Leadership – Time We Reasoned Outside the Box (Part 1)

But, which begets which…? Is it a good leader that guarantees a better society or is it a good society that produces a better leader? This, yet again, is the philosophical egg and the chicken. For as long as I can remember, the notion that our underdevelopment is mainly linked to bad leadership has remained with us. The proponents do rightly have valid points, on the surface. We, however, seem to have wisely surrendered the miraculous chance of getting good leadership to God. We have been endowed so well and therefore, do not need to call on God to avoid natural calamities like earthquakes and hurricanes; we, nevertheless, besiege Him to provide us good leaders. No matter what is suggested through some serious reasoning, the Nigerian will always manoeuvre you back to the concept of lack of good leadership. Hardly can you meet a Nigerian that can “think outside this box.”

It is pathetic. It seems an exhibition of mental laziness by majority of Nigerians irrespective of their station in life to remain inside the box. However, it sooths our psyche as it absolves us of our individual shortcomings and social responsibilities. Besides, the concept allows us to go to bed happy. We continue to pray that God takes over soon. Though essential, leadership does not seem the fundamental issue of why things are not working properly. It cannot be, because leadership is a product of the society and not the other way around. If leadership were deep-seated, as many Nigerians make it to be, we ought to have solved our developmental problems by now. We had, in our relatively short history, terminated our leadership (those thought to be bad) by all the means possible. We had done this through coups; democratic means, flawed or not; and one of them even died naturally on the job: yet, the aftermaths have always been same.

During a recent discussion, with friends, I tried to advance a reasoning that maybe our underdevelopment is as a result of the stage of our mental evolution and not necessarily because of lack of good leadership. Almost all of my friends argued “within the box,” yet again. Even those that seemed to see with some of the points I raised still hinged whatever success on some sort of leadership. I am beginning to think that we have trapped ourselves inside a cocoon. ‘Wait a minute,’ I said severally to hone in my points, ‘We are not talking about a foreigner here, but a leader chosen or selected from amongst us. He or she could not have evolved much mentally than the rest of us – you and I. ’ He is merely a mirror image of us that happens to be the leader. In a herd of cattle or sheep for instance, the leader of the flock still remains basically a cow or sheep and could not have been at a stage in evolution that is higher than the rest that it leads.

It is a discussion, which I have never won – not because of lack logic in my argument but because of the number of opposition. Nobody is ready; it seems, to reason outside the box. As I have stated above, we have always thought that our leaders are the roots of our underdevelopment and had often times cut the roots, but nothing changes. When you cut a root, you stop the growth, but this has not been the case with us. Leadership, therefore, cannot be the root of our problems -QED. Leadership is merely a stem that when cut will leaf again producing the same leaves, if the root which in this case is the society, remains the same. Don’t get me wrong; a leader is very essential as it is he who forges a path for the rest to follow, but the vision belongs to the people; so much that when the leadership changes, the vision remains. Continuing with the same analogy, it’s the stem that is visible and it’s it that weathers the storm. The roots are often times silent and hidden, but salient.

My group (my friends and I) decided to identify the number of the high echelon of leadership that currently rule Nigeria . We came to a conclusion that they cannot be more than 5000 in a population of over 150 million people. That speaks a volume. Let us suppose that truly these 5000 Nigerians are the problem, in which case the rest of the over 150 million Nigerians cannot be anything but pathologically stupid - period. In my entire encounter with this sort of reasoning, all sorts of excuses have been advanced for our sorry situation – the man carrying a gun, tribalism, nepotism, cabalism, illiteracy, etc. There are other numerous examples given also of other leaders in other lands that have marshalled their people to greater heights. From Jerry Rawlings, near us, to leaders in far away lands, they have been cited as exemplary. Nobody, however, considered the dispositions of the people in those lands that the wiz kid leaders led. This is not an apology for the mentally retarded leaderships.

But what is the mental orientation of these other people, in communal living, that allowed their leaders to forge a path of progress? We could if we can, step out of the box for a minute and reason differently. Let’s try a weird academic supposition that assumes that the temperament of our leader is not the problem, for a change. In which case, the level of the people’s mental orientation is. What new dimension would that bring to the Nigerian situation and how do we go about solving it? In this exercise, the leader’s every effort is frustrated by the people because they do not share his vision. They believe everybody should go his own way. They share common things, but they rather the common things rot away. He tries to rally everybody to a common cause but they repeatedly want to go their various ways. They threaten to remove him if he does not allow them to do their things their different ways. To survive, he joins them and starts compromising with the strongest amongst his people, thereby short changing many. Before long, chaos and general disorganisation set in and quality of life is poorer for all.

