Our beloved country, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, celebrated 64 years as an independent nation on Tuesday, October 1, 2024. Reaching 64 years of independence is a significant milestone for Nigeria, a wealthy former British colony, and it presents another chance for a political and economic national inventory. We Nigerians will be able to determine the actual state of our country’s health by conducting a serious self-evaluation that adheres to the principles of credibility, objectivity, and accountability.
We must constantly remind ourselves that life is a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself in order to maintain our credibility. A thing can only have justification for its existence as its ultimate goal. It is very amazing that Nigeria has maintained its independence for 64 continuous years on its own. However, we also need to be sensible enough to realize that life comes with a huge duty. If something isn’t serving a noble goal in a sustainable and progressive manner, its existence is probably not going to withstand investigation.
We would appropriately center the 64th anniversary of our nation’s independence celebration on development concerns if we were to consider our goals as a nation with serious minds. Its achievements and shortcomings would provide a far more plausible foundation than the mere fact that it has “existed” for decades. What personal differences from what would have occurred during colonization could we argue our nation’s independence has brought about? Have we made enough progress in improving the quality of our education and our economy? Have our improved access to healthcare, public transit, education, and other social services been sufficient to justify 64 years of sovereignty? What about resource allocation and ownership among our group? Throughout the previous 64 years of Nigeria’s independence, has the wellbeing of the average person been a top priority?
Tens of millions of Nigerians have had their futures determined by the decisions made by their leaders since the country’s independence on October 1, 1960. I do not believe that 2024 will still be seen as too early to start assessing its success in concrete terms. Examining Nigeria’s development from 1960 with a critical eye will allow us.determine whether it is improving the human lives connected to it in any meaningful way? If value addition occurs, it must be quantifiable and observable in terms of the improved standard of living that its residents enjoy now that they are in control of their own fate. It also needs to be similar to what could have happened during colonization.
We should be able to think outside the foolish box of sentiments in order to get more clarity and objectivity.
At a time when many Nigerians have had good reason to doubt our ability to govern ourselves, it is appropriate for us to be candid about how far our country has come in 64 years. We ought to be able to critically examine the extent of advancement that our nation’s independence has allowed us over the previous 64 years. Sixty-four years is more than two generations in the human population. Since my future is so closely linked to my nation’s ability to survive in a cutthroat world, it won’t be unreasonable for me to evaluate its achievements using the same standards as its peers in the international community of nations. That’s the only way to get a precise evaluation. All things considered, I ought to be able to determine whether my nation has served as more of a filip to me, offering me the chances and supportive surroundings I need to pursue my own goals, or more accurately, if it has served as a filibuster, a roadblock that makes achieving my goals difficult or impossible.
Many Nigerian officials themselves have freely acknowledged that the nation has not advanced rapidly enough in the proper paths. Furthermore, they have consistently recognized that, above all else, poor leadership choices, actions, and inactions have been the primary cause of the nation’s resource waste and its inability to take advantage of multiple remarkable possibilities for genuine advancement. Their comment is the most self-incriminating since it is the ultimate acknowledgement of incompetence. It seems highly unlikely, in my opinion, that a nation that is falling short of its goals for national growth could also offer its people the conditions necessary for self-actualization.
This raises serious concerns about the honesty, patriotism, and intelligence of some highly privileged commentators who choose to celebrate a nation’s failures despite the lack of real progress markers. The revelations thrown up by a dispassionate assessment of the political and economic programs of the Nigerian nation can be quite embarrassingly staggering. These are the people whose perception of what constitutes real progress in the country is distorted. However, one could wonder, would it not seem a bit odd if travelers in a taxi decide to toast to the start of their adventure at the same moment that the driver reveals that he has, due to an oversight on his part, been disoriented and cannot find his way to the destination?
Nigerians, who are 64 years old and facing unfathomable hardships, are unanimous that their country’s greatest days are behind them and that the future is unclear. Unfortunately, it’s not until the leader who ought to bear the brunt of the failure has vacated office that we truly realize the magnitude of the damages wrought upon our country by incompetent leadership. Ironically, well-intentioned and helpful advice given at crucial times was not only disregarded under such leaders but also seen as hate speech and treated with contempt. Curiously, though, the same people who ought to be held accountable for the choices that blatantly undermined our country’s hopes for the future retire contentedly. Not only do we keep paying their bills indefinitely, but the very state they dishonestly served also shields them from the agonizing fallout from their bad leadership choices, causing citizens to suffer.
