Keywords

Ibuanyidanda; Inclusive; Leadership

Introduction

One of the major tasks of philosophy of Karl Marx as contained in his classic, Communist Manifesto was to collapse all forms of capitalism and ensure the enthronement of inclusive governance in the German society of his time. Class distinction, fragmentation, bifurcation and segmentation of the society using any form of parameter have not advanced the growth and development of the society in its Eurocentric and Afrocentric considerations. Other notable philosophers and anthropologists who perhaps, lived before Marx perceived society as network of persons who based on their individual-insufficiencies had reason to be together in order to attend to different needs of humanity collectively. The likes of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau and Bentham and Locke are easily identified with the above reasoning. For them, no member of the society and from any clime is dispensable.

The continent of Africa, particularly Nigeria is terribly associated with clan/elitist characterization in terms of leadership and governance of the Nigerian State. It may not be out of place to argue that exclusive leadership of the Nigerian State is a colonial gift going by historical account, particularly the first constitutional history of Nigeria where Hugh Clifford excluded the Nigeria blacks from the executive and administrative roles of his administration in 1922 on account of poor education and leadership exposure.

The above used as reason for continuous acts of exclusion is anachronistic. Between the periods of 1960 and 1963 when Nigeria witnessed the first authotonous constitution down to the military era of about 29 years and civilian rule of about 25 years, exclusive leadership and/or leadership of isolation has been conspicuously part of the philosophy of leaders in Nigeria.

Yes, arguments may be generated on the veracity of the claim hence; leadership at any time in either of the considerations (Military-Civil) involves representatives-men and women, ethnic regions, and other parochial considerations. It is sad to observe that other salient factors in determining the competence and capabilities of the leaders and their lieutenants were not given adequate attention or loosely considered. This skewed development has constantly paralyzed the system and had made the Nigerian state a pyrrah-ethnic-religious nation where those in leadership positions look up to the people from their clan, from the same religion, union and association, handpicked and place them in positions of authority.

No nation with this mentality in this 21^st century will advance tremendously in all facets of development in spite of its command in science and technology, mines and steal and other deposits of natural resources. It is in realization of its negative impact to the unity, stability and growth of the system that Ibnanyidanda as an inclusive philosophy has come to address the seeming anomaly. Ibuanyidanda stands on the threshold of unity, strength and absolute recognition of the existence of all segments of the people as indispensable phenomena in the realization of a collective cause of action. It realizes the difficulty associated with individual pursuit of a cause, and clearly states that one cannot achieve anything or little when one attempts to pursue a cause alone. Ibuanyidanda from the perspective of Asouzu (the founder of Ibuanyidanda Philosophy) is closely knitted to the English word-complement any unity.

By complementarity, Asouzu deeply understands the inherent mutual dependence between units within any framework as they serve each other interminably as missing links of reality [1].

This goes to lay credence to the organicist theory of the state where a part makes meaning in the context of the whole, and the whole, a composite of individual units.

Ibuanyidanda as an inclusive philosophy for effective leadership of the Nigerian state is timely considering the growing feeling of suspicion, ethnic rivalries, religious bigotry and other forms of exclusiveness that characterized the leadership class in its past and present leadership history. This paper contends that Ibuanyidanda is a well packaged therapeutic philosophy that will serve as a healing balm to quenching and addressing contending issues of federalism, restructuring, state police, resource control violent religiously related clashes in the state of Nigeria [2].

The Ontology of Ibuanyidanda

In the wake of 2007, while African scholars of philosophical bent were saddled with troubled minds on how best to confront certain mind bogging issues such as ethnicity, religion and leadership, the intellectual consciousness of Prof. Innocent Isuchukwu Asouzu was awaken to the reality of indispensability of complementation in human race. It starred humanity on the face that no one person is absolutely complete and settled without the aid of the other. There is indeed, the inherent mutual dependence between units within any framework as these units serve each other interminably as missing links of reality.

