Also published
in DAILY TRUST
The
persistent leadership failure in Nigeria has predictably led to the triumph of
the culture of mediocrity over the culture of excellence and efficiency in all
aspects of life in Nigeria.
In
almost everything, hardly if at all anyone expects excellence or efficiency, as
it is hardly if at all anyone cares to observe it either. Services (if any) are
scantily provided, products are poorly manufactured, works are inefficiently
done and enterprises are barely managed. Mediocrity has become too entrenched
in Nigeria’s culture to the extent that, insistence to perform efficiently
or expect excellence in everything is tantamount to naivety.
This
pervasive culture has substantially affected the attitudes of the vast majority
of Nigerians, including the educated ones. Incidentally, the majority of
Nigerians traveling to many countries struggle to adopt to the efficiently
functioning environments they find themselves in. And ironically, they are
easily fascinated more than necessary by even some relatively insignificant
forms of orderliness e.g. proper queuing up in public places.
I
feel sad (but not jealous) when I hear Nigerians expressing their excessive
fascination over an actually humble level of development of some countries e.g.
Saudi Arabia. Because, I reckon that, considering their needs, available
resources and potential, the Saudi’s level of much touted level of development
by Nigerians is not that fascinating. However, one can hardly explain it to the
satisfaction of such extremely fascinated Nigerians, because while one looks at
it through the standards of globally adopted yardsticks of human development
indices, such Nigerians simply compare it with the matchless mediocrity
obtained in Nigeria. After all, they would simply argue that, at least the
common people of such countries can afford three square meals, constant electricity,
uninterrupted running water and good roads, for example, all of which
unfortunately represent luxuries in Nigeria.
By the way, admittedly such argument is hard to refute, and the worst part of it is how Nigerians have been reduced so low to the level of seeing development within the narrow limit of some of the most basic things, which are easily taken granted elsewhere. Interestingly, I recently had to endure some opposing comments on the Facebook when I dared to downplay the achievements of the former Libyan leader Muammar Ghaddafi, because it was obvious that, my yardsticks for measuring leadership performance were actually different from the yardsticks used by the majority of the respondents.
Nevertheless,
the worst aspect of the attitudinal implication of mediocrity on the average
Nigerians, is how it has subtly conditioned them to effectively narrow the
scope of their rights as citizens, unnecessarily widen the extent of their
obligations, lower the bar of their expectations from the rulers, compromise
their standards, narrow their criteria for assessing government performance and
indeed confuse leaders’ basic obligations with their (i.e. leaders’)
prerogatives.
These
attitudes are practically reflected in (for instance) how majority of Nigerians
define their rights as Nigerian citizens, and to what extent they seem prepared
to go in order to claim it. They glorify their rulers to extent of giving the
impression that, the ridiculously little they (i.e. rulers) deliver is not
their obligation instead it is their prerogative which they can perform at
their convenience. While on the hand, the ruled unnecessarily impose upon
themselves extra obligations to (ironically) the persons of the rulers instead
of the system.
Equally,
they relegate the concept of leadership to equate it with mere routine
administrative works, which explains why the two concepts i.e. administration
and leadership are mistakenly used interchangeably, and the rulers are
evaluated on administrative standards instead of leadership standards. Alas
they fail anyway. Incidentally, leadership as opposed to mere administrative
practice is all about a vision and an innovative ability to articulate that
vision and turn it into a realistic program of work in a coherent and measured
manner. Administration on the other hand is more or less to administer the
necessary procedure and implement the leader’s policies on the ground.
Along
this line also, spiritual integrity or even religious appearance has been
equated with leadership ability, which explains why many religious people, who
have been entrusted with leadership responsibilities primarily for their
perceived religiosity, simply fail to deliver. By the way, though spiritual
integrity implies trustworthiness, which is crucial for a successful
leadership, it however does not singlehandedly qualify one to be a good leader.
In addition to it, a successful leader has to also have necessary professional
competency, attitude and personality.
Such
confusion also covers the conceptual meanings of economic growth and economic
development, which Nigerian rulers have often deliberately used interchangeably
to claim undeserved credit. Incidentally, an economy can grow but without
necessarily impacting on the real development index, which unfortunately has
been the case in Nigeria over the recent few years. This is among other things
owing to the fact that, Nigeria’s economy is helplessly subject to oil price
fluctuation in international markets. It therefore simply appreciates when oil
price goes up and depreciates accordingly, hence the rulers can’t justifiably
claim credit when it grows as such.
The
bottom line is that, once the economy is said to have grown, there should be
appropriately corresponding figures indicating how that growth has reflected on
the lives of the common people. In the absence of that however, it would be
rightly assumed that, the rulers are simply flaunting the so-called economic
growth out of excitement that their loot would also grow further.
In
the same vein, job creation has been relegated to mere job provision, even
though both are crucial in the equation of economic growth. However, job
creation is much more important than job provision simply because you have to
first of all create the vacancies by establishing viable enterprises or
expanding the existing ones with potential to add a real value to the economy
in terms of revenue rise and/or improvement in the citizens’ quality of life,
after which you go for providing the right candidates with those job (i.e. job
provision).
However, in Nigerian context where the rulers take the ruled for granted, such concepts are largely used interchangeably by the governments and their apologists, thereby claiming credit for simply “employing” people to do virtually nothing and add no value to the already depressed economy. Incidentally, Nigerian rulers’ failure to improve and expand the economy has institutionalized virtual redundancy in all public establishments throughout the country. It is pretty common to see several people doing ordinarily a one man job, yet with no appropriate productivity. Moreover, the worst manifestation of promoting the culture of redundancy is the rulers’ reckless tendency of appointing any Dick and Harry as a political appointee, many of whom also have their own government-paid staff and other expenses.
For
the sake of a simple practical comparison, Malaysia began her real journey to
excellence in 1985 and by 1995 she was a developed country by all standards.
While in Nigeria a state governor would serve out his two terms in office
struggling with just running water provision problems for instance, yet without
success. And worst of it is how such governor would easily convince his people
with some silly justifications, citing sabotage and political detractors as easy
scapegoats. And many people would simply compare his mediocrity with any worse
mediocrity available to finally conclude that he has done his best anyway.
