Kukah on accidental leadership

By Dakuku Peterside

In reflecting on Nigeria’s leadership journey, Bishop Matthew Kukah, a Catholic priest, activist, and philosopher, delivers a searing observation: “Almost every leader who came to power did so by accident.” With these words, he stirred an hornets’ nest, igniting a spirited discourse on the nation’s perennial struggle with leadership.

Kukah’s critique strikes a resonant chord with voices like former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who has long lamented the opportunistic nature of Nigeria’s leadership selection. It also echoes the trenchant wisdom of Chinua Achebe, who famously diagnosed the nation’s ailment in The Trouble with Nigeria: “The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership.” Achebe’s words, though decades old, still carry the weight of an unheeded warning, underscoring the cyclical nature of Nigeria’s governance woes.

This column seeks to interrogate Kukah’s provocative theory, dissect its implications for governance, and chart pathways to reform the nation’s leadership recruitment process. At the core of this analysis lies an urgent imperative: to confront the systemic failures that perpetuate unprepared leaders and to cultivate mechanisms that nurture visionary and capable stewards. For Nigeria to transcend the quagmire of accidental leadership, the nation must embrace deliberate, transformative change—one that prioritises competency, character, and a clear sense of purpose over happenstance.

A shared understanding of an accidental leader would be helpful in the interrogation of what the bishop said. An accidental leader, from base understanding, is one who came to the office without requisite training or necessary preparation. It refers to a scenario where individuals ascend to power without adequate preparation, experience, or strategic vision. This phenomenon is not unique to Nigeria but is particularly pervasive in its political landscape, where political actors often emerge through circumstantial opportunities rather than deliberate grooming or merit-based processes. These leaders frequently lack the fundamental skills necessary for effective governance, resulting in poor decision-making, reliance on narrow circles of influence, and an inability to address critical national challenges. For instance, between 1999 and 2023 under the present democratic era, Nigeria experienced significant challenges under leaders like Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, who, despite his integrity, struggled with health issues that hindered governance, and Goodluck Jonathan, who admitted he was unprepared when he unexpectedly became President following Yar’Adua’s death. Same goes for President Buhari. 

Accidental leaders differ significantly from prepared leaders in several ways. They often lack a clear vision, operate without a coherent strategy or strategic plan, and struggle with effective execution. Their knowledge is limited, they are indecisive, and they rarely take responsibility for their actions. These leaders typically have a narrow circle of influence, and dishonesty can further undermine their leadership. In the specific context of Nigeria, unprepared leaders tend to exhibit unpatriotic and nepotistic tendencies. Their shallow understanding of the nation’s challenges often leads to misguided solutions to critical developmental issues. 

Governance under such circumstances often results in short-term thinking, nepotism, and an indifference to the broader national interest. These outcomes are reflected in Nigeria’s inability to meet key development indicators. For example, as of 2024, over 40% of the population lives below the poverty line, and unemployment hovers at 33.3%, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. These figures are further compounded by insecurity, with over 10,000 people reported killed in banditry and insurgency-related violence annually in recent years. Such statistics reveal the broader implications of accidental leadership: leaders unprepared for the demands of office often fail to tackle systemic issues or establish the conditions necessary for sustained national growth. This not only hampers economic development but also undermines social cohesion and national unity, perpetuating a cycle of underdevelopment and instability.

By contrast, prepared leaders with prior exposure to governance, leadership roles, or structured mentorship are equipped with clear goals, strategic vision, and the capacity for effective policy execution. These leaders inspire confidence and focus on long-term national development, offering a beacon of hope for the country’s future. Examining global leadership recruitment systems highlights the importance of grooming leaders systematically. For example, the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system emphasizes years of experience in lower offices, enabling figures like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair to rise with proven credentials and a record of policy achievements. Similarly, Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew transformed his country from a struggling island to a global hub through decades of planning and visionary leadership. In China, the Communist Party systematically grooms leaders over decades, requiring them to serve in various regional and national roles before ascending to top positions. Xi Jinping, for instance, served in provincial leadership for years, gaining experience in administration, policy formulation, and implementation before becoming president. These systems contrast starkly with Nigeria’s, where party loyalty and opportunism often outweigh competence.

