Connect with us

Opinion

The Oracle: CSOs and the Media in Promoting Democracy and Good Governance in Nigeria (Pt. 3)

Published

on

By Mike Ozekhome

Introduction

Last week, we commenced with good governance how it differs from country to country. Governance is a relationship between rulers and the ruled, the state and society, the governors, and the governed. Countries that are quite similar in terms of their natural resources and social structure have shown strictly different performance in improving the welfare of their people. Much of this is attributable to standards of governance which may stifles and impedes development. Today, we shall continue our discourse on this imperative issue.

GOOD GOVERNANCE DIFFERS FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY (continues)

In countries, where there is corruption, poor control of public funds, lack of accountability, abuses of human rights and excessive military influence, development inevitably suffers. Michels states that government is one of the actors in governance. Other actors, according to Regina O. Arisi and Ukadike, O. J, involved in governance vary, depending on the level of government that is under discussion. In rural areas for example, other actors may include influential landlords, associations of peasant farmers, cooperatives, NGOs, research institutes, religious leaders, financial institutions, political parties, the military, etc. Similarly, Odion-Akhaine stated that formal government structures constitute one means by which decisions are arrived at and implemented. At the national level, informal decision making structures such as “Kitchen Cabinets’’, or formal advisor may exist. In some rural areas, powerful families may make or influence decision making. Such informal decision making is often the results of corrupt practices or leads to bad governance.

Major Good Governance Indicators

UNESCAPE states that good governance has eight major characteristics. They are, participatory by both men and women which is the key to good governance. The next is the rule of law which requires fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially. It also requires full protection of human rights, particularly those of minorities. Impartial enforcement of laws requires an independent judiciary and incorruptible Police Force. The third point is transparency which means that decisions taken and their enforcement are done in a manner that follows rules and regulations.

The fourth is responsiveness which means that good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe. The fifth characteristic is consensus orientation. Good governance requires mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is in the best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved. It also requires a broad and long-term perspective on what is needed for sustainable human development and how to achieve the goals of such development. The sixth characteristic is equity and inclusiveness. A society’s well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well being.

The seventh characteristic is effectiveness and efficiency. Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society while making the best use of resources at their disposal.

The concept of efficiency in the context of good governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment. The last characteristic of good governance is accountability. It is a key requirement of good governance, not only governmental institutions, but also the private sector and civil society organizations. Conclusively, good governance is an ideal which is difficult to achieve in its totality. Very few countries and society have come close to achieving good governance in its totality. However, to ensure sustainable human development, actions must be taken to work towards this ideal with the aim of making it a reality.

Civil Society Organisations

What is Civil Society?

Civil society is an unusual concept in that it always seems to require being defined before it is applied or discussed. In part this is because the concept was mainly used in discourse before the late eighties and many people are therefore unfamiliar with it. In part it is a result of an inherent ambiguity or elasticity in the concept (this is not so unusual. The apparently straight forward notion of freedom can in certain circumstances carry a meaning closer to license than to liberty.)

Civil Society can be defined in broad terms as the arena where people come together to advance common interest, not for profit or political power, but because they care enough about something to take action (Edwards & Gaventa 2001). Perhaps the simplest way to see civil society is as a “third sector” distinct from government and business. In this view, Civil Society refers essentially to the so-called “intermediary institution” such as professional association, religious groups, labour, unions, citizen advocacy organizations that give voice to various sectors of society and enrich public participation in democracies.

In all three schools of thought, Civil Society is essentially collective action in associations, across society and through the public sphere and as such it provides an essential counterweight to individualisms, as creative action Civil Society provides a much needed antidote to the cynicism that infects so much of contemporary politics and as values-based action, Civil Society provides a balance to the otherwise-overbearing influence of state authority and the temptations and incentives of the market, even if those values are contested, so they often are, the ideal of Civil Society remains compelling because it speaks to the best in us-the collective, creative and values-driven core of the active citizen calling on the best in us to respond in kind to create societies that are just, true and free.

