THE LEADERSHIP-FOLLOWERSHIP TRAJECTORY AND THE CHALLENGES

OF NATION-BUILDING IN NIGERIA
By
Orokpo, Ogbole Francis. E, PhD & Stephen, Makoji R. PhD
Department of Public Administration
The Federal Polytechnic Idah, Kogi State, Nigeria
[email protected]

BEING A PAPER PRESENTED @ THE IST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF

Abstract
The Nigeria State no doubt has been besieged with plethora of problems in its quest towards
nation-building among which is leadership which according to Achinua Achebe is squarely
the problem with Nigeria. Thus, over the years the discourse over nation-building centres on
the role of leadership as the driving force discountenancing the place of followership in the
mix. Thus, the near under-emphasis of the role of followership in nation-building process in
both formal and informal discourses with regards to Nigeria is quite disturbing. This paper
however though agreeing with the initial narrative of leadership role in nation-building,
further x-rays the angle of the followership docility and laxity vis a vis leadership rascality
and irresponsibility in nation-building in Nigeria. It is against this backdrop that this paper
explores the leadership-followership trajectory and the challenges of nation-building in
Nigeria over the years. It is the position of this paper that the task of nation-building must
involves not only the leadership but a followership that is virile and capable of holding the
leadership to account towards ensuring the delivery of the dividend of democracy and nation-
building. It recommends among others the need for an informed followership with the
boldness of holding the leadership to be sincere to the oath of service sworn to even in the
face of repression and opposition.
Keywords: Followership, Leadership, Democracy, Nation-building

Introduction
Leadership and followership are intertwined and mutually interwoven activities in any given
society and as such drives the developmental agenda of such society. The relationship
between leadership and followership is to provide the basic necessities of life and responsible
governance bearing in mind that to govern a people is a social contract between the leaders
and followers. In Africa in general and Nigeria in particular, leadership has posed a grave
danger to the development of independent states that emerged after long years of colonial
rule. This has over the years imparted negatively on the attitude of the followers who believes
that the failure of leadership is the reason for their attitude. Recently, across the globe,
followership is gaining prominence and can no longer be ignored in leadership discussions.
Followership is as important as leadership because a good leader is seen through the eyes and
faces of his followers. Thom-Otuya (2012) opines that leadership and followership are
mutual activities of great influence to national development in all parts of the world. It is very
important to note that without good followership, good leadership remains a broad line

1
mystery. Followership forms a good line of discussion because in most part of the world
today especially where democracy and participatory form of social structure is practiced,
leadership is determined by the followers through behaviours such as voting, civic
involvement, group compliance and support. Also, it is worthy of note that leadership is an
offspring of followership. Every leader was once a follower, and most times leaders return to
being followers after their leadership cycles or tenures.
Given the fact that leadership has failed and has sustained a very complex chain of political
stagnancy that can only replicate itself if left unchallenged, the followers should step-up their
game by actively involving in politics – be available in and for politics, curious, concerned,
critical about the way they are governed. Knowing that the Nigerian government will never
‘put the issue to the people’, the people should grab the issue, it is theirs. The hub of this
inquisitiveness lies on the fact that followership unavailability/crisis is a paramount factor
explaining leadership deficit in Nigeria. In fact the solutions to leadership problems in
Nigeria can only come through followership. No wander Rick Ungar (2011) posited that
citizens should not “expect good leadership without good followership”. Invariably,
followership capital is the only needed resource for political transformation and taming the
elite menace perpetuated through godfatherism.
Significantly, leadership/followership interaction is a cardinal element of citizenship vis-a-vis
the social contract in a democratic setting. The citizens are entitled to rights and therefore
obliged to the state. There is therefore a nodal nexus between critical citizenry exercised
through active followership and ‘democratic balance’. Forming a government by the people,
from the people will definitely offer the common political good (good governance) for the
people. With the above daunting issues, the leadership and followership in Nigeria has been
strained with high level of suspiciousness on both sides which has polarized the country
along hostile leadership and oppressed and docile followership lines, making it difficult for
the leaders and followers to work collectively towards achieving the goal of Nation building.
It is against this background that this paper x-ray the trajectory of leadership and followership
in Nation building in Nigeria.
Conceptual Clarification
Leadership
Leadership and followership are two concepts that have been defined and explained by
scholars from different perspectives and backgrounds. The chamber 20th century Dictionary
(1987), says that, “lead” means to show the way by going first” “to guide by the hand”.
According to the same Dictionary, “a leader is one who leads or goes first” and leadership
means “Ability to lead”. In agreement to this assertion, Seaton (2019), cited in Obi and Uche
(2021) contend that leadership is the ability to take an initiative, to motivate, to influence, to
direct and control the thought, opinions and actions of the followers in a desired end.
