Dr Kayode Fayemi

Kayode Fayemi

I would like to thank the Head of the Abuja Leadership Centre and Deputy Vice Chancellor of the University of Abuja, Professor Phillip Afaha for the invitation extended to me to participate as a keynote speaker at this induction ceremony this morning. I have been asked to share my reflections on the vital topic of Sustainable Leadership Strategies for a Troubled Nation. Let me start by saying this is not merely an intellectual exercise for me; it is a subject that has shaped my personal journey and profoundly influenced my understanding of the challenges we face in our societies. It is also an issue I reflect on daily now that I’m back in the classroom with the opportunity to review my own period of stewardship.

Implicit in the overarching theme of the lecture is the assumption that leadership is an important part of the puzzle that has developed in recent times about democracy, development and good governance. Based on my own experience as a scholar and practitioner, I can say from the outset that it is an assumption I can relate with largely. In matters of democracy, development, security, and stability, leadership certainly matters. However, that is the easier part of the task at hand.

As someone who has held public office, I have witnessed firsthand the transformative power of well-crafted policies in improving the lives of individuals. I have seen governance make a tangible difference in people’s lives. Moreover, I have been a witness to the remarkable ability of leadership to inspire and motivate people simply through the sheer force of personal example. As an institution dedicated to leadership studies, I know your studies must be grounded in a range of theoretical postulations and concepthual frameworks. I believe that we can move beyond theoretical discussions and delve into the realm of practical implementation, leveraging on insider experience as someone who transitioned from academia to activism to politics. Together, we shall explore the underlying issues, prospects, and challenges that shape our pursuit of effective leadership for a brighter, more peaceful future for our country and indeed the African continent. In the time available to me, I would like to unpack the leadership-crisis nexus drawing on insights and lessons of experience accumulated during my years of sojourn in Nigerian politics and involvement across the continent in peacebuilding.

Sustainable Leadership Strategies Experience from the Field – Twelve. Lessons to take to heart.

Everyone of us in this hall can attest to the fact that the last two decades at least in Africa has witnessed a considerable investment in leadership development on the continent. I want to believe the wide range of initiatives that have been launched mostly came from a good place: An observed failure, deficit, or dearth of leadership which seemed to compound the problems of a continent already saddled with many difficulties. There was also a desire deliberately to nurture and equip a next generation of leaders who would have the necessary aptitude, vision, and savvy to navigate an increasingly complex world. I believe that is also partly the reason behind the establishment of the Abuja Leadership Centre and I commend this.

Leadership is institutional, not personal, teamwork, not solo charismatic effort! No one can quarrel with the underlying thinking that fired interest in the many leadership programmes and projects that have sprung up across the continent. However, there was also inbuilt into that thinking, a gap which was not adequately taken into account: The needed institutional framework and processes within which leadership can effectively exercise its role. It did not take me long after my entry into Nigerian politics to wake up to this reality. Leaders may be well-intentioned and even well-groomed but without the functioning and effective institutional system in place, their efforts will be severely constrained.

The assumption in most African countries that leadership is simply about getting the right individuals into office and then watch him/her from the sidelines apply his/her magical powers to resolving all societal problems is as false as it is misleading. One of the first lessons I learnt is that leadership is not a solo effort but a team one. It is best exercised when it is underpinned with an appropriate infrastructure of policy, politics, and power. Its critical actions are best sustained not by the charisma of one leadership figure but by the broadness of the consensus that is built around them and the beneficial impact which they register.

The tendency in mainstream literature to portray the leader as the author or source of all policies and actions is one which also requires, based on my experience, to be nuanced. The drivers of public policies are numerous. They exist within and outside the governmental system. The individual who sits at the top of the political and administrative system may, symbolically, have ultimate moral and material responsibility for all the acts of omission and commission that involve government but it is erroneous to assume s/he has sole or even total ownership of those acts. A political leader may assume responsibility for the actions of the government – as should be expected – but more often than not may in fact not be the author or owner of all such actions.

