Across Africa, a familiar argument is making a comeback. It says our problem is not corruption, weak institutions, or poor governance, but leadership turnover. According to this view, Africa needs leaders who stay longer in power—like Singapore’s founding generation or China’s political elite—to deliver development.
It is an attractive argument. It sounds pragmatic. It promises stability. But it is also deeply misleading.
The central problem facing African states, Nigeria included, is not the length of leadership. It is the quality of governance and the weakness of institutions. History, evidence, and lived experience all point in the same direction: countries develop when institutions are strong, not when individuals stay in power indefinitely.
Development is not built by personalities. No individual, no matter how gifted, can be everywhere at once. What sustains growth are rules that outlive rulers—independent courts, credible elections, transparent budgets, accountable security agencies, and enforceable laws. Where these institutions exist, progress is resilient. Where they do not, any gains achieved by a long-serving leader are fragile and easily reversed.
Long-term rule also carries predictable risks. Power that is held too long tends to personalize the state. Accountability weakens. Corruption grows. Succession becomes uncertain. Dissent is suppressed, not because it is dangerous, but because it is inconvenient. Over time, the state becomes captured by networks whose primary interest is self-preservation, not national progress.
Africa does not lack examples. From Central Africa to the Horn, long-serving leaders have presided over stagnation, elite capture, and security decline. Some began as reformers. Many ended as obstacles to reform. Stability achieved through fear or patronage rarely survives transition.
Supporters of long tenure often cite exceptional cases like Singapore, while ignoring the many cases where decades in power produced neither prosperity nor cohesion. Exceptional cases are not templates. They are outliers.
Europe’s development did not emerge from permanent rulers or unchecked monarchies. It accelerated when power became constrained—when citizens gained a say over taxation, budgets, and leadership; when courts became independent; when leaders could be removed without violence. Innovation flourished where pluralism and accountability were protected.
Nigeria’s challenge is therefore not that leaders leave too soon, but that institutions are too weak to compel performance while leaders are in office. Weak elections do not justify permanent rulers. They demand reform: electoral credibility, judicial independence, open procurement, and equal application of the law.
Modernization is not a product of staying long in office. It is a product of rules staying strong after rulers leave.
Africa does not need stronger men. It needs stronger systems. It does not need leaders who rule forever. It needs institutions that work every day, for everyone.
