Opinion

Lessons of Fifty-One Years After the Nigerian Civil War by Amb. Godknows Igali

Published

5 years ago

January 27, 2021

Eric

(Protocol)

INTRODUCTION
Let me start by appreciating the organizers of this conference for creating this forum to enable us parley and exchange ideas on the journey which we have embarked upon during the last half century and also chat a way forward for our children. I specially would like to appreciate the Nzuko Umunna (the Igbo Think Tank), Ovation International, Njeje Media, and our own indefatigable Professor Pat Utomi, the Chairman of the Conference Planning Committee for putting this together; especially in creating an auspiciously convivial atmosphere and bringing in such a distinguished array of speakers and participants.

I would want, to specially appreciated the fact that His Excellency, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, GCFR, our former President of Nigeria, whom I was privileged to serve in different capacities while he was in office and consider a lifelong mentor is here. The presence of Chief Obasanjo today as Special Guest of Honor, is most appropriate because no Nigerian, either living or dead could be substituted for him in terms of the wealth of personal and institutional memory of Nigeria’s post-independence political and socio-economic experience.

I have been privileged to read President Obasanjo’s rich and rather unique assortment of writings which encapsulate in an encyclopedic manner, the Nigerian story from our dawn of nationhood. For the purpose of our discussion today, some of his books such as “Chukwuma Nzegwu” with whom he shared closest affinity as well as “Not My Command” and “My Watch” (three volumes) all dwelling on the Nigerian Civil War, underscore his knowledge on the subject of our discussion.

Similarly your successful conscription of our ever ready father, Pa (Chief) Ayodele Adebanjo who is not just leader of Afenifere but has been a foremost political activist and firm nation builder from the days of nationalist struggle is most useful. This has aptly been shown from his rich intervention as Chairman of the Occasion. Similarly our other patriarchs, Dr Uma Eleazu and Alhaji Tanko Yakassi, both of whom have already made rich interventions showing their forte in this complex process of nation building which we are seized with. These are amongst our most outstanding patriots. I also salute our many contemporary voices assembled to share thoughts here.

It will be totally incomplete if I do not pay deserved tribute and appreciation to Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah our Key Note Speaker. I have been tempted, a few times to refer to Bishop Kukah as a veritable typology of the 16th century theologian, Dr. Martin Luther who ignited the process of Christian Reformation and political change in the then “known”. But more precisely, Dr. Luther took on the gargantuan Roman Catholic Church which ruled the world during that epoch and boldly appeared before the conspiratorial Council of Worms in 1521 to defend his views.

THE GLOBAL SCOURGE OF CIVIL WARS RECOUNTED
Intra-state conflicts and wars have always been part of human society from the cradle of human social organization. This is to the extent that the object of the causative disagreements is to possess control of political power, economic power or influence public policies and maintain control of some over others.
Without going too far or detailed into history, the truth is that, a trail of civil wars have occurred around the world. For example, from the time of the Trojan Wars (1300-1200BC, 1200-1100BC) to the Greco-Persian wars (492-449BC), the Peloponnesian wars (431-404), and even up to the Punic wars during the 2nd century BC, internal conflicts and civil wars have never seized. That was why the Norman Conquest of Europe in 1066 AD, the 100 Years’ Wars in Europe (1337-1453) during which over 3,300,000 people died as well as the 30 Years’ Wars which left a terrible toll of over 8,000,000 lives, all remain recounted painfully in world history. Indeed, of more particular note, to us are the English Civil Wars (1642-1651) between Parliament and Monarchy over the style of governance, limits of power and religious freedom. Of similar interest is the American Revolution (1775-1783), the French Revolution (1787-1799) and the American civil war (1861-1865), in which about 620,000 soldiers died.

In more contemporary times, werebthe atrociously bloody experiences in the Balkans and all around u. Closer home, we have all been witnesses to the civil wars in Congo, the Great Lakes region, Sudan, Ethiopia, Niger, Chad, Central African Republic, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Mali, etc.
I have gone into such details to underscore the fact that civil wars of different dimensions and scopes have sadly been part of human history. Furthermore, such wars have not been limited to any particular part of the world. But unfortunately, have been part and parcel of human history and touched most realms. It is of particular note, that despite all these internal upheavals, most of the countries that experienced them are today, quite peaceful and counted today as some of the most stable democracies. The question therefore, is how did they do it?

THE NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR
As I stated earlier, none is in a position to give better account of the Nigerian Biafra War than President Olusegun Obasanjo. Also, other speakers have in a rather rich manner, collectively added to give the background to the series of events that led to the war. It may therefore, be needless for me to dwell on the details of what happened but rather focus on the lessons we have learnt. It would however, suffice to lament, that the staggering 2,000,000 lives or more of civilians particularly from Biafra and about 100,000 soldiers who died in that war from 1967-1966, could have been averted if our political leaders at the time had decided to learn from history of similar occurrences from around the world. Besides, if our leaders had bothered to show more restrain and enquired on why some countries have never experienced civil wars but maintained relative peace around them, conflicts could be staved off.

