Opinion

The Oracle: Dictatorship: Antithesis to Democracy (PT 3)

Published

5 years ago

July 23, 2021

Eric

By Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

Last week, we concluded our discourse on democracy as a form of government. Today, we shall x-ray the meaning, concept, causes and the possibility of having elective dictatorship in governance.

MEANING OF DICTATORSHIP

In all countries of the world, you won’t find a dictator who calls himself a dictator. Instead, dictators bear ordinary titles such as president, emperor, great leader and similar monikers. That’s because ‘dictator’ is a pejorative term assigned to certain rulers by other nations, particularly the developed nations of the West – that is, countries with thriving economies – such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and many others.

To be considered a dictatorship means that a country is known to be run by one person without any checks and balances on his/her power. Dictators make unilateral decisions that affect their countries without having to consult any other branch of government. That is because there is no other branch of government that is not controlled by the dictator. Human nature being what it is, dictators do not rise to power for the good of their nations (though, they usually claim otherwise). They seize power to benefit themselves, their families and their close political allies.
Dictators usually come to power through some kind of violent struggle, rather than the peaceful passage of power that we take for granted in the United States. In cases such as the late Kim Jong-il in North Korea, the ruler is even worshiped as a demi-god.

CONCEPT OF DICTATORSHIP

The concept of dictatorship, in its origin and evolution, may be better appreciated both as a complementary and protective constitutional device and as a complete antithesis to the democratic constitutional state. Thus, Carl J. Friedrich (1937), in referring to the ancient Roman model, makes a distinction between constitutional and unrestricted dictatorship. Franz L. Neumann (1957, p. 248) comments that dictatorship may arise and function as “implementation of democracy,” “preparation for democracy,” or the “very negation of democracy.” Plato and Aristotle saw the origin of tyranny in the weaknesses and degeneration of democracy, and political theory has been based on the polarity of democracy and dictatorship ever since. However, the view that a revolutionary dictatorship necessarily presupposes the existence or the counterpart of a democratic constitution is disputed. Answers may be provided by the recent sociological and political research into the historical process of transition from a constitutional, restricted dictatorship to an unrestricted, total dictatorship.

CAUSES OF DICTATORSHIP

The inability to function and the internal weakness of democracy are undoubtedly among the main causes of the establishment of dictatorial rule. The totalitarian communist system of the Soviet Union arose in consequence of the crumbling away of tsarist autocracy, hastened along by a mass movement. In general, it can be shown that unresolved social tensions and economic crises, together with the undermining of constitutional order and the development of undemocratic power aggregates, are among the conditions that give rise to dictatorial regimes.

POSSIBILITY OF HAVING AN ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP IN GOVERNANCE

Over the years, the executive arm of government has always been seen as the primary source of tyranny, and in Britain the Parliament was developed to control its power. After centuries of struggle, this control was finally achieved in the nineteenth century by making the executive government responsible to the Parliament.

The growth of disciplined political parties in the twentieth century has reversed this responsibility, and the executive government can now often control the parliament, resulting in a form of elective dictatorship.

There is nothing new about the concept of an elective dictatorship. After all, nearly 2500 years ago, the Roman Commonwealth instituted the office of dictator, the incumbent to be chosen by the Senate to deal with crises such as war, sedition and crime, which were too difficult for the two annually-elected and often mutually antagonistic consuls to deal with. The dictator initially held office for six months.

The Nazi government of Adolf Hitler is an extreme example of a modern elective dictatorship, but Hitler was elected and his dictatorship was legal under the Weimar Constitution. The Weimar Republic had responsible government, with a Chancellor as head of government. The president-the aged Field Marshal Hindenburg at the time of Hitler’s accession-had considerable authority, including dictatorial power if public order and security were threatened.

The Weimar Parliament was elected by proportional representation, with consequent difficulty in forming stable governments.

The constitutional tradition and the rule of law are much more firmly established there than they were in the Weimar Republic. Nevertheless there are disturbing common patterns in all elective dictatorships.

In modern times, attention was first called to the new elective dictatorships by Lord Hailsham, in a famous address on the BBC in 1976. He later wrote:
Disregard the fundamental human values of justice and morality and you will soon turn majority rule into unprincipled tyranny. But in practice, human nature being what it is, every human being and every human institution will tend to abuse its legitimate powers unless these are controlled by checks and balances, in which the holders of office are not merely encouraged but compelled to take account of interests and views which differ from their own.

