It was, perhaps, no surprise that when President Bola Tinubu spoke to newsmen after the coronation of Pope Leo XIV in Rome on Sunday, the theme that he chose was the diversity of the Nigerian nation. The significance of the invitation and the symbolism of Tinubu’s presence at the Vatican were widely perceived against the background of the perennial question of diversity in this multi-religious and multi-ethnic country. Here was the President, a Muslim, leading the Nigerian delegation to the epochal Christian ceremony that attracted many leaders across the world. Tinubu said of his presence: “(It is) consistent in the true sense of unity in diversity… We must continue to work on it. It’s a work in progress…”

Now, identity politics is a global phenomenon. It is a challenge to nation-building in many countries. In the specific case of Nigeria, the manifestation of identity politics is more pronounced in the religious, ethnic and regional dimensions. In particular, the question of ethnic identity will be examined in this column. Virtually every issue in the polity and society is now ethnicised, thereby compounding the process of finding solutions.

To start with, a lot of conceptual problems becloud rational discussions. Terms are used without clarity about their meanings. So, during debates there is hardly any mutual understanding of the words being employed to advance arguments from opposite sides.

One of those often-misused words is “tribe.”

It is in this light of the foregoing that a revised copy of a piece entitled “So, where are the tribes?” published here on April 14, 2021, is being reproduced as follows:

Simply put, there is no tribe anywhere in Nigeria today. There are instead communities, ethnic groups and nationalities making up the country. These categories are different from tribe.

Despite this obvious sociological fact, in official documents and public discussions ethnic groups comprising tens of millions of people are incorrectly referred to as “tribes.” Hence, from the professor to the senator and from the pundit to the roadside mechanic, comes the conclusion that the problem of Nigeria is “tribalism.” 

When you make a statement at the police station, you have to indicate your “tribe” on the paper. A line in the Nigeria’s resurrected national anthem even says: “Though tribes and tongues may differ; In brotherhood we stand…”

It’s often considered supremely charitable when you say a political personality is “detribalised.” But, this is grossly erroneous.  To be “detribalised” is to be removed from a tribe. Here is the definition of “detribalise”, according to the Oxford Dictionary: “remove (someone) from a traditional tribal social structure.” The dictionary further gives the examples of usage of the word “detribalise” as follows: “these policies attempted to detribalise native people by extricating them from their land base; (detribalised as adjective):  the 250,000 include many detribalised urban people. “

It is, therefore, a monumental insult to say, for instance, that an Igbo man belonging to an ethnic group of over 40 million people is “detribalised” when what you simply mean to say is that he is no ethnic chauvinist. When you describe a man as “detribalised” what you are saying unwittingly is that the gentleman has just been taken out of a primitive enclave and relocated, perhaps, in an urban civilised setting. And it doesn’t strike some pundits as strange that while the British discuss the issue of “Scottish nationalism” Nigerians talk of “Yoruba tribalism” even though the Yoruba population in Nigeria is larger than that of the Scottish in United Kingdom. You will never read in British newspapers stories about Welsh or English tribalism. No, they don’t discuss “tribalism” because they know the implication of inferiority in the meaning. Rather, they talk of “nationalism” Britain.   

It should obviously sound offensive that over 250 ethnic groups in Nigeria are derogatorily referred to as tribes. Some persons talk of their “tribe” when the appropriate word should be nation, nationality or ethnic group.

It is amazing that some pundits seem not to be rankled by these conceptual contradictions.

Imprecision is a social and intellectual malaise in Nigeria. This is because the scientific approach is hardly adopted in solving everyday problems. Scientific method is not yet entrenched in the national culture. It takes discipline to do so. The imprecise use of terms is part of the deficit in the current debate of the Nigerian condition. Hardly is there any agreement on the meanings of many of the buzzwords used in discussing the nation’s problems. For instance, despite the legitimate impatience of some well-informed advocates of “restructuring” with those still ask for the meaning of the term, a lot of clarification is still necessary in some quarters. This may sound indulgent or pedantic; but it is important.