The foregoing explains why for me, leadership is not simply or solely about absolutised power exercise in a monopolistic fashion. Rather, it is about the dexterity to manage contending socio-political currents within and outside government in a manner that gives citizens an assurance that there is an authority who is ultimately in charge both as actor, catalyst, referee, and conscience. A successful leader is not the one who is portrayed or self-portrays as omnipotent, omnipresent, and/or omniscient. Rather success is built within the framework of a capability to balance the demands of an equitable governance and the calls of service with the exigencies of leading society to new and greater heights through a careful nurturing of the collective ambitions of the populace for progress and transformation.

Leadership is hard work, not a popularity contest. Understood in terms of a bearer of the public purpose, the leader, in the true deconstruction of the notion, will not only have a duty to represent the will of the people but also a duty to ensure that only the forward-looking, inclusive, secular, and cosmopolitan in the expression of the public will are harnessed and deployed for societal advancement. This is a point which I made repeatedly in different ways to my colleagues in government at the state and federal levels; it is an issue which I always reiterated to my peers as Governors and Ministers.

The temptation is always very strong as a leader to take the simple, even simplistic option of just flowing with the wind in the name of following the expressed will of the “people”. And yet, the “people” may, based on the limited information and perspective at their disposal, be driven to mass hysteria in a particular direction. Leaders, on the other hand, are privy to a much broader information base and diverse perspectives on account of their role and duties. They have a responsibility, therefore, to listen carefully to their publics, but also a duty to lead those publics in the interpretative narratives that can make the difference between stability and chaos, peace and conflict, and security and insecurity.

This is the only sense in which for me, leadership can be seen and understood as representing a higher calling: An ability to understand the many contradictions that shape everyday life and to be able to relate to them in the way they are played out in the experiences of the populace but a refusal to be imprisoned by those same contradictions, seeking instead to rise above them and to carry a critical mass of the populace along. I have, in this regard as a public figure and politician, had many occasions to try to balance the exigencies of short-term gain with the imperatives of a medium and long-term outcome which will ultimately be beneficial to all – or at least to the resounding majority.

I have to confess that this balancing act is not always easy. It involves a readiness to sacrifice some immediate popularity that an unbridled populism may confer for a more enduring, longer term, and sustainable benefit that a more sober and considered choice may offer. It carries the risk that a focus on the ultimate good may not even be appreciated by a public that is intent on instant gratification in one form or another. There are many stories I can tell about this, including the much quoted notion of the “stomach infrastructure” that became a household word deployed as a campaigning tool to counter the massive infrastructure renewal and expansion exercises that I tried to pursue as Governor during my first term.

Leadership is not, therefore, the bed of roses it may sometimes be portrayed to be. It is, in fact, a school of life, replete with many teaching and learning moments that are often not captured in most curricula. The leader who is on a permanent lifelong trajectory of learning whilst also sharing is one who can be described as living, not deadened by the allures of office and power. And there are leaders of that kind who have traversed our political, social, economic, and cultural universes, leaving their mark in the sands of time as references for us to emulate. For those who have had as their vocation the study of leadership in Nigeria and Africa, it is an invitation to be much more critical of the omnibus stereotypes of leadership on the continent as popularised by the neo-patrimonial school, for example if we are to address what is needed to overcome the challenges of governance in difficult times.

Leadership must be solutions driven – I have taken the time to dwell on the importance of unpacking our understanding of leadership as a prelude to delving into my take on sustainable leadership strategies for these difficult times. Let me start by stating that I am of the strong view that for leadership to contribute to winning and sustaining good governance, security and srability, it must on a constant and ongoing basis pay attention to the underlying and structural drivers of conflict that are embedded in our society and which can sometimes prove to be unyielding or difficult to uproot decisively. They must, nevertheless, be tackled frontally as a first line responsibility of leaders. A study of generally acknowledged success in countries like China, India, United Kingdom, United States, Singapore to name a few points to this clearly.

