16 Jun 2009 |
|
“Before Péron, I was poor and I was nobody; now I am only poor.” This was how a labor leader attested to the dignity and political awareness that followers of the famous Argentina’s charismatic and visionary leader, Juan Péron had when the sage was the country’s leader; especially at a period when the country was badly hit by protracted financial crisis. In spite of the precarious situation, Péron instilled sense of worth and belonging into all Argentines, an action that saw many Argentines through the harsh trying times: what a leader!
George Patton likened being a leader to “being a lady if you have to go around telling people you are one, you are not.” Leadership on the other hand, has been extensively described as the process of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task. This definition recognizes the existence of a group of people, the size of which varies from small groups to large ones. William Shakespeare in Twelfth Night gave another insight into leadership: “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” His short pithy maxim shows that good leadership depends on an interaction between personal qualities and the socio-political situation. Personal qualities include cognitive abilities, emotional attributes, and interpersonal skills. Some learning enables leaders to develop this cognitive potential. Emotional attributes such as self-confidence, tolerance for stress, and control over those characteristics that belittle leadership also stem from interplays between inheritance and environmental learning. In Plato’s The Republic of Plato, a leader is said to be analogous to being in the role of that of a captain of a ship. As the captain steers the ship via the rudder to its desired destination in a turbulent whirlwind, in the same vein does a leader leads the way to the actualization of certain set objectives in turbulent atmosphere. This description of a leader is focused on the leader-amidst-storm idea. It’s generally a Herculean task getting a broad, all-encompassing and elucidating definition of the multi-faceted leader and leadership. The popular attempts so far were based on the prevailing principles of the era. The earliest recognized era described leadership in terms of qualities generally expected of a good leader vis-à-vis intelligence, initiative, vitality, popularity and acceptability, confidence, etc. The shortcomings of this era included the immeasurable nature of the parameters coupled with hard evaluation, difficult validation and their being almost impossible to change thus creating more challenge to the second era, the human relations era. The human relations’ school of thought on leadership adopted style as the means of understanding leadership and leaders. The question raised was “how much direction should a leader give to the subordinates?” Several types of style were discovered ranging from the do-as-I-say autocratic leader to my-hands-are-off Laissez-faire leader who gives the subordinates free hands and more responsibilities while acting, in most cases, as a consultant. The favored leadership style for the era was the ‘democratic style’ which technically, is midway in between autocracy and Laissez- faire. The democratic style of leadership puts into consideration the wishes and suggestions of the disciples coupled with those of the leader(s). In this style, everyone is an important part whose contributions are relevant in decision-making. Members’ participation is sought, encouraged and committed to the formulation of qualitative actions. Leadership is not static but very dynamic; highly dependent on the type of system, especially in public leadership like governments hence the type of system also defines the leadership and the leader. This classification broadly categorizes leaders into the traditional, legalistic, entrepreneurial, technocratic, and the preferred and highly revered charismatic leader. Charismatic leaders are noted for their power to inspire and direct their followers, more like a positive hypnosis induction. Their message is clear, congruent and comprehensive: Change. Sounds familiar? They seek and embody fundamental transformations of society and government especially when the entire community is engulfed in myriads of ills like catastrophes, wars, outbreaks, disasters, unrests, conquests, hullabaloos, pandemonium, economic depression and melt down, to mention but a few. The charismatic leader has followers that are not just committed to the cause, but also gain higher self-esteem, empowerment, and that see themselves as indispensable parts of the struggle. The charismatic leader remains in the hearts of followers long after exit. They are reputable for their impeccable wealth of knowledge and commitment to the cause using good means with unique features that distinguish them as the leaders of choice. A charismatic leader embodies shared values, responds to the interpersonal needs of group identity and social solidarity, dominates movements for social change, helps citizens perceive the reasons for active participation in movements to change the polity, skilled at effective and persuasive speaking or writing (rhetoric) to communicate ideologies that will serve as blueprint, and above all, provides (or restores) and strengthens the self-esteem, personal efficacy and hope to the followers. The world has produced many individuals with the features described above. They were the mouthpieces and trail blazers in leading the way to change. They were born like other men but stood out in their chosen field: leadership. They include Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, George Washington, King Henry, Mahatma Gandhi, Juan Péron and several others that were instrumental at various phases of life. Africa has also produced such leaders that made impeccable contributions to the advancement of the cause they believed in: a free society where all and sundry has equal access to state resources. African foremost leaders include: Nelson Mandela; Algerian foremost resistance leader, Abd El-Kader; Adegoke Oduola Akande Adelabu; Zaire’s Adoula Cyrille; Cameroonian statesman and first president of the Independent Republic, El Hadj Ahmadon Ahidjo; Chief Samuel Ladoke Akintola; Alh Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa; Tanzania’s