Ibuanyidanda philosophy was founded by Asouzu-An African Philosopher of the South Eastern region of Nigeria. Ibuanyidanda (which its nearest English equivalent is complementarity) seeks to expose the complementary relationship inevitably entered into by the community of “Danda” (insignificant ants) in the pursuit of their common purpose. The wisdom portrayed by danda (ants) is that considering their peculiar natural characterization, particularly their size, it will be very easy for them to be subdued, over powered, submerged, toppled and defeated by any member or group of the class of ants if they operate individually. Their existence will be of no pragmatic consequence. According to Asouzu, the ontology or metaphysics of Ibuanyidanda philosophy is x-rayed in two variant principles which he calls the principle of integration or principle of harmonious complementation. This principle states that “anything that exists serves a missing link of reality. This principle affords Asouzu to explore his notion of being to the fullest implying that reality expresses itself as a missing links of reality. The practical equivalent of the metaphysical principle, he calls the principle of progressive transformation epistemically implying that the actions of humans are geared towards the joy of being [3].

Asouzu in principle of integration points out the general metaphysical implications of his philosophy, this principle of progressive transformation highlights the importance of the theory to human actions. The two theories were evidently used as the foundation for formulation of the imperative of complementarity which gives the condition for their realization in the relative and fragmented periods of existence.

It is a common knowledge today that no meaning full progress or development can be achieved by any person, state or organization if it decides to operate alone or in isolation with others taking a clue from “Danda” (ants), the display of its wisdom in solving its peculiar problem through mutual complementation of all members was the source of their victory. ‘Danda’ are not deterred by their size when confronting situations rather their number and inclusive unity was a great asset in line with a commonly held Igbo aphorism-Gidi Gidi buugwu Eze. Human race lands into trouble when it conceives and/or perceives itself to be all in all, or attempts to function alone without the aid of others. Asouzu contends: Thus Perceiving itself as the fullness of being in its essentiality, it seeks unilaterally, always to carve a niche for itself in a world that it shares believing that others are more accidental dispensable quantities [1]. Indeed, these are the instances where being is upgraded to human consciousness as exclusivist entities that will not exist among ontological consideration. Asouzu deeply argues that: This is why in asymmetrical situation of power imbalance those who have the advantage of power always seek to lord it over those they perceive as dispensable and accidental and thereby negate the inherent necessary connective between substance and accidents as constituting an indivisible union [1].

Over the years, in the leadership history of Nigeria, the aforesaid has always been the problem, which has affected other aspects of existence. Those in leadership seek to down play, disregard and dispense others as not constituting significant factors in the power and leadership chain. This situation has negatively impacted on Africans particularly, Nigeria. The logic and/or philosophy of Ibuanyidanda are not evidently appropriated as a therapeutic tool for effective leadership and good governance in Nigeria. It is on the strength of the impeccable nature of Ibuanyidanda that the necessity of complementation cannot be over emphasized [4].

Exclusive Nature of Colonial Rule in Nigeria

The year 1914 was symbolic in global affairs and in Nigeria respectively. For the world, it marked the beginning of the 1^st world war that occasioned the loss of lives and properties. In Nigeria, it was the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates of Nigeria into a common fold. The marriage of inconvenience entered into between the North and South was initiated and officiated by the colonial administrators basically for their churlish administrative and economic gains.

By the year 1922, the first constitutional history of Hugh Clifford was given birth with an exclusive leadership psychology geared towards excluding Nigerians in the executive arm of government. At the legislative arm, it was made up of 46 members of whom 27 were officials, while 19 were unofficial. Out of the 19 unofficial members, 10 members were Nigerians and of the 10 Nigerians, 4 members were elected members, Lagos had 3 seats and Calabar had 1 seat. The North was excluded from the legislative arrangement as the Governor General-Hugh Clifford continued to rule the North by proclamation. Apart from the exclusive posture of the Clifford’s constitution, its landmark feature in the political history of Nigeria was quite impressive Political consciousness and socialization in Nigerian citizens was ignited by the Clifford’s constitution and this led to the first political party by Herbert Macaulay. The formation of political party by Herbert Macaulay through the elective principle gave rise to a new political culture that was lacking in the whole of Nigeria as at that time.

Although, the elective principle scored his administration positively high in the hearts of Nigerians, it did not set aside the fact, that the regime introduced or imbibed the culture of exclusive governance. All other colonial administrators after Clifford applied the same principle of exclusion and isolation. The Richard’s constitution of 1946 pacilated Nigeria into regions. The constitution, carefully excluded Nigerians from taking active part in the key areas of the administration.