Leadership, according to them, is a broad term to express the state of being part of the key
stakeholders in an organization, social grouping, society and state, depending on the levels
and numbers of social grouping like family, a school, religion, village, an establishment, a
group, and a state, there are major stakeholders occupying the various leadership positions
(Obi, and Uche 2019). Adding strength to the above, Simbine (2000) opined that Leadership
is any person that direct or show the way for others to follow and relies on the willing support
and compliance of the people who gives him a right to lead them toward achieving goals.
And for Gould and Kolb (1964), leadership is the occupancy of status and the entire
performance of a role that mobilizes less organized collectives and voluntarily efforts towards
the attainment of shared goals. The beauty of this definition lies in the fact that leadership
does not mean just occupying a position, office or status, vision will, programs and policies,
it entails at the same time that the leaders should be able to mobilize the people he is leading

2
and voluntarily makes all the necessary efforts and sacrifices for the attainment of shared
goals.
According to Bryman (1992) Leadership is a process of social influence whereby a leader
steers members of a group towards a goal. This implies that the leader is an influential
member of the society and must as such guide the members towards attainment of societal
goals. Odo (2015) asserts that; “when people come together for a purpose, there would
emerge a leader to organize them to achieve the desired task. Thus, leadership is one of the
most important elements for order and progress in any human endeavor and society”.
Leadership is paramount and central to the control and management of resources (Human and
Material) in a given society. When a society is without a visionary leader, it may be heading
towards doom. Corroborating the above, Fayemi (2009) cited in Odo (2015) opined that: -
Leadership is central to the control motivation and direction of every human society towards
development, progress and meaningful achievement in all spheres of human existence.
Leadership encompasses economic, political and socio-cultural spheres of every society and
has the ability to either “make or mar” the society. - Leadership is the ability to take an
initiative, to motivate, to influence, to direct and control the thoughts, opinions and actions of
the followers in any given society towards the achievement of purposeful end (Odo,2015:3).
Furthermore, Tamenbaum cited in Thom-Otuya (2012) “defined leadership as interpersonal
influence exercised in situation and directed through communication process, toward the
attainment of goals”. To Utomi (2004), “Leadership is the art of mobilizing in a least cost
manner to achieve a clear goal”. Newman (1997) on the other hand explained the concept
leadership as the “special and unique ability to influence people to move towards goals that
are beneficial and meet the group’s best interest”. Oyedepo (2000) sees leadership as pure
service to humanity. This implies that a leader is actually a servant, a selfless servant who is
preoccupied with the tasks assigned to him and deliver as expected or positively as
unexpected”. This means, he is a goal getter, an extra ordinary performer who is results
oriented and collectivist in diligently and committedly seeking and finding solutions to
concerns of mankind” (Folarin, 2013).
From the above definitions of leadership, one thing that is paramount is result or attainment
of goals. The leader must be result-oriented in order to win the minds of the followers. This
can be achieved through selfless service to humanity. For the purpose of this paper, we shall
limit our definition to political leadership which is the bedrock of other aspects of leadership.
Political leadership is the one that provides direction to a country, state or local government
with the purpose of attaining set goals which in this paper referred to nation building.
Political leadership is therefore, “challenging, particularly in a developing society such as
Nigeria where there exists a lot of yearnings and demands for rapid socio-economic and
political development (Odo, 2015:3).
As enormous as the task of leadership in Nigeria, the political leaders have failed in the
responsibility of leadership. In their quest for nationhood, they have deviated due to lack of
vision, ethnic sentiment, and corruption. This has over the years created serious leadership
and followership challenges.
Followership
Followership is considered the reciprocal social process of leadership. It reflects the capacity
of a person or group to follow and assume a subject role to the rule and authority of a leader.
Recently, across the globe, followership is gaining prominence and can no longer be ignored
in leadership discussions. Kellerman (2008) asserts that the characteristics of followers affect
the leader and performance of the leader. Followership is fundamentally the capacity, ability
or willingness to follow a leader. The Civil Air Patrol's Professional Development (CAPPD,
n.d) defines followership as reaching a specific goal while exercising respect for authority, a
3
positive attitude, integrity, and self-discipline. Kelley (1992) begins the construction of his
definition by saying that followers are the "people who act with intelligence, independence,
courage, and a strong sense of ethics". Followers are in a position to better recognize the day-
to-day events within an organization or institution and sometimes following is more difficult
than leading (Bennis, 2010; Suda, 2013).
Followership is the act of submitting to the direction provided by a leader in a subordinate
manner in other to attain set goals. It is the action of a person or a group of persons who plays
a subordinate role in a society or an organization. Ajayi (2012) defined followership as a
deliberate act of subordination exhibited by a person or group of persons to enhance the
relationship between the leader and the follower. According to Thom-Otuya (2012),
followership simply “connotes adherence to a leader”. However, he further stressed that
followership is the virtue of supporting leaders and helping them to lead well. “This goes
with the responsibility to actively participate in the achievement of a nation’s goal” (Thom-
Otuya, 2012:117). McCallum (2013) asserts that: Followership is a straight-forward concept.