Unfortunately as once said by the English philosopher and writer Aldoux Huxley “men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important from all the lessons of history”. So I am afraid that we seem not to have learnt much, but let’s keep talking and talking. More than that, let’s keep thinking about the way forward, ponder on new solutions and regurgitate on new ideas.

This approach is also in tune with my area of academic interest which has focused more on State Formation and National Integration. In other words, what keeps nations together, what could make them to disintegrate, and what could make them survive the complex vagaries that comes with the process of staying together. My thoughts I must mention, humbly, are contained in two of my award winning books: Perspectives on Nation-State Formation in Contemporary Africa and Global Trends in State Formation.
So, 51 years since the Nigerian Civil Car ended, what lessons have we learnt. Also, what anecdotes can we put in place to avoid any such reoccurrences in the future. With respect to such reoccurrences, I also mean the series of political interruptions by way of endless military coups which we experienced in Nigeria for 38 years and the rather slow process of national integration after over 100 years of amalgamation and 60 years of statehood. This also includes the continued reign of political intolerance as well as the parlous state of social and economic development in the midst of relative wealth and not excluding the rising tide of internal divisions, suspicions and disharmony.

Having said that, and with the limitation of time, let us ponder on a few areas that I believe will help us as a country in the years ahead. I must confess however, that these prescriptions are rather annotated.

ON THE WAY FORWARD
a) ELITE CONSENSUS
The underling factor of keeping nations at peace and avoiding bloodshed is for the elite to have very positive disposition towards staying together as one. This is a sine-qua-non for peaceful co-existence and harmony in all political communities, irrespective of size and extent of complexity. As we know, almost all nations of the world are multi ethnic, diverse and heterogeneous. Even in places such as Somalia, North Korea and South Korea which are often cited as relatively homogeneous societies, there are internal expressions of sub-identity of various forms. As a matter of fact, nations are like the human alimentary canal which keeps changing in demographic form and character, and defined by what goes in and comes out overtime.

It is therefore incumbent on those on whom leadership has been entrusted to continuously work on how to make the union to work. As a matter of fact, the history of political philosophy in all traditional societies was more focused on consensus. This is what still obtains in our traditional societies here in Africa and Nigeria in particular. It was why some of the founding fathers of African nationalism such as Julius Nyerere, the first President of Tanzania, opposed the imposition of Westminster type sharp divisions in governance. That is, the idea of having a Seating Government and a Shadow Government, both on each other’s throat. Nyerere argued and rightly so, that in his own traditional world view, like most of Africa, the concept of an opposition leader was an anathema and was almost equivalent to enmity. Nyerere insisted therefore on continuous dialogue and consultation within any political space until consensus is arrived.

If we cast our minds back to the origins of the Nigerian state itself, Lord Fredrick Luggard, our first Governor General appreciated the fact of our diversity and so did all his colonial successors who were ceased with administration of Nigeria. On the Nigerian side, our founding fathers all recognized that varying differences existed amongst our people. Yet they all agreed to live together, work together towards independence and the building of a nation. Such elite consensus is therefore paramount and absolute, if we do not want to go back to the ugly civil war years.

b) THE RULE OF LAW
Great nations are also founded on the existence of laws which exist and create an atmosphere of fairness, equity and justice. Wars, dissensions and disaffections have always occurred when a state of inequity and multiple standards exists. That is, where some groups feel aggrieved and get treated with disregard, there is bound to be conflict. The law must make all to feel same sense of belonging and inclusion. The law must protect all and not promote superiority and inferiority classes, either expressly or in opaque terms. The law must continuously integrate all and not have lacunas which could be the basis for disharmony.

The guiding mantra to avoid conflict should be, “what is good for the goose must be good for the gander”. That is why we cannot brush aside the clamor by the Ibos to be allowed or rather encouraged to aspire for the office of the President of Nigeria. Why not? Or the quest by the people of the Niger Delta for greater control of their resources in line with the spirit, letter and original tenets entrenched in the 1960/63 Constitutions and or demand for better protection of their environment much damaged by oil production. The law must protect their environment from pollution and similar situations around the country, without discrimination. The law must rule and protect all.

c) BUILDING HOMEBRED DEMOCRACY
While democracy has been identified as the best form of government, it is important to mention that there’s no fit for all form of the concept. Yes, it has irreducible standards for all nations to adopt. However, democracy must be endogenous and homebred. Democracy only thrives and becomes an enabler of peace and balanced growth, if it is tailored to the realities of the specific political ecology.

That is why the 26 cantons of Switzerland, the peculiarities of American Republicanism and Exceptionalism, French Hybrid Republicanism, the German, Israeli and Italian models are all unique. So is the post Soviet, Russian model of political order, the Indian federation of 28 states and 8 Union Territories, the Constitutional Monarchies of Europe, Middle East, Japan, Thailand, and elsewhere. All these have their peculiarities.

