likes of Biblical Moses, among others, would show conclusively that each one of them had come through relevant experiences to be imbued with epochal visions of great and abiding development of their nations … The time when people just jumped into leadership positions should be by-gone. Budding leaders must bide their time and go through the apprenticeship exposures and institutions to better prepare them to assume the rightful role expected of them.”

Old Leaderships: Mobutu Sese Seku, military juntas, one-party and communist systems, Sekou Toure, Mamadou Tandja, the Big Man syndrome, tough talk, imperially threatening attitude (Yaya Jemmeh), arrogance (Idi Amin), centralized bureaucracy and Big government, the leader as a massive juju-marabou dabbler (Samuel Doe), the leader mired in extreme superstitious believes (Marcias Francoise Nguema), the leader under the control of warped spiritualists (Sani Abacha and Bokassa), refurbished ancient paternalism (Siaka Stevens), dictatorship, “God has destined me to be leader” (Jerry Rawlings), heavy cultural inhibitions (all Africa), charisma, tribalistic blood-feud payback, primordial corporate loyalties, Guinea Bissau, and Gen. Ibrahim Babangida (the military politician as the face of the unrepentant African traditional autocracy).

New African Leadership: Humility. God fearing. Deep decentralization so much so that decision-making is pushed down as much as possible to the people affected. Truthfulness. High sense of African history and traditions. Traditional consensus building mixed with modern leadership practices. John Kufour. Evans Atta Mills, Nana Akufo Addo, Ian Khama. Balances. Democratic tenets, human rights, freedoms, social justice, the rule of law. Goodluck Jonathan, Ernest Koroma, Jakaya Kikwete. The African Union, the Economic Community of West African States. Television news network, participatory communication, information, facebook, fax machines, tweeter, myspace and other new media. David Mark (the Nigerian soldier greatly democratized). The new Liberia. Pluralism. The new Sierra Leone. Kwasi Pratt Jr. Botswana.

In the African context, Old Leadership is a mixed bag. New Leadership isn’t necessarily the best. There are sham democracies and leaderships – The Gambia and Yaya Jammeh. The New Leadership is an on-going project that needs a lot of socio-political engineering constructed from within Africa’s traditional values, but better than Old Leadership. New Leadership is about output instead of input. The assessment of the New Leadership is what works. It Africanizes Botswana’s leadership skills, the capability to mix the traditional with the modern so as to refine any inhibitions within the traditional.

Old Leadership and New Leadership are often intermingled. Jerry Rawlings and Jacob Zuma as awkward, stalled in stupidity, complete dumbness, are Old Leadership. Foolhardiness is New Leadership, as seen in Central African Republic’s Francois Bozize and the entire leadership of Guinea Bissau, can be different style – small-minded, dishonorable, blank, and uninformed of Africa’s painful past of agony and sadness. New media, the medium of the New Leadership, has an overwhelming addiction to the mediocre that it constantly wrestles with. The New Leadership is a distraction that sometimes reveals simple-mindedness.

In Emilio Mwai Kibaki’s mind, Old Leadership and New Leadership circle each other suspiciously, as Kenya struggles for better leadership and governance. Kibaki is often New Leadership in regional issues but Old Leadership in domestic affairs. Under his watch, Kenya’s 2008 general elections descended into fatal violence and saw over 1,300 people killed and over 300,000 homeless. The International Criminal Court coming into Kenya and planning to put six top Kenyans on trial saw Kibaki dashing back toward patriarchal conclusions.

Rawlings and Atta Mills? Object lessons on how Old Leadership and New Leadership clash with each other. Dictatorial Rawlings wants members of the opposition National Patriotic Party arbitrarily arrested for suspicion of being corrupt. With enormous pressure from Rawlings, Mills reveals how fragile the New Leadership could be, how it could be menaced by Old Leadership. Rawlings sticking to Old Leadership despite the fact that its time is gone has become a dilemma for Mills. The trouble is there is no New Leadership for Rawlings to migrate to. Maybe never.

Either in the analysis of Kufour’s African leadership impasse or Botswana’s and Mauritius’s ability to mix modern leadership practices with their traditional ones that has paid off remarkably, the Ghanaian Joseph William Addai argues in Reforming Leadership in Africa that transformations in African leadership, as a way of improving the quality of governance, should start from African traditional values and then mixed with global governance practices. This means African leaders should have a high sense of African traditional leadership values in relation to global governance ideals.

In this sense, Africa’s leadership struggles are rationalized from within Africa’s soul. It is a new intellectual construct to make things work. A way of thinking about change. For long, Africans have taken their leadership for granted seeing the likes of Bokassa, Doe, and Amin mount power and destroy their countries. The New Leadership is above all struggling toward a working model for the progress mechanisms of The African Century.

Short of this, there will be huge imbalances in the quality of leadership and governance, and this will impact negatively on Africa’s progress. Kenya’s and Nigeria’s struggles for better governance practices, as progress act, seen in their attempts to reform their constitutions, illustrates Africa’s tussles to grapple with its leadership challenges.

