Reflections on the Quality of Representation in Politics and Government
Every society relies on its leadership to structure and organize its affairs, maintain law and order, and protect the interests of its people. Relevant laws and regulations are enacted to ensure that the “right” individuals assume leadership, allowing those who meet the set criteria a fair chance of ascending to positions of power. Unfortunately, the most capable individuals do not always find their way to leadership when most needed.
I have been reflecting on the quality of political leadership, particularly in light of recent events in Nigeria. The Lagos State House of Assembly has been in the news lately. I have wondered at the dry political entertainment they have provided. Considering their recent actions, I have had to ask whose interest they are serving. Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (Senator of the Federal Republic) has also been in the news, alleging that Senator Godswill Akpabio, the Senate President, sexually harassed her. She has filed a petition which has been directed to the Ethics committee in the senate. Weighty allegations no one would expect from the highest chamber, what is going on?
These figures and many others have been in the spotlight for various reasons, prompting me to question how individuals ascend to political leadership. How do they get there? Do those who claim to represent the people’s interests embody the competence, integrity, and vision necessary for effective leadership? What happens if they do not? Ensuring that the most qualified individuals hold leadership positions has profound implications for governance, policy formulation, and public trust. The critical question remains: how do we ensure that we elect representatives who are genuinely committed to serving the people?
Every country or society has well-defined criteria for those aspiring to public office. In Nigeria, these criteria include citizenship, age requirements, educational qualifications, and political party sponsorship. The age and academic requirements have often been subjects of debate. The #NotTooYoungToRun movement, for instance, challenged the disenfranchisement of younger individuals aspiring to certain offices. Similarly, many argue that requiring only a school certificate or its equivalent as a minimum educational qualification is inadequate if we expect well-seasoned leaders.
While constitutional criteria exist, additional criteria are assessed at the party level, formally and informally, and expected by the people. Citizens typically expect aspirants to possess the following qualities:
- Competence: What is the candidate’s educational background? Where have they demonstrated expertise? Do they have experience in governance or leadership? What is their track record?
- Integrity: Have they demonstrated ethical behaviour? Are they accountable and transparent in their affairs?
- Vision and Leadership: Do they communicate an actionable vision? Are their policies forward-thinking? Do they inspire people through their words and actions? Do they have the capacity to implement meaningful change?
- Connection with the People: Are they empathetic? Can the average person access them directly or indirectly? Do they genuinely understand the issues affecting the people they represent?
When we examine leadership across various levels of governance, do we find individuals who meet most of these criteria - or even some? More often than not, reality contrasts starkly with expectations. Many who hold political office should never have gained access, yet they have done so due to several factors.
Some individuals ascend to office not based on merit but through strategic manoeuvring. Connections, wealth, and access to power often open more doors than competence and good intentions. Others gain political office through their ability to captivate audiences with the gift of the gab. They say all the right things but fail to deliver when entrusted with responsibility.
Politics is often described as a game of numbers, but one wonders which numbers matter the most, the people or the financing? Using public office for personal gain rather than the public good is not a new phenomenon. If corruption and self-interest are pervasive in the larger society, it is unrealistic to expect political figures to be immune.
A critical factor that enables poor leadership is voter apathy and uninformed electoral choices. The statement: “I knew my candidate wouldn’t win, so I didn’t vote” has led to the election of many unsuitable candidates. Furthermore, many voters fail to recognize that the final candidates presented for election have already undergone selection processes at the party level. Were these candidates truly the best options their parties could offer?
The cost of poor leadership is high. When unqualified individuals gain office, societies suffer the following consequences:
- Weak and Ineffective Policies: Poor representation results in policies that do not address pressing societal needs or fail in execution.
- Poor Leadership and Governance: A lack of vision and competence in governance leads to systemic inefficiencies.
- Loss of Public Trust: As people become disillusioned, they lose faith in political institutions and the possibility of meaningful change.
- Economic and Social Decline: Poor governance affects economic growth, national security, and social cohesion. Stagnation and underdevelopment become inevitable outcomes.
If we genuinely seek a better society, we must improve the quality of our political representation. Ensuring that individuals with proven track records and a commitment to public service hold office is critical. To achieve this, we must focus on the following strategies:
- Civic Education and Political Awareness: Citizens must be politically informed. Civic education should be taught not only in schools but also in homes, religious institutions, and community groups, which play influential roles in shaping political awareness.
- Electoral Reforms: Stricter qualification criteria for political candidates should be enforced. Implementing laws that require candidates to publicly declare their assets and have no history of corruption could enhance credibility.
- Stronger Accountability Mechanisms: Robust checks and balances must be established to prevent corruption and incompetence. Mechanisms should be in place to remove underperforming representatives from office.
- Encouraging Ethical Leadership: Citizens must not only demand ethical leadership but also embody it. It is hypocritical to expect accountability from politicians while engaging in unethical practices in everyday life. We must collectively uphold values that promote integrity and competence.
- Political Participation Beyond Elections: Engagement in governance should not stop at the ballot box. Citizens must actively hold leaders accountable through advocacy, public discourse, and community action.
As citizens, we play a crucial role in determining the quality of governance we receive. We cannot constantly expect others to rise to the challenge while neglecting our responsibilities. We must be intentional about demanding better leadership and supporting candidates who truly represent our interests. Ultimately, ensuring that the right people speak for us at the top is not just the government’s responsibility - it is our collective duty. As always, this is the way I see things today.