Nigerian does not need to shop around the world for an idyllic form of democracy. The tendency of continuously borrowing from norms of other nations breeds the enabling environment for conflicts. The political elite must look at our peculiar situation, antecedents and geo-strategic circumstances and craft our paradigms for state buildings. Such indigenous prototype will be fit for staving off possible potent internal conflicts and even civil war as occurred for the bloody 30 months.

d) THE IMPERATIVE OF RIGHT COMMUNICATION TEMPLATE
One of the most destabilizing factors in any human community, state or nation is the inability of leaders to communicate appropriately in a direction that will build common good. This has been worsened by the wrong use and application of diverse modern communication channels, especially social media. Hence what has become popularized as “hate speech” is now most potent weapon for conflict and wars, especially internal. On the contrary, effective national building can best strive when leaders and critical political actors communicate in a manner that conjures feelings of common and shared destiny amongst the various peoples. The civil wars in Rwanda, former Yugoslavia and several still festering conflicts around the world, have their origin and sustenance from what one may call evil communications from leaders. Such negative forms of communication, deliberately on unwittingly spurn hate, mutual suspicion and incitement to violence and anarchy.
These must be avoided and discouraged as of common cause by all. On the contrary, the leaders of various groups in the country must come up with a template of what is acceptable forms of communication and have very strict sanctions for infringement. This is the best panacea to avoiding what happened in 1966 and through to 1970 and has remained as an albatross in Nigerian’s unique situation in the past 51 years.

e) ON FOOD SECURITY AND SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
For us to avoid the tendency of recline to anarchy, conflict and even war, there is a need for us to ensure that the country is able to feed itself. Food is one of man’s basic needs and therefore closely tied to the question of security and peace. As a matter of fact, food availability, access to food and the prevention of hunger and malnutrition could in a major way douse political tensions where they exist.
We must, as a country, therefore, focus on agriculture, production of food for our people, and have functional food support and school feeding programmess. All those in need of food must be catered for and have access to proper nutrition without difficulty.

Food availability will engender economic growth, social wellbeing and in a general sense reduce poverty. If we must live in peace and avoid the kinds of situation that created the war in 1967, we must apply copious financial resources, technology and deploy our active population to produce food. The 80,000,000 acres of arable land which the country has must be utilized fully. We have to apply irrigation and drainage, fertilizers, genetic engineering, land preparation and reclamation, tractorisation, green house technologies and the like to feed our people and thereby seriously eliminate the propensity to conflict and anarchy. Besides this will mop-up the army of unemployed youth and improve house hold savings and wealth creation.

As long as majority of Nigerians go to bed hungry every day, the propensity for a return to what caused the civil war and has easily tended to create an atmosphere of social tension will be there. The saying that “a hungry man is an angry man” holds quite true and must been avoided.

f) IMBIBING PEER REVIEW AND CROSS MENTORSHIP AMONGST LEADERS
The whole concept of Peer Review is the openness of allowing persons with similar background and competencies to provide some level of censorship to what is being done by one another. This, to some extent, is a form of self-regulation, so a person with such abilities in a particular field, is able at all given times to cross regulate one another. This is to ensure that certain globally accepted standards in civility, political decency and governance are maintained.

In other words we must develop a national frame-work where our political elite are able to have a mechanism of checking and extracting the best of standards of good conduct and public decorum from one another. This must be at all levels, both at the federal and subnational levels (that is the 36 states and 774 Local Government) areas.
This is unlike the present situation where there are no ingrained norms for evaluating equal standards among political actors around the country. So the present situation of governance and leadership in the country appears as a situation of anomie and a free for all.
When the leaders of the African continent formed the African Union in 1999, they shortly came up with a template called the African Peer Review Mechanism. One author defined this as “a mutually agreed instrument voluntarily acceded to by member’s state of the African union (AU) as a self-monitoring mechanism”. Since this process was started in 2003, it has become a major instrument “to encourage conformity with regards to political, economic and corporate governance value, costs and standards among African countries”.

At national level, our process of integration into one, in the midst of much diversity and creating of a feeling of common belonging by our people and at the same time putting us the sad years of civil will be greatly enhanced if we can have such a regime in place. This is due to the fact, that good governance cultivates an atmosphere forl peace.

g) THE COLLECTIVE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION
The Global Corruption Perception Index shows that the most peaceful countries are those where their citizens enjoy the best standard of living, which is a function of where corruption is least endemic. As a former Nigerian Ambassador to the Scandinavia that is Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland, I can attest that political peace is intrinsically connected with the question of good government and transparency.
One of the bane of underdevelopment in Africa is the unmitigated reign of corruption. It continues to ravage the continent leaving behind a trail of despair, frustration and underdevelopment. According to globally leading sector ombudsman, Transparency International, Africa is the world’s second fastest growing region, yet a majority of its population live in extreme poverty, due mainly to corruption and bad management.

