Perhaps unwittingly, President Goodluck Jonathan has inaugurated a useful debate about the role of individuals in history especially those who find themselves in positions of leadership.

At least this debate is not as distractive as the one the President also launched a few months ago on the tenure of executive political office holders. The statements by the President during the 51st independence anniversary celebration including the traditional October 1 broadcast have expectedly engendered criticisms and analyses.


Intriguingly, some compliments are implicit in the criticisms and comments on the President’s statements and actions in the last one week. This is the useful thing about this debate that Jonathan should not miss.

It is, therefore, suggestible that he should seize the moment to make use of the chance thrown up by the public reaction. The President should focus on some compliments in the comments rather than the virulence of the criticisms.

A lot is understandably read into his statements about his idea of leadership and his preferred style. There is a lot of opportunity for him in return to also read the public mood.


The public obviously impatient with the administration. But no one really expects Jonathan to perform governance miracle by transforming Nigeria within four months of his tenure.

But it should also not be an exaggerated impression of the President to expect that a strategy of tackling the problem should be made known to the public by now. As they say, morning shows the day. The worry is actually about the colour of the day shown in the morning of Jonathan’s administration.

He might be lucky to have the benefit of making amends in the substance and style of his leadership so that he could even surpass the people’s expectations.

People don’t want to wait till 2014 when all attention would shift to another election for a four or 10- year tenure before they know the direction on how to improve the condition of the roads, schools and hospitals. There is a legitimate expectation to make electricity supply steadier and the whole country safer.

The compliment in all this is that people expect him to show leadership as the nation battles these problems. It is, therefore, a chance for him to put the right foot forward early in his administration. It is better to be sharply criticised in 2011 and be applauded in 2015. By 2015 he might not have the chance to change directions.


In some respects, the President is not being fair to himself by the sort of historical parallels he drew at a church service in Abuja two Sundays ago.

Incidentally, the service was in commemoration of 51 years of the nation’s independence and leadership is generally agreed to be one of the challenges the nation has faced during this period. The Biblical and other parallels drawn by the President are simply misplaced. They are even needless.

For instance, he said he would not be a general or a lion. Like a perceptive observer put aptly, Nigeria did not elect either of these. They elected a Jonathan who sought their votes promising to give leadership and serve them. He even added that “I will not let you down”.


The President is entitled to choose his leadership style; but there are some leadership virtues that he cannot afford to discount.

For instance, a lion is not only a beast in the jungle, it is also a metaphor for boldness and courage. These are virtues sorely needed for any one serious about transformation given the decay in the Nigerian condition.

When you look into the sectors - education, infrastructure, health, security etc. - the decay is glaring. In some situations, the leader needs the heart of a lion to confront this condition.

Yes, the President was never trained to be an army general, but he is the commander-in-chief to whom the generals are ultimately responsible. In fact, the generals could sometimes find inspiration in the words of their commander-in-chief while in action.

It is not for nothing that historians write about Prime Minister Winston Churchill ‘s exemplary act of inspiration during World War II. They often recall that in addition to the mortals and tanks, Churchill deployed the English words to do the battle. He inspired the British people and the armed forces even in their darkest moments.


The president doesn’t have to be a general to know that a wrong signal is sent to the local and international environment when the October 1 traditional parade in celebration of the nation’s independence is moved from Eagle Square to the havens of Aso Rock. The President doesn’t require the mien of a general to do things differently.

Again, in its response the administration has again missed the implicit compliments in the criticisms to this official action. The basis of the disappointment is that people expect the Nigerian state under Jonathan to be up to the task in warding off the threats from MEND, Boko Haram or any other quarters.

People are wondering if MEND and Boko Haram are now the Nigeria’s Goliaths the President mentioned during the church service referred to earlier.

The President doesn’t need to be a general to know that panic could be read into such steps. The public expects clear signals from Abuja that the security situation could be improved. It is one of the virtues of leadership to inspire confidence. In designing his leadership model, Jonathan should not discountenance this virtue.


For a man who seems to be historically positioned to be a great leader, Jonathan ought to show a better grasp of dynamics of the moments. He seems to have appointed dates with history. So his reading of historical moments should be sharper.

He was in the saddle during the Golden Jubilee of the nation’s independence and he will still be President in 2014 when the nation will celebrate the Centenary of the amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorates to form the Nigerian nation. There is nothing in the books that says that such a man should not work to be a great leader.

There are still some incurable optimists out there including this reporter who believe that Jonathan can still make a good leader if he adopts the suitable strategy of governance.


It is an old debate whether the role of an individual could be so crucial as to make the difference to the material conditions of his environment. The interplay between the role of the leader as an individual and the institutions that make the system function is a real one. It is not invented.

It is dialectical. So the question should not be put like this : the strong leader or strong institutions? To do so is simply erroneous. What the nation deserves are great leaders and virile institutions working in harmony.

Strong institutions are often a legacy of a great leadership. The pyramids and other great things associated with Egypt were built during the reigns of some Pharaohs.

So not all Pharaohs were evil, as some observers have rightly pointed out. It is individuals working in the collective that build institutions.

fter all, bad leaders can destroy institutions. The bad leader can pervert the otherwise strong institutions. Ask the Germans what Hitler did to their great institutions. He bastardised them. Scientists were made to tailor their science to meet the needs of the leaders’ Nazi ideology as they did with eugenics.

So we should not make a fetish of institutions while ignoring the role of leaders as individuals. Both should work together. Making a choice between strong leaders and strong institutions is all part of the liberal recipes of governance being peddled around the world. Western leaders invoke the empty phrase when they choose to talk down on leaders of poor countries. Jonathan should not embrace it.


The President has a good chance to retool his administration. In response to the criticisms of the substance and style of his leadership, he should take up the challenge and give a clear direction as the leader.