In pointing to the dangers of an elective dictatorship, Lord Hailsham was in fact echoing the views of a long tradition of political theorists, dating back to the times of ancient Greece. Even the expression ‘elective dictatorship’ was similar to Thomas Jefferson’s description of a type of government as elective despotism.

He wrote: The concentrating [of all the powers of government] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one … An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.

The founders of the United States of America, particularly Jefferson and Madison, brought remarkable intellectual rigour and imagination to the problems of creating a new democracy. They may have been somewhat misled by the French philosopher Montesquieu, who thought that the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers was the secret of the success of the English system after 1688, and the American system was modeled on that principle. ‘The Americans of 1787’, wrote Bagehot, ‘thought they were copying the English Constitution, but they were contriving a contrast to it.’ In fact what Montesquieu was emphasising was the importance of the independence of the judicial system from political forces (unlike the situation in France), and this separation of powers is common to both the British and American systems.

As Lord Acton put it: ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Edmund Burke was also aware of the dangers of untrammeled power. Two hundred years ago he wrote that ‘in a democracy the majority of citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppression upon the minority.’ His views were echoed nearly a century later by J.S. Mill when he wrote of:
‘the evil effect produced upon the mind of any holder of power, whether an individual or an assembly, by the consciousness of having only themselves to consider … A majority in a single assembly easily becomes despotic and overweening, if released from the necessity of considering whether its acts will be concurred in by another constituted authority. One of the most indispensable requisites in the practical conduct of politics, especially in the management of free institutions, is conciliation: a readiness to compromise; a willingness to concede something to opponents, and to shape good measures so as to be as little offensive as possible to persons of opposite views.’

He went on to say that, to control a government, it was essential to:
‘throw the light of publicity on its acts; to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which anyone considers questionable’.

This attitude was totally different to that of Dicey three decades later. Dicey believed that the true source of the life and growth of the British Constitution was ‘the absolute omnipotence, the sovereignty of parliament’. It must be admitted, though, that when this sovereign Parliament was prepared to take action with which Dicey disagreed-as in Home Rule for Ireland, his respect for the Constitution seemed to vaporize. He recommended a referendum (so much for the sovereignty of Parliament) and, if a majority voted for Home Rule, he was prepared to see armed insurrection (so much for respect for the British Constitution).

None of the countries above has anything approaching responsible government in Bagehot’s sense, though all pretend they have. What they have is party government, where the party which wins the majority of seats in the lower house forms the government and its leader become prime minister. The government is responsible, not to the parliament, but to the caucus of the government party MPs. The lower house merely registers the laws proposed by the government, after discussions with the government party caucus. The caucus relies for its electoral success on the party organization, which in some of the parliaments may give orders to the parliamentary party.

There are also other constraints. The doctrine of the sovereignty of parliament, under which its enactments cannot be struck down by any court, now applies only in New Zealand. Canada and Australia are federations, with entrenched constitutions. The powers are divided between the federal and state governments, and any disputes are decided by the courts. The UK is a de facto provincial member of the European Federation, with laws enacted by its Parliament liable to be overridden by European Union laws on certain designated subjects, and disputes resolved by a Union court.

These restraints still leave formidable and effectively unreviewable powers in the hands of a government which controls the lower house. The only remaining barriers to party despotism are upper houses, but these barriers are of very uncertain strength. If the government party has the numbers in the upper house it is really no barrier at all for, except in the UK, where party members of both houses meet in a common caucus where the upper house members are usually heavily outnumbered by those from the lower house. The decisions of this caucus are usually binding on upper house members, even in cases where most of them actually oppose the decision. Cross voting is rare; it is effectively non-existent among Labor members in Australia. The House of Lords was a special case, for most of the peers did not accept party discipline. The answer was inevitable. Exploiting the non-elective character of the House of Lords, governments managed to reduce its power to a mere delaying role.

However, if the government party does not have the majority in the upper house-and this is becoming increasingly common, with four of the six elected upper houses using proportional representation-the upper house can be a formidable obstacle to an elective despotism, reviewing legislation thoroughly, and amending and sometimes rejecting it. Government activities may be closely and critically scrutinized and inquiries held into matters the government does not want investigated. If elected by proportional representation, upper houses can reasonably claim to be more reflective of actual community opinion than a lower house elected by single member constituencies. This claim should be slightly qualified, if only part of an upper house-usually half-retires at each election. This is deliberately done to make the upper house a continuing body, without violent fluctuations in balance caused by temporary changes in public opinion. (To be continued).

