Phronesis: Choosing the Next Set of Leaders

November 6, 2020 | By Umar Yakubu

We need a new model. Future leaders must be people with a balanced combination of CHARACTER and COMPETENCE. All the other already tested and primordial criteria should become secondary. We must design a leadership identification, recruitment and selection/appointment model that is soundly and roundly based on meritocracy.

“It is difficult to bring people to goodness with lessons, but it is easy to do so by example.” – Seneca

Following the preventable disaster of a “leaderless” protest, which unfortunately, but predictably, turned violent, a most welcome movement transmogrified into an orgy of destruction, anarchy, and the theft of property in nearly states of Nigeria. Billions of naira of public and private property were also needlessly vandalised. The cost to the economy, which is better imagined, is still being calculated.

Considering how weak some of our systems are, the Central Bank of Nigeria may be called upon to intervene. Then our debt profile will increase. Unemployment will be further compounded. Insurance companies will fold up, and massive shocks will impact the financial system, all of which will take a longer time to level up. And this is happening when we are yet to be done with the negative – and long lasting – effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We are witnesses to how the looting process unfolded. Some stumbled their path to – or were clear-eyed in targeting – warehouses alleged to be stored with items issued by the federal government to states for the alleviation of COVID-19 pandemic-associated challenges.

Emotion-laden citizens flooded the internet with stories, pictures, videos, and unconfirmed reports of warehouses loaded with so-called relief items said to be worth billions of naira. Because of such heightened levels of visibility, public reaction was viscerally in support of the brigandage of looting. The facts, whatever these were, did not seem to matter. The billions that were said to have been diverted, we did not see. We were all lame duck. Or so it seemed.

Perhaps we can recall the saga, some months ago, pertaining to how the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs was vilified all over social media? Ours is a society steeped in thinking and believing the worse about our public officials, even when there is no evidence to support the allegations.

Let us keep aside the system’s inability to ensure the effective distribution of resources. Logistics management is truly a gap within the public sector, and a deep, reflective conversation needs to be had about this limitation. The federal government probably does not trust the state governments to buy the items. And so, it bought and delivered items for distribution itself. Moreover, from some of the states that thought it worthy to offer a response to the flurry of charges against them, many confirmed that they indeed delayed distribution of what they did not procure. It was heart-breaking.

Leaders should be elected/selected based on their adjudged experiences in previous positions; where they must be shown to have exhibited visible and measurable capacity for poverty eradication, employment generation, research, economic growth, and other developmental issues.

This is indeed a new low for governance at the state and local government levels. Many have argued that fiscal federalism is the solution. But if we look around, I doubt if there are up to three economically viable and independent states. Majority of the states are largely reliant on Abuja – where they go to share monies at the end of each month – for sustenance. One glitch, and they are unable to meet their salary obligations to public sector workers. It is that bad.

Nevertheless, before we can institute and practice fiscal federalism, or initiate any constitutional change to alter our system and style of governance, we must work towards using what we have to bring out the individual’s best. Governor Zulum of Borno is a practical example. But one or two out of thirty-six is a poor mark, and not sufficient for the country’s quest to attain its full potential.

Unfortunately, the current political system makes it difficult for the right leaders to emerge. We are too “democratic”, or as they say, “too much democracy is bad for democracy”. The selection process is thus “too democratic” and exhaustively expensive. It is too democratic in the sense that it is customarily popularity-based and being popular is cash-driven. Here we speak of heavy cash, often and largely creamed off public coffers. Sustaining the procured “popularity” would equally require regular and sustained infusion of funds – meaning more and more public sector corruption.

There is no educational or vocational discipline in which we do not have Nigerians who have excelled. We have tried those with brilliant academic qualifications. They did not perform. Some confused theory with reality. Others spent their tenures researching the problems. Some just stole and forgot all the intellectual stuff. We have tried the religious ones. They saw the difference between leading adherents and solving problems. Personal piety, and for some anxiety, could not translate into effective governance. They temporarily forgot the scripture and ‘took their share’ to maintain themselves after public office. We have tried core politicians. Those who pretend to the promotion of good and accountable governance. They simply enhanced the already leaking and porous welfare system by taking from the public till and distributing to their families and cronies.

The youth are now angrily waiting for their turn. They forgot that most of the leaders we have today started in their 30s. Most unfortunately, many of our youth want power with zero preparation. You can bet: When they get there on the bandwagon of only being a youth, they will simply update their lifestyles with frivolities and join the mavericks. We currently have a few young governors – and they seem to be worse in several respects than the old guard.

So what do we do? We need a new model. Future leaders must be people with a balanced combination of CHARACTER and COMPETENCE. All the other already tested and primordial criteria should become secondary. We must design a leadership identification, recruitment and selection/appointment model that is soundly and roundly based on meritocracy. Leaders should be elected/selected based on their adjudged experiences in previous positions; where they must be shown to have exhibited visible and measurable capacity for poverty eradication, employment generation, research, economic growth, and other developmental issues. This is a tinge of what some of the south Asian countries have used and, continue to use in the selection/election of leaders.

Competent leadership should be measured on the basis of meeting the needs of the people, and removal should not be only during general elections or political disputes. Our parties should be strong enough to design a programme for all elected officials/appointees of government to comply with. In the Confucian model of meritocracy, a state chooses only the highest calibre of leaders. Professor Zhang Weiwei once joked that a Trump could never happen in China because leaders are very well-tested.

For example, again, Governor Zulum was well tested in different capacities before becoming governor. We can contemplate other governors who have held leadership positions in the past. And, we will understand why there is so much confusion in the land. Some have been ministers, heads of agencies, legislators, heads of private organisations. However, somehow, their past performances were not scrutinised to the degree to which we could have confidently vouched for their eligibility or not. Their previously held portfolios are always touted, but as usual, their actual (often very calamitous) performance is never stated nor tendered for public scrutiny.

We must design a scientific, meritocracy-based process through which leaders must be assessed to have been accountable, responsive, prepared, and responsible, before supporting them for higher offices. They must also have been future-oriented in their dispositions, by being innovative and creative. You cannot just serve your term/tenure and thereafter go and, look for another appointment, which has sadly become the norm in our climes. It will be helpful to include in the model, a deliberate emphasis on diversity, humility, collaboration, and humanity, as well as fairness, equity, and justice. Bigots, tribalists, sectionalists and myopic-thinking people MUST be disqualified. The openly and manifestly corrupt would not be permitted to even cross the line.

But what we have preponderantly are the corrupt and the bigots, who do not know what to do but are holding sensitive leadership positions. These types should not make it into the new dispensation.

Of course, the application of this model would have constitutional and other numerous challenges. Our selection and election processes cannot cultivate some meritocratic basis without “violating”, however slightly, aspects of the constitution. A journey of a thousand miles, they say, starts with a single step. There is no time to lose.

Umar Yakubu is with the Centre for Fiscal Transparency and Integrity Watch. Twitter @umaryakubu