Government failure: Nigerians must keep their leaders’ feet to the fire

Nigerians are complicit in the utter mediocrity of their government. This seemingly stems from the failure to understand the difference between “representative” and “direct” democracy. In a direct democracy, citizens themselves decide how they are governed, including the policies and rules they want. But in a representative democracy, they elect others to govern, i.e. make rules and policies, on their behalf. Thus, representative democracy puts a huge responsibility on citizens to hold their government accountable.

The best analogy is an agency relationship where the principal must ensure that the agent acts in its best interests. Without accountability, without a system of control by the principal, there is a risk of agency slack, where an errant agent veers away from its remit and pursues its own interests to the detriment of those of the principal.

Similarly, if left to their own devices, without pressure from the citizens, elected politicians and public officials are likely to work solely or mainly to serve their own interests rather than the interests of the people. Self-interest is a powerful force in politics.

It is useful, at this point, before we discuss the Nigerian situation, to explore from theory the role of institutions, of which governments are composed, and how they work.

At the heart of the analysis of why nations fail or succeed is the nature of institutions. In their book “Why nations fail”, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson stress that the nature of a country’s political, economic and social institutions determines its success or failure. This is because different institutions create different incentives and produce different results.

But what do we mean by institutions? Or, put differently, what constitutes institutions? Douglas North, the Nobel Prize economist, made a distinction between “formal” and “informal” institutions. According to him, formal institutions are tangible rules and organisational structures; informal institutions are norms of behaviour.

This is an important distinction because while formal institutions, i.e. rules, set the terms of governance and the parameters of acceptable behaviours, it is informal institutions, i.e. values and norms of behaviour, that determine how people apply the rules and, therefore, whether they work or not.

Which is why Professor Paul Collier, the renowned economist at Oxford University, argues that, to succeed and move from poverty to prosperity, a country must not only create the right set of rules, it must also build “teams of people with a clear mandate and the right values and motivation to make the rules work.” Of course, it’s easier to create formal rules than to engender the right values and norms of behaviour in people.

Now, coming back to Nigeria, everyone knows that this country has countless laws in the statute books and countless formal institutions. For instance, there are several criminal codes and laws against corruption, bribery and abuse of office; there are several anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies; and there are countless ministries, departments and agencies (MDAS). In fact, as I wrote recently, Nigeria is administratively overgoverned. So, why is corruption so rife? Why is the government utterly ineffective? Why is good governance so elusive?

Well, the answer is that the formal rules and institutions are not matched by the informal constraints of the right values and norms of behaviour. Two countries can have the same rules and yet have different outcomes. This is because the people operating the rules in both countries behave differently, based on different informal rules – norms of behaviour, ideas, values, internally enforced code of conduct like honesty and integrity. The truth is that those governing Nigeria have the wrong values and norms and are not constrained by the formal rules of conduct.

In her book “Fighting Corruption Is

Dangerous”, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-iweala, two-time finance minister, lists the following as the factors undermining governance in Nigeria: “inappropriate policies, inefficient and non-transparent institutions, corruption, capture by leaders and rent-seeking elite.” This makes Nigeria what Acemoglu and Robinson call an “extractive” state, a state where a small group of elite dominates and exploits the people. But is this because of the absence of formal rules or because of the absence of the right values and norms of behaviour? Well, the answer is more the latter than the former.

One obvious solution is to enforce the formal rules strictly. But who will enforce the rules? Is it not the same people with the wrong values and norms of behaviour? Enforcement matters, but formal enforcement alone can’t do the job.

This is where the citizens come in. When the French philosopher Joseph de Maistre said that “every nation gets the government it deserves”, what he meant was that, in a representative democracy, citizens have a duty not only to elect the right people to govern them but also to hold them accountable. Democracy is not about casting your ballot and then doing nothing until the next election cycle. Rather, it is about keeping the elected politicians’ feet to the fire so that they can do the right thing and act in the best interests of the people.

But such “pressure from below”, i.e. from the citizens, will only come when a country has an enlightened citizenry. Which is why Professor Collier listed “a critical mass of well-informed citizens” as one of the key drivers of good governance. According to him, “without a critical mass of pressure from citizens, rules and institutions become paper tigers, the rules get ignored, the institutions get overpowered”.

Sadly, Nigeria doesn’t have a critical mass of well-informed and active citizens to hold elected politicians to account and act as a bulwark against bad or mediocre government. Why? Well, there are many reasons, but partisanship and self-interest are key ones. In their book “The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind”, Jason Weeden and Robert Kurzban argue that when people take a political stance, they are probably acting out of self-interest. That’s true in Nigeria. No matter how appallingly a government performs, there are legions of people, driven by selfinterest and partisanship, who are willing to defend it to the hilt.

Take President Buhari’s supporters and spin doctors. They were bitterly against President Jonathan, who they believed woefully underperformed. But the same people have turned a blind eye to President Buhari’s appalling underperformance. Rather, they present him as Nigeria’s saviour. Why are they doing so? Well, it’s because it serves their selfinterest or partisan leanings.

The same self-interested and partisan Buharists find my criticisms of the president’s policies and leadership so objectionable they are calling me Buhari’s “enemy.” In a recent interview in Vanguard to mark my 60th birthday, the political editor, Clifford Ndujihe, asked: “From your columns, your critics consider you as President Buhari’s enemy. What is your take on this?”

But why would anyone call me President Buhari’s enemy? Of course, I speak truth to power in my columns. But the challenges that this country faces are too great for any columnist to equivocate, grovel or be sycophantic towards any politician.

The Economist magazine once wrote: “The questioning of institutions and received wisdom is a democratic virtue, and a sceptical lack of deference towards leaders is the first step to reform”. That’s the approach I have taken in my columns: questioning institutions and received wisdom in Nigeria and sticking my head above the parapet to say, with directness, to the president that his policies and decisions are undermining economic prosperity and endangering unity and political stability.

Yet, I am not President Buhari’s enemy; what I am is his probing and principled critic!

Truth is, unless Nigerians learn to hold their government to account, unless there is a critical mass of enlightened citizens that can act as a bulwark against mediocre government, Nigeria will continue to be poorly served by its leaders. It’s a choice Nigerians must make!

Sadly, Nigeria doesn’t have a critical mass of well-informed and active citizens to hold elected politicians to account and act as a bulwark against bad or mediocre government. Why? Well, there are many reasons, but partisanship and selfinterest are key ones