Chief Cele Ehirim 08033055568
Leadership begets followership. And in the same way, followership begets leadership. With these two propositions in mind, the question must be asked: which accounts for the other?
Fundamentally, the answers are not too far to find. In the real sense, the Greeks, who were the forerunners (fathers) of modern democracy hinted exclusively in their choice of a kind of government of the people by the people, for the people. This was many centuries ago. The consensus that a government, if it must be democratic, must necessarily be chosen by the people, gives practical evidence to the fact that the followership, more down any other factor, determines the stuff and direction and the leadership. It is a case of the chicken and the egg-which comes first?.
Can a leadership emerge from the blues without the people (in a democratic system-which has become the ideal situation) having a say in the matter? No. Just in the same way that one cannot make an omelette without breaking an egg, no leadership emerges in isolation of the people. This is the kernel of the argument: good leadership is the offspring of good followership and vice versa.
Certainly, a nation or group or state, gets the kind of leadership it deserves. If the leadership is to be accountable, honest and just to those who elected it, the electorate must set the agenda first on the kind of leadership they desire through concrete, unambiguous actions. If the leadership is clear about the standards and expectations of the followership, it would be very difficult for it to deviate from it. If the leadership however proves obstinate or insensitive to an extent that it rides rough-shod on the feelings and rights of the people, the people who believe in standing firm for those standards will make appropriate moves to replace the aberrant government. This is how it should be for the leadership to live up to its socio-moral responsibilities and the followership to protect itself from repression. What the above suggests therefore, that the followership will always reap what is sows. What it gets from the leadership is a factor of what it puts into it. This is the paradox of most leaderships especially in Nigeria and most developing countries where democracy is yet to be firmly routed as a system of government through the conduct of elections. A common feature of most governments in the above place, is the tendency for massive corruption, immorality and injustice, by those in positions of power. They abuse the instruments of power, loot the treasury and enslave their own people- whom the first place, voted them into power. This is the sorry state of Nigeria and other developing countries. Yet, who is to blame? The electorate in these places, owing to poverty and the economic hardship prevalent, are known to with hold votes except induced by some form of bribe or reward. They not see the logic in the fact that the single most important role they must play is to use their votes to change or replace a bad leadership. They rather believe in living for the moment, the theory of now. The essence of such a compromise with all its negative consequences therefore, are that, if the leader must task himself to pay for every vote or supports he gets during electioneering campaign or win an election-his duty as soon as he ascends leadership position, is to enrich himself first and the people’s rights becomes optional and the exception. In doing this, the people have no choice but to pay dearly for accepting to be corrupted by the aspiring leader who in turn perfects his leadership and Loots the treasury. This is why economic hardship, poverty, disease and human suffering unprecedented in the history of mankind are now permanent features of corrupt democracies.
On the other side of the political divide, ignorance and poor education about political rights and obligations to themselves and the state, mislead the people into thinking that changing and electing leadership is the job of the elite, the fortunate few. Most people’ in these places are therefore cynical about roles expected of them in the political process. This leads to total abuse of power. It is another proof that the followership, more than the leadership, actually determines the direction of governance. The followership in an ideal situation, ought to be the safety valve, the check and balance against the executive excesses of state.
Totalitarianism and the rise of dictatorship in most developing countries have also tended to manipulate and distort the true picture of what the obligations of the followership should be. The effect of this unsavory arrangement is the possibility of a total erosion of the rights of the people, restrictions and injustices become the order of the day. It is a height of political domination by a handful of people. Dictatorship for these, find it difficult to free themselves from the strangle-hold of power- drunkenness with the effect that the business of governance becomes a personal property to be run at one’s whims and caprices. The axiom that the followership will always get the type of leadership it deserves, is further proved by the fact that some civilian members of the electorate have in Nigeria and most African Countries, in the present and past, actually come out loudly to ask for military intervention in the political process only to turn back later to criticize the same government of highhandedness or unpatriotic gestures. This is morally wrong. Most military dictatorships always wait for the objective conditions before intervening in the political process. It is common knowledge that military governments have intervened in countries where the electorate actually come out to ask the men in uniform to save them against the civilians they have voted into power. Corruption, mismanagement of resources and lack of direction are some of the reasons normally ascribed. In such a scenario who do we blame for the instability in these countries and by extension Nigeria-the followership, which fails to elect credible candidates and started the corruption by withholding votes for money? Or the leadership interested only in sticking to power?
At the moral level, leadership must be firm ac accountable to the people. No leadership determines what kind of followership they expect, both should strive, to achieve maximum results, to complement each other. The issue of superiority should not arise.
Discipline is vital for any leadership to effectively perform its duties. Discipline enables it to be strictly guided by moral factors, and insists on being right at all times, without any intent to compromise the right of the people.
In the same way, humility must be the lot of both the leadership and the led. No leadership should consider itself more important than the followership for indeed the former is answerable to the latter. In the same way, no followership should consider itself too important to be flawed as to with hold support. For the leadership to effectively perform its duties, it must enjoy the support of the followership.
A good leadership must be dutiful and purposeful. The onus is on the leader to fulfill all electioneering promises made to the followership if the latter are not to be frustrated or feel exploited in the process. With honesty of purpose, the followership will always be prepared to swim or drown with the leadership.
The issue of betrayed of trust also vanishes with a sincere and public spirited leadership. Trust begets trust. The followership must show and prove that it has enough trust in the leadership for the latter to work towards the realization of it. An arrogant leadership will not last. It soon alienates itself from the people. This is also why a leadership must be as easily accessible as possible, since to put a barrier between the leadership and followership is to ring the death knell on the government.
Leadership must also be just and lawful at all times. The interest of the electorate should be paramount in all decisions and policies made to avoid making the followership feel estranged from the political process.
The leadership and followership should also fulfill their social responsibilities. The followers should pay their taxes regularly while the leadership should provide the much needed amenities. This complimentary roles, oil the machinery of governance.
High and above all, the leadership must treat all citizens as equal before the law, regardless of social backgrounds, guided by a deep sense of the fear of God. A godly leadership will inherit a godly followership. Social responsibility and godliness reduces the possibility of injustices and political contradictions. It restores hope and faith in the collectivity of that pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number. The Nigerian Leadership often times tend to be religious but not Godly. To bring my discussions home, a careful and unbiased assessment of President Goodluck Jonathans leadership reveals a thorough and purposeful direction of the qualities enumerated above. We ask the followership of Nigeria to be more responsive in supporting the Government to succeed in its avowed mission to bring qualitative development to our people.
Hon. Chief Cele Ehirim (DG GBURUGBURU) Political Analyst 08033055568