Fifty years after freedom from colonial rule, Africa is largely still Old Leadership. But as the flowering of The African Century reveals, Africa’s brilliance would be how it renew itself, how it improvise itself, technically how it quickly grow New Leadership as a replacer of Old Leadership, as part of its transformative endowment. This means New Leadership should be the overarching idea, the signature of The African Century.

Share

TASK BEFORE A JONATHAN PRESIDENCY

 As Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan is inaugurated on the 29th of May 2011, for a fresh tenure of office, it may not be presumptuous to declare that the task ahead of him is an onerous one. Starting with the pre-election politics and even the elections that brought him in as President, the cumulative events that produced him as Nigeria’s President brought out the entrenched cleavages and fissures that have held down the progress and development of the most populous black nation on earth. And this is where President Jonathan has his job cut out for him. He has to make concerted efforts to heal the wounds and unite a divided nation. The poignant lessons of the election results that declared him as President, shows that Nigeria is still very much divided along the primordial sentiment of religion and ethnicity. With the south voting overwhelmingly for him and the north voting overwhelmingly for his closest rival Muhammadu Buhari. Hence his actions in the next 4 years should be geared at making his mandate a Pan Nigerian mandate.

The general high rate of insecurity in the country characterized by sporadic bomb blasts across the country, kidnapping and armed robbery in the south, violent ethno –religious conflicts in the north and the recently unresolved cold blooded murder of 10 youth corps service members who were unjustly killed during the presidential elections should also engage his utmost attention. He must resolve to do everything his powers to solve these problems.

The rabid and massive unemployment particularly among young school leavers should also constitute a major fulcrum of his agenda for Nigeria in the next 4years. The imperatives of providing jobs for every willing Nigeria who is able to work cannot be underemphasized as the country is currently sitting on a “keg of gunpowder” with the high rate of unemployment and it shouldn’t be surprising if the doomsday prognostications of experts of an imminent demographic disaster implosion is not going to start before the end of his tenure.

The epileptic power supply in Nigeria, which has constituted serious embarrassments to all and sundry making the country a choice destination for all brands of power generators manufactured from all parts of the world including obscure locations should be addressed with the utmost seriousness and sense of urgency and responsibility it deserves. The President should realize that at the point we have reached with this intractable power problem in Nigeria, he may need to step on powerful toes and make out scapegoats if necessary. He also needs to realize that he needs a lot of political will to do what is necessary as far as the power sector in Nigeria is concerned.

The incoming administration of President Jonathan, should also take a holistic look and assessment of the three vital sectors of Agriculture, Education and Health of the Nigerian economy. He may want to know why these sectors and particularly their supervising ministries have turned into a cesspool of graft, massive corruption, nepotism, indolence, mediocrity and ineptitude. He should also be interested on why these important service ministries have nothing or little to show in terms of measurable service delivery in spite of the quantum of resources that have been sunk into them over the years. The President may need to enact a “broom revolution” so to speak in order to sweep out all the corrupt elements and tendencies that have made these ministries large “empires” and “dynasties” of corruption and nepotism. Even if the President is constrained in appointing technocrats into his cabinet, he should at least see to it that these 3 ministries are over seen by tested technocrats in the mould of the Oby Ezekwesili’s, Nuhu Ribadu’s Okonjo Iweala’s Pat Utomi’s El Rufai’s Lamido Sanusi’s and so on.

A Jonathan Presidency should also begin to set in motion modalities for the practice of true federalism in Nigeria, starting with fiscal federalism as the present unwieldy structure of the country continues to threaten good governance and cannot be sustainable in the long run.

In conclusion, it is hoped that President Jonathan availed himself the opportunity the ambience the Obudu Cattle Ranch in Calabar provided during his retreat, to read valuable books on the History of Nigeria. As a firm grasp of the history of Nigeria will help him navigate the intricate web of complexities that is associated with governing Nigeria, in the next 4years.

Share

Election Tension in Nigeria

ELECTIONS are periodic democratic exercises that lead to the change of government in a robust competitive and transparent manner. But elections in Nigeria since in the 1960s, have been reduced to violent clashes either between or among political opponents, rival political groups and some times between communities. Many lives have been lost without justice done to redress.

Barely few weeks to general elections, instead of political parties strategizing on the best methods of outwitting their opponents in the race; they are beating the drums of war. They are singing the swansong of disunity. Everywhere you turn in the country, there is tension and unspoken fear in the faces of the citizenry. Political rallies have been reduced to battle grounds between supporters of politicians. Rival political groups have made it so difficult for other political parties to campaign smoothly in their area of control, using all means, including state apparatus to bar them. From the city of   Port-Harcourt to Jos; from Niger state to Akwa-Ibom  state; the death-tolls from political rallies are increasing in geometrical progression. What we are seeing in the body polity today, are they different from events that led to Western riot in the then Western Nigeria, that was dubbed “Operation wild wild west” , consequent upon was the Nigerian civil war that lasted between 1967-1970?