Macpherson’s constitution of 1951 historically introduced a quasi-federal system. By this structure, it gave room for regional management of resources and development of regional areas in line with available resources. Ikegbu et al argue thus: The wisdom behind federalism is hinged on the fact that regions were to manage Resources that accrue to them from within their areas, while they pay royalty to the central government. This was the logic that governed the political economy of Nigeria in her pre-independence and independence periods [5].

However, the expressed philosophy of exclusion and segmentation in the colonial governance of the Nigerian State may be as a result of the already existing diversities in language, culture, religion and ethnic identifications to support the above, Ikegbu argues: The colonial act metaphorically means that there was absence of commonality of language, culture, religion and other core traits or values between and among the regions [6]. What the above could possibly represent in any rational consideration is that the political formation called Nigeria was already in segments and may not be easily administered with thorns of differences, it is a known fact, though arguable that human nature is difficult to comprehend.

Relationship of people with sameness of blood, religion culture and language, even of same value system is not always rosy let alone, with differences in opinion, religion, and culture and value system. To this end, colonial exclusive governance may receive or greeted with justification. This is premised on the fact that Nigerian elites then did not present a conducive atmosphere of unity; rather they evidently aligned themselves with colonial policy.

Observably, colonial exclusive administration was somewhat a success in the north and applying indirect rule mechanism, while it failed woefully in the south Eastern part due to the republican nature of leadership of the Igbo. Achebe aligning to this stream of thought contends. Britain’s indirect rule was a great success in Northern and western Nigeria, where affairs of state within this new dispensation continued as had been the case for centuries, with one exception-there was a new sovereign, Great Britain, to whom all vassals pledged fealty and into whose coffers all taxes were paid. Indirect rule in Igbo land proved far more challenging to implement. Colonial rule functioned through a newly created and incongruous establishment of “warrant chiefs” – a deeply flawed arrangement that effectively confused and corrupted the Igbo democratic spirit [7].

In this north and west where indirect rule was effectively practiced, traditional rulers, and oligarchs were actively used disregarding other categories of persons including women. The colonial administration was predominantly exclusive.

Exclusive Military Leadership in Nigeria

Constitutionally, the primary responsibility of military structure anywhere in the world including Nigeria is no less than defense of the nation’s territorial boundaries from internal and external invasion. A strong military command structure is concerned with the protection of lives and property in its country. The military as the pride of a nation is not instituted to embark on ethnic cleansing or vendetta; it is not formed to be involved in conspiracy issues. The psychic of a military formation is geared towards the security of its country. Today, the United State Army, Air Force or Navy is collectively the defense structure of the country involved deeply in science and technology, production and manufacture of biological weapons, ballistic, chemical and nuclear weapons as a strong defense base for its, country. In the countries of Britain, France, China, Russia, Germany the military, Navy and Air force are equally known primarily for defense of their counties from internal and external attacks. The September 2011 terrorist attack by Osama Bin Laden on World Trade Center in America was a challenge to military proficiency and professionalism of the Americans.

The American military did not rest until Osama Bin Laden was flawed and sent to his grave. While carrying out this national assignment in order to restore the integrity and pride of the American nation, everyone within the formation was carried along and not excluded.

Contrarily, in Africa and third world countries particularly, in Nigeria, the primary objective of military formation has long been eroded by veering into political leadership and display of parochial psyche.

Between 1966 to 1978 and 1983 to 1999, the military in Nigeria took over the leadership of the country by means of coup and counter coup, posturing reasons that sometimes, lack rationality if carefully analyzed. Indeed, as part of its constitutional duties, the defense of the country from external and internal strife’s, resides in its domain. However, it should hand over leadership to the civilians immediately after restoring peace and order in the system where occasion calls for ceasure of power.

Military leadership in Nigeria became so ethicized, tribalised, religionized, segmented and convoluted. The rationality for taking over government from the previous leadership was lost, and the focus was for self-sustaining of a preconceived political ambition. With the above being a projected foremost psychology, the welfare and sanitization of the system became secondary.

The leadership structure was basically tailored towards satisfaction of a peculiar interest and projection of military hegemony. The rest of the people were ideally excluded, especially those that do not subscribe to the philosophy, and style of leadership. To further realize its hidden ideological interest, it played down on federal system of government and promoted a unitary system which allows concentration of power at the center.