CSOs are non-State, not-for-profit, voluntary entities formed by people in the social sphere that are separate from the State and the market. CSOs represent a wide range of interests and ties. They can include community-based organizations as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In the context of the UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework, CSOs do not include business or for-profit associations.
Good Governance Needs Strong Followership (Civil Society Organizations)

Strong followership is a principle of good governance. It is as important as good leadership. They are siamese twins. This followership is elicited and promoted by the attitude of those in governance. If the citizens are regarded as the source and indeed the essence of power of governance and focus of state craft directed at satisfying their aspirations (section 14 of the 1999 Constitution), a good followership that is supportive would be achieved. If their freedom and rights are guaranteed, their opinion respected and those in power deal honestly with them, supportive followership will be entrenched in the political community. As noted by Samuel Eziokwu, Supportive and responsible followership starts with sincere participation in political activities like party organization, exercise of franchise, civil obedience to laws, programmes, policies and protest against obnoxious ones. Good parties are sustained by good party ideologies and manifestoes as galvanized by members. He also notes the following as fall out of good followership.

Political participation by the followers finds expression in registration as voters and actual voting during election. Hence, when followers fail to register for voting and actually fail to vote, they are boldly voting for bad governance, because the unpopular candidate may win the office. Therefore, citizens have no moral reason to complain against bad governance because they failed in their duty select the good candidate.

Elites in a political community have a duty to ensure that they assist in mobilization of the citizens to participate actively in political activities. Their failure will have colossal deleterious impact in the polity. A stitch in time saves nine.

Civil obedience to the laws, policies and programmes of the political community is a means of supportive followership. It makes the polity stable, peaceful and governable. It avails fund to those in government for development programme when citizens pay promptly their taxes, levies, duties, bills, etc. It must be stressed that failure to pay such legal financial obligation willingly tantamount to disloyalty, disobedience and lack of support. It is a breach of social contract between the governor and the followers and bane of good governance.
Genuine demonstration or protest against obnoxious laws and abuse of rights of the people is also means of a supportive followership. Let us note that slavish acquiescence to law does not make a good citizen. Supportive followership as a principle of good governance, requires, the citizens to be alert and react promptly to actions of bad governance meted against them as a means of changing the status quo and engender a new order. Those in government should tolerate demonstration or mass action against bad and anti-people policies. Such actions should be appreciated as a way of calling them to order. Withdrawal of support is a way of showing government in power that it has derailed from the wishes and aspirations of the people.

Constructive criticism or opposition of those in government is also a means of supportive followership. Those who are interested in the affairs of government should be able to criticize what is wrong and proffer viable options for overall good of the people. Total abandonment of those in authority, or resigning to being apolitical, amounts to withdrawal of supportive followership.
Members of the political community should see good governance as a collective effort where they must play their part. Citizens can set up Non-governmental organizations to address or assist government in tackling some perceived problems of the polity. Civil societies like religious organizations, organized labour, academic unions, student organizations, should be strengthened and help in defending the autonomy of private interest. The civil society and Non-governmental organizations, community based organizations, market associations, professional associations should be able to collaborate and mobilize the citizens to stand against democratic abuses, obnoxious laws and policies; roguery in position of power, election rigging etc. The end will be massive withdrawal of support in the form of mass action, strikes, demonstration etc until government purges itself of toga of enslavement and maltreatment of the people.

Thought for the Week

“Good governance requires working toward common ground. It isn’t easy.” (Pete Hoekstra).

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

The Stockholm Syndrome in the Delta

Published

on

By

By Boma Lilian Braide Esq.

The water remembers. It remembers when we were queens and kings of the creeks, when our voices carried across the rivers like thunder, and when no external force could dictate the terms of our existence.

Today, as a daughter of the Ijaw nation, I look at our political landscape and my heart breaks into a thousand pieces. The recent withdrawal of Pastor Tonye Cole from the political race reopened a wound that never properly healed. I immediately texted him a single, urgent question: “Why?” His response was a resigned, familiar phrase; “It is well.” At that exact moment, my thoughts were screaming so loudly inside my head, “Not again!” It felt like a brutal repetition of an old script. Every single time, without fail, they treat the Ijaw man badly, pushing him out of the room where decisions are made.

