Can Young People in Leadership Save Nigeria?
The cry to include young people in leadership in Nigeria has been around for a while. Youth presidency, for an increasing number of Nigerians, is one of the keys towards better leadership for the nation. In this piece, I interrogate the debate in favour of – and against – youth presidency, and try to show that mere age is not a significant determinant of the quality of leaders Nigeria will have. Whether young or old, what Nigeria needs are leaders with a burning vision and rugged willpower to reverse the nation’s declining fortunes.
Those who advocate for a youth president – and by extension, youth governors and leaders at all other levels – argue that Nigeria is in her current state of misrule because old people have hijacked the machinery of government. They argue that the crop of persons in government today have been in leadership in one form or the other in the last forty years. According to them, the continual recycling of such people has hampered Nigeria’s progress in a number of ways.
First, these batch of leaders are believed to be the ones who put Nigeria into the current mess she finds herself in. They are, therefore, seen as being either incapable or unwilling to improve Nigeria’s situation. Second, they are viewed as having run out of useful ideas on how the nation can move forward. It is often argued that if they knew or had what to do to make Nigeria great, they have had adequate opportunity to implement it but have failed. Third, they are seen as the main beneficiaries of the current system who have secured their future in it and are the least-motivated to see the need for any change. On the contrary, they view those demanding change as disruptors who want to destabilize the personal economic and political empires the leaders have built for themselves. This, perhaps, was Chinua Achebe’s position in The Trouble with Nigeria when he lamented the attitude of ”a couple of old men who see the Nigerian presidency as pension and gratuity for services they think they rendered to the country thirty years ago.” Fourth, the old generation of leaders are thought to be close to the end of their lives and not likely to be alive in the next twenty or thirty years. Consequently, they are not motivated to fight for a robust future for Nigeria since they are not likely to be part of that future.
Perhaps, the most popular way in which the old generation of leaders are seen as hindering the emergence of the new Nigeria is in their quest to remain in political office. Having failed to do for the nation what she requires to make progress, they are expected to step aside and make room for those with better ideas and better approaches to come on board and achieve better results. However, the old brigade continues to position itself for – and in many cases, hijack – the machinery of governance. Since they can neither fix Nigeria nor will they make room for those who can do so, they are seen by many as the biggest blockade to a prosperous nation.
In the defence of the old brigade, other Nigerians argue that age has very little to do with the quality of leadership one can offer. They cite examples of young people who got into positions of power and committed even worse abuses than members of the old generation. Again, the old generation claims that young people are inexperienced and immature and cannot surmount the monumental problems confronting the nation. Young people reply that the old generation is experienced and mature only in the acts of corruption, embezzlement and nepotism. That experience, is therefore, part of why the old generation should retire and never go anywhere near leadership. The old generation argues that young people will plunge the nation into irretrievable depths of underdevelopment. Young people reply that the nation already has its back on the ground and cannot fall any further.
As a young person myself who has had close contact with other young people in leadership, I submit that having young people in leadership will benefit Nigeria. However, this benefit will not happen merely because the leaders are young and energetic. In a certain sense, a young and energetic leader can become a thorn in the flesh of his people if he turns out to be evil. He will have enough energy to take evil to record-breaking levels and will have many years ahead of him during which he can afflict the people. The benefit of having young people in leadership must, therefore, be weighed against the kind of young people who are seeking to be in the nation’s leadership.
While it is emotionally stimulating and presently marketable to argue for Nigerian youth to take over leadership, proponents of this idea must ask themselves critical questions. How well have young Nigerians in leadership at the various Students’ Union Governments (SUG), National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) and so on demonstrated desirable leadership traits? When SUG elections or NANS conventions are reduced to cash-and-carry or kill-and-carry affairs, they give an unspoken verdict on the kind of leadership young people will provide if they get access to positions of influence. Again, when young people see their role in the society as being merely to act as offline or online mercenaries defending the same crop of leaders they wish to replace, thoughtful observers must note that the road to change is still far. In the final analysis, age per se is not a true index of good leadership. In any case, many of those who afflict Nigeria with the most horrendous venom today got into leadership as young people. Irresponsible leaders exist in all ages, genders, ethnicities and religions. In Nigeria, the quest for good leadership must focus on structural changes that make it easy to identify and elect visionary men and women into leadership irrespective of their ages. It must cut at the heart of the character of the Nigerian federation which makes leadership a source of livelihood rather than service and hinders the emergence of those whose vision is to ameliorate the unfortunate living conditions of the forsaken citizens.