After steering the cause of a turbulent United Kingdom economy as Prime Minister, Liz Truss resigned from the exalted office she sought and fought very hard to occupy just some 44 days ago. It’s honourable that she saw the weight of the office, admitted her inability to deliver on the mandate, and resigned. Indeed, it reflected how she valued the nation above herself.
But then why did she become Prime Minister in the first instance when she knew she’d resign in just 44 days? Isn’t it a waste of time and resources, considering that the Conservative Party had to organise a long walk of campaigns and debates in the bid to shop for a replacement for Boris Johnson, who equally resigned just two months ago?
Does it not appear to be a calculated scheme to scuttle a candidate who appeared prepared and suited for the role? Erstwhile Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, has a more realistic plan that captures today’s UK economic reality. He appeared more prepared for the position he sought and aimed to assume. But what did the establishment do? They whittled his soaring influence, decapitated his chance of winning, and brought in Liz.
Unprepared Liz needed a campaign mantra to run on. She smelt the heaviness of the office and knew she was incapable, but then she was goaded to deny a quick ‘rival’ of Boris the spot. So, she saw counter-posers to whatever Sunak presented as an avenue to make a plan. She promised energy and tax cuts, among others even when the feeling indicated it was not feasible. But she’ll have to dispute Sunak anyways, and when the push came to shove, she reneged. Reality dealt with her and now she’s resigned!
The resignation of Truss calls to question her preparedness beforehand to have indicated interest and gone through the selection process. It shows how she never did due diligence as to what the demands of her new office were. It shows how unprepared she was before throwing her hat in the ring. It also reflects a deep reality often neglected: how we should learn to leave what we aren’t prepared for to those who indeed are, which is a case of leaving the cap for the head that fits!
There are very huge lessons for Nigeria and her leaders on the resignation of Truss. It is glaring, albeit sadly, how our penchant for power has become, as we seek to grab power by all means even when it has become obvious that we’ve been shown to be incapable to deliver, we still find a way to cling to power. Our love for power has engrafted a sit-tight mentality that does not care about the effect the continuous show of incompetence and inefficiency is having on our society.
The penchant goes so sour that it begins to question our conscientiousness, especially when our leaders, whose display has proven so abysmally and how incompetent they are numb to the poking voice of reason resonating from the masses for them to honourably resign and give way for more capable hands to take over.
We have several cases of key members of government who not only took a bow of shame when it became obvious they had failed to deliver on the principal responsibility of their offices, but had to resign when they felt their principle was beginning to clash with policy and programmes of the government of which they were part of. Whether it is a lack of personal will to exercise critical ethical discretion or a lack of an institutional framework to infuse the consciousness to be deliberate about service and know when to drop the baton, the Nigerian situation has seen incompetent government officials, ministers, senators, etc shamelessly grip to power when it’s obvious they have not delivered.
If at all there’s shame left in the current regime of the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari(retd.), such should have made him tender his resignation a long time ago going by the damning failure even to deliver the least 10 per cent of its campaign promises. The All Progressives Congress had come brandishing their manifesto, feeding anyone that cared to listen how they would focus on the three cardinal goals of fighting corruption, eradicating terrorism, and expanding the economy.
Perhaps those were the critical issues that had held the nation during the period the party sought power, and hence they hinged on the existing lacuna to feed upon the sensitivity of citizens who needed nothing more than the salvific impact from the cancers fast thumping them. The APC came with a promise to change the status quo and even overtly promised to route the monster of terror within three months in office. Nigerians believed them and gave them the chance. But were they able to deliver on any of these mandates? Did they muse on any likelihood of resigning?
Truss was bold enough to critically analyse her efforts in the face of the UK economy vis-a-vis her mandate to revamp the existing economic situation. When she realised she was not in any way delivering on the mandate, she exercised the honour and rare quality of self-truth to tender her resignation. She understood how her continuous clinging to power meant no good to the nation and her expression of a desire to lead.
The Nigerian situation has become a shameful contrast to what the UK Prime Minister exhibited, and which greatly questions the sincerity of its leadership objective towards a truly better Nigeria. If indeed their claim of a commitment to a prosperous and growing Nigeria is their principal quest for leadership, they ought to have resigned by now. Their continuous hanging to power amid the widespread inefficiencies has continued to deny this nation the required hands to take it on its journey of growth and prosperity. Nigeria is greater than one individual, hence shouldn’t be held to ransom!
Kingsley writes from Owerri, Imo State.
