THE Council on Foreign Relations enjoys a well-earned reputation as a key laboratory for the cutting edge ideas that shape the strategic policy of the United States of America.
However, the CFR is not known only for its services to its home country. It is also highly regarded as a critical voice in the shaping of global policy. Without a doubt, CFR is one of the premier global think tanks that set the agenda for the global conversation, and has for many decades played a vital role in enlightening the world on the intricate dynamics of international relations. Once again, I thank you for inviting me.
I have been asked to speak on the subject of ‘Leadership in Developing Democracies’, with the rider “A Nigerian Perspective’.
Tambuwal
I want to believe this rider to mean that in addressing this topic, I am expected to draw illustrations from the experience of my country Nigeria, a prominent member of the developing democracies’ club. I want to emphasise that the rider does not mean that my comments here today represent the official viewpoint of the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
On ‘Democracy’ and ‘Developing Democracies’: We understand developing democracies to refer to those developing nations (mostly situated in the Southern hemisphere) that practice a non-monarchical system of government where the supreme powers of the state are vested in the people but exercised on their behalf by their elected representatives.
This of course is the system of governance known simply as ‘democracy’, that system of government succinctly defined by America’s 16th President, Abraham Lincoln as “government of the people by the people and for the people”. Developing democracies may also be referred to as ‘emerging democracies.’
Developing democracies
One characteristic of developing democracies is that in these nations, the institutions of democratic governance are not yet mature, but are still evolving. Conversely, mature democracies would be those nations where the democratic governance infrastructure has evolved over a period of time.
Considering that developing democracies across the globe are all part of the group of developing nations, while the developed democracies invariably belong to the group of economically advanced nations, it becomes clear that economic circumstance is a contributory factor in the maturation process of the democracy experience. Another contributory factor is of course age.
Developing democracies are relatively new to the practice of democracy, compared to the developed democracies. And as toddlers, they are taking faltering steps. The United States of America represents a classical example of a matured democracy with a developed economy and over two centuries of practice, while my country Nigeria is a good example of a growing democracy with a struggling economy and less than 30 years cumulative experience in democracy practice.
Because of this relative young age, and their attendant susceptibility to exigencies, the practice of democracy in developing democracies such as Nigeria may still rightly be referred to as an ‘experiment’.
Earlier on, I referred to this roundtable as both timely and highly topical. It is particularly timely and topical for me because at this very moment, Nigeria, like most developing democracies, is wrestling with the complex dynamics of the democratic system of governance. Nigeria, again like most developing democracies, is discovering that the road to true democracy is a thorny road indeed.
In recent years, especially since the turn off the millennium, a growing number of developing nations have embraced democracy as the preferred system of government. These nations, most of whom had at some point in their history labored under the yoke of dictatorship, whether military or civilian, are beginning to realize the truism in the words of Winston Churchill that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”.
Preferred system of government
There is no doubt that all developing democracies find the democracy experiment a huge challenge. Similarly, democracy as a system of governance finds in developing nations a highly challenging environment to thrive. But neither democracy nor any developing nation that has tasted its charms is truly inclined to call off the relationship.
I do not know of any nation that, having tasted democracy voluntarily chooses to revert to dictatorship. I can hear some people murmuring about Egypt, but we consider Egypt a nation in transition. And so we choose to withhold judgment at this time.
On Leadership: Maybe we should in the spirit of fairness define the word ‘leadership’, since we have already tried to define democracy and developing democracy. The word “Leadership” is a derivative of the word “lead.” As we learn from the New Webster Dictionary of English Language lexicon, the word ‘lead’ means to show the way by going first or to direct and guide.
Thus a leader is someone who acts as a guide or a directing head. The word ‘leadership’ has a double meaning as both the position of a leader and the quality displayed by a leader.
The necessary attributes of leadership: Some of the vital qualities that the leadership of emerging democracies must possess in order to be effective and productive include honesty, patriotism, passion, commitment, focus, patience, fortitude, a temperament for consultation, consensus-building and compromise, the courage to take the right decisions, even if unpopular, to step on powerful toes, and to sacrifice sacred cows when the occasion demands.
A pre-disposition to consensus-building and compromise is a particularly crucial attribute in the leadership of emerging democracies.
Most developing nations are characterised by ethnic, sectarian and class cleavages. Good leadership works assiduously to repair the fractures, de-emphasise the differences and emphasise common interests of the diverse component segments of the republic. Bad leadership on the other hand deepens the fissures and hardens the mutual resentment.
It is the attribute of good leaders that they understand that once they are elected into office, they now represent the aspirations of the whole of the people and not just the interests of their particular constituencies. The success or failure of any enterprise or entity depends on the quality of its leadership.
The progress of any endeavour towards the attainment of its objective depends on the vision of its leadership. Democracy is no different. The importance of leadership is perhaps best captured by the saying attributed to Alexander the Great that “an army of sheep, led by a lion, is better than an army of lions, led by a sheep”.
The sacred role and duty of the leadership in developing democracies is to tackle the challenges of democracy and remove obstacles to the development of the system, to work to demolish especially the barriers that stand in the way of widespread popular participation in the democratic process.
This critical assignment of strengthening the foundation on which the edifice of democracy is erected can only be achieved through committed leadership.
The quality of any leadership is seen in its response to the challenges that confront the system. This is what distinguishes good leadership from bad leadership. Good leadership will aim to leave the system in a better shape than it met it and will therefore commit itself to plugging as many loopholes as possible within the limited time at its disposal.
Apathetic electorate
Poor leadership on the hand will leave the system either in the same state it met it, or in an even worse state.
The worst leadership, the immoral variety, will seek to take advantage of the challenges to the system to advance its selfish interest.
Confronted for instance with an apathetic electorate, this category of leadership will seek to capitalize on the apathy of the people to perpetuate itself in power. Fully aware that a more vigilant, more engaged electorate will not be long tolerant of incompetent or dishonest leadership, it will do its utmost to discourage broader popular participation, and keep away from the people the knowledge and information they need to make informed political decisions.
Where good leadership seeks to expand the political space to attract and accommodate as many participants as possible, immoral leadership would rather seek the contraction of the political space, and a deterioration in popular participation.
No comments:
Post a Comment