It is the ability to take direction well, to get in line behind programme, to be part of a team
and to deliver on what is expected of you. How well the follower follows is probably just as
important as how well the leaders lead. This implies that there is a synergy between the
leaders and the followers in ensuring a society or an organization attain set goals. However,
good followership is the product of good leadership. When the leader fails to give direction,
the followers will be misled. This could amount to serious conflict and betrayal of trust on the
part of followers.
Followership according to McCallum (2013:2) “may take the backseat to leadership but it
matters; it matters a lot; quite simply, where followership is a failure, not much gets done
and/or what does get done is what was supposed to get done. Weak leadership and
followership are two sides of the same coin and the consequences is always the same”. The
above is the situation of the Nigerian state which has over the years plunged the country into
serious economic backwardness and political retrogression.
In as much as followership is subordinate to leadership, there are no leaders without
followers. Corroborating the above, Ungar (2011) submitted that “followership is a people
oriented behavior, and this behavior builds relationships between leaders and followers,
providing an environment that promotes all organizational members to focus on a common
goal. On his part, Werlin (2002) as cited in Thom-Otuya (2012) argued that good leadership
and followership relationship must be built on motivation rather than absolute control and
such will help to instil the desired values into the followers which will eventually develop the
culture of trust and mutual relationship.
From the foregoing, followership which is an ally of leadership has to contribute immensely
to the success of leadership in any given society. There must exist strong partnership between
the leaders and followers to attain the desired goal of any society. The followership makes the
leadership through the process of selection or election. However, in the case of Nigeria, the
followers seems not to understand the strength that is bestowed on them and as such, serves
as mere appendages to the Nigerian project of nation building over the years.

Nation Building
Nation building as a concept has been examined and analyzed by scholars from different
backgrounds and disciplines. Its meaning differs from the scholar’s perspective and as such
becomes a subject of academic discourse. To Ntalaja (1987) as cited in Erinosho (2012:195):
Nation building implies establishing a national identity to transcend ethnic, regional and
4
other particularistic ties, promoting national integration through political participation,
economic exchange and cultural interaction by all segments of the population and
developing a national culture through education and cultural activities.
This implies that Nation Building is a collective responsibility that cut across all strata of
society without cultural or political barrier. “The concept of nation building is an attempt to
unite heterogeneous ethnic groups under a political unit” (Erinosho, 2012: 12). Nation
building as a process involving the psycho-social reconstruction of individuals, is a process of
infusing the people of the new independent territories who differ widely in language and
shared identity” (Adekanye, 2011). In the same vein, Eliagwu (2012) asserts that nation
building is an effort geared towards integrating the various groups in a country.
Erinosho (2012) further stressed that the issue of nation building is not new as leaders in the
ages past always strived hard to ensure buoyancy, loyalty, peace and harmony. Thus, efforts
were made towards setting up necessary machineries that would engender and sustain unity
and sense of belonging among the various ethnic groups that constituted their states,
kingdoms and empires”.
In Nigeria, over the years, efforts have been made towards sustaining unity and peace among
the various ethnic groups that make up the country. However, nation building have not been
achieved due to the inability of the leaders and followers to chart a genuine course towards
attaining that goal. The country is bedeviled with numerous challenges such as ethnicity,
religious intolerance, political KIU Journal of Humanities domination and marginalization,
lack of national identify economic oppression, corruption among others which have further
widen the gap between the leaders and followers making nation building a mirage.
X-raying the Challenges of Leadership- followership Trajectory in Nigerian Nation
Building Process
Studies have shown that most of the countries are experiencing growth and development, got
it right through leadership. The growth and development of East Asia was as result of good
leadership demonstrated by leaders such as Abe in Japan, Park Chung Hee in South Korea,
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore. For instance, Japan leapt from the thirtieth richest country in per
capita income to eleventh most developed country in the world; Taiwan from eighty fifth to
thirty-eighth; South Korea from ninety-ninth to forty-fourth. By the early twenty-first century
Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and China will probably have as much weight in the world
economy as North America or Europe. Taiwan and South Korea will be as rich as Great
Britain and ltaly (Prilipko,2019).
Recently, across the globe, followership is gaining prominence and can no longer be ignored
in leadership discussions. Followership is as important as leadership because a good leader is
seen through the eyes and faces of his followers. Thom-Otuya (2012) opines that leadership
and followership are mutual activities of great influence to national development in all parts
of the world. It is very important to note that without good followership, good leadership
remains a broad line mystery. Followership forms a good line of discussion because in most
part of the world today especially where democracy and participatory form of social structure
is practiced, leadership is determined by the followers through behaviours such as voting,
civic involvement, group compliance and support. Also, it is worthy of note that leadership is
an offspring of followership. Every leader was once a follower, and most times leaders return
to being followers after their leadership cycles or tenures.