Our mental capacity expands as we evolve, either naturally or through education of some sort. Our education can be formal or through public education. This is an exercise, so don’t get worked up yet. In a monarchical community, for example, leadership is often tutored formally from childhood about its role because of the certainty of ascendancy sometime in future to the position of leadership. However, in a democracy, public education is a better option because anybody amongst the people can ascend to the position of leadership within the community, at least theoretically. It is not that we have not established leadership institutions, like the one in Kuru where Ribadu presently is, but no sooner do they graduate from these leadership schools that we retire them from public service. In a democracy where ascendancy to the leadership role is not limited to the graduates of these leadership institutions, public education seems a better option.

My argument presently advances the enhancement of leadership role, but I still strongly believe that the followers in Nigeria are the main problem. It’s a no-go area and my line of thinking is not popular, but can be tolerated if one dares venture to reason outside the box. We have boxed ourselves into this situation and logic refutes our every thinking. I have tried to compare the dispositions of people in civilised societies with ours. For a start, let’s imagine what a bad leader in a civilised or developed society can get away with and for how long – very few and not for long I suppose. It’s usually the society that prevents bad leadership from having its way in those societies. I have often imagined how leaders in other lands wished they were the ones ruling Nigeria . They must be jealous of our home-grown leaders - where, if they wish, they could get away with murder. We saw the Orange Revolution in Ukraine the other day and some of us must have felt that our society has not evolved to that level.

Public education is mainly what takes place in the Nigerian Village Square or other media. In public education, everybody is simply a teacher as well as a student. We are all in a learning curve here. Since we cannot send everybody back to school, public education remains a viable option. Only this time, the virtue of common interest will be the subject, that is, if enough people are convinced that it is the right way to go. Experience, they say, is the best teacher. Sometimes I wonder what has happened to us (living a life of low quality) should be put down to experience and move on. It is very clear now that individualism in a community does not give good roads, good health deliveries, running taps, sustained development, good government, etc. If people are made to see the advantages of first class life only being affordable and possible for the majority when our common interests like electricity, roads, rail, schools, hospitals, government, etc, are the best, they could buy the concept.

Thereafter, it will become our vision and with that kind of vision we will not perish. Picking a leader, who has imbibed the virtue of common interest being supreme, will thereafter be easy and communal development is bound to be sustained. You do remember the drummed about lack of maintenance culture – it is a lack of sense of belonging to interests that are common. Whilst I was putting final touches to this article, I needed to call and thank a friend for his family’s hospitality to my wife when she was in New Jersey last week. I had not spoken to or seen him in ten years. My wife had gone to see our son in Buffalo , Upstate New York. My friend holds dual passports – you wonder why I need to say this. Earnestly, he said, ‘I heard your latest passion is on how to fix this white elephant called Nigeria , me (himself), I’ve stopped looking in that direction. …What gives you the drive anyway, because it’s like a lost case as far as I’m concerned?’ I said, ‘Self-interest!’ ‘You must be kidding me,’ he said. ‘No, I’m not… It’s the only country that I have. …unlike you with dual nationality.’ We both laughed.

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, had said that man is driven by self-interest. It is not only individual desires that are self-interest if you think about it; it could mean interests that are common, which will benefit one also. It’s a function of how a person reasons. It is a mental orientation that has defined civilisation from Babylon till date. It has been the ingredient for communal development. It only requires advanced reasoning. So that our roads, rail, public electricity, government, city, country, etc. though common, can be reasoned as an individual self-interest because they belong to the individual also, if you get my drift. Stop Press: The two American presidential candidates, Barack Obama and McCain, were in New York last week and guess what both of them were calling for from their compatriots – increased attention to common interests by the American people. Their call is proof that excellence in public service is the right track. As for me, there were times when I felt I was sounding like a broken record. Some of us do need a lot of nervous energy to stay the course. In any case, I am back inside the box – a pity.