Of the structural drivers of conflict and instability that undermine peace and security in Nigeria and I dare say, Africa too, two inter-connected ones are particularly important to me: poverty and inequality. The twin problems of poverty and inequality has, in recent years, been the scourge of our democracy and development in Africa. It is at the root of the many other failings that have fed discontent and fueled public anger. I argue, and many here I am sure will agree, that these twin problems are at the heart of the crisis of development and social cohesion which we are witnessing all around us. They provide the underlying context for understanding why religious extremism, ethnic irredentism, inter-communal conflicts, gender-based violence, inter-generational discords, and a multifaceted criminality have been on the ascendancy.

For those who have spent the better part of their time conflating cause and symptom or abstracting symptoms from context and absolutising them as independent variables, the point that needs to be reiterated for their benefit is that the regular Nigerian does not wake up thinking primarily about how to drive an ethnic, sectional, or religious agenda. To be sure, we are all bearers of multiple identities and in the plural contexts in which we function, we are called upon to negotiate these identities on an ongoing basis. They, however, assume a parochial dimension under given circumstances. Poverty and inequality, as they expand and ossify, have been known to feed into parochialisms, irredentism, and exclusionary ideologies of various kinds. And this is where leadership of a politically conscious and enlightened type is required.

A primary duty of any political leadership is the incremental improvement in the welfare, social mobility, and wellness of the citizenry, the security of the populace, the cohesion of society, and the enhancement of the productive capacity of the country. These are all closely inter-connected purposes of nation-building and statecraft. They comprise the first order domains of leadership action by which a just peace may be secured and sustained. Investing continuously and assiduously in them ensures the existence of the core foundational pillars upon which other things can be added in order to nurture a culture of just and sustainable peace in the governance system. It is an important lesson we learnt very quickly as a government in Ekiti State where we introduced a raft of social policy initiatives designed to address some of the root causes of the various discontents that were threatening societal harmony and political order. And we did these despite the fact that Ekiti is not among the richest of the states that make up the Nigerian federation.

As noted in the foregoing, tackling the structural drivers of exclusion and social injustice is a sine qua non for developing a sustainable leadership strategy in difficult times. Building on this, the most enlightened leadership also invests itself in nurturing the management of diversity at different levels and in different departments. Ethnic and religious diversities are, understandably, usually the most frequently cited areas where a concerted effort is required to manage diversity but they are not the only ones. Leaders also need to understand and nurture a culture of pluralism, secularism, and cosmopolitanism in order to ensure that every citizen is given an opportunity to explore, experiment, and exhale in the pursuit of their ambitions for self-actualisation. The real hope which a citizen may hold that a better day is possible, and not just a mirage or a forlorn hope, is usually sufficient to keep them engaged. The fact that citizens feel that they have a real fighting chance to build a better tomorrow for themselves is normally a sufficient foundation on which to win their consent and patriotic commitment to the common good.

In an age of massive awareness propelled by the revolution in information and communication technologies, leaders of all categories are under much greater scrutiny than perhaps ever before. In my view, long term peace that is just must also be accompanied with leadership by example. Today’s leader in a highly networked world functioning on a fast track must consciously and consistently strive to be an embodiment of the values and norms that make for good society where every citizen can aspire to be at peace with themselves and their fellow compatriots. This is not to say that there must always be perfection; perfection in all human affairs is an ideal which we strive for on a continuous basis in our collective quest for unfinished greatness. What I am calling for is that leadership, as part of its commitment to good governance and just peace, must also make transparency and public accountability a watch word.