Studies have shown, that annually, African countries loose about 50 billion dollars to illicit financial flows of which Nigeria is at the vortex. As a matter of fact, a study by Price, Water, and Cooper (Pwc) shows that corruption could become as much as 37% of African GDP in 2030.

It is woeful that at present, Nigeria is 146 out of 180 most corrupt countries in the world. Indeed Nigeria is considered by sector experts as the most corrupt country in Africa with a major impact on its youthful population which is the 3rd largest in the worth after India and China. More than half of the population is still below the age of 18 years of age.
The high incidence of corruption, despite current policy pronouncements to tackle it affect the country in several ways including increasing the cost of doing business, and also depreciate sustainable growth, social well-being. Corruption has continued to create a cycle of frustration, anger and tension in the country as ordinary citizens are directly impacted.

Arising from the above, is the need for a genuine national consensus in Nigeria devoid of politics, devoid of partisanship and devoid of ethinicism or religion to fight corruption. We must, from our hearts and actions say “never again” to corruption as a key panacea to avoid what has happened 51years since after the civil war.

h) THE QUESTION OF BUILDING INSTITUTIONS
We were all witnesses to the recent events in the United States where it was once thought was the bastion of unshakeable democracy . The recent assault on the American Capitol on 6th January 2021 was therefore, a major dent on 245 years of relative political stability, founded on the existence of institutions of the states. These include Political Parties, the Legislature, the Presidency, the Judiciary, the Bureaucracy, the Military, Academia, media civil society and so on.

These institutions are the building blocks for the purpose of political and social order. They also create the standards, values and norms for government departments, other actors and individuals. In other words there institutions are the bedrock for proper administration and are the enabler’s of social harmony and protection of the rule of law and the common good of the society.

As we have seen since after those events, the secret of peace and order in the more developed democracies is the fact that such institutions have been allowed to evolve and develop over time. They have become the foundation to regulate various systems and form the basis for normative, cultural, psychological and other critical behavioral attitudes of the individuals and in by aggregation, the society.

So, despite the terrorist like assault on the American political set up, we noticed that various institutions were able to rise up to bring order within the shortest time.
If we are to build a Nigerian nation that will not take us back to the period of the civil war, institutions of governance in the country must be allowed to grow and stand. They may make mistakes and flounder at these initial stages of state building, but we must allow them to grow. The Nigerian elite must be willing and see the good to allow the various institutions to develop on their own and become the foundational structures towards a stable society. So even where situations occur like the civil war and its after-math, these institutions will, timeously, combine to ensure that peace and harmony are restored.

CONCLUSION

Fifty-one years is well into adulthood in the life of any individual, political or social institution. However for a nation, this may appear, rather, at a stage in infancy. This not-with-standing, it is enough time for Nigerian leaders to learn from the mistakes of other countries and from our experiences so far. Nations great and small are not normally built by angels or supernatural beings. Nations are built by individuals with the commitments to live together. Nigeria’s founding fathers, despite what many call Lord Luggard’s “forced union”, showed that instinct, appetite and determination to live together and build a new nation. As they negotiated for independence through the various constitutional processes, they could have insisted on going their separate ways. Rather, they did not do so, but decided to stay as one. As may recall, at the eve of independence in 1948, that is 22 years before 1960, India and Pakistan decided to part ways and the British facilitated that process for them. This has happened in several other cases.

However, Nigeria’s founding fathers father saw good reason to remain as one. Accordingly, from the 1914 Luggard Constitution to the 1922 Hugh Clifford Constitution, onto the 1946 Arthur Richards’s Constitution, to Ibadan Conference of 1951, which led to the John Macpherson Constitution 1951 and eventually the Lyttleton Constitution 1954, those who birthed the nation, remained resolute on staying together. They tolerated each other and they made spirited effort to understand each other and the differences between them. They decided to adopt the spirit of give and take and it was that character that finally led to the adoption of the 1960 Constitution and also the 1963 Constitution.

Sadly, the present constitutional order, a product of several years of military rule, with participa bytion of picked civilians, has deviated fundamentally from what the founding fathers negotiated studiously and agreed. Even more grievous and particularly perturbing is the fact that dispassionate efforts to bring back that warmness and mutual tolerance which prevailed at the time of our fathers are not only been resisted but censured by some with vehemence.
If we must avoid what happened in 1966 and between 1967 and 1970, the spirit of give and take must return to our body politics. The feelings of other parts of the country must be understood respected and taken into consideration and not regarded as irrelevant.