It all began with verbal war on the pages of newspapers, and it has graduated to arson and the exchange of bullets in rallies. The effect has been death and destruction and creating cloud of fear among the population who are to vote. Which kind of signal are they sending to the electorates? The various political parties in the country do not care what happens to those whose votes they seek. For instance, presidential campaign rallies of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has recorded not less than 20 deaths since the ban on political campaign has been lifted. The gory recorded in Gen. Buhari (Rtd) Jos campaign rally; few days back still remain fresh. The story has not been different for others especially Governorship aspirants. We do not know where it would happen next! Are these signs of good days ahead?

Many challenges are responsible for these anomalies in the body polity of Nigeria. First, while the entrenched political class in Nigeria is after what they will benefit from the end-game of the election, they pay less attention to serious issues that have to do with the structuring of these parties before they get ready for election. In it is suffice to say that these political parties lack internal democracy that should guide party business; hence they are being reduced to mere organizations of few party stalwarts, who hijack the whole party affairs for their self-aggrandizements. It is only in Nigeria, that one man is stronger and bigger than his political party. He and his family with his cronies are above the laws guiding the code of conduct of the party activities. If all members  of a political party receive equal treatment no matter the position one occupies, there will be discipline, and that would reflect in the way and manner the party affairs are to be conducted and vice versa.

One other challenge that gives roots to this pre-election massacre is the politics of non-tolerance. Opposition parties do not accommodate one another. In Nigeria political arena, the winner takes all, while the loser remains so for the rest of his life. Rather than pursuing an all-inclusive programmes that would cater for all political interests, the party that forms the government of the day become vindictive. Thus, nobody wants to lose an election and it ‘must be a do or die’ affair to win and be part of the government cake.

Another challenge is that of ethnicity, whether at the Federal or state level, the ethnic group one comes from can increases or decreases a candidate’s chance of winning an elective post. And over the years, despite the ‘gentleman’ arrangement in some quarters to zone both elective and ‘appointive’ posts in turns; ethnicity has been a major cause of fighting and killing of many persons before or after elections. In this case, diversity breeds destruction and death in our communities.

The strength of political opponents can only be tested on the field of different polling units on the Election Day. The test of democratic culture and party popularity rests with people’s votes.  For people to come out of their homes and cast their votes for any candidate; there must be a peaceful atmosphere that will allow for freedom of choice to participate in the process. There is urgent need for true party restructuring in a manner that would be fair to all. Meanwhile politicians must learn to shed-off the attitude of ‘winner takes all’ and be ethnic-sensitive. Nigeria is the only country we have. We must not allow it to slip into the deadly hands of civil conflict just as Cote de’Ivoire. Those who beat the drums of war and talking tough should ask Mr Gbagbo, to tell them how sweet it looks to dance in a conflict-ridden economy.

 First published in the NIGERIAN GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER, Nigeria
Share

The 2011 Polls in Nigeria and The Opposition’s Lack of Seriousness

Nigerians go to the poll in April 2011 to elect a new President

The political firmament in Nigeria looks bright, with flurry of political activities as the Nigerian people seem set for the polls once again come April 2011.

It may be recalled that the People’s Democratic Party [PDP] has been in power since the advent of civilian rule in May 29 1999. The nearly 12-year rule by the PDP under various leaderships, Olusegun Obasanjo, Umaru Yaradua and Goodluck Jonathan, presents mixed feelings to the multitude of Nigerians depending on where one stands.

However, there seems to be a general consensus among several observers of the Nigerian political scene, and that is the disenchantment with the PDP and its policies. The Political party also seems to be disenchanted with itself as most people fear the party that prides itself as the largest political party in Africa seems set to self implode. The reasons for these may be deduced from the bitter and acrimonious presidential and gubernatorial primaries the party went through recently. Aside from these, other sundry reasons which find roots in the way the party was formed and run since its inception place it in a very precarious situation as it approaches the forthcoming elections.

As for the opposition political parties in Nigeria, two political parties stand out from the pack and they are the only political parties which could give the ruling party a run for its money. They are the Action Congress of Nigeria [ACN] and the Congress for Progressive Change [CPC]. However, what the reality on the ground posits for these two political parties is that unless they form a strategic alliance, it may be difficult for them to wrestle power from the ruling PDP party. This reason for this assertion is attributed to the sectional spread of these two political parties. Hence real politics suggests that they form a workable coalition to battle the PDP. Unfortunately, however, the leadership of these political parties has been so far unable to solve this political arithmetic of forging a sustainable alliance.

Time is running out as the opposition political parties continue to look clueless while the ruling party has hit the campaign trail. Will the opposition parties be able to pull the carpet from the PDP’s feet? Only the April 2011 can tell.

Share