Political Leadership And Economic Development In Developing Countries

Political Leadership And Economic Development In Developing Countries

Abstract

At independence, the husbandry of Nigeria and India were dominated by primary product, substantially husbandry. still, within some decades, India converted and caught Nigeria, arising as one of the fastest growing husbandry in the world, while Nigeria’s development lagged behind vastly. This exploration comparatively assessed the part of leadership in profitable development gests of these two countries from the period of their independence to 2013. The indicators of comparison were political leadership characteristics, profitable programs, Human Development Index( HDI) and profitable development pointers ranking of these two member- countries of the Common Wealth. Among these indicators of comparison assessed to be critical in the development distinction of the two literal peers, political leadership remained central. This study espoused descriptive and relative literal approaches; the data for this study were collected from secondary sources and were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. It was established that poor governance, mismanagement of coffers, corruption, as well as poor prosecution of profitable development programs and plans were each linked to political leadership in Nigeria, in discrepancy to India. Hence, the exploration held ineffective political leadership reproachable for the slow pace of profitable development in Nigeria while effective political leadership has been responsible for the India’s fast profitable development success. Given this observation, it was recommended in the study among other effects that, Nigeria should learn from the experience of India; and until the enthronement of effective political leadership, development will continue to be a mirage to Nigeria.

Chapter One

Preface

Background of the Study

The staggered profitable development that has characterised Nigeria and in fact most developing countries, especially those inSub-Saharan Africa is conceived by numerous as the outgrowth of leadership failure. Developing countries are witnessing a widening split in terms of development, with some recording spectacular advancements in the standard of living of their peoples; expansion in civic casing, public health, ultramodern transportation, industrialisation, and overall growth of their public husbandry, while others have unfortunately, not achieved important since independence, despite having analogous and indeed more favourable circumstances, compared to those countries which have made outstanding progress. Nigeria as one of them has come a focal point and case studies in numerous scholarly inquiries for egregious reasons. At independence, Nigeria was viewed in the transnational scene as the mammoth of Africa with veritably high anticipation to drive the frugality and reach the height that the European and Asian countries have reached moment.

After the attainment of independence in 1960, Nigeria, like several other recently independence countries, set about to consolidate her political freedom and attack the challenges of profitable development and nation structure. But numerous decades after independence, Nigeria is still floundering to move forward in terms of profitable development in malignancy of its abundant natural and mortal coffers. Hence, these have attracted the concern of the transnational community and experts( judges) in transnational affairs who sought to know the problems and the causes of Nigeria’s profitable underdevelopment. Are these problems caused bymulti-ethnic configuration of the nation, if yes what about countries like India; Malaysia and Singapore? Are these problems due to large population size? also, what about China and India? Are the problems convinced by long period of colonialism, also, what about other countries like China, India, South Africa, Malaysia, Ghana, Singapore and numerous others who were subordinated to the same form of rule.

Interestingly too, India as at that period( 1960) was at par with Nigeria in terms of position of development and capabilities to blossom economically. Both countries were generally described as third World Nations or Economically lower Developed Countries( LDC). Although India had independence in 1947, thirteen( 13) times before than Nigeria, same couldn’t be said again of India’s socio- profitable and artificial development. Some group of countries inclusively called the recently Industrialised Countries( NICs) of South and South East Asia has achieved socio- profitable development similar that some of them have literally been converted from “ Third World to First World ” in one generation, to use the words of Lee Kuan Yew( Lee, 2000). Japan came the first Asian country to contemporize, latterly followed by Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and South Korea after the Second World War. recently, China and India have followed suit and broken through the walls of low growth and profitable underdevelopment. At the centre of each is quality and competent leadership committed to public development( Ajakaiye, 2007).

In the history, führers in Africa and their intellectual cronies used to fight demands for good governance with the argument that those countries weren’t all that popular and yet achieved rapid-fire development. There’s no mistrustfulness that the administrations in countries similar as South Korea and Thailand wasn’t popular and the leaders were substantially military “ strong men ”. substantiation of despotism in Singapore and Malaysia can not be brushed away. utmost of these countries, with the exception of Thailand had one party or leader in office for decades. China still remains socially communist with state control over much of its citizens ’ lives. Only India seems to be making it with solid popular credentials. They’ve led people in the history to conclude that Africa needs strong men( tyrants) to develop. But, if strong- man tyrants and führers were the secret for development of the Asian success stories, also Africa should be a haven by now as it had further than its fair share of both tyrants and mercenary führers .