Agreed, that a strict return to 1960/63 Constitutions would be rather difficult. However, the calls for rigorous constitutional amendment or restructuring must be given needed attention and not dismissed as undeserving of consideration. After all, even the more advanced countries have gone through major constitutional reviews which include the United States – 27 amendments since 1787, France -24 amendments since 1958, India -104 amendments since 1950 and so on. This could happen in those countries due to the fact that their political elite have realized over the years, that State Building is not an end by itself but is a continuously refining process to accommodate all interest. The truth is that understanding the fears, pains and peculiarities of one another is a fundamental panacea for living together.
Once more, I thank you for inviting me to be part of this process and I hope, that we will learn from history and the pessimism, negativism and naysaying around us would be put behind us.

Thank you.

Opinion

The Scars of Glory and the Burden of Leadership!

Published

7 days ago

March 7, 2026

Eric

By Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

“True glory is never unscarred, and authentic leadership is never unburdened; together, they forge the crucible from which resilience, innovation, and equitable possibilities emerge for peoples, corporations, and nations alike” – Tolulope A. Adegoke PhD

In the annals of human endeavor, glory is often portrayed as the pinnacle of achievement—a radiant summit where triumphs are celebrated and legacies are forged. Yet, beneath this luminous facade lie the indelible scars that mark the journey: the wounds of sacrifice, the echoes of failure, and the silent toll of perseverance. Leadership, in turn, emerges not as a crown of ease but as a weighty mantle, demanding unwavering resolve amid uncertainty. This write-up explores the intertwined realities of glory’s scars and leadership’s burdens, framing them as essential catalysts for unlocking possibilities across peoples, corporations, and nations. By examining these themes through a global lens, we uncover how embracing such challenges can foster resilience, innovation, and sustainable progress in an interconnected world.

The Essence of Glory’s Scars

Glory, in its purest form, is rarely bestowed without cost. It is the culmination of battles fought, both literal and metaphorical, where victories are etched upon the soul as much as upon history. For individuals—be they entrepreneurs, artists, or activists—the scars of glory manifest in personal sacrifices. Consider the innovator who toils through sleepless nights, forsaking family ties and personal well-being to birth a groundbreaking idea. These scars are not mere blemishes; they are badges of authenticity, reminding us that true achievement demands vulnerability and endurance.

On a corporate scale, these scars appear in the form of organizational trials. Companies navigating global markets often endure economic downturns, regulatory hurdles, and competitive upheavals. The 2008 financial crisis, for instance, left deep imprints on multinational firms, forcing restructurings that scarred workforces through layoffs and cultural shifts. Yet, from these wounds emerge stronger entities, equipped with adaptive strategies and diversified portfolios. In nations, glory’s scars are woven into the fabric of collective memory—wars, revolutions, and economic reforms that reshape societies. Post-colonial nations in Africa and Asia, for example, bear the marks of independence struggles, where the pursuit of sovereignty inflicted profound social and economic pains. These historical scars, however, pave the way for renewed identities and developmental trajectories, aligning with international standards such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which emphasize inclusive growth and resilience.

Internationally, the delivery of possibilities hinges on recognizing these scars as opportunities for learning. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report highlights how past crises, like pandemics or climate events, scar global systems but also unlock innovations in healthcare and sustainability. By integrating lessons from these experiences, peoples can access education and empowerment, corporations can drive ethical capitalism, and nations can pursue equitable diplomacy. Thus, glory’s scars are not deterrents but gateways to transformative potential.

The Weight of Leadership’s Burden

Leadership, often romanticized as visionary guidance, carries an inherent burden that tests the mettle of those who wield it. At its core, this burden involves decision-making under duress, balancing immediate needs with long-term visions, and shouldering accountability for outcomes that affect multitudes. For individuals in leadership roles—such as community organizers or CEOs—the weight manifests in ethical dilemmas and emotional fatigue. The isolation of command, where leaders must project confidence while grappling with doubt, can lead to burnout, a phenomenon increasingly addressed in global mental health initiatives like those from the World Health Organization.

In the corporate realm, the burden of leadership is amplified by stakeholder expectations and market volatilities. Executives must navigate shareholder demands, employee welfare, and environmental responsibilities, often amid geopolitical tensions. The rise of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) criteria exemplifies how leaders are now accountable for broader impacts, transforming corporate governance into a high-stakes endeavor. Successful corporations, such as those in the Fortune 500, demonstrate that bearing this burden fosters innovation; for instance, tech giants investing in AI ethics despite regulatory uncertainties create pathways for inclusive technological advancement.

Nationally, leaders bear the heaviest loads, steering policies that influence millions. Heads of state confront burdens like economic inequality, security threats, and diplomatic negotiations, all while upholding democratic principles or cultural values. The Paris Agreement on climate change illustrates this: national leaders commit to burdensome transitions from fossil fuels, yet these efforts unlock possibilities for green economies and international collaboration. In alignment with frameworks like the International Monetary Fund’s guidelines for fiscal responsibility, such leadership burdens ensure that nations deliver on promises of prosperity and stability.