Samuel Akinyele Caulcrick

Lagos .

Robot  # 1 | 15.09.2008 08:06

It is a discussion, which I have never won – not...Read the full article.

aguabata  # 2 | 15.09.2008 18:07

when you implicity question the mental capacity of a people, i regard it as bending to racist propaganda, the human mental hardware (mental capacity) is the same, only the mental software could be developed or enriched, however a scoiety needs the good fortune of a few amongst them that have developed their mental software to be in leadership positions, especially when societal institutions are being built. After that phase you can afford to have george bush or even obasanjo to lead, with the robust institutions they will be shown the way if they dont curb their animalistic instincts or do you think berlusconi is not as dangerous as Atiku? we've been unfortunate that global events has given us a seemingly perfect excuse for our failings, I totally agree with people who are tired of the colonialism/neo colonialism excuse but they are facts we cant ignore so i'm sorry i cant think outside the box.

allaccess  # 3 | 15.09.2008 20:16

Thank you Samuel Akinyele Caulcrick for such a nice piece that captures the essence of the Blackman’s mentality. I am sure the first response you received should tell you that many black people will never learn, even with so much literature available on the subject. I guess you could put it down to mentality and an inability to develop leadership and progress-worthy disciplines. You see the black man cannot function without a higher being or a leader; that leader cannot come from within their pool. They must look up to a white bearded man in “heaven” called God or a Whiteman who has divine wisdom to see them through their miserable existence. It is not something that can flow from within their gene pool but must be given to them after prayers or oppression. You have said it all, our problem is not leadership but the capacity of the people to have an enabled mentality that is rich enough to produce decent leaders from its own pool. Develop the pool, you have developed the leaders.

Tempest  # 4 | 16.09.2008 03:52

There is nothing wrong in thinking outside the box. But there are issues where it has limited application. I believe that when this subject of people and government is being discussed with particular reference to Nigeria, one school of thought starts thinking about it from the middle not from the beginning. And those are the ones trying to think “outside the box”. It would be very instructive to look at the history of Nigeria from just after independence till today as a complete whole and to study the trend of behaviours between the people and the government to be able to arrive at a convincing conclusion. That was what I expected from the article. Unfortunately, I did not get that. Hence, the argument presented (in my opinion) has remained completely hypothetical. When, you look at the history of Nigeria, from independence till today, would you say that the people have always been like they are today? If not, what was responsible for the change? I do not want to start reproducing the history of Nigeria from one government to another here. We all know it. But we need to take a closer look at it and then we will see that the successive governments had consistently led the people in the wrong direction with respect to security issues, economic issues, education, justice system, ethnicity, etc. the result is the Nigerian people of today. The people have simply been driven nuts. Of course, when these same people get into government, you can be sure that their actions will become a reflection of the system. It becomes a vicious cycle. Hence, the decay and the rot. You can easily see that Obasanjo was not the same character in the two different moments that he mounted the saddle of Nigerian leadership first as a military dictator and second as a civilian president. Compare these two periods. Leadership cannot escape the blame. Some leaders know this. And they are working to reverse the trend. Take for example Gov Fashola in Lagos state. The last time, I was there, and I saw the BRT buses lane and observed that NOBODY drove in that lane, I found a place and stood and looked around enough to convince myself that I was still in Lagos. What suddenly changed the behaviour of the people overnight? The answer is leadership. In the days of Gov duke in Cross River State, Calabar was reputed to be one of the cleanest places in the country. If you dared drop anything on the roads of Calabar then, a passer-by would ask you to pick it up. Were these people not Nigerians? Of course when they go to other parts of the country, they throw rubbish around as they like. In the words of Donald Duke “The people simply buy into government policies”. Finally, why are the Oil companies in Nigeria and all the other foreign companies doing well while all the national companies perish? Is it not Nigerians that work in these foreign companies? The people depend on the government to show them the way. Even in advanced countries, you will see in some places cleared marked out as “No Parking”, banisters are still positioned in those places to physically stop people from parking there. It tells you that people will always be the same given the same kind of leadership. A white man in Nigeria will “conform” to the Nigerian system, whereas in his home country, he is a different person. So, sorry Mr. Caulcrick, I will remain right inside the box this time!

