By Peterside
Last week, The National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)
issued an alert warning of the high probability of 14 states
experiencing heavy rainfall that might lead to flooding.
This is not
the first time NEMA and Nigerian Hydrological Services Agency
(NHSA), through its Annual Flood Outlook (AFO), will issue such
alerts, but we keep losing lives and properties to flooding despite
early warnings. Our approach and response to such signals have
remained reactive. The same last week, the Nigeria Centre for
Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC) announced an outbreak of
diphtheria in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). NCDC further
informed us that there have been multiple disease
outbreaks, including diphtheria, since December 2022, with 33
LGAs in eight states affected. Meanwhile, diphtheria is a vaccine-
preventable disease, but our leaders and institutions would prefer to
be reactive.
The problem is not peculiar to NEMA, NHSA, NCDC, the affected
states or the likely victims. There is a systemic challenge of our
institutions and leaders preferring reactive instead of proactive
responses to socio-economic challenges. This is from the highest
level of government to the least of our public institutions. We are
permanently reactive in our approach to governance, suffering
devastating consequences before belatedly putting on our thinking
caps.
Reactive governance refers to a mode of governance that primarily
responds to immediate and pressing issues that arise without
sufficient long-term planning or proactive measures. This anomaly
is the predominant habit of governance in our country. We tend to
sit and wait for foreseeable disasters to consume us before
responding. Most of what we treat as emergencies do not qualify.
They are avoidable incidents that should not catch any responsible
government by surprise.
The source of our reactive approach is a tradition of governance.
We emphasise ‘acting’ over and above ‘thinking’ through problems
on a long-term basis. Issues like flood disaster prediction, epidemic
prevention, speculative vaccine production, and power outage
prevention are all ways of avoiding disasters that are sure to occur.
This reactive approach to socio-economic challenges falls within the
“reactive state “concept. Two essential characteristics of the
reactive state are: first, institutions fail to undertake initiatives to
prevent the occurrence of an undesirable event though it has the
power and incentive to do so; second, such institutions respond to
pressure for change in an erratic and unsystematic manner.
In Nigeria, this reactive state approach naturally flows because it
benefits operatives of the system, and our urgency index is high.
Manifestations of this reactive state can be seen in our policy
approaches to Boko Haram, banditry, kidnapping, oil theft in the
Niger Delta and other security incidents.
Further instances demonstrate these cultural-cum-historical reactive
approaches to national problems than a proactive and systematic
long-term approach seen in the most developed worlds. Nigeria has
faced various security challenges, including terrorism, insurgency,
and communal clashes. In some instances, the government’s
response has been primarily reactive, with the deployment of
security forces after attacks have occurred rather than proactively
addressing the root causes of these issues through intelligence
gathering, preventive measures, and community engagement.
Nigeria’s infrastructure, including roads, power supply, and public
transportation, has been a subject of concern for many years.
Often, the government has taken a reactive approach to address
these deficiencies by initiating projects and repairs in response to
public outcry or when critical failures occur rather than proactively
investing in infrastructure development and maintenance.
Nigeria’s economy has traditionally been heavily reliant on oil
exports, making it susceptible to fluctuations in global oil prices.
Reactive governance is evident in the government’s response to oil
price shocks, which often involves scrambling to adjust the budget,
implement austerity measures, or seek external loans to address
revenue shortfalls instead of proactively diversifying the economy
and reducing dependence on oil.
Besides, Nigeria faces challenges in its education sector, including
inadequate infrastructure, outdated curricula, and low educational
outcomes. The government’s approach has often been reactive,
responding to issues as they arise rather than proactively investing
in education reforms, teacher training, curriculum development, and
infrastructure improvements to ensure quality education for all.
Corruption has been a persistent issue in Nigeria, affecting various
sectors and hindering development. Reactive governance is evident
in the government’s response to corruption scandals, which often
involves investigations, prosecutions, and public outcry after the
fact, rather than implementing proactive measures to prevent
corruption, strengthen anti-corruption institutions, and promote
transparency and accountability.
In the developed world, there is a great emphasis on thought in
governance. This is why Washington is full of think tanks whose
only business is to think through and develop long-term solutions to
possible national problems. Government Ministries, Departments
and Agencies (MDAs) sometimes collaborate actively with
universities and research institutes to work out long-term solutions
in anticipation. In most of Europe and Asia, government
departments have research departments staffed by some of the
best brains trained to conduct anticipatory research and study
different problems in relevant areas.