Meanwhile, Nigeria with all its natural coffers talent held more prospects for development than India at independence. Paradoxically, India with lower natural coffers talent is moment one of the Asian barracuda . moment, countries like China and India with mega populations are the fastest growing husbandry while Nigeria is still floundering with underdevelopment; Malaysia and South Korea are developed husbandry while Ghana, Uganda and Zimbabwe are either recent graduates of largely obliged poor countries or on the point of profitable disaster( Ajakaiye, 2007). This sharp discrepancy is veritably applicable as some African countries similar as Mauritius and South Africa are on the NIC horizon with the latterly fleetly prostrating its intolerance history in terms of bridging ethnical peak. These countries are taking programs and way that aren’t too different from the Asian NICs.

India and other recently industrialized countries of the South and South East Asia have successfully made giant strides in socio- profitable development and metamorphosis far beyond the Nigeria and maturity ofSub-Saharan African Countries, some of which compared favourably with the Asian countries fifty times agone ( since 1950s).

still, the linchpin factor in this situation is quality leadership in furnishing, direction, setting docket and executing change which distinguished these countries from utmost of theSub-Saharan African nations. The prospects of similar quality leadership to grease Africa’s profitable development is formerly arising in countries like South Africa, and Mauritius who are formerly NICs in all intents and purpose, while countries similar as Botswana, Ghana, Mozambique, Seychelles and Rwanda, for illustration, have bettered their leadership and are witnessing progress in profitable growth and development. Ajakaiye( 2007) presents an account of the status of the rapid-fire development in China, India, Malaysia and South Korea since 1990. it’s significant that all these countries were characterised by low income, low growth, poverty, ignorance, etc, and their husbandry were dominated by husbandry and primary product likeSub-Saharan African countries a many decades ago, but moment it’s clear that these husbandry are fast growing, have high and rising per capital Gross Domestic Product( GDP) indeed though because of their populations, China and India still trail behind the others in terms of per capita pointers, but their macro pointers are under primed by metamorphosis of the structures of their husbandry. Relinquishment of technology and invention is in top gear by them. Their overall Human Development Index situations add up the progress of the Asian NICs compared toSub-Saharan Africa.

There’s a veritably wide gap between Nigeria and India moment judging from the indicators for measuring public development; Purchasing Power equality( PPP); standard of living( cost of living); inflationary gap; currency exchange rate; position of technological advancement; relinquishment of technology and inventions,etc. therefore, comparing Nigeria with India is like “ Polar- Opposite ”.

The experimenter is thus impelled to probe the political leadership of Nigeria as a developing nation in comparison with India with a view to bringing out where Nigeria is missing out and to recommend a functional leadership model for Nigeria that’s able of rapid-fire profitable development if Nigeria must achieve her pretensions of socio- profitable development and metamorphosis by the time 2020.

Leadership is conceived in this exploration work as the medium which produces programs to drive and direct prudent profitable operation to achieve socio- profitable development and metamorphosis by which individualities and groups work towards the attainment of prolonged social stability or peace, development of operation capacity, long term vision and docket, deliberate change in mindset and work heritage, creation of enabling terrain fornon-state actors, judicious exploitation of globalization and grim pursuit of mortal and natural coffers development and socio- profitable structure.

Since India and numerous of the former Third World Countries that are making giant strides in development aren’t as important endowed as Nigeria in terms of natural coffers, numerous judges have agreed and concluded that the real problems are those managing the affairs of Nigeria. Ojah( 2005) describes leadership as the major bane of Nigeria’s development, though Nigeria is considered as Africa’s leading country in terms of mortal and natural coffers, but her failure to produce political leaders with vision has kept the country nearly underdeveloped till date when compared to her literal peers that are fast developing( Asuquo, 2012).

Indeed, countries like India, China, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Indonesia etc, presently appertained to as fast developing nations or husbandry attained these positions by effectively utilising available coffers to develop and ameliorate their conditions. Leadership is a process of impacting the conditioning of an organizational group in a task of thing setting and thing achievement( Stogdill, 2003). Mac Ogonor and Steve( 2000) sees it as the process of motivating, marshaling coffers and directing people to passionately, diligently and strategically pursue a vision that the people of a state or nation concertedly embrace by performing tasks. From the below, a leader must retain the ensuing characteristics; knowledge, moral discipline, seductiveness, clearer understanding of reality and vision, and is a platoon player.

Emphatically, Joseph( 1995) in Asuquo( 2012) noted that in Nigeria, all the abundant constituents for erecting a great nation are present Land, water, mineral coffers and mortal. The only element standing between Nigeria and greatness is political leadership. The selflessness that leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Manmohan Singh and numerous other Indian public leaders handed which makes the country to be a fast developing and industrialized nation is what’s lacking in Nigeria. India like China deserves special attention because of its size and recent robust growth. From 1996 to 2008, India’s average periodic growth rate exceeded 7 percent( Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2012). India’s success could be, in the coming times a reiteration of China’s rise out of poverty. India’s frugality was for decades grounded approximately on illiberalism and state control of large diligence but private capitalism in husbandry and consumer goods. The state subsidized introductory goods and gives special treatment to growers. Unlike China, India like Nigeria has a popular government, but a factional one, with colorful autonomy movements and ethnical conflicts. Indian government has suffered from corruption, although this has bettered in recent times.