Corroborating the above, Tom Mbeke-Ekanem contends: Against all advice, Irons promulgated Decree Number 34 of 1966, which abrogated the federal system of government and substituted with a unitary system. This reinforced fears from other groups, especially the north, of the Ibos taking control of everything [8].

This was also corroborated by the opinion of Achebe and expressed thus: The widely unpopular decree eliminated Nigeria’s federal structure and put in place a unitary republic, which seemed to threaten more local patronage networks. For the first time in history a federal military government was in control of Nigeria [7].

Going by Aristotle’s definition of a state and formation of an association, no one is self-sufficient, it is only one who is a beast or a god, a super human or subhuman that could claim not to have anything to do with others. By this therefore, leadership of exclusion and/or isolation of a given class will rather cause monumental slow-down. It will cause a major crack on the leadership circle and raises high-level suspicion that may not be easily cleared. Ibuanyidanda or philosophy of complementation seeks to fill the yawning gap created by those posturing elitist and oligarchic leadership. Ibuanyidanda recognizers all segments and units as part and parcel of a complete whole without which the whole cannot be attained as the units serve as a missing link of reality.

To further elucidate the salient nature of Ibuanyidanda in explaining reality and using same as a required therapeutic model, ImreLakatose does not see wisdom in abandoning a scientific research model that fails a scientific community in the cause of its investigation; rather, it sees it as providing a raw material for proper actualization of scientific result. No person or group of persons, community or clan or whatever categorization is completely unusual. Every human creature is useful in its right and has something to offer to the society. Exclusionism and whatever guise is denying society from tapping the values and good of humanity.

Exclusive Civilian Leadership in Nigeria

Karl Marx-the foremost socialist was noted in history for carrying a campaign against class distinction, fragmentation and segmentation. In his classic-the Communist Manifestoes, Marx was unequivocal in projecting for the elimination of capitalist form of government due to its dehumanizing imprints and turning humans as means to an end. The enthronement of class consciousness in the society of beings gave rise to series of conflicts, violence and monumental suspicion.

Marx quoting Proudhon contends: At this solemn hour of the division of labor, the storm winds begin to blow over humanity. Progress does not take place for all in an equal and uniform manner…….It begins by taking possession of a small number of the privileged… it is this preference for persons on the part of progress that has for so long kept up the belief in the natural and providential inequality of conditions, has given rise to castes and hierarchically constituted all societies [9].

Our argument is that humanity is naturally structured alongside society in such a form that none is left empty, but blessed or gifted with one form of gift or the other. It goes to show that no fragment of a society is dispensable nor attempting to disregard or discard a fellow person on account of race, sex, color, clan and ethnic identifications can be justified. Rather, complementation of fragments will give rise to tremendous progress and development for the good of humanity and society at large.

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) particularly in section 42(1), (a), (b), (2) and (3) prohibits all forms of discrimination, fragmentation and/or exclusion on account of sex, race, religion, disability, political opinion etc. Sadly, the state of Nigeria is yet to experience the practical application of this constitutional provision. This is because, ethnic chauvinism, parochial and primordial sensibilities, class distinction, religious bigotry, nepotism and other attendant negative considerations have occupied the sensibilities of the civilian leaders, and have made them to depart significantly from recognizing and sticking to the exact credentials of leadership.

This Nigerians constitutional provision is replete in the African charter on Human and People’s Rights of 1990 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Equality of Rights and respect for peoples’ rights occupied the constitution of United States of America.

The argument of this paper will fly on the face of sophistry if it maintains that pursuit of self-interest be totally condemned, this will be so, if and only if the pursuit of self-interest by a leader or group of leaders is projected and advanced beyond and above the general interest of the people. Altruistically, pursuit of general interest and welfare of others showcased the realization of personal interest. Reason being that, the interest of a unit is embedded in the interest of the whole. Realizing “whole” interest implies realizing “unit” interest.