The need for a Plan: Beyond these broad concerns that offer key leadership lessons, there are more specific lessons on strategies for sustainability that I learned from the various public offices held. The first for me is the criticality of planning as a leadership strategy. As a leader, particularly a political leader, you quickly learn that there’s a world of difference between running for office and actually running the office. When running for office, contestants always claim to know better than the man in the saddle. In fact, as a contestant, you are allowed, if not expected, to speak grandly about your vision and how you can turn things around overnight if voted into office. More often than not, no one asks you for evidence or challenge you to justify the many claims that you make on the campaign trail. However, if you are fortunate to win the election, that’s when the rubber meets the road. You would soon discover that governing is about finding real solutions to real problems that affect real people who expect you to solve all their problems every single day. That’s when the poetry and rhetoric of campaign shows give way to the tedious prose of heavy lifting work that people don’t see and therefore would not be on hand to clap for you. That’s when you find that your good intentions are not enough. People want results, and they want it with the urgency of now.

As an elected political leader, you’re often advised to hit the ground running. Whether one would be able to do this or not, would depend on how much effort and time one has devoted to developing a plan. In my experience, some chief executives do come to office with a development agenda/plan. Some only start to fish around for ideas after getting into office, while others just simply muddle through on a day-by-day basis. Such governments announce policies in the morning and jettison them by the evening. Although all come to office with some kind of campaign manifesto, this is hardly more than marketing tools. What eventually informs your budget are derivations from the manifesto which has been taken through the mills of actual stakeholders and is a product of broad and deep consultation for it to be sustainable. They are multi-year plans that have been fully costed in the light of your financial realities. While the manifesto tells the people what you plan to do in broad terms, this plan tells you and everyone in your team, not only what you want to do, but also how you want to do it, including the time lines for delivery.

I have suggested that you cannot get away with not having a clearly defined plan that articulates your priorities based on wide consultations. I will add immediately that governance is a process. It must therefore be dynamic enough to respond to new information and new knowledge that you would encounter in the course of implementation and as you deepen your interaction with the people; or even to force majeure like the CoronaVirus pandemic which took almost two years out of the tenure of the administration in that era. The dictum therefore – for leaders should be: Be clear in your plan, but also be flexible!

You need a Team: Let me say at this point that even when you have a plan, one of the important challenges you would face early on is putting a team in place to implement the Plan. Apart from the challenges of ethnic or regional and religious balancing, you also have political IOUs to settle. Every political leader faces this challenge. I faced it too. But I also knew that I had to strike the right balance between appointing core politicians who had been involved in our long and torturous political struggle and the technocrats who we needed to undertake specific assignments for the smooth running of the government. Based on my own experience as a participant-observer in the Nigerian political space, we must move away from overtly technocratic and a-political conceptions of team building and embrace reforms that are both ‘technically appropriate’ and ‘politically grounded.’ While the local political context would determine what the right balance is, this is something every leader must always be mindful of. But it would always be helpful if you understand what your key priorities are. This will help you to understand those appointments you can play politics with and those you have to assign the best possible hands to. The balance is that you cannot take all away from politics, and you cannot give all to politics.

Take Governance beyond Partisanship: The Civil Service is Critical. If the business of government must be serious business, then we need to pay attention to the quality of the civil service. Wherever a government succeeds in significantly impacting the lives of its citizens, the success is often not only based on the quality of the vision of its political leadership but also on the quality of the service rendered by the bureaucrats that implemented the decisions. A good example of this is the Obafemi Awolowo led Western Region of Nigeria and its Simeon Adebo led civil service. In Ekiti, one of my first acts in office was to request the renowned public service expert, Professor Ladipo Adamolekun, formerly of the World Bank to help review the Ekiti civil service and craft a civil service transformation plan. Professor Adamolekun developed a merit based civil service transformation strategy [CSTS] and played an active role in helping to recruit and assess its leadership and higher echelon throughout my two terms in office. The civil service transformation strategy had six key result areas namely, effective governance of the civil service, organisational efficiency and effectiveness, professional and result oriented civil servants, ethical and accountable workforce with a changed work culture, improved competence of civil servants as well as improved public financial management.