In Nigeria, the historical trajectory of leadership since 1999 reveals a pattern of accidental leaders propelled to power by chance, opportunism, or external influence. The result has been inconsistent policies, failure to diversify the economy, and an inability to tackle pressing issues such as unemployment and insecurity. President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration (2015–2023) is a case in point: while his initial election was greeted with optimism, delays in forming a cabinet and a lack of clear economic direction in the early years of his presidency hindered his administration’s ability to tackle pressing issues. At the state level, governance mirrors this trend. Many governors have been criticised for prioritizing political survival over developmental goals, exacerbating local challenges. These failures manifest in poor policy formulation, resource mismanagement, misplaced priorities and a lack of continuity in governance. 

Prepared leaders globally, such as Mahatma Gandhi, Lee Kuan Yew, and Nelson Mandela, exemplify how strategic preparation, mentorship, and clear vision can transform nations. Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance and vision for a unified India, Yew’s emphasis on meritocracy and strategic governance that turned Singapore into an economic powerhouse, and Mandela’s post-apartheid leadership that emphasized reconciliation and institution-building, creating a framework for South Africa’s fragile democracy, are all powerful examples. Joe Biden’s decades of experience in U.S. politics prepared him to handle complex governance challenges, including navigating the post-COVID-19 pandemic economic recovery. Conversely, accidental leaders often produce short-lived policies, foster corruption, and exacerbate socio-economic instability. Haiti, for instance, has suffered from a cycle of accidental leadership, perpetuating political instability and underdevelopment. These global examples underscore the need for Nigeria to systematically groom leaders who can navigate complex governance challenges and build long-term resilience.

The leadership crisis in Nigeria is rooted in systemic and structural issues. Party structures prioritize loyalty over competence, and electoral processes often reward popularity rather than merit. In the 2023 elections, many elected officials were chosen based on party endorsements rather than competence, independent credibility or a track record of public service. Weak institutions further fail to hold leaders accountable, and divisive ethnic and religious politics prioritize sectional interests over national unity. These factors are compounded by public apathy: a 2023 survey by Afrobarometer revealed that only 34% of Nigerians believe their votes influence governance outcomes, highlighting a lack of faith in the political system. This disconnection fosters a cycle where citizens disengage from political processes, reducing accountability and enabling the emergence of incompetent leaders.

It is established that there exists a strong correlation between leadership preparation and performance. Going by this measure, it is not in dispute that most of our elected and appointed leaders have not performed in office. How can we improve the quality and preparedness of those who attain public office? This should be our preoccupation for now. Does Nigeria have trained or prepared leaders? Where and when do leaders train for their role?  Are they motivated? These questions merit serious consideration. 

To address these challenges and create a system that produces prepared leaders, leadership training and development must become institutional priorities. Establishing leadership academies, such as the proposed National Institute for Leadership Development, could help build competence. Incorporating leadership education into school curricula and creating mentorship programs can also build a pipeline of skilled leaders. Institutional reforms are critical, including strengthening electoral integrity to prioritise merit-based selection and enhancing transparency mechanisms to evaluate leaders’ preparedness and performance. For instance, adopting a primary debate system like those in the U.S. could help assess candidates’ policy depth. Citizen engagement is equally vital; educating the public on the importance of leadership quality and encouraging active participation in political processes can drive demand for visionary leadership.

The debate on whether leadership is an innate or a skill that can be learned underscores the importance of structured training. While some argue that leadership is a natural trait, examples from global systems such as Singapore and China’s meritocratic model, and Britain’s parliamentary system suggest that systematic preparation enhances governance effectiveness. In Nigeria, most leaders lack innate qualities and formal training, perpetuating systemic failures. Developing platforms for systematic leadership grooming, such as state-level training programs for young politicians, is essential.

Bishop Kukah’s assertion about accidental leadership underscores a fundamental issue in Nigeria’s governance: the prevalence of leaders emerging from flawed recruitment processes that favour expediency over competence. This phenomenon has entrenched systemic challenges, as unprepared leadership often leads to poor governance. By contrast, global examples illustrate the transformative impact of well-prepared leaders. For Nigeria to progress, it must prioritise leadership development, reform political structures to value competence, and actively involve citizens in cultivating visionary leaders. Addressing this leadership vacuum is essential for the country to realise its full potential.