The civilian leadership structure in Nigeria from the time of Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Belewa down to the Shagari era and to the present Buhari administration has been structured to satisfy the elitist class. There could be a little of nationalistic spirit and flavor in the 1960 down to 1966 post-colonial leadership of Tafawa Belewa and Azikiwe, yet the administration was enveloped with ethnic suspicion and identification which contradicts the Ibuanyidanda philosophy. To this, Ojukwu posits: with bitterness, we began to learn that Zik, whom the British Colonial Administration could never incarcerate, had willingly constituted himself prisoner of what appeared to us as northern interests…. the Igbos appear today to be marginalized and lacking in any appreciable influence within the power structure of Nigeria, invariably has made the leadership of Igbos by Zik a subject of a vast amount of discussion … when the British withdrew in 1960, Nigeria was left in the hands of three great men of the three, Zik could be said to have been the dreamer whilst the others were hard-headed realists. Zik believed, worked for and made sacrifices for a Nigeria that had not yet come into existence – the ideal increasingly unalienable, they found themselves deflated and deprived vis-à-vis the realists, who from the beginning ensured for their groups a share of whatever was going [10].

The opinion of Ojukwu as captured above may not have explained reality of what transpired then, but his position cannot be completely divorced. The Northern and Western Nigeria then already conceived the colonial mistake by fusing the entire region into one in the name of amalgamation. For them (North and West) the earlier they fought for the welfare of their regions, the better and safer for them.

Ozumba and Ikegbu citing Asouzu Posit: We tend to reduce knowledge to the abyss or make mockery of the whole process of intellectualism when we pursue knowledge from ethnocentric and cultural background. This is because it creates room for prejudices, when this is the position, the result drawn would evidently lack objectivity which is the hallmark of research and intellectualism [11].

With the leadership of Alhaji Shehu Shagari and Dr Alex Ekwueme in 1979 to 1983, it was expected and believed that leadership of exclusion of the Igbos from leadership structure would be corrected. The idea of making an Igbo man play a second fiddle at all times was expected to have been addressed. Rather, good brains from the Igbo were chosen either as Vice Presidents to less qualified personnel – or were not remembered at all.

This paper does not intend to woo ethnic sentiment but the facts have to be stated clearly. The Igbo as one of the three major ethnic regions in Nigeria is not recognized as a significant player in the politics of the country. The well-sought peace and robust economy can well be achieved through conscious integration and inclusion of all segments of the people. Peace and robust economy can be achieved by careful and conscious recognition of the talents of people irrespective of their individual climes. It is on record that the south eastern states of Nigeria have not produced Inspector General of Police save Onovo, who is not completely Igbo Comptroller General of Customs. It was in the regime of Jonathan Good luck that for the first time, a south east Officer was made Chief of Army Staff.

However, if appointments to the above offices are based on qualifications and merit, and no south easterner or any other region discriminated upon is qualified, then the displayed action becomes justified. But, majority of appointments in this country are based on political patronage, ethnic chauvinism, religious consideration and fallacy of adaptation to northern oligarchy.

The present forth Republic led by Mohammadu Buhariis engrossed with pitfalls of unqualified personnel chosen on account of religious bigotry and northern hegemony.

The display of such administrative and leadership style only deny the people from being served by the best brains. It leads to proliferation of corrupt practices, crimes of monumental scale and other violent cases. Leadership and administration of a given state should be devoid of ethnicity, class and religious inclination.

In a Cable News Network (CNN) interview, Buhari was quoted to have said when asked about inclusive governance: “that a state or region that gave him massive or 75% percent votes, such a region, he shall also reciprocate in terms of development and appointment”.

Such statement is scandalous and unbecoming of a leader. It is not surprising that what Mohammdu Buhari said during the interview, is actually what he is carrying out presently. This is because; the south Eastern Nigeria does not feel the impact of democratic governance. Administrative and executive recklessness by the civilian regime today are geared towards maligning and pigeon, holing the Igbo. Only in Igbo land that the present rail transportation is not captured.

Ibuanyidanda as a Unifying Factor in Leadership

It is un polemical that leadership whether in the government, private commercial, social, religious cultural and education sector implies the art or science of insuring commands, instructions, orders directives and making sure that the orders, commands or instructions are effectively carried out for the realization of the objectives of a set organization. To do this, requires competence, credibility, humility, accessibility and friendliness and other sterling features. Many failed societies and organization were attributed to lack of these leadership qualities and credential.

Ibuanyidanda is a philosophy of harmony of opposites. A philosophy that seeks to bring each partner as an indispensable and significant part of a whole without which a whole will make no meaning. A part that is neglected, isolated, discarded, ignored and rejected is seen as a missing link of reality.