Implement Tough Decisions Early: Whether you want to or not, you will be confronted with taking tough decisions in the course of being in office. A key lesson drawn from the Ekiti experience on my watch is the need to take necessary but difficult decisions and implement them early in order to manage the inevitable backlash that’s bound to accompany such decisions. In our case in Ekiti, the expectation was that the initial euphoria surrounding the popularity of our government will see such tough decisions through. We were wrong. The lesson is that we underestimated the entrenched powers and principalities in each of the sectors in a state whose economy and politics are often heavily influenced by civil servants. This is a key factor that new Governors in a hurry to deliver public goods must pay attention to. Whilst I will still suggest that tough decisions are taken early, the value of sequencing must be taken to heart. Sequencing enables tough decisions to be taken but in a manner that is not totally disruptive of status quo ante in one fell swoop. Very careful study of the local terrain and its power map must be done before implementing polarising reforms. Every reform has gainers and losers. More often than not, the losers are more vocal and more disruptive. We must understand that the status quo that we intend to uproot exist to service certain interests. We must expect that those vested interests would push back. We must therefore anticipate how they are likely to react, and prepare for it accordingly. More importantly, we must realistically evaluate our ability to push through such reforms, relative to the strength of the resisting party and measure the cost before we embark on such actions.

Public Communication is imperative: It is also extremely important to control the communication surrounding public sector reforms. In situations that will lead to loss of jobs, the exit strategy must be seen to be compassionate in the range of options offered. In 2014 when I lost my second term election in Ekiti State, there were many who cast the polls as a contest between an aloof intellectual consumed by the minutiae of governance and infrastructural development and a people-pleasing populist who showed that he was in tune with the masses. Our administration was said to be too bookish and too focussed on reversing the poverty trend in the state and thus easily upstaged by a charismatic challenger who understood the power of “stomach infrastructure” – a euphemism for immediate gratification over long term development. However, what has transpired in my home state since 2014 has further fortified my belief that cheap populism and opportunistic demagoguery do not represent what is best in us as a people and hold no potential for actualizing the hopes and dreams of millions of Nigerians. It is a lesson every leader must take to heart. Populism or playing to the gallery may take you so far and buy you short-term popularity, but it will not guarantee enduring legacy, which you would crave so much after leaving office.

Yet it is easy to believe that when elections are won on dodgy propaganda, cheap populism and criminal brigandage, voters who bought into the sleight of hands might see the error of their ways and self-correction would therefore naturally follow. Unfortunately, when lies become the oxygen of politics and governance, it is often the ethos of politics and the institutions of governance that are largely diminished. Since the voters are supposedly always right, what this does, if care is not taken, is allow them to justify their errors on the simplistic notion that “all politicians are the same” or “this is politics.” Even where there is evidence to suggest otherwise, as was the case in Ekiti in 2014, there still persists a level of self-righteousness that fails to acknowledge these egregious errors of judgement on the part of voters.

While the voter on the one hand must accept culpability for being cast adrift in the ocean of lies, every public office holder must understand the place of constant public communication and not indulge in the mistaken belief that the average voter is so discerning to separate the wheat from the chaff or that their work will speak for them. Your work will not speak for you in this new age of social media and trust deficit. You must speak to your work. Leaders must learn how to control the message simply because what really happened is not as important as what people think happened. In short, while substance matters, symbols cannot be ignored. Perception is everything.

If the people, that is, the citizens, are the targets of public policies, then there must be mutual communication between the government and the people. Public Communication involves the articulation of public interest which is indispensable in a democratic polity. It is the means by which the citizens would hold their government accountable, and it’s the means by which the government would demonstrate its trust in the wisdom of the people in a democratic process.

