(Modest Thoughts with Ayuba, Yilgak'ha, May
30, 2024)
In Nigeria, One Year in Office (OYO) has
become popular governance traditions. At every level, elected government
officials and their associates hold events to reflect and report their
achievements to their respective constituencies.
Observing, reflecting and reporting one's
stewardship in government is good, especially, when the prime intention is to
demonstrate accountability but, it is a bad one when the whole exercise turns
out to be a mere political jamboree or playing to the gallery, a sort of.
Transparency and accountability are the
hallmark of governance; the absence of these good governance index in any
government is a glaring recipe for institutional corruption that has become a
recurrent decimal in the governance system of developing countries like
Nigeria.
On May 29, except states that have
off-season governorship election, His Excellency, the President of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria and Commander-in-Chief of the Arm Forces, Bola Ahmed
Tinubu, GCFR and 30 out of the 36 governors of states clocked one year in
office on May 29, 2024.
Since the return to democratic rule in
1999, the president and governors of states are being sworn-in on the same day,
May 29, of every general election year until legal twists and dynamics that led
to annulment of governorship mandates of the affected states introduced
off-season elections.
Off season election means those elections
conducted on a date(s) other than the ones fixed for general elections, be
it presidential and governorship poll. States that are having off-season
elections because of tribunal judgements are Bayelsa, Edo, Ekiti, Imo, Osun,
and Zamfara (five from the Southern and one from the Northern parts of the
country).
One year in office in Nigeria's political
landscape is a buzzword. It is when elected government officials having stayed
in office for a period of, at least, 365 days in office, dedicate time and
resources to showcase their achievements to the public. It is a mad rush to
prove the can-do-spirit of the elected official.
OYO has become a sustained practice but the
fundament question to ask is this: What can election government officials with
a tenure of four years, reasonably, achieve in one year? On the recurrent side
public expenditure, something can be achieved within short time but on the
capital side of it, i doubt. It is hard to achieve anything tangible in one
year let alone in 100days which proponent of the First Hundred Days in Office (FHO)
which is becoming another popular event will want the public to believe.
In conventional practice, performance
evaluations are done based on three critical elements. The first, is the need
to put in place well defined Key Performance Indices (KPIs); the second, is to
determine the nature of the projects involved, that is, knowing whether the
projects are recurrent or capital funded nature and, finally, established
whether the projects are short-term (one year), medium term (2 to 4 years) or
long-term (5 to 8 years) as the case may be.
The project time framework used in this exposition
is hypothetical within the context of constitutional four years in office in
the first instance and, another four in office if reelected as allowed by the Nigerian
constitution and the Electoral Act 2023 as amended.
While recurrent expenditure-based projects
are operated on short term basis (daily or week (wages), monthly (payment of
salaries) or annual budget for renovations and part of capital projects); capital
projects require huge capital outlay and their realisation take longer time. This
means that one year in office is mostly rooted in politics of showmanship where
political actors hyped on statements of intention of those in power.
During campaign, generally, political
parties, politicians and candidates make promises to the electorates. It is on
the basis of these promises that candidates are elected into various offices.
The reality, however, is that most of the promises politicians make during the
campaigns are bigger than what they can possibly achieve in one year. Bogus
campaign promises cannot just translate into concrete achievements by merely
restating them. Deliberate commitment and practical actions are required!
It is true that, unlike the statesman who always
think of the next generation, the mind of a typical politician is always on the
next election except otherwise refined. A genuine politician (statesman) who is
committed to delivering enduring legacies to his constituents will never be in
a haste to report literally superficial or whitewashed successes but, instead, takes
time to work and score big cards that will be visible to all and can stand the
test of time.
Truth be told, when a politician begins to
rush into hyping and celebrating one year or 100 days in office, the bid is
tailored towards securing the next possible mandate. In other words, one year
or 100 days in office to a natural politician is the beginning of the politics
of the next election!
Politics of the next election in the first
year can be distractive. It will distract political office holders from
focusing on the responsibilities of governance, especially, when praise singers
and hypers become so loud praise singing and hyping spree towards reelection.
It is important to note that sometimes, the
one year/100 days in office is a deliberate response to opposition elements who
might not allow time for elected officials to settle down for real governance
business. Holding opposing political views is good but not when this is taken
out of proportion. Crash opposition or political critics often criticised just
for the sake of it.
Most times, comments coming from members of
the ruling party/those in government or their supporters are praised bias even
if nothing notable has been achieved. On the other hand, comments emanating
from the opposition are mostly criticisms even when something notable is achieved
by the government. Understandably, these binary stand offs are rooted in
politics interest. However, governance is not about political interest but
welfare and security of the citizenry. Politics must not be played with the
fibre of governance at all but objective service no matter what side of the divide
one belongs.
Objectivity demands that government
actions, at all times, should be scrutinised and criticised where criticism is
necessary or applaud where commendation is appropriate. This is the kind of balance
that can make a difference as far as politic and governance of sustained
development are concerned.
A lot has happened as it affects the
well-being of citizens in Nigeria and people in states. However, time allowance
is required to make better and more objective assessment of those in power. In
a four years tenure, better assessment can be done when a tenure goes half-way.
That is not to say that nothing can be done in one year but whatever is done can
hardly be capital intensive projects except those inherited and are at the
verge of completion by predecessors.
At the moment, it may be right or wrong to
say that some credible steps have been taken by elected government officials
but, certainly, there is so much that is yet undone and requiring prompt and
concentrated attention from government to make life bearable for the citizenry
too. There are enough rooms for improvement to make Nigeria and its component
units but no time to waste at all!
Instead of celebrating one year or 100 days
in office, elected government officials are called upon to consider reviewing
their four years tenure mid-way or towards the end of their tenure in office.
They should use the occasion to render full account of their stewardship to the
people they are serving or have served. This will make for better scrutiny by
the people.
Tackling
existential problems require haste; political promises or solutions are often
overrated or amplified while the task of providing concrete governance-based solutions
to societal problems in a democratic regime, do not come cheaply. Solving
corporate problems require rapt attention to details and weighing the
implication of all decisions to be made on behalf of the people. Therefore, the powers that be must be prepared
to provide satisfactory explanation to people on whose behalf they make decisions
(policies or laws).
When an elected official is doing well,
he/she knows. Pretense can only be claimed as a strategy for mischief but those
lacking in governance capacity yet willing to learn for better performance,
will listen to wise counsels from objective critics who says it is wrong when something
is actually wrong and go step(s) further to give alternative solution(s) that
are better!