In the specific case of the inappropriate use of the   category “tribe,” the concern here transcends academic anthropology. The error is in a sense a measure of Nigeria’s social and political development. Historically, the colonialists in their perverted sociology used the word “tribe” to describe a people they regarded as primitive. It was part of the ideological hegemony of the racists to portray the colonised people as inferior with no social or political history. It didn’t matter that kingdoms and empires existed for centuries in places the colonialists later described as tribal enclaves. Imagine still describing Edo as a tribe centuries after the Benin Kingdom established relations with Portugal.  Today, the Portuguese will not refer to any part of their country as a tribe. Talking about sociological evolution, it was a racist insult to describe as tribesmen the producers of the masterpieces of art stolen by the white man during the colonial conquests.  

The irony is that decades after independence well educated Nigerians continue to describe their ethnic groups and nationalities in the same pejorative term those sociologists in the service of colonialism describe black people in the 19th Century.

To be sure, members of a tribe belonged to one of the lowest rungs in the ladder of human civilisation; they were still at the pre-state stage in political evolution. The tribal space is the universe of some members of the tribe.   As a member of a tribe you might not even be aware of the existence other tribes in the same region. 

It is noteworthy that in the West, in contemporary discussions of inter-group relations the category “tribe’ is reserved only for those regarded as backward with all the socio-economic and political connotations. So the Aborigines in Australia are described as “tribal’” people. In the American context, ethnic and racial groups are not called tribes. The category of tribe applies only to some native Americans still consigned to the dungeon of underdevelopment by virtue of racist policies. Tribesmen as a group and as individuals are markedly separated from other people in terms of development and modernisation. The areas occupied by the extremely disadvantaged groups are still described as “tribal.” 

However, none of the Nigerian ethnic groups, nationalities and, some would even say, nations, could be described as caves of primitive tribesmen.  No part of Nigeria today could be said to be occupied by people completely detached from civilisation.

Regional disparities are, of course, undeniable.  No ethnic group is immune to the  socio-economic underdevelopment which defines the Nigerian society. Yet no group is excluded in the process  of elite formation regardless of the size.

It was quite instructive watching a retired service chief  on television the other day telling his remarkable life story which illustrates  the point at issue. He  belongs to “a minority group within  a minority area.” Yet he rose to be a defence chief some years ago. Similarly, a former senator told his own story. If you use language as the yardstick of ethnic classification, his mother tongue is spoken by only a few hundreds of people. The distinguished senator became a reputable principal  officer of the  senate. There are several examples of citizens belonging to small ethnic groups who have gained national prominence on their own  individual merit. Certainly, these ladies and gentlemen cannot be described as tribesmen and women. In contrast, it was great news in the United States early four years ago when a native American was appointed into a high political office. 

It is pertinent  to draw attention to the   error of calling ethnic groups tribes  because of its consequences for the current  identity politics. There is a way in which tribal identification tends to eclipse the factor of national integration in discussions.  The description of ethnic groups as tribes is, perhaps, an unconscious denial  of the currents of integration. Those who employ the category tribe in identifying themselves and others in puristic terms ignore these obvious currents.

For instance, the sensibilities of the products of inter-ethnic marriages are routinely ignored when some separatists beat the drums of war by peddling ethnic prejudice against members of other groups. The biological   products of  the  cosmopolitan  trends in the Nigerian society can definitely not be tribesmen by the very  definition of their birth. A person may decide to identify with the ethnic group of his mother or father; but that doesn’t make him a tribesman or woman.

The matter even becomes more absurd  when the dynamics of integration is considered.  Those who still talk of tribes and tribalism have static view of things. Take a sample. A citizen is born outside the homestead of his grandparents. He is of the third generation of his family members who have made the place outside their  place of origin  home. He has only visited the place of origin only on a few occasions. In every material sense the man is integrated into his place of abode where he works, pays his taxes and builds his family.  But in this upsurge of identity politics in the land, the man described above would likely be told by some ethnic champions  that  he doesn’t belong to the “tribe” that owns the place in which he lives. To talk of tribe in this context  is an insult to the man as well as those accusing him of being a stranger to the so-called tribe.

It is astonishing that this racist categorisation is embraced in everyday conversations by Nigerians themselves in the playing identity politics.