Real and Enduring Change happens incrementally: No government solves all problems. Even after two terms as Governor in Ekiti, I cannot claim to have solved all the problems. In fact, you will still meet some people who will tell you we did nothing in the state. The important point here is that we don’t need to solve all problems or even solve a problem completely before we can lay claim to progress. Most times, scholars of democratisation and development practitioners ignore partial reforms, inconclusive processes, transition reversals and democratic subversions, failing to recognize that failure in one instance may result in more enduring reform. Such analyses over-focus on the fate of macro-changes, while ignoring changes in bits, in parts or segments of the sub-national systems. The dialectics of reform in Nigeria has demonstrated in the last two decades that rarely does transformation come from a single, big shift; but rather as a cumulative effect of small, incremental shifts and improvements.

Incremental change is sometimes as important, if not more important than revolutionary change. A tweak in one factor that is able to set a state on the right course, represents progress. Another tweak that is able to move it even one degree forward is also a vital progress. It is important for us to recognise this marginal progress so we don’t give in to despair and despondency that no matter what we do, nothing would change. Take education for example. Actual results take several years to manifest in the real accomplishment of the children and evidence would continue to be gathered on which particular action has yielded what particular outcome beyond the lifetime of an administration. However, a policy that is able to improve the ability of children to read more words per minute this year than they were able to read last year must be noted as remarkable achievement. This is why sustainability is so central to government at all levels.

On my exit from office, Ekiti had the highest enrolment of school children and lowest out of school children’s rates in Nigeria along with Imo, it continues to have one of the lowest child and maternal mortality, lowest HIV prevalence in the country and one of the highest life expectancies partly as a result of our social security benefit scheme – the first of its type in any State in Nigeria established in 2010. The only way to continue to improve on this incremental change is if policies and programmes that produced them are sustained. But we know that all these gains can be easily lost or reversed if efforts are not sustained beyond the life of our administration. This is what informed the enactment of the Transition Law 2019 in Ekiti as an encouragement to a new government to see government as a continuum and not seek to undo every step taken by the predecessor.

Success without succession ultimately amounts to failure: No matter how noble our motives for going into politics, however accomplished we may be as administrators, one truth stands unimpeachable: no (wo) man is indispensable. We serve by the grace of God and at the pleasure of the electorate. We must lead with one eye on today and the other on the future. As political leaders, this involves mentoring young leaders to carry on from where we stop. This has not been a particularly strong point of leadership in our environment. When it happens, it’s often in breach. Too often, we are suspicious of the young. We marginalise talented youth that we should be grooming, seeing them as threats, instead of nurturing them as successors. We are often afraid to retain aides with superior intellect and archaic, paternalistic attitudes still dominate our leadership models and have aborted countless opportunities for positive change and innovation.

Leadership is a continuum: And for our leadership to truly stand the test of time, it must be driven by a trans-generational perspective. We must cultivate and nurture those who will take our exertions for a better society to higher levels. We absolutely must mentor young people. Indeed, the litmus test for our success as leaders is not how many people we are leading but how many people we transform into leaders. In other words, how many people we are empowering to realise their own potential as leaders.

Each generation of leaders must stand on the shoulders of those who came before them. Whatever our successes as individual leaders, they are incomplete until we have prepared the grounds for succession. This is how positive leadership cultures are perpetuated. Too many promising states and organisations have expired or atrophied with their charismatic leaders or founders because they fail to mentor the next generation to carry the baton of leadership. Both in and out of office, one of my favourite pastimes is nurturing and mentoring young leaders. This is also what we have put into practice in Ekiti State. What we can learn from countries like Singapore and states like Lagos is that nation building is a trans-generational task. It is not about gifted or charismatic individuals. The myth of the all-conquering strong leaders, as I argued earlier, hardly endures in any setting if not embedded in values and institutions. It is about leadership traditions based on ideas and values shared across generations. This is what ensures that leadership is continuously refreshed and society is continually renewed. This is how to create a national success story that endures for ages.

