Resignation is not leadership

By Samson Ukonu

In every thriving democracy, opposition is not only desirable but indispensable. It serves as a necessary check on those in power, enriches public debate and offers citizens alternative pathways for national development. However, the effectiveness of any opposition lies not in the frequency or ferocity of its criticism but in the credibility of its alternatives. Democracy is strengthened when opposition leaders compete through ideas, not merely through sensational rhetoric.

It is against this backdrop that Nigerian Democratic Congress presidential candidate Peter Obi’s recent call for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to resign over the state of the nation deserves careful scrutiny. While every Nigerian reserves the constitutional right to criticise the government, demanding the resignation of a democratically elected President over national challenges, which predated the current administration raises an important question: what precisely would Peter Obi have done differently, and has he convincingly articulated a superior roadmap? Thus far, the answer appears far from convincing.

Nigeria’s present economic and security challenges did not begin on May 29, 2023. They are the cumulative consequences of decades of structural distortions, weak infrastructure, insecurity, unsustainable subsidy regimes, foreign exchange imbalances and declining public revenues. Successive administrations acknowledged many of these problems, but several postponed the difficult decisions required to address them because of their inevitable political costs.

President Tinubu chose a different path. His administration inherited an economy requiring bold structural reforms and a security environment confronted by multiple threats, from terrorism and banditry to kidnapping, cybercrime and organised criminal networks. Rather than preserve an unsustainable status quo, Tinubu embarked on reforms designed to stabilise public finances, restore investor confidence and reposition the economy for long-term growth.

Some people may debate aspects of those policies, including their pace and implementation. That is the essence of democracy. What cannot reasonably be denied is that the administration has demonstrated the political courage to confront challenges that many leaders preferred to defer.

The same determination is evident in the security sector. President Tinubu has prioritised the revitalisation of Nigeria’s security architecture through renewed investment in military assets, improved intelligence coordination and stronger collaboration among security agencies. The Armed Forces have received additional platforms and operational support while intelligence-driven operations against terrorists, bandits and kidnappers have intensified across various theatres.

The Office of the National Security Adviser, under Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, has also expanded international cooperation aimed at combating terrorism financing, cybercrime, transnational organised crime and emerging security threats. Nigeria is increasingly working with trusted global partners to strengthen intelligence sharing, maritime security and crisis response capabilities.

While insecurity has by no means disappeared, it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that the government has been idle. Security challenges built over decades cannot be eliminated overnight. They require persistence, coordination and institutional strengthening, all of which are increasingly evident.

Against this backdrop, Peter Obi’s demand that President Tinubu resign appears more like political theatre than constructive opposition.

Leadership is not demonstrated by identifying problems alone. It is demonstrated by presenting practical, implementable and sustainable solutions. Nigerians deserve detailed policy alternatives, not dramatic headlines.

Equally troubling is the growing controversy surrounding the accuracy of some of Peter Obi’s public statements. Public life imposes a heavy obligation on leaders to exercise care with facts because credibility is among the most valuable assets any public figure possesses.

Some of Obi’s statements have generated significant public debate and attracted corrections or fact-checks from journalists, researchers and commentators. Rather than strengthening his political message, such controversies have provided unnecessary distractions from the substantive issues Nigerians expect political leaders to address.

Mr. Obi has too often resorted to sweeping assertions that generate publicity but invite avoidable controversy.

Similarly, his style of international advocacy has also drawn criticism from those who believe domestic political schemings should primarily be resolved through Nigeria’s democratic institutions rather than external engagement.

Nigeria’s democracy is sufficiently mature to accommodate robust political disagreements through constitutional mechanisms, independent institutions and public debate. While engagement with foreign governments and international organisations forms part of normal diplomacy, opposition politics should be careful not to create unnecessary impressions that Nigeria requires external intervention in matters capable of being resolved internally.

National interest must always remain superior to partisan calculations. Recent high-profile visits to Nigerians abroad have attracted considerable media attention. While there is nothing inherently wrong with engaging citizens in the diaspora, symbolism alone cannot substitute for substantive policy engagement.

Interestingly, Nigeria already possesses institutional mechanisms for protecting its citizens overseas through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its diplomatic missions. Under President Tinubu’s administration, the ministry continues to discharge that constitutional responsibility through established diplomatic channels.

What Nigerians require today are fewer political spectacles and more practical solutions capable of improving security, reducing inflation, expanding employment and  accelerating economic growth, which the administration of Bola Tinubu is driving.

Constructive criticism therefore remains both legitimate and necessary. But criticism becomes persuasive only when accompanied by credible alternatives rather than simplistic prescriptions for extraordinarily complex national challenges.

Calls for resignation may excite partisan audiences, but they contribute little to solving Nigeria’s problems. At moments of national difficulty, citizens expect seriousness, intellectual honesty and policy depth from both government and opposition.

History reminds us that transformational reforms are rarely painless. Nations that successfully restructured their economies often experienced difficult transitional periods before the benefits became evident. Nigeria may well be travelling a similarly demanding path.

Ultimately, leadership is measured not by applause but by the willingness to make difficult decisions in pursuit of long-term national interest. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has demonstrated that willingness. The opposition, including Peter Obi, equally has a responsibility, not merely to oppose, but to elevate national discourse through credible ideas, factual accuracy and responsible engagement.

Nigeria deserves vigorous political competition. It deserves constructive criticism. It deserves accountability. Above all, however, it deserves an opposition that persuades through superior ideas rather than dramatic demands that neither address the country’s complex realities nor offer Nigerians a demonstrably better alternative.

•Ukonu writes from Abuja