Doubtless, identity politics will be enriched by bringing conceptual clarity to the issues in dispute. A requirement for this is a good understanding of the meaning of words and phrases used in the debate because of their  implications.  Far from being pedantic on this topic, it is worth stressing that precision in terms of  the use of concepts is important for the urgent  task of diversity management. Those employing  categories to describe groups should be clear about what they mean precisely.

In sum, the Nigerian diversity is not defined by differences among tribesmen.

Among the diverse groups are ethnic groups and nationalities. Some even proclaim their own groups as nations. National integration is, therefore, not about forging an amalgam of tribes. Indeed, integration could be achieved with the instruments of well-articulated policies to promote equity in inter- ethnic and inter-regional relations and social justice for all citizens wherever they choose to reside in the country.

This should be an urgent task for all the tiers of government so that the promotion of national unity could be a legacy of this generation of leaders.

Last Thursday, May 15, 2025, a news report has it that a bill to amend the Electoral Act 2022 to make voting compulsory for Nigerians of voting age has passed second reading in the House of Representatives. The proposed legislation was sponsored by the Speaker, Tajudeen Abbas, and Daniel Ago. Leading the debate during plenary, Ago said the bill aimed to encourage citizens’ participation in the electoral process, noting that voter apathy during elections would be addressed if the bill scales legislative scrutiny. The proposed legislation stipulates penalties for eligible voters who fail to vote without valid justification, including a fine of N100,000, a six-month jail term, or both.

According to PBS News of November 3, 2014, 22 nations around the world make voting mandatory for their citizens, often starting at age 18. They are Australia, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Belgium, Congo DRC, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Greece, Honduras, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Nauru, Singapore, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Thailand and Paraguay.  In Australia, failure to vote can result in a $20 fine. I quite understand the motive behind the bill, which is to shore up voters’ turnout and cut enormous waste being incurred at every poll by the Independent National Electoral Commission. This economic loss is found in unused ballot papers printed with billions of naira.

Nonetheless, making voting compulsory in Nigeria currently and even in future is a no-brainer. Indeed, it is a joke taken too far and a needless distraction! It is against the fundamental rights of citizens. Do the sponsors of the bill think that this is a panacea or an antidote to voter apathy? Did they do their research well enough to know that this piece of legislation, which to me is dead on arrival, is a priority for Nigerians? Granted that there is abysmal voter turnout in Nigeria, the drivers of that ugly phenomenon are not known to include optional voting.

I watched a video over the weekend about Indian elections and learnt that the Asian country has over 980 million registered voters as of 2024. Out of this number, 646 million voters voted in the May 2024 general elections. By the way, India has over 1 million Polling Booths, over 2,500 registered political parties and a population of 1.438 billion (2023 estimate). How come India recorded about 70 per cent voter turnout in its last general elections, and Nigeria, with 19 registered political parties, 93,469,008 million registered voters and 176,846 polling units, recorded a mere 27 per cent in the 2023 general elections? Meanwhile, elections in India are not compulsory.

According to the Independent National Electoral Commission, there has been a steady decline in voter turnout since 1999. The commission said there was 57.54 per cent of voter turnout in 2007 (remember, this was adjudged as the worst election in this Fourth Republic), 53.68 per cent in 2011, 43.65 per cent in 2015, 34.75 per cent in 2019, and 26.72 per cent in 2023. There are multiple reasons for voter apathy. These include lack of good governance; labourious voters’ registration and Permanent Voters Card collection process; late commencement of voting due to INEC’s logistical challenges; restriction of movement on election day; limited voting hours (six hours i.e., from 8:30 am-2:30 pm); a lack of trust in the election management bodies that votes will count and not rigged in favour of preferred candidates as well as electoral violence. Others include inadequate voters’ mobilisation by stakeholders, such as the political parties, candidates, INEC, civil society organisations and the media; perceived miscarriage of justice by the judiciary especially in election matters; a lack of multiple voting techniques, such as early voting, voting by proxy, out-of-country voting, diaspora voting, and voting by prisoners.