Leadership is sacrifice and service: Having conducted a gruelling campaign to win election into office as Governor or President, the temptation is sometimes high to want to now relax and enjoy the benefits and trappings that are attached to the office. For some, this is the first time they step into a room and everybody gets up. This is the first time you talk to people and they dare not talk back. You say something, even if it is stupid, people laugh and tell you how wise you are. Beware. You will soon learn that all these will pass so quickly that if one is not careful, it would be difficult to show what one has done with the opportunity that would never come again. A President or Governor is like a king in theatre performance. He is not really a king. Once the director signals the end of the movie, that’s the end of his assumed royalty.

I have repeatedly emphasised the need to have a plan. But even this can only be derived from a commitment or at least, a desire to make the difference and leave the state or institution we lead better than we met it. It is worth pointing out that best intentions are never enough. It is so easy to get caught up in appearances, attending meetings, social events, playing politics and even pushing files. In the end, there would be little or nothing to show for it. It is however, difficult to imagine a leader with a clearly articulated plan of his own getting into office and surrendering to frivolities. As you would find, leadership is mostly a thankless job. But we asked for it. The sacrifice that one is required to make is so huge that it is only with a clear ethical perspective and a sense of duty to something bigger than yourself that you can wake up every single day willing and able to continue to push.

At the beginning, the sirens, the privileges, the power, all the special attention and superficial honorifics that you get would make one look back and feel that the gruelling campaign had paid off. But believe me, all these would soon lose their attraction as they become a routine part of your life. In no time, you would find yourself wondering, “so, why am I here?”, “If I leave here today, what would I be remembered for, what would I show for having passed through here?” If you are able to anticipate this in advance, it would be much easier to focus on what really matters in the end. I often heard people say that someone has changed after gaining political power. In fact, the historian Barbara Tuchman wondered why ordinary intelligent people tend to behave in a manner contrary to common sense once they gain political power. My view is that if people come to the office with a burning desire to help, and wake up every day asking, “how am I helping my people?” It would be difficult not to focus on what really matters.

Despite the fawning aides and favour seekers that we see around power holders, the reality is that if we bother to look closely, the people actually have nothing but disdain for the political class generally. They see us as self-serving, greedy, incompetent and selfish. I believe that this general perception is not fair and does not give due recognition or respect to the great sacrifice that so many political office holders make in this country every day. However, I must also admit that the conduct and behaviour of some politicians tend to lend credence to some of this assessment. My argument is that if some politicians give politics a bad name with their conduct in office, some other politicians can also give politics a good name by the same means and I know many of us can readily give examples of such public servants.

To make a wholesome difference, leaders must place great store on capacity, competence, character and compassion and above all courage to act in the overall interest of the citizens at all times, even if it doesn’t earn one popularity prize. While one must learn the art of manoeuvring for political survival, it is important to understand that genuine leadership is neither the office nor the title. Genuine leadership is sacrifice. It is a rare opportunity. It is a privilege and and it is a huge sacrifice and service.

In summary, these are some of the strategies that I believe can contribute to the improvement of good governance in our challenged environment. First, understand that leadership is teamwork, not a solo effort. Two, pay attention to the big picture with a nuanced understanding of societal dynamics and focus on solutions; three, have a realistic plan based on wide consultations but be flexible, four, think through how to put a team together and also fund your promises to the electorate, five, don’t ignore your civil service or suffocate your government with external consultants, six, own your communication and engage the electorate constantly, seven, change in government is often incremental, not revolutionary. What makes incremental change enduring is sustainability. Eight, sustainability rests on seamless succession and succession planning since governance is a continuum.

Concluding Remarks

The invitation which you kindly extended to me to share some reflections with you today is an important part of a process of stock-taking which I believe those of us who have had the privilege to serve in high office must constantly take advantage of. As a professor in a similar leadership school, this is also part of the experience I share with my students. I hope to turn this to a book on lessons and experiences from my sojourn in politics and government. I am certain that when the time comes, you will be kind to me again to offer me a platform to share some extracts from the book. In the meantime, I thank you for your kind attention.

Dr Fayemi, former Ekiti State Governor presented this address at the Abuja Leadership Centre recently