allaccess  # 5 | 16.09.2008 13:10

=Tempest;4295098250>There is nothing wrong in thinking outside the box. But there are issues where it has limited application. I believe that when this subject of people and government is being discussed with particular reference to Nigeria, one school of thought starts thinking about it from the middle not from the beginning. And those are the ones trying to think “outside the box”. It would be very instructive to look at the history of Nigeria from just after independence till today as a complete whole and to study the trend of behaviours between the people and the government to be able to arrive at a convincing conclusion. That was what I expected from the article. Unfortunately, I did not get that. Hence, the argument presented (in my opinion) has remained completely hypothetical. When, you look at the history of Nigeria, from independence till today, would you say that the people have always been like they are today? If not, what was responsible for the change? I do not want to start reproducing the history of Nigeria from one government to another here. We all know it. But we need to take a closer look at it and then we will see that the successive governments had consistently led the people in the wrong direction with respect to security issues, economic issues, education, justice system, ethnicity, etc. the result is the Nigerian people of today. The people have simply been driven nuts. Of course, when these same people get into government, you can be sure that their actions will become a reflection of the system. It becomes a vicious cycle. Hence, the decay and the rot. You can easily see that Obasanjo was not the same character in the two different moments that he mounted the saddle of Nigerian leadership first as a military dictator and second as a civilian president. Compare these two periods. Leadership cannot escape the blame. Some leaders know this. And they are working to reverse the trend. Take for example Gov Fashola in Lagos state. The last time, I was there, and I saw the BRT buses lane and observed that NOBODY drove in that lane, I found a place and stood and looked around enough to convince myself that I was still in Lagos. What suddenly changed the behaviour of the people overnight? The answer is leadership. In the days of Gov duke in Cross River State, Calabar was reputed to be one of the cleanest places in the country. If you dared drop anything on the roads of Calabar then, a passer-by would ask you to pick it up. Were these people not Nigerians? Of course when they go to other parts of the country, they throw rubbish around as they like. In the words of Donald Duke “The people simply buy into government policies”. Finally, why are the Oil companies in Nigeria and all the other foreign companies doing well while all the national companies perish? Is it not Nigerians that work in these foreign companies? The people depend on the government to show them the way. Even in advanced countries, you will see in some places cleared marked out as “No Parking”, banisters are still positioned in those places to physically stop people from parking there. It tells you that people will always be the same given the same kind of leadership. A white man in Nigeria will “conform” to the Nigerian system, whereas in his home country, he is a different person. So, sorry Mr. Caulcrick, I will remain right inside the box this time! Tempest, understanding the article and the content therein might help get you in tune with what the author is trying to get across. pay special attention to "Is it a good leader that guarantees a better society or is it a good society that produces a better leader?"

ELAWALO  # 6 | 17.09.2008 06:10

Thank You Mr Caulcrik for such an insightful piece

Tempest  # 7 | 17.09.2008 13:14

=allaccess;4295098453>Tempest, understanding the article and the content therein might help get you in tune with what the author is trying to get across. pay special attention to "Is it a good leader that guarantees a better society or is it a good society that produces a better leader?" All Access, My understanding of this article is that the publisher would like us to "think out of the box" and begin to realise that it is a good society that produces a better leader. Or am I still missing it? Putting it in context therefore, I am expected to believe that the bad leaders we have today in Nigeria have simply been churned out by the bad Nigerian society. True. But not the complete story. That was my point. First of all, I believe that "the society" can in simple terms be seen as the people inhabiting in a defined environment. If this is the case, then if one looks at the complete picture in the Nigerian situation, the successive regimes of bad leaders created the bad society we have today. And then the resultant bad soceity now begins to recyle bad leadership. In other words, even if the writer's hypothesis were to be correct, it does not completely fit into the Nigerian (and in fact the African) situation. I tried to show that the Nigerian soceity was not bad at independence, but the leaders messed it up gradually. On the other hand, in citing examples of a few good Nigerian leaders who still came out of the already bad society (contrary to the writer's position), I tried to show how a good leader can create a good society (again contrary to his position). BTW: You mentioned in your comment that black people "cannot function without a higher being or a leader". Where you talking about the black people in Africa or you included also the ones in the West? These two societies to the best of my knowledge are not the same but the black people therein tend to be the same. Why? I think it goes deeper than that.