The justification as well as imperative for critical followership is both a matter of moral
question vis-à-vis constitutional and fundamental human right. Taken Nigeria’s case as an
instance, it is logical to argue that if leadership is really as deficient as enunciated by many
scholars, it cannot be abandoned to correct itself, as this will remain unrealistic. Power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As such critical citizenry is the answer.
5
There is no better evidence to this than how the ‘ancient regime’ in France recovered through
a historic revolution as well as the recent ‘Arab spring’ sweeping across the entire Arab
nations and upturning practices that has long been absolved as the Arab inherent and peculiar
political culture in political discourse, all dove-tailing into the holding of elections and the
emergence of a democratically elected head of states in both Egypt and Libya.
There is no doubt that leadership is at the epicentre of initiating strategic vision, making such
a mission, and driving such to a reasonable conclusion to better the state. In a political
democracy, leadership can simply be identified with the following attributes observed by
Nwolise (2006); Concomitantly, the concept of political democracy is on one hand a social
contract, which gives the people the option of governing themselves by choosing their
leaders, and taking responsibility therefrom, constituting a court for leadership by watching,
suggesting to, compelling, checkmating and even confronting; and on the other hand, gives
the leadership its legitimacy by determining and agreeing that it is rightfully constituted and
therefore worthy of obedience. To this end in tandem with Nwolise’s conceptualization of
leadership, followership could also be appraised to lend credence to the following hypothesis;
a) Democracy is not offered in a platter of gold it is usually struggled for and when gotten,
the price is eternal vigilance. Democratization is usually an unfinished business.
b) If the leader shall adequately perform his role, such role should be pressed upon them by
the general citizenry.
c) ‘The way’ in a democratic setting is simply the aggregate of the yearnings of the general
citizenry and should constantly be expressed through critical involvement of the citizens.
d) If the leader must carry his followers along, the followers should as a matter of right be
concerned and ready to participate in the political process.
e) Exemplary leadership informs enthusiastic followership. In Nigeria given the ‘political
irresponsibility’ of the followers, the leaders rely on their social backers for class servicing in
the absence of non-shared goals pressed upon them by the followers.
f) Public policies must be arrived at collectively; this informs leadership/followership nexus,
which implies a constant greasing of the social contract.
g) The leader must be checked into humaneness.
However, in Nigeria these attributes of leadership has been inexistent. Nigeria has sunk into
“fallacy of electoralism” (Mottiar 2002: 3), having held four successive general elections
without fair representation – a practice described by Schedler (2002) as “elections without
democracy: menu of manipulation”. While leadership in Nigeria has for sure been
irresponsible, corrupt, self-serving, personalizing, clueless, etc, it is only critical followership
that can reverse the trend.
According to Ogbonna (et al ) ( 2012), the following constitute major impediments to critical
followership in Nigeria;
Illiteracy and Poverty: Up to 35% of Nigerians estimated 160 million population are not
literate. Illiteracy is a major impediment to effective involvement of the followers in the
democratization process. The ‘relevant education’ exposes citizens to the knowledge requisite
in political participation as well as in assessing, evaluating and contributing to the political
process. In the words of Mckenna (1999: 337), “no amount of charters, direct primaries, or
short ballots will make a democracy out of an illiterate people”. More so, majority of
Nigerians fall within the category of the poor. Figures in this respect ranges from above 65%.
While International Affairs and Global Strategy analysis in this regard has usually been
predicated on resource capability of the masses, it is imperative to stretch poverty to
6
accommodate the following dimensions which has preponderance of implications on political
culture.
Intellectual poverty: This implies the inexistence of relevant knowledge bloc and or
consumption of knowledge that is neither useful to its possessor nor the society at large. On
the long run this kind of knowledge hardly equips one to understand and solve the problems
of his/her immediate environment.
Economic poverty: This kind of poverty is simply lacking the economic means of livelihood
and its implications in politics are that it infiltrates into the political culture of the society. The
question is “Is there a Political Culture of Poverty”. Yes, there is, no doubt the most
economically deprived people lack fundamental political knowledge due to inadequate
education, coupled with other variables such as the notion that in Nigeria, government will
never live up to its responsibilities of delivering good governance; the poor masses throw
their voting capacity into the labour market for grasp by the highest bidder, and finally roost
into apathy.