As I said in my column on December 4, 2024, there are several things Nigeria needs to do if it wants to improve voters’ turnout in subsequent elections. These are as follows: INEC needs to hold all general elections on one day. Having polls over two Saturdays is wasteful and illogical. In the August 2022 Kenyan elections, polls were conducted for six political offices in one day! Also, locking down the country or state during elections is counterproductive. Many people whose polling units are not near their residences are automatically disenfranchised.

Furthermore, there is a need to increase voting hours. In Egypt and the US, where I have been privileged to observe elections, polls are held for 12 to 13 hours. In Nigeria, voting hours are just six. In addition, the late arrival of INEC officials for duties has led many potential voters to leave in frustration without exercising their franchise. There should be provision for early voting so that millions of registered voters who are going to be on election duties, such as poll officials, security agents, accredited journalists, and observers, can vote ahead of the main election day. Recall that ahead of the November 5, 2024, elections in the US, 85 million registered voters had cast their ballots days and weeks before that day.

Another thing Nigeria should do is amend our laws to allow for out-of-country and diaspora voting. In the last general elections in Kenya, Kenyans living in 12 other countries were allowed to vote for the presidential candidate of their choice without having to travel home. Also in Kenya, prisoners are allowed to vote. This is not the situation yet in Nigeria. Allowing independent candidates to contest for political offices also has the potential to increase voters’ participation. Peaceful campaigns devoid of arson, killing, maiming, and fake news can instill confidence in voters to participate in elections. Pre-election violence has the power to scare away voters on election day.

How candidates emerge victorious in Nigeria’s election is too simple. For legislative positions, it is first-past-the-post. For executive positions, you need 25 per cent of valid votes cast in two-thirds of the country, state, or wards, depending on whether it is a presidential, governorship, or local government chairmanship poll. In other climes that have adopted the French model, a contestant needs to score 50+1 votes, which is an absolute majority, to be declared the winner. In countries like Ghana and most Francophone countries, voter mobilisation is taken seriously by political parties and candidates, unlike in our clime where this onerous responsibility has been abdicated to INEC, National Orientation Agency, and CSOs.

Of course, as earlier said, there is a need for improved governance with palpable dividends of democracy to the people. All these measures, if taken, will lead to a significant improvement in voters’ turnout.

Rather than making voting compulsory, what should be made mandatory is good governance!  Imagine if public education and health services are made free; if there is no self-aggrandisement by the political class and there is low-level corruption; high-level of infrastructural development, security and welfare of citizens. Voters will not need to be coerced to perform their civic responsibility.

Though he may not like being in the headline of a newspaper, Dr Michael Olawale Omolayole will admit two things: He is a goldfish that has no hiding place, and his name will help draw attention to the colloquium on malaria that is taking place today in Ijebu-Imusin, his hometown.

The colloquium is midwifed by the Michael and Theresa Omolayole Centre for Community Development, a non-government organisation set up by Omolayole and his late wife, Theresa, for interventions in community development issues.

The colloquium, to be addressed by Prof. Oyeku Oyelami, specialist in paediatric and adolescent medicine, and Provost of Federal College of Medicine, Ila Oragun, Osun State, reflects the theme, “Malaria Ends with Us: Reinvest, Reimagine, and Reignite”, that marked Malaria Day of April 25, 2025.

Dr Titi Hassan, professor of zoology at of University of Ibadan, will respond to Oyelami’s submissions, and ophthalmic surgeon, Dr Kunle Hassan, proprietor of the White Shoe Eye Foundation Hospital, is the chairman.

 The 2025 Malaria Day global campaign is to re-energise efforts, from global to community level, to expeditiously eliminate malaria. Nigeria’s National Strategic Plan 2021-2025 is to achieve a malaria-free Nigeria, by keeping malaria parasite prevalence to less than 10 per cent and reducing mortality to less than 50 deaths in 1,000 live births by 2025.

According to Omolayole, the colloquium will provide “vital knowledge about the prevention and treatment of malaria, which is a dreaded disease in the whole of tropical Africa. It particularly affects and kills millions of children below the age of 5”.

Those old enough will remember that West Africa was described as a “White man’s graveyard” because yellow fever and malaria led to a high mortality rate of Europeans. Some suggest that Caucasian and Arab settlers chose temperate Southern and North Africa to escape the scourge of mosquitoes.