This leadership class continually trades our birthright for political crumbs, leaving me with a profound sadness I cannot shake. Every four years, we are forced to watch the same exhausting, predictable cycle play out. We have become the laughing stock of the Nigerian politics. We roar like lions in the morning, only to allow ourselves to be led like sheep to the slaughter house by nightfall. This pattern is not merely a string of tactical errors. It is a structural and psychological condition that has calcified into our political culture. We begin every election season with unparalleled bravery, massive energy, clarity, and a list of demands. We mobilise, we protest, we declare our rights. Yet at the decisive moment we fold. We trade collective power for personal gain. We accept crumbs while the harvest is taken from our lands allowing our leaders to be used as mere pawns, chess pieces, and foot soldiers on a board completely controlled by outsiders.

Call it what it is, a political Stockholm syndrome. When a people are held hostage by extractive systems for generations, they can begin to see the captor as a provider. When political actors poison our rivers, burn our gas, and extract our wealth, then return during elections with token gifts, the damaged political imagination can mistake those gifts for benevolence. A motorcycle, a solar lamp, a bag of rice, or a ten thousand naira note becomes a substitute for structural justice. We applaud the giver and forget the theft.

This is not a partisan indictment. The major parties have all participated in this system. From the coastal edges of Ondo and Edo, through Rivers and Bayelsa, to the riverine communities of Delta and Akwa Ibom, the script is the same. Political machines arrive with cash and spectacle. They leave with votes. They do not stay to build roads, to clean oil spills, to fund health care, or to restore fisheries. They do not invest in education or in the infrastructure that would make our communities resilient. They know they do not have to. They know that the combination of poverty, fragmentation, and short-term survival instincts will deliver the votes they need.

The spectacle in Rivers State is instructive. The conflict between an incumbent and a predecessor is not only a personal rivalry. It is a mirror of a deeper structural problem. An Ijaw son may occupy the governor’s office, but the expectation of loyalty to an external power broker remains. When disagreements arise, the Ijaw polity does not close ranks. Instead, it fractures. Elders, youth groups, and political actors align with different external centres of power. We tear ourselves apart while the larger system remains intact.

Delta State offers another painful example. The region produces a disproportionate share of the oil wealth that sustains the state and the nation. Yet Ijaw communities are routinely relegated to secondary roles in governance. The highest offices are often out of reach. When an Ijaw candidate shows real ambition, the pressure to step down, to accept a consolation prize, or to be bought off intensifies at the last minute. The result is a steady stream of symbolic representation and token appointments that do not translate into structural change.

Even Bayelsa State, our most homogenous political home, has not been immune. The state has been turned into a dependent outpost. Political life there is often conducted under the shadow of Abuja. During elections, communities are militarized. Young people are paid paltry sums to snatch ballot boxes and intimidate their neighbours. The leaders who emerge from such processes rarely prioritize environmental remediation, health care, or education. They prioritize survival within the national political economy.

Why do we accept this? Part of the answer lies in a minority complex that has been cultivated over generations. We have been taught to believe that because we are numerically small and geographically dispersed across several states, we cannot set national terms. That belief is false. Our geographic position along the southern maritime border gives us leverage. Nigeria’s economy cannot function without the peace of our creeks. Yet we negotiate from a position of weakness because we lack a unified, non-partisan political command structure.

Other major ethnic blocs in Nigeria have developed cultural mechanisms that protect collective interests across party lines. They maintain consensus on key strategic questions and punish those who betray the collective. The Ijaw political house, by contrast, is fragmented. We are divided into Western, Central, and Eastern blocs. Internal jealousy and rivalry consume us. When an Ijaw son or daughter rises to prominence, it is sometimes their own people who are recruited to pull them down. This internal sabotage is a major reason we are treated as expendable by national political machines.