Religious poverty: The role of religion and cultural orientation on political socialization can
hardly be divested from political culture of a developing country like Nigeria. The upsurge of
charismatic movements and their emphasis on spiritual inanities with little or no preference to
intellectual or polemical development has reduced a larger part of Nigerian populace to
fatalistic beings. Nigerians now accept whatever befalls them as an act of God, and that it will
only take providential intervention to turn the table. This quiescence has a very large extent
made Nigerians unthinking political beings. Resultantly, the human mind is poisoned to the
effect that every action should be reacted to by resigning to fate. “Na God”(it is God) “God
dey” (There is God). Fundamentalism among the Muslim folks worsens the political situation
by reducing politics to a spectator game, spiritually mediated and predetermined. In a well
sold maxim, they argue, “power comes only from Allah and he gives it to whom He deems
fit”. In all, the logic is that the people must have capacity in order to be able to wrestle power
from the ruling elite. While economic capacity measured in terms of resource possession is
critical; having the right knowledge of the required action and process is necessary to turn
such into political credibility.
Leaders’ perennial reneging on the social contract vis-a-vis residue of military incursion
and overstay in Nigerian Politics: Many decades of ‘development-bereft’ governance in
Nigeria has created the problem of ‘tenure confidence’ and punctured the belief of the
Nigerian citizens that government would ever be for the people. Leadership deficit has more
than any other factor defuelled national cohesion, and demobilized the citizens at the
detriment of the ‘national project’. The more than half a century of independence is a
reference historicism of perennial under-achievement, disappointment and impairment of the
Nigerian polity: declining in all known ‘scales of comparative development’. The immediate
post-colonial Nigeria’s civil leadership was ousted by the military on the allegation of non-
performance, abuse of office, corruption and being defective to the national mandate. Based
on these allegations the military took over power. Disappointingly, the military purported
reformist intervention in politics left the country worst of. Typified in morbid personalization
of power, abuse and manipulation of stewardship and the wanton desire to perpetuate self (the
military) on the people against all odds, going against the national mood, voice, tune, outcry,
and insulating self from the national agitations by the use or threat of use of coercive
instruments. The resultant effect aside stagnation of development is more deep-rooted
implication of strangulation of the masses civil assertion of control over their leaders. In the
same vein participatory space depicted through civil society activities is eclipsed. Without
excess of language, the military excessive involvement in Nigerian politics militarized the
system from civic to regimented social life where political apathy festers. Apathy graduated
to a psychic political orientation of the majority of the citizens against dictatorial-prone civil

7
leadership. To the peril of the system, the democratic space recovered by the pro-democracy
movements - critical and highly mobilized civil society - became annexed in a change of
baton system; where the military personnel and their civil cronies became civilian politicians
wielding civil dictatorship and orchestrating a protracted and snail-crawling democratization
process from 1999 till date, with an overwhelming inherent potentiality for democratic
erosion (if not reversal) rather than deepening. One could not expect less when the greatest
enemies of liberty became the benefactor of the movement against anti-liberal movement in
Nigeria, occupying political offices and controlling the economy with enormous holdings in
both private and public firms in a plethora of commercial ventures including; agriculture,
banking, insurance, telecommunication, oil, construction, manufacturing etc.
Diversity burden: Nigeria is seriously torn-apart by ever increasing polarity – religion,
ethnicity/clan, language groups, ideology-lacking political class, which cripples social
cohesion. The burden of diversity in Nigeria does not lie in its plurality rather it lies on its
topical cum political complexities. The struggle for power and resources in Nigeria has
always been ‘ethnopolitically’ enmeshed rather than ‘ideo-politically’ driven. This is pitched
on the fact that Nigerians has not found a national hero in any of its founding fathers. More
so, hardly has any of the leaders lead above his province, or that the followers have not
looked beyond the leaders’ ethnopolitical setting.
Docility of Followers: This is one of the problems affecting nation building. Followership in
Nigeria has some problems that prevent the country from playing certain roles that can check
the excesses of leadership. Poverty is one major factor that impairs the role of followership in
Nigeria. Followers that are poor are afraid to criticize or checkmate the excesses of their
leaders because of fear of oppression from the leaders. The implication of this is that with
this, the wrong leader can come into power which will further oppress the people. Also,
followers pledge loyalty to their tribe first before the larger society. In Nigeria, when the
candidate contesting for election comes from a particular tribe and may not be competent
enough, the people of that tribe would prefer to vote for such candidate out of tribal sentiment
or ethnic loyalty, and this does not augur well for good leadership and nation building.
Nigerian followers are fond of not telling their leaders the truth; they praise them, tell them
lies but as soon as such leaders leave office, the followers soon turn against the leaders to
criticize their lapses. Followers sometimes ally with leaders to create trouble in the society so
that; they can divert the attention of the people, execute their personal interests. Followers
must have the confidence to speak out when necessary and they must realize the importance
of their role in helping the leaders make good or better decisions48. Silence should not be
accepted in followers who desire leadership. Docility of followers has posed a challenge of
the 21st century leadership in Nigeria. There is the need to build critical masses of enlightened
followers that will hold the leaders accountable for their misdeeds (Bello Iman & Obadan
2004).