Globally, the burden of leadership is a shared imperative for delivering possibilities. The G20 summits and similar forums underscore how collaborative leadership can mitigate burdens through knowledge exchange and resource pooling. By fostering diverse leadership models—incorporating gender parity and cultural inclusivity, as advocated by the OECD—peoples gain empowerment, corporations achieve sustainable competitiveness, and nations build resilient alliances. Ultimately, the burden is not a curse but a crucible, refining leaders to champion equitable futures.

Intersections: Where Scars and Burdens Converge

The scars of glory and the burden of leadership are inextricably linked, forming a symbiotic dynamic that propels progress. Leaders who bear burdens often accumulate scars through trials, yet these experiences equip them to inspire and innovate. For peoples, this convergence means access to role models who humanize success, encouraging grassroots movements that align with universal human rights standards, such as those in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Individuals scarred by adversity, like refugees turned advocates, embody leadership that uplifts communities, delivering possibilities in education and social mobility.

Corporations at this intersection thrive by institutionalizing resilience. Firms like Patagonia, scarred by environmental advocacy battles, shoulder leadership burdens in sustainability, setting benchmarks that influence global supply chains. This approach not only complies with international trade standards but also unlocks market opportunities in eco-conscious consumerism.

Nations, too, find strength in this nexus. Emerging economies, scarred by historical exploitations, burden their leaders with reforms that foster inclusive growth. Initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area exemplify how addressing these elements can deliver economic possibilities, harmonizing with WTO principles for fair trade.

In a world of rapid globalization, embracing these intersections adheres to international norms, such as those from the International Labour Organization, ensuring that progress is ethical and inclusive. By viewing scars as wisdom and burdens as duties, stakeholders across levels can co-create a landscape ripe with opportunities.

Pathways Forward: Embracing the Inevitable for Collective Advancement

To harness the scars of glory and the burden of leadership for global benefit, a proactive stance is essential. Education systems worldwide should integrate leadership training that acknowledges these realities, preparing future generations in line with UNESCO’s global citizenship education. Corporations must invest in wellness programs and ethical frameworks, aligning with ISO standards for sustainable management. Nations, through multilateral engagements, can share best practices, as seen in ASEAN’s collaborative leadership models.

In conclusion, the scars of glory remind us of the human cost of aspiration, while the burden of leadership underscores the responsibility of power. Together, they form the bedrock for delivering possibilities to peoples, corporations, and nations—fostering a world where challenges are not endpoints but springboards to excellence. By honoring these elements with integrity and foresight, we pave the way for a more equitable and dynamic global order, where glory’s light shines not despite the scars, but because of them.

Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke, AMBP-UN is a globally recognized scholar-practitioner and thought leader at the nexus of security, governance, and strategic leadership. His mission is dedicated to advancing ethical governance, strategic human capital development, and resilient nation-building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.com, globalstageimpacts@gmail.com

Opinion

Give What, to Gain What? Reflections on the 2026 International Women’s Day Theme

Published

1 week ago

March 5, 2026

Eric

By Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya

At first glance, the theme of this year’s International Women’s Day celebration sounded a little odd to me.

Last year’s theme, Accelerate Action, was clear enough. You read it and immediately understood it as a call to move faster, push harder, do more, close the gaps. It was energetic, direct and unambiguous.

But “Give To Gain”? Give what? To whom? And to gain what, precisely? How is giving a pathway to gender equity? In the legal profession, and in leadership generally, we are trained to think in terms of advantage. What do I gain? What do I secure? What do I protect? But the more I reflected, the more I realised that perhaps that reflection was the point. Because my reflection took me to some of the most defining moments in my professional journey, and they did not come from what I took. They came from what someone chose to give.

A colleague who gave me insights instead of indifference, a leader who gave me visibility in a room where my voice would have been overlooked, a mentor who gave me honest feedback when flattery or a comfortable silence would have been easier.

None of those acts diminished them. They did not lose relevance, influence, or authority. If anything, their giving expanded their impact. Sometimes, some of us act as though giving someone else room to rise somehow shrinks our own space. But leadership does not weaken when it is shared wisely. It deepens.

That is the quiet power behind “Give To Gain”, and the paradox at the heart of this year’s theme. “Give To Gain” is not a call to diminish ourselves. It is a call to invest in one another because when we give from strength, we gain strength. So give respect.
give access. Give honest evaluation. Give opportunity without prejudice. And you will gain trust, loyalty and potential. Give mentorship and gain contunuity, give equal footing and gain the full measure of talent available. That kind of giving multiplies gain.

So perhaps the theme is not so odd after all. In a world that often asks, “What do I stand to lose?” this year’s International Women’s Day asks instead, “What could we stand to gain, if we were all willing to give?”

In the context of gender equity, the theme becomes even more compelling. Giving equal footing is not about doing women a favour; it is about acknowledging merit. When barriers fall, capacity rises to the surface. When access expands, talent flourishes. When women thrive professionally, institutions gain.