Obviously, South Korea, with only iron and coal coffers, developed competitive sword and machine diligence that export encyclopedically, creating a trade fat; Taiwan also used a strong state artificial policy, specialising in the electronics and computer diligence and in other light manufacturing; Hong Kong controlled by China since 1997 also has world- competitive electronic and other light diligence with topmost strength in banking and trade; Singapore is a trading megacity located at the top of the Malaysian Peninsula – accessible to the South China ocean, the Indian Ocean and Australia.

Nigerian leaders for the last four decades have been described as being dictatorial especially during the military period. Okoye( 2012) averred that development is put in latency in a country with leadership problem and lawless situation. Any country whose leaders are loose or harbour corruption can not develop. There are so numerous cases of corruption by Nigeria leadership; this situation has eaten deep as a cankerworm into the fabric and all angles of the Nigerian frugality and the nation at large which has rendered the Nigeria political leadership incapacitated of easing any meaningful profitable development. Nigeria promises a great deal, but generally fails to deliver. It could be the hustler of Africa, but has so failed to use its oil painting wealth effectively or to make an profitable system that spreads occasion. Indian political leadership is known to have handed a major boost and source of the country’s development strides. Barnabas and Clifford( 2012) noted that an important system of leadership development is by vicarious literacy, which is grounded on learning from part models.

Statement of the Research Problem

In recent times, political and socio- profitable development has been viewed as products of effective political leadership. Grounded on this thinking, we find it necessary to take over a relative study of the part of leadership in political and profitable development in developing nations with emphasis on Nigeria and India, both former British colonies. Poor countries aren’t only poor because of their topographies or societies, but because their leaders don’t know which programs will enrich their citizens. In Nigeria, all the abundant coffers for erecting a great nation are present. They include land, water, minerals and mortal coffers. The major problem facing Nigeria moment is that of political leadership. Although Nigeria is brazened with colorful problems, but political leadership remains the topmost handicap to its profitable development.

This study examined the impacts of political leadership on profitable that are responsible for the sharp difference in position of profitable development position Nigeria and India. A relative analysis of the link between political leadership and public profitable development in Nigeria and India will offer the demanded explanation for the differing gests of profitable development in Nigeria and some developing countries. Nigeria and India gained Independence from Britain in October 1, 1960 and August 15, 1947 independently. They both have analogous political and legal institutions as well as profitable and educational systems, and their societies are multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious and vibrant. moment, these two countries no longer have effects in common as they’ve moved and converted through colorful stages of their political, social and profitabledevelopment.However, why has India moment developed faster than Nigeria?

If these countries had effects in common at independence.

For case, India moment is the fourth fastest growing frugality of the world and a member of a group popularly known as the BRICS( Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Korea). They’re occasionally appertained to as recently Industrialised Countries( NICS), while Nigeria is still regarded as an underdeveloped nation and grouped among the poorest countries of the world as the 94th poorest country. Nigeria is still floundering to develop socially andeconomically.However, also, the major questions moment are “ what ” and why ” the difference, If these two countries had effects in common at Independence. The answer lies in the way the political leadership of these two countries have evolve strategies and programs that are able of profitable metamorphosis and development by way of rightfully combining both its cornucopia mortal and material coffers to achieve its profitable pretensions and success. therefore, this exploration seeks to explore what Nigeria’s political leadership has failed to do over the times in discrepancy to India in defying development. It’s observed generally that failure of Nigeria’s political leadership to address some vital issues like the nation question, religion, race, intra andinter-ethnic violence, terrorism, corruption, physical instability, social injustice, has contributed a great deal to the abecedarian problem of the survival and food of republic as an instrument of political leadership for the achievement of profitable development. still, the main contention of this study is that, a pervasive sense of disaffection, marginalization, exploitation, internal colonization, corruption and terrorism has negatively combined to challenge the capability of the political leadership of Nigeria to achieve profitable development for the country. These factors mentioned over and the prolonged period of military rule created the terrain that hampered the capability of political leadership in Nigeria.

The below script prompts the following exploration questions;

i. What are the sources of these abecedarian factors linked above that militated against the emergence of good political leadership in Nigeria and how can they bere-addressed?

ii. Can Nigeria evolve an effective political leadership without sustainable republic?

iii. Can Nigeria achieve meaningful profitable development without corresponding political leadership?