Thom-Otuya (2012) identified series of problems of followership in Nigeria which include
the following;
✓ Poverty: Followership in Nigeria has some problems that prevent her from playing certain
roles that is identified with followership and, that can check the excesses of leadership.
Poverty is one major factor that impairs the role of followership in Nigeria. In Nigeria those
who are rich are very rich and wealthy; the poor are really poor; the middle-class wobbles
between self-sufficiency and poverty. Followers that are poor are afraid to criticize or
checkmate the excesses of their leadership because of fear of oppression from the leadership.
A poor followership is a weak and fearful crowed that is constrained to be docile over the
activities of her leadership.
✓ Ethnicity: the second problem that confronts followership in Nigeria is ethnicity.
Followers pledge loyalty to their tribe first before the larger society Nigeria. Nigerians
8
protects corrupt leaders without integrity and shield them from criticism and prosecution.
When a corrupt leader is prosecuted, his tribes’ men will come to his defense and rescue.
Even the way we vote or choose our leaders is influenced by ethnicity because it is believed
that if the leader is there, he will empower his tribes men first before others and programme
some projects to his tribe and empower his people with robust government and corporate
contracts. Nigerian followership should exculpate themselves from tribalism and put the
interest of Nigeria before their tribal interest or else the country will continue to wallow in
poverty and insecurity.
✓ Sycophancy: Nigerian followers are fond of not telling their leaders the truth, they praise
them, tell them lies; as soon as they leave their office, that is when follower turn against their
leader to criticize his lapses.
✓ Negativized quietude: This is a situation where followers remain adamant and aloof of
the excesses of leadership activities. When leaders are not doing the right thing, Nigerian
followers has developed a form of careless attitude towards that but instead, tend to speak
against other followers that tend to speak up.
✓ Susceptible to use by some leaders to fan trouble: followers’ sometime ally with leaders
to create trouble in the society so that; they can divert the attention of the people, to execute
their personal interest.
✓ Powerlessness in influencing government decisions: this is a major problem of followers
in Nigeria. Elections in Nigeria are highly manipulated. Leaders do not come to power
through the peoples vote, they manipulate election and election results to the extent that vote
casted do not make any meaning. Since peoples votes do not count, their opinion too is
undermined. The case of fuel subsidy is a vivid example, despite people’s protest,
government stood their ground.
✓ Sitting on the fence and watching the reckless abuse of office by leaders: Corruption
and abuse of office would have reduced tremendously in Nigeria if followers have been bold
enough to come out to criticize or challenge the excesses of their leaders.
Leadership and followership interaction is a cardinal element of citizenship vis-à-vis the
social contract in a democratic setting. The citizens are entitled to rights and therefore obliged
to the state” (Ogbonna et al, 2012:66). Ungar (2011) is of the view that “citizens should not
expect good leadership without good followership. The implication of the above on the
Nigeria situation is that the leadership and followership must establish cordial relationship to
attain the goal of nation building. On the contrary, leadership and followership in Nigeria has
been strained and abused due to the oppressive tendencies of the leaders over the years.
Apart from making efforts to lead the inherited state, over the years, post-colonial Nigerian
leaders and followers have been grappling with issues of nation building which revolves
around the search for nationhood, development of national consciousness among individuals
and groups to cultivate the sense of love, oneness, unity of purpose and commitment to the
state. According to Anthony (2004:10): In Africa (Nigeria), nation building is a very big task.
The countries that emerged at independence were not nations. They were rather nation states
brought together by accident of history of colonialism. Because of the brutalities and
exploitation of the colonial era, African states have not been able to establish single nations
and ensuring love, patriotism, unity and loyalty to the new nation.
Looking at the nature of leadership and followership in Nigeria, there is no doubt saying that
they have a lot of challenges. The challenges of leadership and followership have over the
years had strong impact on nation building which include and is not limited to the following
according to Michael, Amadi & Eweka, (2021);

9
Weak Political Institutions: The Nigerian state is an inherited state. According to Phillis and
Patrick (1985), “the political institutions the African states inherited from the colonial
governments were very weak and lacked the potential to stimulate leadership and nation
building”. The political and bureaucratic institutions were very weak and fragile, incapable of
ensuring citizens compliances to state policies. This type of system is capable of breeding
leaders that are not visionary but with the tendency to remain perpetually in office. These
week political institutions and the lacuna created provided Nigerian leaders with no option
than to be corrupt and at some point use state security apparatus to stifle revolts from the
masses. Nigeria as it is presently constituted politically seems to have a stronger executive
who controls the legislative and judicial arms of the government without regard to
constitutional provisions.