Hinting at his approval of alternative medicine, Omolayole revealed that Oyelami was in a position to “demonstrate… how some herbs and plants that surround us can help considerably in the matter (of battling malaria)”.

He adds that he had heard and read extensively “about neem (dongoyaro), lemon grass and oruwo plants” that are cheaper and more readily accessible for use to combat the devastating scourge of malaria fever.

By the way, ethnopharmacology, which Omolayole seems to be interested in promoting, is the study of what Western orthodox medicine practitioners prefer to derisively label as traditional medicines and their uses.

A more academically arrogant definition of alternative medicine is that it aims to achieve the healing effects of orthodox medicine, even though it lacks biological plausibility, testability, repeatability or evidence of effectiveness.

But, then, any form of medication, orthodox or alternative, must be taken with a pinch of salt. That is probably why doctors suggest that patients should always seek second opinions. Some have even suggested that patients could use orthodox and alternative medicine to complement each other.

Perhaps a more acceptable definition of alternative medicine is that it includes medical practices that are not considered to be part of conventional or orthodox medicine and focuses on holistic approaches, natural therapeutics and alternative systems of healing, many of which are backed by a long history of usage and cultures.

It is also important to stress that there is a need to ensure the safety of the medications and the qualification or expertise of those who will dispense the alternative medicine options, as it applies to the use of Western orthodox medicine.

In addition, the methods of alternative medicine are not taught by regular university medical schools. But it is obvious that alternative medicines have returned with a vengeance, to the extent that vendors of herbal medicines are sometimes allowed to hawk their remedies to patients even in the wards of some Nigerian medical teaching hospitals.

Perhaps the biggest blow to Big Pharma is that alternative medicine gives patients very easy access to exceedingly cheaper herbs. Alternative medicine includes herbal medication, acupuncture, homoeopathy, massage therapy, yoga and meditation and significantly reduces the need to pop pills that come with significant negative side effects.

The lobby for alternative medicine, or at least another approach to the use of medication, was taken to another level by Dr Stella Immanuel, a Cameroonian, who studied medicine at the University of Calabar in Cross River State of Nigeria.

She led an audacious crusade for the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat patients of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of course, America’s food and drug administration agency, in panic mode on behalf of Big Pharma, promptly shot the idea down with reports of “serious heart rhythm problems” and other ill-defined health issues.

But Dr Immanuel’s effrontery rang throughout the world as Donald Trump, in his first term as America’s President, seemed to have weighed in on her side. But Dr Anthony Fauci, Director of America’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was on the side of orthodox Western medicine and the financially munificent Big Pharma lobby.

But the world took notice of the debate, and many in the metropolitan economies of North America and Western Europe and the peripheral economies of South America, Africa, Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe stampeded in droves to patronise outlets that sold herbal medicines to combat the dreaded Covid-19 grim reaper.

Two state governors in Nigeria, Nasir el-Rufai of Kaduna State and Seyi Makinde of Oyo State, publicly admitted to having been cured of COVID-19 after taking herbal medicine. Testimonies of the efficacy of herbal medicine thus suddenly became more fashionable.

Dr Olorunninbe Mamora, a medical doctor and Minister of State for Health to former President Muhammadu Buhari, even promised that the government would work with herbal medicine practitioners to find solutions to COVID-19.

However, the cynicism of the Western orthodoxy against alternative medicine is so high that the world may miss the little steps that are capable of delivering the great benefits of cheaper and less complicated drugs to the world.

Little do these Euro-American cynics know that South African botanist, Dr. Zimara Dubeni, found out that Moringa oleifera leaf extracts can enhance food safety, reduce synthetic additives and improve public health if used to preserve raw chicken meat that can otherwise breed foodborne diseases.

The intervention of the Omolayoles’ MATOCCODEV is timely, considering the recent report of a breakout of Lassa fever that has caused 138 deaths in 15 Nigerian states. To be sure, Lassa fever is somewhat different from malaria fever.

Lassa fever is a viral illness transmitted by rodents, and malaria fever is a parasitic infection that is spread by mosquitoes. Whereas symptoms of Lassa fever are headache, fatigue, and, sometimes, bleeding, vomiting and kidney issues, those of malaria fever are chills, sweats, and, when it really gets worse, include seizures, fainting, coma and even death.