Against this backdrop, I began to think about the remarkable women who embodied this principle long before it became a theme. Women who gave intellectual rigour to complex situations and gained distinction. Women who gave courage and resilience in the face of resistance or in rooms where they were the only one, and gained respect. Women who gave mentorship to younger women and gained a legacy that cannot be erased.

Women who gave integrity to public service and the private sector and gained trust and admiration that cannot be manufactured.
Women whose boldness did not ask for permission to contribute. They did not lower their standards to fit expectations.

They gave of their intellect, their discipline, their time and their resilience, and in doing so they expanded the space for others. That is the spirit I want to honour this IWD month.

Beginning tomorrow, on International Women’s Day and continuing through all the remaining days of March, I will be celebrating a female icon who exemplifies this principle. Women who have given and gained. Each day, one story. One journey.

One example of boldness in action. Not to romanticise their journeys or suggest that their paths were easy, but to illuminate them and show what is possible when you dare to try.

Each profile will tell a story of contribution and consequence, of how giving strengthens, and how excellence, when sustained with integrity, inevitably earns its place.

My hope is that other women will read these stories and recognise themselves in them. That men also will read them and see leadership, not limitation. And that we will all be reminded that progress is rarely accidental. It is built, often quietly, by those willing to give more than is required.

If this year’s theme “Give To Gain” means anything to me, it means that we must intentionally amplify the inspiring examples that prove what is possible when women are bold.

Because inspiration and visibility are forms of giving. And sometimes, the simple act of telling a story is the spark that lights ambition in someone who was unsure where or whether she belonged.

This March, I choose to give inspiration and visibility and honour where it is so richly deserved.

And I trust that in doing so, we will gain a stronger world, a clearer sense of direction and possibility and another generation of women bold enough to step forward without apology.

Now the theme no longer seems strange. Now I understand that when we give boldly, we gain collectively. And that is a theme worth celebrating.

Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN FCIArb

Opinion

Beyond the Vision: The Alchemy of Turning Ideas into Execution

Published

2 weeks ago

February 28, 2026

Eric

By Tolulope A. Adegoke PhD

History is littered with the skeletons of great ideas that never saw the light of day. In boardrooms and basements across the world, concepts with the power to reshape industries lie dormant, suffocated not by a lack of merit, but by a lack of execution. We live in an era that venerates the “light bulb moment,” yet the painful truth, as articulated by venture capitalists and historians alike, is that ideas are a dime a dozen; it is execution that is richly rewarded . The journey from the spark of imagination to the tangible reality of a finished product, a profitable corporation, or a thriving nation is an alchemical process. It requires the transformation of abstract thought into concrete action—a discipline that separates the dreamer from the builder. This evolution of an idea into reality is not a mystical event but a replicable process, best understood through the distinct exemplars of visionary individuals, resilient corporations, and transformative nations.

The Individual: The “Thinker-Doer” Synthesis

The romantic notion of the genius lost in thought, sketching blueprints while others do the heavy lifting, is a seductive myth. The reality, as demonstrated by history’s most impactful figures, is that the major thinkers are almost always the doers. Steve Jobs, a figure synonymous with innovation, famously articulated this principle by invoking the ultimate Renaissance man, Leonardo da Vinci. Jobs argued that the greatest innovators are “both the thinker and doer in one person,” pointing out that da Vinci did not have a separate artisan mixing his paints or executing his canvases; he was the artist and the craftsman, immersing himself in the physicality of his work . For Jobs, this synthesis was the guiding doctrine of Apple. He understood that abstract ideation is sterile without the feedback loop of hands-on mastery. The refinement of the Mac’s typography, the feel of a perfectly weighted mouse, the intuitive interface of the iPhone—these were not born from pure theory but from an obsessive, tactile engagement with the building process. The “doer” digs into the hard intellectual problems precisely because they are engaged in the act of creation.

This principle is further illuminated by the career of Elon Musk. While often perceived as a master inventor, Musk’s greatest genius may lie in his ability to execute existing ideas at a scale and speed previously thought impossible. He was not a founder of Tesla on day one, but he stepped in to spearhead its execution, transforming an electric vehicle concept into a global automotive powerhouse. At SpaceX, he inherited the age-old idea of space travel but revolutionized its execution by challenging fundamental cost structures and vertically integrating manufacturing. Musk embodies the “thinker-doer” by immersing himself in the engineering details, sleeping on the factory floor, and distilling complex challenges down to their fundamental physics. Both Jobs and Musk validate the venture capital adage that investment is placed not in ideas, but in the people capable of navigating the treacherous path from Point B to Point Z—the messy, unglamorous grind where visions are either realized or abandoned.