Benjamin Seti; Guinea-Bissau’s Cabral Amilcar; King Chaka of the Zulu empire; Lt. Col. Adekunle Fajuyi; South Africa’s Ruth First; Oladele Giwa; Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta; Herbert Samuel Heelas Macaulay; Dr. Kwame Francis Nwiakofis Nkrumah; the legendary Ransome-Kutis, West African Students’ Union’s (WASU) Ladipo Solanke; Guinea’s Ahmed Sékou Touré. This anemic list would be worthless without mentioning the best Nigerian trio of all time- Nnamdi Azikwe, Ahmadu Bello and Chief Jeremiah Oyeniyi Obafemi Awolowo (b. Ikenne, Nigeria, 6th March, 1909, d. 8th May, 1987), the protagonist of Awoism. Adebayo Adejuwon defined Awoism as “a political philosophy that recognizes man as the focus of all socio-economic activity using the platform of democratic socialism to the creation of an environment of equitable access to the resources of production with the state as an arbiter thus creating common and commensurate equity.” In the words of Prof. Dipo Kolawole in his lecture entitled Awoism: rekindling the fortunes of Nigeria and the destiny of Yoruba, “Awoism in ideological interpretation is anchored on welfarism. Welfarism is only attainable through good governance and good governance creates the avenue for self-fulfillment.” He went further: “essential Awoism lies in the capacity to reinvent the engine of the attributes of Chief Obafemi Awolowo.” What then are the “attributes” of Chief Obafemi Awolowo and how can they influence contemporary leadership in Nigeria? Let’s first look at the various attributes of Chief Awolowo. Pa Awolowo was an advocate of change. He saw discrepancies in the status quo and mobilized massively against such. He was seen as the frontline advocate of democratic socialism and an astute champion of welfarism which sees government as a midwife that ensures that resources of production (land, capital, labor and entrepreneur) are adequately and timely rewarded; he was a strong believer and advocate of true federalism which he proclaimed, advocated, debated, documented and personified. As a respected gentleman and high chief, he lived a sacrificial life as the leader of the people and government. He was a peace broker that prevented hostilities among individuals, families and tribes. He was a legendary icon who associated with every meaningful cause while ensuring the welfare of the people. For instance, he was an activist for both National Union of Transporters and Herbert Macaulay-led Nigerian Youth Movement. He was the protagonist whose quintessence as an exemplary charismatic leader endeared friends and foes to him. He actively advocated equal rights for all, through which he raised more followers that developed interest and passion for his unique brand of leadership- one based on principles that were ideological, and methods that were practical, absence of which, he said, “defects their own ends easily.” He was an orator that never minced words in promoting his ideologies and was seen by many as a prophet, relevant to the issues of the future like his famous 1983 Eko Hotels declaration that “Nigeria may not know democracy again.” He understood the Nigerian nation, its situation and conundrum, and proposed ways out of the imminent dungeon; these were extensively discussed in his various publications. From 1951 when the Awolowo phenomenon dawned on Nigeria till the sunset of 8th May, 1987, he presented an ever bold, daring and courageous style of leadership whose luster is lacking in the present Nigerian nation and leaders. He tutored and mentored many students that embraced Awoism. These students, like their role model, led and had things to show for their leadership. One of such is the late Bola Ige (SAN) who also made welfarism and equity as the center of his administration, 2 vital ideologies of Awoism. Contemporary leadership in this context refers to the present leadership at different levels. In Chief Awolowo’s time, there were no major anti-graft agencies like we now have because dishonesty has not undergone metastasis, eating deep into the system of the leaders as it is now. Chief Awolowo was a leader whose transparency, honesty and commitment to the nation were never in doubt. He and his government were not associated with corruption and mishandling of public resources unlike the present Nigerian leaders who are greatly marred with dishonesty which had held back Nigeria’s development. Leadership, in contemporary Nigeria, is a means to personal aggrandizement and a kitchen where the tasty national cake is shared. Pa Awolowo never allowed personal motives to influence allocation of state resources. Instead, such decisions were based on need and the number of people such state resources and facilities would serve, both at present, and in the future. This could not be said of most contemporary Nigerian leaders who favor places where they get more supports from, and their home towns irrespective of the relatively few number of people that such expensive facilities would serve. Pa Awolowo was from Ikenne in Ogun state, he could have sited structures like the University College Hospital, universities, Cocoa house, Liberty stadium, WNBS and WNTV among other public structures constructed under him in his home town as in practice nowadays. Most Nigerian leaders don’t embark on projects to serve the general public but a particular set of people with the hope that they will have their support at the next polls. Another feature of Awoism is opposition confrontation. Confronting opposition entails facing up to and dealing with antagonism (active hostility) which comes by in situations where there are conflicting opinions that may sometimes result in enmity. Present Nigerian leadership does not know the effective methods of opposition confrontation as in Awoism. Most resort to wrong means like life and personality assassinations; they use all means, including state resources to severely punish the opposition neglecting the best method of confronting opposition which in the words of Pa Awolowo is to be “strong, courageous, resourceful and self-confident… never afraid of rivals or competitions.” Most contemporary Nigerian leaders are isolated from those led, they don’t receive accurate relevant information about pressing problems and when