By Bilyamin Abdulmumin, PhD
Nigerians appeared to have tried several options without a glimmer, so the option to try the youth is now gathering momentum. This call comes at the heels of the ten days of the recent controversial protest. Two other options were weighed during this protest: military takeover and alliance with Russia.
Nigeria’s (or even African) history didn’t support the clamour for a military takeover. In the 64 years since Nigerian independence, military rule (according to my arithmetic) lasted 31 years, but at best, the military—once seeming the panacea—didn’t proffer any solution.
In another desperation to find the nexus, some protesters fly Russian flags. One interpretation of this antics is that they want Nigeria to cut any ties with the U.S. and most of Europe by proposing a shift of alliance to Russia. According to this argument, Western economic policies haven’t benefited Nigeria, so perhaps a different geopolitical alignment will.
However, aligning with Russia, an equally extreme approach, is not guaranteed to yield better outcomes. Has this group of protesters heard about the Scandinavian Economic Model? This model seeks to strike a balance between the capitalist extremes of the U.S. and the state-centred economies of Russia, offering a suitable middle ground for us. Instead of Russian flags, these protestants might have flown those of Sweden, Finland, or Denmark.
The search for a better headway began in 2015 when Nigerians, for the first time, voted for a leader based on integrity and record antecedent, putting aside money, politics, and tribal loyalties to some extent. However, by the end of President Buhari’s first term, the public began to have second thoughts. After his two terms, something unthinkable happened: many staunch supporters turned critics, and now, a year into Tinubu’s presidency, the failure of seasonal veterans is sealed, hence fueling the growing clamour for young leaders.
This urge for youth takeover is a more realistic option. The youths have become tired of being used and “dumped.” given that most of those who vote are youths, they now want to take a leading role by floating a political party exclusive to the youth.
The youth proponents argue that the youth have energy, time, and health. To boot, youth leadership is characterized by pressing the button; their hands are always close to the button, just waiting for a slight opportunity to press it.
This argument came to the forefront during f-PMB leadership, when he appeared to be going too slow, hence nicknamed Baba go slow; one of my friends opined that Nigeria then was in dear need of young leaders’ vitality, speed, and urge to get us out of the mud. According to my friends, a young leader would have made several decisions faster in tune with the situation and public yearning.
However, there is a crack in the foundation; one problem with youth is unity and cooperation; we always find that we want to help fellow youths whenever the need arises. Several youths aspire to different positions in this country, but the first people to boycott them are fellow youths; it will be their fellow youths who begin to mock them. This is a similar dilemma the women face. Women worldwide decry exclusion, but when a fellow woman tries to compete with men, it would be the fellow women that bring them down. This internal counterproductivity must be addressed for the current movement to get hold.
In addition, those who side with veterans criticize youth leadership with haste, which often leads to regret; this category argues that sound decision-making comes from experience—something older leaders have in abundance. They believe leadership is a process, not an event, and that wisdom is forged through trial and error.
By and large, if the current movement sees the light of day, to slow down the haste and reduce mistakes, please let the old guards deputize the new crops.