Today, MATOCCODEV is going to be facilitating the sharing of knowledge on the prevention of malaria fever and distributing, for free, 25 units of treated mosquito nets that were popularised by Rotary International.

Omolayole expects that the colloquium will attempt to explain the nexus between orthodox medicine and herbal medicine that is considered to be more cost-effective and more readily available, especially in rural communities.

Maybe Nigeria’s healthcare policymakers should give more than passing attention to the malaria colloquium taking place at Ijebu-Imusin today.

One of the founding theses of public administration reform philosophy is that the dysfunction and reconstruction of the administrative system must be figured out both in theory and in practice, and public administration had therefore historically functioned within frameworks of communities of practice and service and their knowledge networks. And that, among other things, implies that theory and practice must first be seen as being two sides of the same coin rather than two mutually exclusive frameworks. When I made the decision so early in my public service career to study the theoretical foundations of the Nigerian public service system, it dawned on me that dissecting the dysfunctional dynamics of the public service system provokes theoretical insights by which to engage with these same dysfunctions.

However, the gross anti-intellectualism of the policy space in Nigeria contributes to one of the fundamental deficiencies in the institutional framework of the public service in Nigeria: a mix of conception-reality and passion without knowledge gaps that manifest in terms of a mismatch between theoretical and reform paradigms on the one hand, and local conditions, circumstances and realities on the other. Indeed, administrative reforms are conceived and implemented to a significant extent with scant recognition that public administration has a theoretical foundation that is way distinct from the theoretical assumptions of the core management science.

We therefore arrive at a most significant reason why the public service system has been struggling to constitute the institutional mechanism to backstop democratic governance and its dividends for Nigerians. If we take it as axiomatic that the bureaucracy is a necessary complement to democracy, then it implies that the public service must be in topnotch shape—in terms of human resource management, performance accountability and productivity metrics—to be able to deliver on the imperatives of good governance. The public service system in Nigeria has however been struggling with the necessity for institutional reform that will transform it into a worldclass mechanism that could serve the need of a developmental state and its democratic requirements.

Ultimately, the fate of the public service and its optimal functionality—its capacity readiness to service democratic governance anywhere—lies firmly in the type of theoretical questions we ask in terms of what should drive the practice of public administration. The big questions are fundamental questions that articulate the relationship between theory and practice, and provide the directions that enable theorists and practitioners to make sense of any endeavor. The big questions that public administration is confronted with help to shape how it grounds its frameworks, dynamics and paradigms, especially when applied to the working of the state and the imperatives of governance.

Three initial big questions have been offered that are meant to ground public management. One: how can public managers break away from non-innovative fixation with excess of procedural rules which prevent pubic agencies from achieving measurable result and outcome? In other words, how might we ignite the shift from current input-process fixation to an output-outcome-impact-results-based management framework? Two: how can public managers motivate their workforce to achieve more in performance terms? Three: how can public managers measure these achievements?

These how-questions underscore the capacity of the public manager and her capacity to facilitate the capacity readiness of the public bureaucracy. This approach, especially in public administration, focuses on the public managers and their objective of capacitating the public agencies as an organization with its own unique character. However, as the objection goes, such an approach is limited in its failure to connect the functionality of the public bureaucracy or agency to the institutional demands of a democratic government. Public administration in a democracy is a whole ballgame all by itself. Once we see the intimate connection between public administration and a democracy, then we immediately see how there is a need for new set of big and fundamental questions that will adequately guide public administration practice within a democratic context.

Seven of such questions have been provided in the literature. “(1) What are the instruments of collective action that remain responsible both to democratically elected officials and to core societal values? (2) What are the roles of nongovernmental forms of collective action in society, and how can desired roles be protected and nurtured? (3) What are the appropriate tradeoffs between governmental structures based on function (which commonly eases organizational tasks) and geography (which eases citizenship, political leadership, and societal learning)? (4) How shall tensions between national and local political arenas be resolved? (5) What decisions shall be “isolated” from the normal processes of politics so that some other rationale can be applied? (6) What balance shall be struck among neutral competence, representativeness, and leadership? (7) How can processes of societal learning be improved, including knowledge of choices available, of consequences of alternatives, and of how to achieve desired goals, most importantly, the nurturing and development of a democratic polity?”

