Douglass Anele
The word ‘giant,’ according to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, is “anything much above the usual size of its kind.” This is why we describe an extremely tall and huge person as a giant.

Also, there are intellectual giants, spiritual giants, political giants and so on, which indicates that the individuals so described tower well above the normal level usually associated with others in the same class or set in the spheres delineated by the adjectives.

Nigeria, on the basis of population and natural resources, is second to none in Africa. Therefore, in terms of potentials, the country is truly the giant of Africa. But unfortunately, due mainly to corrupt, inept and incompetent leadership spanning over four decades, Nigeria is a sleeping giant waiting for a genuine transformational leader to rouse it from self-induced slumber. Now, although several of President Goodluck Jonathan’s sycophants and prominent factotums had indulged in the antediluvian historicist fallacy of attributing his emergence as President to divine providence, the man himself ought to know by now that leadership, being one of the most daunting challenges of humankind, cannot be left to the uncertainties of supernatural intervention.

But I am not really sure about this, judging from the irritating unpresidential picture in newspapers of Jonathan kneeling in supplication before Enoch Adeboye, the head pastor of the Redeemed Christian Church of God. As a religious skeptic, I am convinced that the greatest impediment to Nigeria’s evolution into a strong, united, highly developed, nation respected globally is the ingrained lazy habit of tabling our problems before the supernatural for divine intervention. In a future essay I will explore how religion has retarded our developmental efforts. For now, it is sufficient to remark that recourse to religion by our leaders is a ploy used by them to deceive us. Of course, Jonathan’s rags-to-richesnarrative may have a halo of providence for believers; butthe storyline is not unique to Jonathan, because a significant percentage of wealthy prominent people all over the world share similar experiences as our President. President Jonathan’s humble mien and laid-back disposition appeal to a broad spectrum of Nigerians.

And going by his public pronouncements, especially the recurrent mantra of “transformation agenda,” one might be tempted to assess his performance thus far with a less critical eye than is actually warranted by the situation. Probably, Jonathan means well for the country: it is possible that he truly believes in his ability to make a profound positive difference in the leadership ecology of Nigeria. However, given the mounting problems of kakistocracy, insecurity, unemployment, inflation, crumbling infrastructure, economic meltdown, cut-and-join electoral processes and so on, one must admit that Jonathan’s presidency is yet to manifest any radical difference between it and the administrations that had gone before.

If one examines critically the speeches of Mr. Presidentaddressing the challenges of nation building vis-a-vis the speeches of his predecessors from 1979to 2010 when Umaru Musa Yar’Adua died, one will be struck by the close similarities in their contents. On the whole, the speeches are full of highfalutin promises, as one mediocre leader after anothertook turns to misrule Nigeria. It is even more disheartening that civilian Presidents who ostensibly owe their mandate to the electoral choices of the peopledid not deviate from the ignoble example set by military adventurers.

Nigeria’s leadership iscompromised by indiscipline, financial rascality and corruption, a combination that was taken to unprecedented levels by the regimes of General Ibrahim Babangida (rtd), late General SaniAbacha, and retired General Abdulsalami Abubakar. Chief OlusegunObasanjo’s presidency recorded some modest successes. But he made egregious errors of judgment which tarnished his legacy both as a military and civilian ruler of Nigeria. Late AlhajiUmaru Musa Yar’Adua’s performance was lackluster. Consequently, the incumbent President assumed office at a timewedesperately need a transformational leadership and change agent in Aso Rock.

During his inauguration, Jonathan promised Nigerians that he will do his best to tackle the myriads of problems he inherited from his predecessors. After the speech, he was hailed and eulogised by sychophants, whereas critics pointed out that he does not have what it takes to lead the country at this time. Regrettably, with the benefit of hindsight derived from the President’s jerky performance since he assumed office, I must report that Jonathan’s critics, particularly Prof. Tam David-West and Fred Agbaje, appear to be right, for none of the key problem areas identified by Mr. President in his speech has been properly addressed.

As I stated earlier, President Jonathan promised to tackle these problems decisively. But up to now, what Nigerians are witnessing is “motion without movement”and empty promises. Jonathan has not really done anything to reduce the size of his government and, by implication, the huge amount of money spent in running the system.

The President and his crowd of ministers and special assistants seem to think that the best way to tackle our problems is to organise retreats, seminars and all sorts of summits, forgetting that the missing link between theory and practice in Nigeria has always been lack of commitment and will by the ruling class to implement existing policies efficiently and effectively in the national interest. Remember, after swearing in members of his unnecessarily bloated cabinet, President Jonathan gave them the memoir of former Singaporean strongman, Lee Kuan Yew entitled From Third World to First – The Singapore Story: 1965-2000 to read. That was a thoughtful symbolic gesture which signposts the President’s desire to encourage his lieutenants to emulate the transformational actions of Yew.

That said,I am not sure that Jonathan and members of his cabinet have read let alone absorbed the principles of effective leadership documented in the memoir, considering the mediocre handling of our national affairs since May 29, 2011.

In the not too-challenging task of selecting Nigerians for national honours, for instance, the President and his team manifested poor judgment, because the list of honourees, as usual, is dominated by members of the ruling and business elite whose avarice and lack of patriotismare the principal causes of Nigeria’s underdevelopment. Certainly, it is not enough for Jonathan to just possess the biography of a great leader and give it to others to peruse: it is very important that he and his cabinet should study, digest, internalise and put the lessons derived therefrom into effective use in governance.

Now, what paradigm or model of effective leadership has our President absorbed from Lee Kuan Yew’s biography – assuming he has actually read the book? What feedback did he get from the ministers and advisers he gave it to read, especially concerning how they intend to practicalise its insights for national development?If effective governance is used as a standard in answering these questions, the honest answer is: the President and his team thus far have not demonstrated that they have learnt any useful lessons about leadership from Yew’s biography.

From another perspective, members of the National Assembly constitutionally empowered to counterbalance and check excesses of the executive arm of government, despite overwhelming national outcry against looting of the treasury through outrageous allowances, have continued in their evil sybaritic ways as if the voices of the people do not matter at all.To be continued.