FUN TIME

There are two sides to every coin. Life itself contains not only the good, but also the bad and the ugly. Let us now explore these.

“Yesterday, I attended a burial of a friend’s grandfather. But their tradition is that at every burial ceremony, an old man would come out and announce the next person to die. So this old man said the first person to leave the burial ground will be the next person to die. Since yesterday, we are still at the burial. Even one elderly man that is over 95years is asking me if my parents won’t be looking for me.

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” (Plato).

Opinion

The Six Focal Dimensions of Leadership: A Holistic Framework for Personal Mastery

Published

4 days ago

March 14, 2026

Eric

By Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

“True leadership awakens the highest in others by first mastering the highest in oneself: it weaves inner clarity with outward vision, human connection with disciplined action, collective harmony with unyielding integrity—transforming individuals, institutions, and societies into their fullest potential.” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD.

Leadership constitutes a pivotal force in human progress, operating as a multifaceted process that shapes personal trajectories, drives organizational excellence, and steers national destinies. Far beyond positional power, it integrates psychological depth, behavioral agility, strategic acumen, relational wisdom, systemic orchestration, and unwavering ethical commitment. The focal dimensions—self-leadership, visionary direction, relational influence, strategic execution, team and systemic alignment, and ethical integrity—serve as enduring pillars, drawn from an evolving synthesis of leadership theories including trait, behavioral, contingency, transformational, servant, authentic, and collective models. These dimensions interact dynamically, adapting to cultural nuances, technological advancements, generational shifts, sustainability demands, and geopolitical complexities in our interconnected era.

This expanded exploration delves profoundly into each dimension, weaving theoretical foundations with practical applications across individuals (peoples), corporations, and nations. It incorporates concrete, globally recognized examples—historical and contemporary—to provide clearer insight, deeper comprehension, and alignment with international standards of scholarship and practice. These illustrations highlight successes, challenges, and transferable lessons, underscoring leadership’s role in fostering resilience, innovation, equity, and sustainable flourishing.

Self-Leadership: The Internal Compass of Personal Mastery and Authenticity

Self-leadership forms the foundational dimension, emphasizing proactive self-direction through heightened self-awareness, emotional regulation, disciplined habits, continuous learning, and resilient agency. Rooted in cognitive-behavioral and positive psychology frameworks, it empowers individuals to align actions with intrinsic values amid external pressures.

For individuals, self-leadership manifests in personal triumphs over adversity. Viktor Frankl, the Austrian psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, exemplified this during his imprisonment in Nazi concentration camps. Despite unimaginable suffering, Frankl chose his attitude and inner response, maintaining meaning through logotherapy principles and later authoring Man’s Search for Meaning. His practice of finding purpose in suffering demonstrates self-leadership’s power to preserve dignity and agency in extreme conditions.

In corporations, self-leadership scales to executive authenticity and cultural modeling. Leaders who engage in reflective practices—such as executive coaching, mindfulness, and vulnerability—cultivate environments of ownership. Companies like Google have institutionalized self-leadership through programs encouraging personal growth and error reflection, contributing to innovation cultures where employees proactively drive projects.

Nationally, self-leadership appears in statespersons exhibiting moral courage and transparency. Leaders who publicly acknowledge policy shortcomings while pursuing national interests build institutional trust. This dimension supports anti-corruption efforts and civic responsibility in diverse societies, enhancing social capital and intergenerational equity in education, health, and environmental policies.

Visionary Direction: Articulating and Mobilizing Toward Compelling Futures

Visionary direction involves crafting an inspiring, feasible future narrative and aligning resources through foresight, purpose communication, and motivational alignment. It draws from transformational leadership, integrating scenario planning and inspirational rhetoric.

Individuals harness this by defining legacy-oriented missions, channeling energy beyond daily survival toward skill mastery or societal contribution, sustaining motivation through setbacks.

Corporations depend on visionary direction for enduring success. Reed Hastings at Netflix pioneered streaming disruption, envisioning a world where entertainment shifts from physical media to on-demand digital access. By investing boldly in original content and global expansion while phasing out DVD rentals, Hastings aligned the company with technological inevitability, transforming it from a mail-order service into a dominant entertainment platform.

At the national level, visionary direction shapes long-term policy architectures. Jacinda Ardern, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, articulated a compassionate, science-driven vision during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing “team of five million” unity, rapid border closures, and clear communication. This foresight enabled effective containment, economic safeguards, and high public trust, illustrating how inclusive national narratives mobilize cross-generational coalitions amid global crises.

