A lot has been written about the
virtues of the first generation of
Northern Nigeria’s political leaders
especially the likes of the Late
Sardauna of Sokoto, the Late Sir
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the Late
Alhaji Muhammadu Ribadu, the Late
Mallam Aminu Kano etc. Nonetheless,
it will be note worthy to point out,
with no fear of contradiction, that the
period in which they – especially the
Sardauna at the regional level and Sir
Balewa at the federal level – led, can
be regarded as the golden age of
Northern Nigeria’s political glory.These was the period when
Northerners in politics were revered
by their peers and their opinions
highly regarded even if not agreed to
by contemporaries because they were
totally patriotic and passionate to their
causes. During this golden age, other
regions will preferentially rather “do
business” with the North politically,
even if they disagree with it, than do
business with other regions. The
leaders from the North during this
period, are respectable and, integrity
is an honor they live by.They were incorruptible and had the
best interests of their constituencies at
heart. Politics for them is not a
personal wealth-making endeavor, as
it is the case with most of the later
generation of leaders of Northern
Nigerian extraction, but a call to
leadership and service. The guiding
principle of these leaders’ are: Duty,
Honor, and Country,
Regrettably, these
same statements could not be made
without exception about the
subsequent generation of leaders of
Northern Nigerian extraction both at
regional and state levels. To varying
degrees, the progress that the first
generation of Northern Nigerian
leaders achieved for the region and
the nation at large were allowed to
waste and in most cases reversed,
Zainab Usman-2012,
in her article titled, Northern Nigeria:
The Disconnect Between Our Leaders
and the Rest of Us, accused the
present generation of leaders of
progressively disconnecting
themselves from the ordinary people
through misplaced priorities.
According to her, “The summaries of
various communiqués of meetings
and fora involving northern political
leaders (mainly the Northern
Governors Forum) and most northern
elders (mostly former public office
holders) of recent, on the North’s
numerous problems are baffling and
frustrating as it is apparent the
agenda of these meetings typically
have little to do with the region’s
gargantuan economic, socio-political
and security challenges. Neither do
the final recommendations.
“The themes of these meetings usually
revolve around increased revenue
allocation to northern states from the
Federal Government, lamentations
over existing conspiracies to
“marginalize” and “destroy” the North;
emphasis on the North’s “turn” to
produce the next president in 2015;
hollow, rhetorical lamentations on the
decline of the northern economy and
the need to revive agriculture,
countering the Boko Haram
insurgency and occasionally, a passing
reference is made on the need for
good governance, and in the end,
these ills are ascribed to bad
leadership and that’s about it. These
meetings typically produce virtually no
solid, detailed, implementable blue
prints on how to methodically,
systematically and effectively address
the North’s well-documented
problems.
“As the communiqués and press
briefings for these meetings become
public, one’s hopes of tangible
solutions are further dashed by the
crushing realisation that these leaders
are running round in vicious circles. At
best, they gloss over the most critical
problems, and at worst, their
recommendations have practically no
bearing on these problems.”
Usman also classified the problems
bedevilling the North into four broad
distinct but interrelated categories: the
steady economic decline of the region
over several decades, the breakdown
of social cohesion, the insecurity
especially the Boko Haram insurgency
and the gradual decline of the North’s
political influence at the centre. She,
however, opined that disturbing fact
is that the priorities of the northern
Governors and many of the northern
elders, are skewed towards the
North’s access to political power and
how to bring back the Presidency to
the North come 2015 while the more
important economic, social and
security challenges are of secondary
importance to them.
Besides, Usman said Thomas
Friedman of the New York Times,
writing in June 2012, identified two
components of the global leadership
deficit prevalent in many countries -
generational and technological. She
opined that the Northern Nigeria
leadership shares in this deficit.
She opined that “When this is applied
to the situation in northern Nigeria, it
becomes apparent that the
disconnect between the leaders and
the led
has much to do with the
little generational change amongst
those responsible for aggregating and
articulating the North’s aspirations,
with mostly the same people who
have been in the thick of things since
some of us were in diapers, whom
we’ve read about in social studies
textbooks in primary and secondary
school, still dexterously recycling
themselves continuously back in
power – as governors, ministers,
legislators, permanent secretaries,
board members of parastatals – still
calling the shots today.”
The incredibly persistent longevity of
many die-hard power-brokers in
northern Nigeria, Usman observed,
has ensured that only a few
neophytes have been genuinely
groomed as successors. This situation
of course, she added, is connected to
the technological dimension of this
leadership deficit which beyond the
use of modern technology in
governance, refers to the stale, archaic
and retrogressive approach to
leadership as a consequence of this
generational gap, with little input of
fresh ideas and approaches to
governance.
“Therefore, the same top-down,
gerontocratic and quasi-feudal
approaches to leadership of decades
past is very much the norm in the
North today, increasingly incapable of
addressing present-day 21st century
challenges,” she further said. Who
then leads Northern Nigeria?