Lack of Policy Direction and Vision: Nigerian leaders lack policy direction and vision.
Visionary leadership is a panacea to nation building and when leaders are not visionary, they
will also lack policy direction. The trial and error approach adopted by Nigerian leaders
makes them to lack ideologies and policies of survival and not of sustainable development are
implemented. According to Newman (1997), vision is the key to understanding leadership.
Nigerian leaders lack manifestos and ideologies and as such fail to deliver on their campaign
promises. Their sense of judgment on issues of national interest is so naïve to the extent they
preach division rather than unity through their actions and inactions.
Use of Authoritarian Despotic and Coercive Force: Nigerian leaders over the years have
made so many promises to the masses but has fulfilled little to that effect. The poor masses
have been promised better living conditions and political system that will protect the interest
of all ethnic groups. On the contrary, leaders have failed to provide the needs of the people
which have eventually resulted to some form of violence and refusal to comply with state
laws. The poor masses have over the years expected the leaders to show selflessness and
genuine love for the nation, to provide dedicated leadership, show high sense of patriotism
and deep sense of commitment, show charisma and strong personality to be well informed on
the conditions of the people”. (Barkindo et al, 1994). The followers faced with such
numerous problems without hope in the near future have refused to obey state rules and
regulations believing that Nigeria is a jungle and in the jungle “survival of the fittest” is the
watchword. In response to the masses protest for a better Nigeria, the leaders have subjected
them to severe humiliation and ill treatment. The leaders like in the era of colonialism used
police, military and other state security agencies to compel the people to obedience. The
divide and rule policy of the colonial era has been reintroduced in a manner that has deepened
ethnicity in Nigeria.
The consistent call for change through agitations and wide protest and the use of force by the
leaders have polarized the country along ethnic lines which is not healthy for heterogeneous
society like Nigeria.
Ethnicity-Ethnic Division: Nigeria has over 250 ethnic groups with distinct culture,
languages and historical origins. However, in 1914, the British government amalgamated the
various ethnic groups that were hitherto independent and sovereign to one political entity
called Nigeria. Thom-Otuya (2012:122) stressed that: The amalgamation brought different
perceptions, some saw it as a mistake while others saw it as necessity for the administrative
convenience of the colonial government. Since then, Nigerians including her leaders pay
more allegiance to their ethnic interest than to the country.
He further posited that even in time of elections, people vote according to their ethnic interest
and when such leaders emerge, they also reciprocate same to their ethnic groups. The
implication is that leaders who emerge through ethnic support cannot project national interest
which is key to nation building. Ethnic politics has over the years created disunity among
leaders in Nigeria and the result is ethnic competitions on who should control the centre.
10
Ethnicity has over the years posed a serious threat to nation building in Nigeria and the
leaders must live above ethnic affiliations.
Lack of Integrity: Integrity is an important ingredient of leadership. It is the integrity of a
leader that wins the trust and support of the followers. Nigeria is a country that parades
corruption as a value system; this can be attributed to lack of integrity on the part of
leadership (Thom-Otuya, 2012). Nigerians lack trust for her leaders and it has made the
leaders to lose credibility both at home and abroad. The leaders in other to win support from
the masses, turn to their ethnic groups for protection therefore creating ethnic sentiments
among the followers.
Lack of Legitimacy: Since independence to date, legitimacy has been a major challenge to
leadership in Nigeria. Legitimacy is the bedrock of democratic leadership and as such,
leaders must get same from the followers. On the contrary, in Nigeria, most leaders find their
way into power through the backdoors or dubious process. The military dictators imposes
themselves on the people through coup de tats while the civilians imposes themselves on the
people through election rigging. This according to Thom-Otuya (2012) and Ogbonna et al
(2012) “only coarse the followership; they cannot criticize or dialogue with the leaders and as
such, reduces the people’s confidence on their leaders because their mandates and rights was
stolen”.
The above leadership challenges have impacted negatively on the quest for nationhood by
Nigerians. On the other hand, followership in Nigeria also have numerous challenges ranging
from; poverty, illiteracy, ethnicity, sycophancy, laise affaire docile attitudes and lack of
integrity which was earlier alluded to.
Concluding Remarks
Suffice to say that the followers should rise and take responsibility for their actions and
inactions and stop casting unnecessary blames on the leaders which they are supposed to put
in check and hold responsible when they have done what they should do. As the maxim says,
‘he that wants equity should come with clean hands. Followers can only succeed in holding
their leaders accountable when they themselves are not found wanting in their own duties.