Our representatives in national assemblies and federal boards are often the most silent and compliant. They vote for policies that harm our region because they want to protect their personal seats and committee positions. We have forgotten the intellectual foundation of our struggle. Our fathers did not rely on muscle alone. They fought with logic and strategy.

Harold Dappa Biriye used constitutional arguments to demand minority rights during the pre-independence conferences. Isaac Adaka Boro presented a detailed economic manifesto during the twelve-day revolution, exposing the systematic underdevelopment of the Delta. The Kaiama Declaration of 1998 linked environmental justice with true federalism in a way that remains a model for strategic political thinking. Today, that intellectual tradition has been eroded by a culture of thuggery, praise singing, and the pursuit of quick money.

The social and economic costs of our political submission are visible everywhere. Schools sink into the mud. Primary health centres lack basic medicines. Women die in childbirth because there are no functional boats to transport them to urban hospitals. Rivers that once sustained us are coated with crude oil. Gas flares burn day and night, releasing toxins that cause cancers and respiratory diseases. In any functioning democracy, such environmental devastation would provoke electoral punishment. But our people accept ten-thousand naira, wear party uniforms, and return the same leaders to office.

This pattern is not only morally wrong. It is strategically suicidal. The global energy transition is underway. The world is moving away from fossil fuels. In a few decades, crude oil will no longer be the primary driver of the global economy. When that happens, the Nigerian state’s willingness to distribute minor rents, amnesty stipends, and pipeline contracts will evaporate. If we remain politically domesticated and economically dependent, we will be discarded once our resources lose value. We will be left with a ruined environment and a population unprepared for the modern economy.

Breaking this cycle requires a radical transformation of our political behaviour. It requires both immediate reforms and long-term institution building.
First, we must refuse to sell our votes for temporary relief. If politicians bring money during elections, take it because it is a fraction of your stolen wealth, but enter the voting booth and vote fiercely against them if they have not delivered real, systemic progress. The act of taking money and voting against the giver is not a moral ideal. It is a pragmatic tactic that recognizes the reality of survival while asserting political agency.

Second, we must create a culture of community accountability. Any Ijaw politician, elder, or youth leader who sells out the collective interest for personal gain must face social consequences. They should be stripped of traditional honours, excluded from community gatherings, and greeted with public disapproval rather than celebration. The cost of betrayal must be made higher than the reward offered by external actors.

We must also institutionalize our collective strength. The Ijaw nation needs a permanent, non-partisan political and economic council composed of our finest minds. This council should include intellectuals, legal experts, economists, and community builders from across the globe. Its mandate would be to define a multi decade Ijaw National Agenda that transcends party lines. Any Ijaw person entering politics should be bound by that agenda. Any external political force seeking our cooperation should be required to commit to its verifiable execution.

Again, we must build strategic alliances with other coastal minority groups. From Calabar to Badagry, the coastal communities share common interests in environmental protection, maritime economies, and regional development. A unified coastal voting bloc would create a political force that no national party can ignore. Such an alliance would also strengthen bargaining power for federal resource allocation and environmental remediation.

Fifth, we must shift our economic focus from pipelines to the blue marine economy. Our future lies in the ocean. We must invest in community owned industrial fishing fleets, deep sea shipping logistics, local shipbuilding yards, and aquaculture networks. We must develop port infrastructure and maritime training centres. Economic independence is the foundation of political courage. When our communities can fund their own schools, hospitals, and water systems through independent marine enterprises, we will no longer beg for crumbs.

Sixth, we must invest in education and leadership training. Political courage is not loud rhetoric. It is disciplined strategy. We must train a new generation of leaders who understand constitutional law, public finance, environmental science, and international trade. We must teach negotiation skills, coalition building, and institutional design. The Ijaw struggle must be intellectualized and professionalized.

Seventh, we must reclaim our narrative. For too long our story has been told by others. We must document our history, our legal claims, and our environmental evidence. We must use the courts, the media, and international forums to hold polluters and complicit officials accountable. We must turn our lived experience into verifiable claims that can be litigated and publicized.