“In the architecture of achievement, ideas are merely the blueprints; execution is the foundation, the steel, and the mortar. A blueprint without a builder is just a dream drawn on paper” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

The Corporation: Engineering the Culture of Execution

For corporations, the evolution of an idea into reality is not a one-time event but a cultural imperative. It demands a structure and a philosophy that bridges the notorious gap between strategy and outcome. Procter & Gamble (P&G), a consumer goods giant, provides a master-class in adapting its execution model to survive and thrive. Despite investing billions in internal research and development, P&G recognized that its traditional closed-door approach was failing to meet innovation targets. The company evolved its idea-generation process by embracing “Connect + Develop,” opening its innovation pipeline to external inventors, suppliers, and even competitors. This shift in mindset was merely the idea; the reality was the rigorous, internal execution that vetted, integrated, and scaled those external concepts—like the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser, which was discovered as a prototype in Japan and flawlessly executed by P&G’s operational machine. The company’s success hinges on what researchers call “imaginative integrity”—the ability to make an imagined future so tangible that the entire organization can build toward it.

Similarly, UPS stands as a testament to the power of “creative dissatisfaction.” For over a century, UPS has operated not on bursts of pure invention, but on the relentless engineering and re-engineering of its systems. Founder Jim Casey instilled a culture where the status quo was perpetually questioned—from testing monorail-based sort systems to optimizing delivery routes with algorithmic precision. The idea was not merely to deliver packages, but to create the pinnacle of logistical efficiency. The execution involved tens of thousands of employees “pulling together” to transform the organization repeatedly, embracing changes that ranged from entering the common carrier business in the 1950s to mastering e-commerce logistics in the 1990s. These companies succeed because they build what management experts call the “five bridges” to execution: the ability to manage change, a supportive structure, employee involvement, aligned leadership, and cross-company cooperation. At Costco, this is embodied by CEO James Sinegal, whose Spartan office and relentless focus on in-store details align leadership behavior with the company’s razor-thin margin strategy, proving that execution is modeled from the top down.

The Nation: The Political Economy of Progress

The evolution of ideas into reality scales beyond individuals and firms to the very level of nations. The economic trajectories of countries are determined by their ability to adapt foreign concepts and execute them within local contexts. The post-war rise of Japan is perhaps the most powerful example of this phenomenon. In the early 20th century, Japan was exposed to American ideas of scientific management, but the devastation of World War II left its industrial base in ruins. The idea that saved Japan was quality control, imported through lectures from American scholars W. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran. The genius of Japan, however, was not in the adoption of the idea, but in its adaptation. Private organizations like the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) took the lead, transforming foreign theories into the uniquely Japanese practice of Total Quality Management (TQM) and the grassroots phenomenon of Quality Control circles. This was not government-mandated execution; it was a national movement of “thinker-doers” on the factory floor, relentlessly refining processes. The evolution of this idea rebuilt a nation, turning “Made in Japan” from a byword for cheap goods into a global standard for reliability.

In contrast, Singapore represents a different model of national execution: the state as a strategic architect. Upon independence, Singapore possessed few natural resources and a uncertain future. The government, however, possessed a clear-eyed vision of industrial development. It actively sought external assistance from the United Nations and Japan, but crucially, the Singaporean authorities acted as the “agent of adaptation” . They did not passively accept advice; they made decisive judgments about what was relevant to their unique circumstances and demanded specific adaptations. This disciplined, top-down execution of economic strategy—from building world-class infrastructure to enforcing rigorous education standards—evolved the idea of a “sovereign nation” into the reality of a first-world entrepôt. The contrast with nations like Tunisia, where external donors took the lead due to a lack of domestic policy clarity, highlights a fundamental truth: ideas flow freely across borders, but the ability to execute them is a domestic condition, cultivated through leadership and institutional will.

Conclusion: The Integrity of the Build

Ultimately, the evolution of an idea into reality demands what can be termed “imaginative integrity”—the unwavering commitment to binding the vision to the execution. It is a concept that applies equally to the Renaissance painter mixing his own pigments, the CEO sleeping on the factory floor, and the nation-state meticulously adapting foreign technology. The world is full of “crude ideas” that lack the refinement of execution; even a brilliantly designed structure like MIT’s Stata Center can falter if the craftsmanship of its realization is flawed.

The journey from “A to Z” is long, and the gap between strategy and outcome is the graveyard of potential. To traverse it, one must recognize that thinking and doing are not sequential acts but concurrent disciplines. The doers are the major thinkers, for they are the ones who test hypotheses against reality, who adapt to feedback, and who possess the grit to push through the inevitable obstacles. Whether it is a nation reshaping its economy, a corporation reinventing its logistics, or an individual defying the limits of technology, the lesson remains constant: the future belongs not just to those who can dream it, but to those who can build it.

Vision sees the path; execution walks it, blisters and all. The distance between a dream and a legacy is measured only by the courage to begin the work.

History does not remember the whisper of a thought, but the echo of its impact. To think is human, but to execute is to leave a mark on time.