The Benevolent Dictators We Do Not Need

Nigeria has a leadership problem. Over the years, we’ve seen different leaders with their various leadership styles come and go. Through it all, Nigerians have built a special taste for strong men; leaders who are firm, authoritative, and can command results regardless of the hurdles, constitutional or not. 

The reason for this is not far-fetched. It can be traced to our history and double-faced relationship with the military. Out of Nigeria’s sixty-one years of independence so far, the military ruled for twenty-nine years; giving us sixteen Heads of state in total since 1960, ten of which were military men. Also, since the inception of the fourth republic in 1999, we have had four presidents, two of which are ex-military generals with deep dictatorial heritage. If we take a close look into the present political leadership; governors, senators, members of the house or representatives, and heads of government agencies and parastatals, we will find a dominant class of ex-military officers.

Asides the fact that the military considers Nigeria a priced possession which they must hold on to, Nigerians have always believed that firm hands are needed to rule the country; the sort of firmness that is characteristic of only the military. We considered civilian politicians corrupt and complacent, and we envied the order and discipline that only the military could bring. 

This is why the coup of 1966 and subsequent ones were received by the public ambivalently. As much as there might have been some dissent, there was also jubilation. Nigerians initially welcomed the military as agents of change and stability; a good substitute for the institutional chaos and corruption that came with civilians. Till today, a lot still believe we need a strong man, a “benevolent dictator” to get the country working again. How absurd.

Some still make reference to the regime of Tunde Idiagbon and the War Against Indiscipline with a sense of misplaced pride and surety that the level of discipline Nigerians were subjected to could not have been possible under a weak “bloody civilian” in charge. This same rhetoric was rehashed when the APC sold Nigerians on Muhammadu Buhari in 2015. He was supposed to be that no-nonsense retired general who fought corruption and indiscipline to a standstill and could replicate the same in 2015 and beyond.

The problem with strong men in democratic systems is that they are easily ensnared by the fine line between resoluteness and authoritarianism they have to walk to fast track things in largely lethargic political systems.  It never ends well because to be the perfect strong man, you would have to live a little bit above the law, bend some rules, ignore some supreme court rulings (Nigerians can relate here)—generally undermine democratic institutions—in order to give off that sense of swiftness and action that the gullible population so desperately want to call progress. But we do not subscribe to democracy because it gives us a solution to political problems at the speed of light, we do because, by and large, through its procedures and institutions, it guarantees us sustainability in our quest for enduring development.

Power corrupts, and it is not in the nature of a dictator to be benevolent. The benevolent dictator would gradually, but definitely, lose his taste for benevolence. The doctor would assuredly get infected with the same illness he came to cure. Along the line, we would have only built a monster; concentrated power in the hands of one man who can “get things done” ——only that now would choose not to. He would prefer to not be crossed, criticized, or held accountable.

We have an example in Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, the freedom fighter turned autocrat. He was a rebel leader who fought against tyranny and toppled Uganda’s Idi Amin and Milton Obote to capture power in 1986. Museveni was welcomed as Uganda’s messiah, the strong man who could dethrone autocrats and lead the nation to peace and prosperity. He was even celebrated internationally as one of Africa’s new generation leaders. They were mistaken. He made some efforts in nation building, gained some popularity, but ultimately dashed the hopes of the Ugandan people as he was destined to do. Museveni slowly, but surely, built an institution around himself. Today, the same man who fought to dethrone sit-tight leaders has successfully amended the constitution scrapping presidential term limit and age limit. Museveni has ruled Uganda for 35 years now since 1986, sponsoring corruption and wanton political violence across the region. He is a strong man. Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, Muhammadu Buhari, Sani Abacha, Paul Biya, and Robert Mugabe are all familiar examples.

Truly, we have enough cases to conclude that to have a thriving democracy, the emphasis should be on institutions and not men. What we need ultimately is a strong health sector, not a strong Minister of Health. You cannot trust men to be unchanging, but you can trust institutional frameworks to ensure progress even without the foreman in line. However, this entire argument begs the question “how are institutions built?” Can strong institutions be built without strong men? Common knowledge would be that it is men who create systems and not the other way around.

The answer to these questions would lie in our definition of strong men and institutions. Institutions are not just organizations or agencies; they are the systems of established and prevalent rules that structure political, economic, and social interactions. Institutions are the rules of the game, the laws, regulations, codified policies, legal frameworks, etc. Organizations are shaped by institutions; they express it. Alternatively, strong men should be men who build institutions that work for the people. They are men who respect and uphold institutional processes. We adore the Dora Akunyili type of strength as Director of NAFDAC or the Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala type of strength as Minister of Finance. This is the only acceptable strength; the kind that insists on due process and improves the system. This kind does not go above the law, it does not maneuver or build a personality cult, it does not disregard the means even to achieve a seemingly noble end. The institutions they build will put limits on their powers, but this would not be a problem. We can actually count on their selflessness and altruism in public service to not seek self-aggrandizement.

You see, Africans are not any more corrupt than Americans or Europeans. The men operating in both systems are the same; same tendencies towards corruption and misuse of power. The only difference would be the strength of the institutions operating here and there. Without the institutions over there, the story might be different. In the 45^th President of the United States, we had a man who ticked all boxes characterizing strong men. The possibilities would have been endless for the United States if not for the strong and enduring American institutions that could ensure that even a President would not live above the law.

This entire piece might leave you wondering what exactly we need. Nigeria needs strong institutions. We have had a fair share of strong men. The idea of a benevolent dictator who would have all power in his hands but choose to do good is ridiculous and should be discarded. Strong institutions will be built and upheld by men, but these men do not need to be extraordinary, they do not need a military background, they do not have to be fixers; they just have to be honest leaders who would build and defend a system that works in the people’s best interest.