Finally, we must practice disciplined solidarity. Political unity does not mean uniformity of opinion. It means a shared commitment to core strategic objectives. It means agreeing on red lines that cannot be crossed. It means supporting candidates who commit to the Ijaw National Agenda and sanctioning those who betray it.

The hour is late. The cost of our political naivety is visible in every polluted river, every jobless youth, and every broken promise. We cannot enter another election cycle with the same broken playbook. We must reject transactional politics and demand structural change. We must hold our leaders accountable and refuse to celebrate personal appointments that bring no collective benefit.

We must heal ourselves of this political Stockholm syndrome. We must stop loving the systems that destroy us and begin the difficult work of building lasting political infrastructure. The future of the Ijaw nation depends on our ability to transform our pain into strategic power. The water is watching. The spirits of our ancestors who resisted colonial domination are watching. We must rise, cleanse our minds of dependency, and stand with dignity. The era of last minute surrender must end. The time for strategic, sovereign Ijaw political courage has arrived.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Leadership in Africa: Forging a New Era of Self-Reliance, Unity and Global Relevance (Pt. 3)

Published

on

By

By Tolulope A. Adegoke

“True leadership in Africa is not the pursuit of power, but the courage to serve — to turn the pain of yesterday into the promise of tomorrow, to bind broken hearts into one destiny, and to raise a continent where every son and daughter can stand tall, not by pulling others down, but by lifting one another higher.” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

Building upon the foundational principles and practical pathways discussed in Parts 1 and 2, this continuation explores the deeper implementation strategies, institutional reforms, cultural shifts, and long-term vision required to translate African leadership into tangible, sustainable transformation. It addresses the realities on the ground while offering forward-looking, actionable recommendations that can help Africa move from potential to performance on both regional and global stages.

Institutional Reforms as the Backbone of Transformative Leadership

Visionary leadership without strong institutions is like a beautiful dream without a foundation. Africa’s progress depends on building institutions that are resilient, transparent, and people-centred.

Leaders must prioritise civil service reform, judicial independence, and anti-corruption mechanisms that are not only punitive but preventive. For example, Rwanda’s use of performance contracts (imihigo) for public officials has created a culture of accountability and results. Similarly, Ghana’s strong electoral commission and relatively independent judiciary have helped sustain democratic stability. These models show that when institutions are strengthened, leadership becomes less about individual charisma and more about systemic effectiveness.

Regional institutions such as the African Union, ECOWAS, SADC, and the East African Community must also be reformed. They need greater financial autonomy, faster decision-making processes, and clearer enforcement mechanisms. The African Union’s current efforts to reform its Peace and Security Council and operationalise the African Standby Force are steps in the right direction, but they require consistent political will and adequate funding from member states.

Cultural and Mindset Transformation

Leadership that builds Africa must also transform mindsets. Many of the continent’s challenges are rooted in colonial-era thinking, dependency syndromes, and a culture of short-termism.

Progressive leaders should invest in cultural renewal programmes that celebrate African excellence, innovation, and resilience. This includes supporting the creative industries — Nollywood in Nigeria, Afrobeats music, and contemporary African literature — which are already projecting positive African narratives globally. Educational systems must move beyond rote learning to foster critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and entrepreneurial spirit.

Youth leadership development is particularly crucial. With over 60% of Africa’s population under the age of 25, the continent’s future depends on preparing young people not just for jobs, but for leadership. Initiatives like the African Union’s Youth Agenda and national youth service programmes should be expanded and made more impactful.

Economic Transformation and Self-Reliance in Practice

True self-reliance requires deliberate economic restructuring. Leaders must champion value addition in agriculture, mining, and natural resources. Instead of exporting raw cocoa, cotton, or crude oil, African countries should invest in processing facilities that create jobs and capture more value domestically.

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) offers a historic opportunity. When fully implemented, it can boost intra-African trade, reduce dependence on external markets, and create new industries. Leaders who actively remove non-tariff barriers, harmonise standards, and invest in cross-border infrastructure will be remembered as the architects of Africa’s economic renaissance.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) should be strengthened, with clear frameworks that protect national interests while attracting responsible investment. Countries like Morocco and Ethiopia have shown how strategic industrial policies can attract foreign direct investment while building local capacity.