Unfortunately, it is not just sufficient to align public administration and public management to the imperatives of democratic government, as these seven questions by John Kirlin of the University of South California has attempted to do. A further criterion is missing. And this, because the experience of public administration and democracy differs from context to context. The contextual criterion ensures that the fundamental big questions we need to ask will be those that will take seriously the peculiarities and uniqueness of the context within which public administration will be expected to interact and backstop democratic governance. This is even more so in the Nigerian context where public administration and democratic government must factor postcolonial circumstances into the type of fundamental questions they are meant to engage with.

The Nigerian state, since its post-independence trajectory, has generated its own unique experience of public administration. This can be framed in terms of the myriad attempts at achieving institutional reform of the public service system inherited from the British colonialists. The commencement of the democratic experiment in 1999 puts a new spin on the urgency of bending public administration to the demands of democratic governance that will transform the quality of life of millions of Nigerians who have been promised the dividends of democracy. How then can we articulate the fundamental questions that should guide our understanding of the relationship between public administration and democratic governance in Nigeria? What are the critical issues that the government, its bureaucracy and public administration theorists ought to make the core of their reflective endeavor?
In what follows, I frame seven of such big questions in line with my many years of theoretically and practically engaging with the perils and promises of the public service as a mechanism for democratic fulfilment in Nigeria.

One: How can public managers break away from non-innovative fixation with excess of procedural rules and regulations that prevent public agencies from producing results and outcomes that translate to better life to the people in a democracy? This question speaks to the centrality of the “I-am-directed” Weberian tradition and the centrality of the input and process-oriented business model that undermine the output-oriented model which demands performance, efficiency, productivity.

Two: ⁠How can the public service resolve the seemingly jinxed pay and remuneration policy problem which has prevented the public service from achieving an excellent talent management regime that enables attraction and retention of talented professionals and some of the scarce skills the service requires to perform at optimal levels? This is a question that stems from government’s loss of status as the employer of choice which in turn has eroded civil service’s prestige as a brand, as well as the inability of the public bureaucracy to attract and retain the brightest and the best while managing adversarial industrial relation that undergirds employer-employee contractual obligations.

Three; ⁠How can public managers measure the achievements of their agencies in a way that is game-changing for performance of government and the productivity of the national economy? The success of democratic governance in Nigeria is aligned to the urgent need for a shift in the productivity paradigm that ensures that the public service system becomes motivated by a performance management that increases the productivity profile of the Nigerian state.

Four: ⁠How can the nature and role of the state be sustainably redefined and how to leverage same to organize and utilize government resources to better achieve the collective good? The nature and the role of the state keeps changing in relation to its governance responsibility. And this demands that the success of public administration is seen in terms of the state’s relationship to other non-state and nongovernmental actors that are stakeholders in the governance space.

Five: ⁠How can the public service regain public trust and foster social equity within framework of stewardship relationship with the people in a democracy? This question addresses the modalities by which the public service system function as a democratic institution that is transparent, accountable and open to the citizens as the most significant component of a democratic government.

Six; How should NGOs be empowered so they can play more positive role in society and in getting public policy to achieve the common good, and how can their desired roles be better protected? NGOs, as a nonstate actor, opens up the governance space (hitherto dominated by government and its agencies), and serve as the critical mediator between the government and the citizens.

Seven: ⁠How can the public service strike a balance between the values of being neutral and non-partisan as basis for strengthening professional ethics and the public servants’ capacity to speak truth to power? The founding dichotomy in public administration—the politics/administration distinction—insists that the politician and the administration must operate on different level of the policy divide. However, this dichotomy must be balanced with the capacity of the public servant to confront and engage with policy somersaults that fails the test of policy intelligence and action research.

These big questions constitute core issues which the public administration profession in Nigeria must foreground as the central reflective points for rethinking the functionality of the public service in Nigeria’s quest for democratic distinction on the continent.

*Olaopa, a Professor of Public Administration, is the Chairman of the Federal Civil Service Commission, Abuja