Relational Influence: Building Trust, Empathy, and Inclusive Connections

Relational influence prioritizes authentic bonds through emotional intelligence, active listening, empathy, and mutual empowerment. Grounded in leader-member exchange and relational theories, it transforms interactions into collaborative partnerships.

Individuals apply this in nurturing supportive networks—family, mentorships, communities—that enhance well-being and collective efficacy.

In corporations, relational leadership fosters inclusive, innovative cultures. Satya Nadella at Microsoft shifted from a competitive to a collaborative ethos, emphasizing empathy, growth mindset, and cross-functional dialogue. By modeling vulnerability (sharing personal stories of his child’s disability) and empowering teams, Nadella revitalized innovation, boosted employee engagement, and drove market resurgence.

Nationally, relational influence bridges societal divides. Leaders who facilitate inclusive dialogue and empathetic policymaking reduce polarization. In multicultural or federal contexts, this strengthens democratic legitimacy and crisis coordination, building social capital vital for equitable reforms.

Strategic Execution: Adaptive Implementation and Problem-Solving Under Uncertainty

Strategic execution demands rigorous analysis, decisive action, resource optimization, and iterative adaptation. Informed by contingency and situational models, it balances efficiency with flexibility.

Individuals exercise this in career navigation or personal crises, converting obstacles into advancement.

Corporations require strategic execution for resilience. During Boeing’s 737 MAX crises, leadership (post-2019) executed comprehensive safety overhauls, MCAS redesigns, regulatory cooperation, and cultural reforms—demonstrating calibrated response to regain certification and stakeholder confidence.

Nationally, this dimension drives governance efficacy. New Zealand’s Ardern again exemplified execution during COVID-19 through evidence-based lockdowns, testing scaling, and adaptive economic support, minimizing health and economic damage while maintaining public adherence.

Team and Systemic Alignment: Orchestrating Cohesion and Interdependent Success

This dimension empowers others, clarifies interdependencies, and aligns efforts via distributed leadership models, viewing outcomes as networked rather than hierarchical.

Individuals contribute through meaningful delegation and peer mentoring.

Corporations build high-performing ecosystems by dismantling silos and integrating functions. Relational approaches, as seen in collaborative cultures at companies emphasizing team empowerment, enhance knowledge flow and adaptability in global operations.

Nationally, alignment harmonizes institutions and partnerships. Effective leaders empower subnational entities while ensuring coherent direction, facilitating seamless development and crisis responses in federated or diverse systems.

Ethical Integrity: The Moral Anchor of Accountability and Sustainability

Ethical integrity demands principled consistency, transparency, stakeholder protection, and long-term orientation. Drawing from servant and authentic paradigms, it safeguards trust across all endeavors.

Individuals uphold personal codes resisting expediency.

Corporations embed integrity through governance and stakeholder focus. Johnson & Johnson’s 1982 Tylenol crisis response—swift nationwide recall, transparent communication, and tamper-proof packaging redesign—exemplified ethical prioritization of public safety over short-term profit, restoring trust and setting industry standards.

Nationally, ethical leadership combats corruption and upholds rule of law. Leaders modeling public-interest primacy enhance credibility, investment attraction, and civic virtue diffusion.

Interconnections, Global Relevance, and Pathways Forward

These dimensions interlink synergistically: self-leadership informs visionary clarity, relational trust enables execution, systemic alignment reinforces ethics. Cross-level synergies create virtuous cycles—personal mastery informs corporate innovation, which shapes national resilience.

In today’s context—AI integration, climate urgency, demographic changes, multipolar dynamics—hybrid, culturally intelligent leadership prevails. Measurement via assessments, scorecards, and indices supports development through mentorship, academies, and experiential programs.

Conclusion: Leadership as Catalyst for Interdependent Flourishing

The focal dimensions offer a timeless, adaptable framework elevating individuals to fulfillment, corporations to prosperity, and nations to inclusive progress. Through global examples—from Frankl’s resilience and Hastings’ disruption to Ardern’s empathy and Johnson & Johnson’s integrity—leadership demonstrates profound impact when harmonized with authenticity and service. Investing in these dimensions equips stakeholders to navigate complexity, fostering legacies of resilience, equity, and shared well-being across borders and generations in our interdependent world.

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

The Scars of Glory and the Burden of Leadership!

Published

2 weeks 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.

Opinion

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

Published

2 weeks 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