The above position was further buttressed by Asouzu thus: This is that tendency for philosophers and scientists to pursue their subject matter with ethnocentric Mindsets. Thereby, they speak to project and Protect their specific cultural legacies, often at the Risk of being exclusivist, though unintentionally [1].

Exclusivity of leadership by any standard cannot advance the cause of growth and development of any nation; rather it hampers and stunts development. The global practice today is that of inclusive governance, integration of all segments of the society into the leadership parameter of the state for effective governance and promotion of unity and stability. The above is not different from the opinion of Emeka Anayoku in “leadership and the future of Nigeria” where he extols the leadership features of the late sage- Abraham Adesanya. He posits thus: A good leadership must be defined by discipline, resilience, perseverance, determination, unyielding devotion, and, above all, a strong political will not act without deference to sectionalism [12].

What Anayoku said here does not contradict with the exact philosophical thesis of Ibuanyidanda. Rather, it confirms the fact that strong leadership of any society expels any form of religion, cultural, political, social and ethnic fragmentation, but does its best in bringing every region together. Anyaoku furthers his leadership index analysis by x-raying the leadership virtues of three different countries, where their leaders lived above leadership scorecard by transforming their countries from nothingness to enviable heights.

According to him, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Muhammad Mahathir in 1965, Nwalimu Julius Nyerere of Tanzania in 1963 and Lester B Pearson of Canada in 1968 were leading examples of leaders that lived to the dictates of their electoral manifestoes, who also, made concerted efforts to bring unity and development of different kinds in their various countries.

Indeed, Ibuanyidanda as a harmonizing and unifying philosophy attempts to eliminate areas of differences in humanity or areas of divergences due to the fact that our differences cannot make us strong.

On this, Asouzu contends: As a being among others, the fundamental insufficiency in human nature, on the basis of which it stays in relation, reaches out to others and attracts others towards itself, turns out to be one of the major advantages of its mode of existence. It is based on this insufficiency that mutual interaction can be constraining, challenging and tedious. This is when because of this insufficiency, complementing units appear disagreeable and repulsive to each other. In this case, putting this insufficiency into consideration always turns out to be necessary condition for the attainment of full self-realization of the human person within the framework of the whole and of full human autonomy in history, as a being destined for higher modes of actualization.

In all situations of life, the question would ever remain how to turn this apparent disadvantages arising from human insufficiency to an advantage. We accept the glaring truth that insufficiency of humans gives reason for social interaction as no one can be Robinson Crusoe. Interactions of all segments of the people are necessary healing balm for effective and efficient leadership posture. Relegation of a segment on account of any social construct and consideration will rather cause monumental distraction and pollution of social structure.

On this, Ikegbu argues: Prior to this age, political education and socialization seems to be exclusive preserve of the male gender. The human society needs not be bifurcated and a set dominates the other, within the corridors of power, (Political Power and Leadership) men and women should be given equal opportunity to champion, the Demerge cause of the society Traditional African Male Dominance in leadership: Cologenderism: The need for Gender Balancing [13].

The leadership evangelism of Ibuanyidanda which stands as a new catechism is that progress and development in human and material resources is achievable within the context of collective efforts in handling an issue that confronts a state. This collective effort devoid of isolation and segmentation or fragmentation is the secret of the successes of the Asian tigers of Singapore, China, Malaysia, Korea, Indonesia etc. this leadership style anchored on Ibuanyinda has to be replicated by other nations of the world especially, Africa in order to compete favorably with other developed nations. The myriads of backwardness in the leadership of Nigerian State are as a result of the application of wrong logic. Every logic is meant to serve a particular environment, and once the logic is well applied, its beauty and usefulness will eke out. On the other hand, when a wrong logic is applied, it will be colossal to that state [14].

The appropriate logic in line with the thesis of this paper is that anchored on Ibuanyidanda or inclusive governance of the Nigerian State. Ibuanyidanda or inclusive leadership eliminates all forms of domination and capitalistic tendencies that are akin to human nature, it rather embraces all as partners in the struggle for development.

Ozumba and Ikegbu appreciate the utility of inclusiveness when the replicated the Igbo adage onyeamuru, omutaibeya meaning when one is born at the appropriate time, he/she is expected to, in turn give birth to another and the chain continues [11]. This can only be possible in a condition of unity, and harmonious fraternity of beings.