Citing the issues of civic responsibility and work ethics as an example, democracy has
enabled the people to choose their leaders through periodic elections and equally vote them
out, recall or impeach them as the case maybe but when the followers stay apolitical on
activities that can make the leader to sit-up, then checkmating the leaders becomes more
elusive resulting in leadership excesses and recklessness. Irresponsible followership breads
irresponsible leadership.
Most of the failures attributed to leadership are issues of the followers. Followers should rise
and take responsibility for their actions and inactions and stop casting unnecessary blames on
the leaders which they are supposed to put in check and hold responsible when they have
done what they should do. Followers can only succeed in holding their leaders accountable
when they themselves are not found wanting in their own duties
With the present attitude to leadership and followership characterized by ethnic sentiments,
greed, corruption, nepotism, insecurity, distrust, marginalization, brutality, oppression,
disregard for the rule of law, inequality, hatred, hate speeches, political instability and
exploitation of the minority, nation building will continue to be a mirage. “Nigeria is
seriously torn apart by ever increasing polarity - groups, lack of ideology and ethnic
agitations” (Ogbonna et al, 2012).
No doubt, leadership and followership is vital to nation building and such must work
collectively for the interest of all groups and interest. The inactive nature of followership is
also the reason for ineffective leadership in the country. Thus, strained leadership and
11
followership can impact negatively on nation building in Nigeria. It is the position of this
paper that the task of nation-building must involves not only the leadership but a followership
that is virile and capable of holding the leadership to account towards ensuring the delivery of
the dividend of democracy and nation-building. It recommends among others the need for an
informed followership with the boldness of holding the leadership to be sincere to the oath of
service sworn to even in the face of repression and opposition.
References
Ajayi, A.I. (2012). Leadership, followership and socio-political Development in Post-
Independence Nigeria Global Advanced Research. Journal of History, Political
Science and International Relations. 1(9), 191-196.
Bello Iman and Obadan M. (Eds) 2004. Democratic Governance and Development
Management in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic 1999-2003. Ibadan. Centre for Local
Government and Rural Development Studies (CLGARDS)
Dike, E. V. (2008). Leadership, politics, and social change: Nigeria and the struggle for
survival. Retrieved from
http://www.africaeconomicanalysis.org/articles/20/1/Leadership-Politics-andSocial-
Change-Nigeria-and-the-Struggle-for-Survival/Page1.html.
Ekundayo, J. M. O., Damhoeri, K., & Ekundayo, S. M. (2010). Time to focus on followers:
Looking at the other side of the leadership ‘coin.’ Retrieved from
http://www.academicleadership.org/872/time-to-focus-on-followerslooking-at-the-
other-side-of-the-leadership-coin/.
Folarin, S. (2010). Africa’s Leadership Challenge in the 21st Century: A Nigerian
Perspective. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations. 7(1), 1-
11. Ikime, O. (1985). In search of Nigerians: Changing Patterns of Intergroup
Relations in an Evolving Nation-State. Presidential Inaugural Lecture at the 30th
Congress of the Historical Society of Nigeria (HSN). University of Nigeria, Nsukka,
May 1.
Laosebikan, J.S. (2016). Theoretical and Conceptual Issues of Leadership in Nigeria; An
Evaluation. Journal of Business Administration and Management Sciences. 5(3), 029-
033.
Macallum, J.S. (2013). Followership: The Other Side of Leadership. IVEY Business Journal.
5(3), 27.
Michael, T.B, Amadi C & Eweka, E. E. (2021). An Assessment of the Roles of Leadership
and Followership in Nation Building: The Nigerian Experience. KIU Journal of
Humanities, Kampala International University 6(1): 75-86.
Odo, L.U. (2015). Democracy, Good Governance and Development in Nigeria: The
Challenges of Leadership. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2(6), 1-09.
Ogbonna, E.C., Ogundiwin, A.O. & Uzuegbu- Wilson, E. (2012). Followership Imperative of
Good Governance: Reflections on Nigeria’s Second Chance at Democratization.
International Affairs and Global Strategy. Vol 4, 65-60.
Olusegun, A. (2012), “Opposition Party and Nation-building”, Bridges: A Programme on
Nigerian Television Authority (NTA), broadcasted by 10:30 PM on Saturday 25th
February, 2012.
Oyedepo, D. (2000). Making Maximum Impact. Ota, Dominion Publishing House.

12
Sola A. (2011). Leadership, Good Governance and Sustainable Development in Laboode
Popoola, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, Bolanle Wahab, Godson Ana and Olawale Olayide
(Eds) Global Change and Sustainable Development. Ibadan. University of Ibadan
Centre for Sustainable Development. P. 56.
Thom-Otuya, B. E. N. (2012). Leadership and Followership: Essential Factors for National
Development and Achievement of Organizational Goals. Mediterranean Journal of
Social Sciences, 3(15), 115-124.
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, Followership, and Evolution:
Some Lessons from the Past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182-196.

13