Inter-Generational Dialogue on Nigeria’s future

0 image_print

My hypothesis is that most successful nations in history are those who have consciously engaged their elite formation and have tapped into what those elites have been able to offer the nation. Those which have negatively engaged their elites, and driven them into the Diasporas or into exile, have paid very heavy prices in terms of human capital underutilisation.

Nigeria has a generational capital problem that feeds into her incapacity to facilitate a steady infusion of human capital development into her development process. Generational capital efficiency or deficiency derives from the accumulated utilisation or underutilisation of human capital over decades of a nation’s historical existence. In Nigeria, I have been concerned with three generations. The first consist of those who were present at the moments before and immediately after Nigeria’s independence. These were the “founding fathers” that negotiated Nigeria’s liberation from the colonial yoke. The second generation are those who confronted Nigeria’s postcolonial predicament arising from the booby-traps of colonialism, the volatility of the dynamics of post-colonial state formation and perhaps, the failings of the first generation that degenerated into civil war. That generation did not spare itself. It pronounced itself as a “wasted generation”.  The third generation in line is my generation (those in their late 40s up unto the 60s) which is far removed from trauma, euphoria and disillusion of Nigeria’s independence but which is nonetheless confronted with Nigeria’s protracted inability to build a nation out of its diversity. And we must not dare forget the next generations in line that are barely even managing to connect with the idea of “Nigeria”.

The proposed inter-generational dialogue I am advocating takes its cue from several points of departure. One, there are the issues having to do with the unconnected historical dots relating one generation to the other in Nigeria’s development trajectory. Two, there are issues resulting from why each generation has failed to impact Nigeria beyond discrete achievements and engagement. Three, there are also issues concerning the relevance of the lessons from the successes and failures of these generations for Nigeria’s future. How are all these to be cumulated into a solid reform dynamics and framework deployed towards Nigeria’s development? An inter-generational dialogue is founded on the need to facilitate an elite alliance and network across and beyond ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious lines. It feeds into the professional but patriotic engagement with the Nigerian state in a manner that emphasises the relevance of an uncontaminated elite factor in national development. It has the singular potential, outside of the constraints of politics and political economy, to not only undermine the centrifugal factors that have kept elite apart and at each other’s throat over the obstacles the state places on their path. There is also the advantage of facilitating a genuine discourse across generations and historical contexts with the solid benefit of an accumulated understanding of what ails Nigeria and how her generational capital can be unleashed. Dialogue, says Jim Maclachlan, “is the oxygen of change.” That is, a dialogue that is motivated by a genuine love for country.

At the core of this dialogue will be a major inter-generational conference that will unpack and unravel several issues relating to Nigeria’s development from past to present. And the agenda for this major conference will constitute one of the focuses of the dialogue. The least issue in such an agenda is who should facilitate. The answer would be anyone with the right patriotic and organisational wherewithal that cannot be subordinated to the whims and objective of government. I am willing to loan the Ibadan School of Government and Public Policy (ISGPP) to this historic conversation around the future of Nigeria. Indeed, the objectives of the School revolve around making Nigeria work better than it is presently doing for the sake of democracy and development. But the choice should really be left to the decision of the critical mass of stakeholders involved in the dialogue. On methodology, the Dialogue will essentially be constituted around a multidisciplinary professional framework made up of scholars, thinkers, politicians, statesmen, entrepreneurs, young people, writers, professionals in various fields, professional organisations, NGOs, etc.

One arbitrary process that will creep into the methodology of the dialogue would be the decision on those to deliberate on the event, its agenda, and terms of reference. This will require certain critical set of people whose engagement with the Nigerian state is beyond reproach. I have names at various levels— an Obasanjo/Anyaoku/Joda/Danjuma/Asiodu/Mabogunje/Bolanle Awe as statesmen, Osinbajo in politics, an Utomi in public intellection, Dangote/Elumelu/Atedo Peterside in industry, Chimamanda Adichie in literature, a Jibrin Ibrahim in civil society, a Toyin Falola in academia, a Matthew Kukah, in religion, Soludo in economics, Adamolekun in public administration, Imobighe/Sam Momah/Adekanye in military/defence, Chude Jidenwo in youth, Nkoyo Toyo in gender, Bolaji Aluko/Festus Odimegwu in S&T, Godwin Sogolo in philosophy, Ray Ekpu in media, Odia Ofeimum in poetry, Alex Gboyega in local government, Yemi Kale in statistics, Said Adejumobi in discourse, Osaghae in ethnicity, Suberu on federalism. The list can go on. Once this initial core group is determined, then an agenda can be outlined underpinned by core objectives, significant comparative and historical lessons, expected outcomes, and methodological frameworks around multi-pronged initiatives and programmes that will move the Dialogue forward beyond rhetoric and advocacy to policy imperatives and praxis. The specific outcomes that will be generated by the Dialogue would be sufficiently compelling to snap the government out of any doldrums.

The initial agenda for the Dialogue and the initial preparatory discourse on the conceptualisation, design and implementation of the Dialogue would be underpinned by several critical items. First, there will be an ongoing population of a database of relevant personalities and organisations that will be relevant to the inter-generational dialogue. The database will be domiciled in a functional and dynamic website dedicated to the idea. Second, there will also be a massive national and diasporic enlightenment and public education programme aimed at different segments of the Nigerian society. The objective of the enlightenment programmes will be to facilitate a significant buy-in from the Nigerian population, as well as from critical policy actors at various levels of governance. Third, there must be a strenuous effort at integrating the Dialogue idea into existing administrative, sociopolitical and cultural institutional platform in a way that facilitate the leveraging of these institutions as critical success factors. Fourth, there must also be a serious research component that allows the Dialogue to connect with significant insights in scholarship and history. Nigeria is due for a radical reconsideration of her development options.


  • Dr. Olaopa is Executive Vice-Chairman,

Ibadan School of Government & Public Policy (ISGPP)