Exclusive leadership or leadership of isolation does not accommodate this complementary fraternity of beings, which gives room for social interaction, and cohesion. There is no denying the fact that individual differences may stand against the pursuit of collective interest in a social interaction, but a keen study of these individual differences can navigate the process of development of our collective interest.

On this, Ozumba and Ikegbu contend: Advancing or arguing for complementarity of humans arising consequent upon the insufficiency of humans remains an inescapable reality devoid of myth and illusions. The outstanding undiffused truth in this aphorism is pictorial of the fact that the good of one person gives rise to the good and happiness of the other. This situation is further expressible in an existential opinion of the African ontology – “Egbebere, Ugobere”. The above can be interpreted as “live and let live” [11]. The entire gamut of live and let live within the African ontology demonstrates a condition of fair play, equity, justice and good conscience. It epitomizes a situation upon which humans exist and co-exist irrespective of parochial and primordial leanings of race, sex, religion, ethnicity, class and economic consciousness.

It is therefore argued that even though, there exist diversities in Nigeria, but such diversities should be positively harnessed for the good of the generality of the people. Diversities in culture, religion, language, etc. should not be a clog on the wheel of progress; rather, it should strengthen the entire system.

Leadership remains a function of high intellectual and mental deposits which can be readily found in people of different descent, integration and inclusiveness will bring the country to the path of glory.

Conclusion

Class distinction, stratification and fragmentation are negative imprints orchestrated by leaders in pursuit of personal interest and ambition. A fragmented and segmented state is like a broom which is easily broken or destroyed without any reasonable effort. Such cannot be said to a United State which runs an inclusive government anchored on the precepts of Ibuanyidanda, for it assumes the status of a bunch of broom which cannot be easily broken or destroyed.

Nigeria has experienced and is still experiencing leadership difficulties right from the period of the forced compulsory marriage of inconvenience called amalgamation in 1914 through the colonial conspiracy down to the present age. The reason is traceable to the importation of Western cultural value system and logic of individualism and exclusionism as against the cherished communal system of inclusive governance anchored on Ibuanyidanda.

The cherished value system has been polluted, ostracized, corrupted and negatively galvanized to favour a class with individualistic ideology. Realizing that leadership is a reflection of intellectual and mental deposits with high command of competence which can be found in any person will do the country all the good and will strives to compete with other nations of the world. Ibuanyidanda an inclusive philosophy for effective governance of the Nigerian State remains a ready philosophical tool for this drive [15].

References

1. Asouzu I (2007) Ibuanyidanda: New Complementary Contology Beyond World-Immanentism, Ethnocentric Reduction and Impositions.
2. Emefiena E (2013) In Biafra Africa Died The Diplomatic Plot. (2nd edn), Veritas Lumen Publishers, London.
3. Igwe SC (2010) How Africa Underdeveloped Africa Post Harcourt: Professional Printers & Publishers.
4. Chinye, Chuma C (2005) The Nigerian Factor. Lagos: Amazingrafks Limited.
5. Ephraim IA, Joseph A, Ogar N, John O (2009) Inyang Nigeria’s Ethnic Diversity and its Proneness to Conflict and Violence Ndunode: Calabar. J Humanities 8: 169-182.
6. Ephraim IA (2012) Ethnicity and African Political Philosophy. African Political Philosophy, pp: 207-236.
7. Chinua A (2012) There was a country: A Personal History of Biafra. London: Penguin Books.
8. Ekanem TM (2000) Beyond the Execution: Understanding the Ethnic and Military Politics in Nigeria. Lagos: C.S.S Press.
9. Karl M (1978) The poverty of Philosophy. Peking: foreign Languages Press.
10. Ojukwu CO (1989) Because I am involved. Ibadan: Spectrum Books.
11. Ozumba GO, Ephraim IA (2012) The Insufficiency of Humans and Logic of Complementarily in the 21st Century. J Integrative Humans Ghana 2: 4-19.
12. Emeka A (2018) Leadership and the Future of Nigeria. The Nation Newspaper.
13. Ephraim IA (2018) Traditional Male Dominance in Leadership Cologenderism: Need for Gender Balancing. Porto: International Conference on Gender Research.
14. Ephraim IA (2006) Complementary Reflection and Hierarchy of Social Order. SOPHIA: An African Journal of Philosophy 8: 94-102.
15. Zurich: Lit Verlaggmbh 2007.