Nigerians themselves are involved in their country’s lack of growth. Prior to any Nigerian leader taking power, they would have been idolized and portrayed as superhuman saviors of Nigeria and its people, notwithstanding their professed tribal or religious irredentist nature. Paradoxically, the most revered of these leaders have also been the most utterly unsatisfactory. They fall short and fail so terribly that the well-known biblical lament, “How are the mighty fallen!” easily springs to mind.
The leadership espoused by Nigerian tin-gods has, in fact, consistently failed Nigeria because to the inherent inadequacy of mystique and intolerance in such leadership. A leader who is accustomed to being seen as a “god” will find it offensive to even be suggested that he yield to those under his leadership. No “god” will put up with an insult from a devotee. Such a technique regularly results in the emergence of an inflated ego and an arrogant, self-opinionated ruler in place of a caring, accountable, and consultative leadership style that is motivated by respect for the led. Naturally, Nigerian tin-gods in positions of power live comfortably in the enigmatic cocoon that is unintentionally built about them by the same Nigerians who believe they are worthless and are only worth servants. This cocoon does not even include their offices. Regretfully, we have inherited this tradition from a time when we were subject to feudalism and oppression.
Nigerians still only want a capable leader who will be sincere, kind, and caring enough to manage their resources properly. However, the decisions they make when the chance to give someone else control of the country arises are frequently dubious and absurd. For example, shouldn’t it be a cause for concern when a candidate running for the nation’s highest position disregards the will of the people in accordance with the laws of competition and declines to engage in a discussion with his rivals while campaigning? And should those in the media still be considered legitimate social watchdogs if they devote themselves, with feigned justifications, to supporting this decision?
Not only is a system that allows a dishonest and inept politician to become the head of state, but it is also illegal and counterproductive. A leader that comes from such a flawed system will only be a maximal ruler with terrible implications for everyone if he does not fully submit to the essential checks for the position he wishes to be employed for. Additionally, we frequently use the pretext of “good intentions” to justify the egregious failures of leaders who, after promising a sea, were unable to deliver even a pond. Goals are personal. Nigeria has never lacked leaders with the “magical” good intentions, if that is all that is needed. Unfortunately, none have been able to bridge the gap between goals and actual performance thus far, in contrast to other parts of the quickly developing world. By the way, a nation needs much more than just well-meaning leaders to develop. It demands hard labor motivated by aptitude, ability, and character.
Nigeria, at 64, requires capable, prepared mortals who recognize and accept human inadequacy rather than tin-gods with clay feet to provide it with effective, quantifiable, and accountable leadership. It longs for the days of early independence, when its leaders were honest and approachable individuals who would listen to criticism of their policies rather than throwing you in jail. Nigerians want to go back to the days when the federation’s constituent nations engaged in healthy competition to advance their common interests. They favor a return to a form of government that prioritizes strengthening the community’s economy in order to win respect both locally and internationally. They want an end to the unethical system in which the nation’s wealth is carelessly frittered away to buy meaningless local and international acclaim that does not improve the lives of the people.
It is impossible for a real Nigerian leader who aspires to serve, not dominate, at 64 to ignore the conditions that breed pigheadedness among the nation’s elite. A leader like him needs to set himself apart from the common narratives about “correcting past mistakes,” which are, incidentally, full of people making their own unforgivable blunders in judgment. When a 64-year-old Nigerian leader decides to choose nepotism over solid political or economic judgment, he or she should be able to recognize and steer clear of the deadly and long-term ramifications of that decision.
In conclusion, as a 64-year-old sovereign country, Nigeria requires its leaders to discover a substitute for the governance model that fundamentally changes the character of every national issue we attempt to address. Indeed, a major obstacle in and of itself is the governance method that ultimately makes every political or economic issue we attempt to address worse. It is hoped that after 64 years of stumbling and stuttering, Nigeria’s planners and implementers of strategic strategy will be able to address the rapidly growing oddity of the country’s problems getting worse rather than better when resources and efforts are directed toward solving them.
God be pleased with Nigeria.