they do, they cannot effectively process such information hence they are generally incompetent and unqualified to take the same mantle of leadership once held by leaders like Pa Awolowo. Isolating self from the led is the greatest calamity that can ever befall any leader especially in a nation like Nigeria battling with a lot. The leaders of today only interact with the led only during the electoral process when they solicit for votes. Once in office, they become totally unapproachable by those they claim to lead. This is not in line with Awoism. During his time, Chief Awolowo in his signatory cap, glasses, and 2 fingers in the air, addressed rallies from time-to-time at which he got on-the-spot assessments of his leadership and policies. Talking of policies, the contemporary Nigerian leadership has policies which generate insufficient material benefits to facilitate support from citizens and the international community. With the number of special advisers at the services of the leaders, it would be expected that their policies would have brought the long eluded succor to Nigerians. The contrary, however, is the case. What obtains is a fine blend of abstract, irresolute, and undulating agenda without definite strategies for their actualization and materialization unlike Chief Awolowo’s voiced plausible explanations for social dislocation, clarified priorities for political action, and specified effective strategies for goal attainment; he removed the now evident gap between transformative objectives and actual policy achievements. Awoism preaches a moral-spiritual-ideological message of sacrifice for ultimate causes like equality, dignity, justice and free freedom. His actions were for the interest of all. In the present regime however, personal motives come before state responsibilities. It is fast becoming a regular site for people’s representatives to fight over furniture, seating, Christmas and Sallah allowances while pushing to the background that which brought them to office. Nobody wants to serve without first serving his or her pockets, what a big shame! Awoism stands for good set goals, values and integrity in leadership. It was what prompted Chief Awolowo to quit General Gowon’s government in 1971 because he was disappointed in his hopes for an early return to civilian rule. This is an unpopular act in contemporary Nigerian leadership where those in authorities holds tightly to the reins of leadership, even when they are inactive or such post is marred with public outcries for resignations. Its worth pondering on, the number of public officers that resigned their appointments because of public distrust in their personality, conduct, efficiency and credibility. The contemporary Nigerian leader only needs the public to get to a position; he does not need them or their opinion to remain in office. Chief Awolowo left an imprint and a legacy- Awoism: a political philosophy that if objectively harnessed, may be the much sort panacea to the plethora of problems that has plagued Nigeria. It can serve as the guiding principle to the present Nigerian leaders who are in dire need of new ideas to tackle the seeming innumerable and insurmountable problems of Nigeria. There’s need to study how Chief Awolowo’s regime stood out in the midst of problems associated with post-independence: political unrests, internal and external conflicts, and paucity of funds. Awoism can show our leaders how to set priorities right. With money from the Western region’s agriculture, especially cocoa, Awolowo gave us monuments that with our oil money, we cannot match, or surpass. Our contemporary leaders, according to Babatunde Raji Fashola (Lagos state governor), cannot match Chief Awolowo, he said in an interview “I feel particularly diminished as a person in 2008 that 50 years after Chief Awolowo built WNBC, WNTS, the Liberty Stadium, the tallest building in West Africa, University College Hospital, etc, we are celebrating the construction of roads in Nigeria.” Awoism exemplifies purposeful leadership that does not need millions of public Naira to proclaim. Chief Awolowo personified a leader whose vision is to create an all-round ideal society using judicious utilization of available public resources while living a personal lifestyle that still serves as role model to millions around the world. His objectives and policies did not hide under any form of complexity and ambiguity but simple, plain and easy-to-comprehend. He made all citizens equal in their access to public resources. Public office holders, in Awoism, should use their positions to better the lots of those they are meant to lead and not as a means of oppressing their enemies and political foes. Chief Awolowo‘s brand of leadership is a rather strange one- strange in the sense that it is based on selfless, rather than self service. Awoism enthrones confidence, accountability, and purposeful policies per problem. There is urgent need for true Awoists to arise from slumber and show how Chief Awolowo did it in his time. Current leaders should embrace long lasting memories of their exploits by unborn generations as the yardstick for their success and not billboards, posters, buildings and street-naming, all that could be wiped out by Hurricane Posterity. Contemporary Nigerian leaders, according to Benjamin Franklin, should remember “never leave till tomorrow what could be done today; knowing is better than wondering; waking is better than sleeping; and the biggest failure, even the worst intractable mistakes, is a hell better than never trying.” The impact his leadership had on the country was strongly felt by neonates like me. This impact raised some “foods for thought”: How many contemporary leaders will be fondly remembered years after vacating office? How many with several awards have been awarded the hearts of the led? How many of our immediate past leaders do we look back at their tenures and wished we allowed them to stay longer in office? How many present leaders do not engage the media in publicizing their unpopular government? And above all, how many can we refer to, like Dim Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu described Chief Awolowo, as “the best president Nigeria never had”? None, yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.