Global Relevance: Africa as a Solution Provider

Africa must stop seeing itself solely as a recipient of global solutions and begin positioning itself as a contributor. The continent’s vast renewable energy potential, youthful population, and rich biodiversity give it unique advantages in addressing global challenges such as climate change, food security, and digital innovation.

Leaders who understand this will invest in research and development, patent African innovations, and engage confidently in global forums. The success of African pharmaceutical companies during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of African tech unicorns demonstrate that the continent can compete and lead when given the right environment.

 

A Balanced and Hopeful Conclusion

Africa stands at a historic crossroads. The challenges — poverty, inequality, climate vulnerability, and governance gaps — are real and significant. Yet the opportunities — a youthful population, abundant natural resources, cultural richness, and growing regional integration — are even greater.

Leadership remains the decisive variable. When leaders rise above narrow interests to serve the collective good, Africa does not just survive — it thrives and offers the world new models of resilience, innovation, and inclusive growth.

The path forward requires a new covenant: between leaders and citizens, between nations and regions, and between Africa and the global community. This covenant must be rooted in trust, mutual accountability, and shared vision. With the right leadership — courageous, ethical, inclusive, and strategic — Africa can forge a new era of self-reliance, unity, and global relevance.

The question is not whether Africa can rise. The question is whether its leaders, supported by an awakened citizenry, will summon the will, wisdom, and courage to make that rise unstoppable. The world is watching, and history is waiting to record the choices made in this decisive decade.

Africa’s story is still being written. With visionary leadership, it can become one of triumph, dignity, and global excellence.

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, resilient nation building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.comglobalstageimpacts@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

A Familiar Kind of Tragedy by Adeoye Inioluwa

Published

on

By

The recent attacks on school communities in Oyo and Borno states have once again forced the country into a familiar emotional cycle — shock, grief, statements, and questions that briefly dominate public attention before gradually fading into silence.
What makes this cycle more unsettling each time is not only the incident itself, but the growing sense that it no longer feels entirely unexpected.
No society is completely free of insecurity. That much is understood. But what often defines public confidence is not the absence of incidents; it is the clarity, consistency, and visibility of response over time.
People do not only want to hear that action will be taken. They want to understand what has changed since the last time similar words were spoken.
Schools are supposed to represent safety at its most basic level. They are meant to be spaces where children are temporarily removed from the uncertainties of the outside world, not exposed to them. So when violence reaches those spaces, it does more than disrupt learning — it disrupts trust.
In the immediate aftermath, responses are often swift in tone. Condemnation is expressed. Sympathy is extended. Assurances are made. These reactions are necessary, but the challenge lies in what follows after the statements are made.
Because for those directly affected, the consequences do not end when public attention moves on.
There is also a broader national concern that emerges in moments like this: the increasing difficulty of distinguishing isolated incidents from a pattern. When similar events recur across different locations and times, they begin to reshape how communities perceive safety itself.
At that point, the issue is no longer only about response, but about prevention — and more importantly, about whether prevention is visibly evolving in a way that matches the scale of concern.
Citizens are not only listening for reassurance. They are watching for evidence that lessons from previous incidents have been fully translated into action. This includes how vulnerable spaces are secured, how intelligence is applied, and how quickly gaps are identified before they are exploited again.
Without that visible progression, reassurance risks becoming routine, and routine reassurance gradually weakens public confidence.
There is also a quiet emotional cost that is rarely acknowledged. Each new incident does not erase the memory of the previous one; it adds to it. Over time, this accumulation creates a national fatigue — a troubling adaptation to repeated distress.
In such a climate, the most important responsibility is not only to respond after events, but to reduce the conditions that allow them to repeat.
Because ultimately, the measure of any serious response is not how firmly it is stated in moments of crisis, but how clearly it reshapes what happens next.
And if that shift is not visible, then the unanswered questions will continue. Not out of impatience, but out of necessity.

Continue Reading

Trending