The best approach has proven to be leaders and institutions that
adopt proactive decision-making. It is cheaper to be proactive than
to be reactive. Being proactive saves lives. By its futuristic
estimation, China knows that Africa is the future market; hence, it
invests heavily in teaching Africans the Chinese language.
Being reactive often comes with disastrous consequences. One
significant adverse result of reactive governance is the populace’s
permanent sense of uncertainty. People are unsure that what may
come next will not consume them. A sense of collective vulnerability
weakens people’s trust in government. People are left with a sense
of self-help, of everyone to themselves. In cases of natural disaster,
recourse to superstition becomes the only and last resort. People
must choose between trust in government and belief in divine
salvation. Prophesies of doom acquire legitimacy and find a ready
market.
When governance is not informed by rational and scientific
projection, the future becomes a dark zone of uncertainty and the
abode of the unknown. Fear and cynicism take hold of the hearts of
citizens.
A major reason why we are so reactive is that we need to have
respect for science and data. Data-driven policies enable
policymakers to identify trends, anticipate problems, and develop
targeted interventions before they escalate into crises. Nigeria must
prioritise sustainable development practices that balance economic
growth with environmental and social considerations. This includes
promoting renewable energy, implementing sound environmental
policies, and adopting responsible resource management practices.
A proactive approach to sustainability can help mitigate
environmental degradation, address climate change challenges,
and promote social equity.
To move beyond reactive governance in Nigeria, adopting a
proactive approach that focuses on long-term planning, anticipates
challenges, and promotes sustainable development is important.
Some key areas that could contribute to this shift are detailed
below.
The Nigerian government should emphasise the formulation and
implementation of long-term strategic plans. This involves setting
clear goals, identifying potential risks and opportunities, and
developing strategies to address them. Strategic planning enables
proactive decision-making and reduces the need for reactive
measures.
It is crucial to strengthen the institutions responsible for governance
in Nigeria, including the judiciary, legislature, and civil service. This
involves enhancing their human and institutional capacity, improving
transparency and accountability, and reducing political interference.
Strong institutions are better equipped to anticipate and address
issues before crises occur.
In addition, active citizen participation is vital for effective
governance. Governments should promote transparency, engage
citizens in decision-making processes, and establish mechanisms
for feedback and accountability. This helps identify problems early
on, encourages citizen ownership, and fosters a sense of
responsibility among the populace.
Furthermore, proactive governance relies on accurate and timely
information. Governments should invest in data collection, analysis,
and utilisation to inform decision-making processes. Departments of
Research and Planning cannot be a dumping ground or a place of
punishment for public servants that have fallen out of favour. It
should rather be the hub of policymaking and designing solutions to
challenges. Let the best brains man this critical department. We
should collaborate with our research institutions where there are
obvious capacity gaps.
Our leaders and managers of institutions always want to profit from
disasters. Even at the policy level, the equation often favours a
reactive than a proactive approach. With newly elected officials at
all levels, we need to switch from reactive to proactive ways of
dealing with issues of national and global importance.
It is important to note that while these examples used above
highlight instances of reactive governance, they do not encompass
the entirety of governance in Nigeria. Nigeria has also witnessed
proactive initiatives and policies in various areas, but there is room
for further improvement in adopting a proactive approach to
governance to address long-term challenges effectively.
Moving beyond reactive governance in Nigeria requires a shift in
mindset, focusing on critical thinking over “doing”, long-term
planning, and strengthening institutions and citizen engagement. By
adopting a proactive approach, Nigeria can better anticipate and
address challenges, promote sustainable development, and
improve the well-being of its citizens.
This new administration is poised to do great things, and its starting
point should be to prioritise the shift from the dominant leadership
mentality of reactive governance to a proactive one. The
administration must be intentional and proactive in solving Nigeria’s
myriads of problems and rely on evidence and scientific approaches
than the traditional path dependency that has characterised our
governance in the past.
The lack of ability to solve major issues in Nigeria is not often
because of a lack of resources but because of a lack of proactively
planning and adopting creative and innovative solutions. Our
leaders must adopt new approaches to doing things if they must
succeed. Remember that you cannot do the same thing and expect
a different result. Input determines output – garbage in, garbage out
is the computer language. That is true about input and output in
problem-solving.
