THE title of this piece was taken from the speech given by President Barack Obama in Ghana on his first trip to sub-Saharan Africa as US President.

For sure, the President of the most powerful nation on earth knew what he was talking about when he counselled African nations to seek to build strong institutions to propel development rather than look up to some strong men to make things happen.

In a manner of speaking, this point was more poignantly made at a news conference that President Bill Clinton had with Russian President Boris Yeltsin in Helsinki on March 21, 1997. A journalist posed this question: “To both Presidents, both of you have had problems with your individual parliaments, and yet you each have made arms control agreements here that, you know, the parliaments will want a say in.

To Mr. Yeltsin, can you guarantee that the Duma will follow your lead and ratify this? And to Mr. Clinton, how can you assure Mr. Yeltsin that you won’t have a rebellion in the Congress over the anti-missile defense  agreement?” The replies of both Presidents are instructive.

First to respond was President Yeltsin who answered: “As far as Russia is concerned, I expect that the State Duma will make a decision based on my advice”.  But President Clinton, the leader of the undisputed global super power of the time prefaced his response with a quip: “Boy, I wish I could give that answer”, which caused ripples of laughter around the world.

The lesson from that encounter was that whereas, President Clinton was the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, he was less powerful as a President than his Russian counterpart because of the differences in the relative strengths of the institutions in both nations. It has been said many times that the Nigerian President is more powerful than the US President.

Some people will probably guffaw at such a seemingly preposterous proposition but the reality is that it is very true. Instructively, it is not about the Nigerian President today per se and certainly not about the Nigerian President only.

Indeed, the governors as chief executives of their states, the council chairmen as chief executives of the local governments are even more powerful simply because over time they have been perceived to be above the institutions that they preside over.

The widespread indiscipline, impunity and corruption that are prevalent in our nation today are traceable to the phenomenon of chief executives who are above the laws and regulations.

The moment exceptions are made that allow chief executives to waive the rules for their convenience, there is simply no more law and order in the land because other people would seek to obtain such exemptions from the Chief in their own dealings and engagements with society.

For instance, the 1999 Constitution that we operate provides elaborate controls over public funds, one of which is that no fund shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation by the President except as approved by the Act of the National Assembly and a similar provision prohibits drawings from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the state by the state governors except as approved by a law of the State House of Assembly, yet the nation is daily inundated with news of unbudgeted and extra-budgetary spending.

When President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua made commitment to rule of law a cardinal aspect of his administration, it was a very profound commitment in more ways than were fully perceived at the time.

Given the experience of executive disobedience of judicial orders in the period preceding his acendacy, such a declaration by the President brought relief to the nation even without a full appreciation that the commitment meant far more than just executive obedience to court orders.

In the United States,whoseConstitution we copied, albeit improperly, the institutions are so strong that the Congress can and has compelled the Attorney General to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate the President that appointed him.

In Nigeria, the Attorney General perceives his role as being the chief legal defendant of the President or the Governor in the State rather than the Chief Law Officer. As a routine in Nigeria, law enforcement agents seek the body language and sometimes the nod of the chief executive in deciding to investigate or prosecute criminal acts.

Even the judiciary is not immune as judges are known to bend to the body language of the executives in determining matters that are brought before them. The bureaucracy is even worse. This is an institution that is supposed to be guided by regulations that have the force of law.

The bureaucrat is trained to be obedient to the rules and regulations such that if a chief executive gives an unlawful directive, it is the duty of the bureaucrat to do a “yes, Prime Minister” to him and bring him around to the requirements of the law. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy all over the nation has been turned to “yes men.”

What is more worrisome is that this malaise is not limited to the public sector alone in Nigeria as corporate governance in the private sector has displayed similar “strong men” mentality. In the early ‘80s, majority of the multinational corporations in Nigeria were headed by Nigerian chief executives; a fallout from the indigenisation exercise.

But by the late ‘90s, practically all the corporations had gone back to foreign chief executives, some of whom were appointed from some smaller African nations.

There were instances where publicly quoted companies were literally shut down because all the executive directors and top management had to accompany the chief executives for in-law’s burial. The executive directors that were expected to provide independent checks on the chief executives often found themselves kowtowing to the same chief in order to remain relevant. Of course and invariably, the chief ceased to be bound by the organisation’s rules.

In the crazy days following the banking consolidation, the bank chief executives became the strongmen with their entire institutions at their beck and call.

It was not an uncommon sight to see branch managers in a particular state trooping to the airport to welcome or see off the visiting chief executive using official vehicles bought and maintained by poor shareholders. The result of this malaise, of course, was the financial meltdown and banking failure that followed.

Returning to President Obama therefore, the need for insistence on strong institutions is now more than ever before an urgent national duty.

Given the societal attitude developed over a prolonged period of impunity, we need chief executives at all levels that are prepared to lead the way in providing exemplary disciplined leadership by submitting themselves to the laws of the land even in moments when they prove inconvenient to their persons.

Mr. CLEMENT OFUANI, a commentator on national issues, wrote from Asaba, Delta State.