Obafemi Awolowo Memorial Lecture, March 6, 2026 Ikenne, Nigeria) By Wale Adebanwi
Protocols:
WE ARE GATHERED HERE NOT only to remember a man who, through his thoughts and actions, offered us a new mode of dignity, but also to reflect, again, on what his legacy offers us in the context of Nigeria’s interminable search for good leadership. As the polity stumbles from one error to another tragedy in the so-called nation-building efforts, it is remarkable that we must return to contend with the ideas and the practical demonstrations of leadership of the man with whom Nigeria has been having an unending conversation, Chief Obafemi Awolowo.
As kidnappings and killings have become the rituals of daily life in many parts of the polity, with the nation-state itself facing the threat of being kidnapped, it is important to remind ourselves that the theological, economic, social and political provocations and disasters that define this era are mere manifestations of Nigeria’s refusal to reconcile itself to the fundaments of how to build a good society as well as an egalitarian federal democracy which Chief Awolowo, more than any other political thinker in the country’s history, articulated and for a few years demonstrated, with long lasting impact. At the core of the crisis that has engulfed the polity for several decades now is a leadership crisis. This is the reason I would like to reflect today on leadership and what I call
“Awolowo’s Theory of Action” in the context of his devotion to politics as future-making.
As we experience what would seem to be the normalization of an internal security landscape in which there is a convergence of jihadist insurgency, communal grievances, some under the name of banditry, secessionist agitations, and criminal economies, those who are not familiar with Awolowo’s insight and foresight would need to be reminded that the man with the round frame glasses had warned the ascendant political order of his age that, if there was no coursecorrection, what we are experiencing now would constitute their generational endowment to the political geography that Frederick Lugard imposed in the heart of Africa.
As I reflected on this lecture, it struck me that most of what Awolowo has been celebrated, as well as criticised for, concerns the past, though the man was, during his lifetime, mostly concerned with the future. The past was only a useful background for him in redetermining the future. Thus, it is an irony that while this deeply divided country continues to be bogged down by the politics of the past and the conflicting and contrasting narratives of who wronged whom in the past and how we arrived here, what it truly needs is a reflection on the postulations of a man who almost always emerges from our past to constantly remind us about the possibilities of our collective future. For Awo, history-making was in the service of future-making.
Some have said that Awolowo came too early for Nigeria. I disagree. He was a man whose most important life mission could be said to have been one of future-making. Leaders who are futuremakers never come too early. This is partly why Chief Awolowo remains relevant today. When we talk about Awolowo’s theory of action and his leadership qualities, which remain unrivalled almost four decades after his passing, we are gesturing at the fact that, ultimately, he was a man concerned fundamentally with Nigeria’s future, Africa’s future, and indeed, the future of the Black people of the world. As he stated in Path to Nigerian Greatness, he made a vow while in Calabar Prison in 1965: “I hereby dedicate the rest of my life to the service of the peoples of Nigeria, nay, of Africa, by promoting their welfare and happiness…. This is my vow and my pledge, made to God…. (A)t this juncture in my life, my one and only ambition is to have an
opportunity to live the rest of my life for history, by means of selfless and beneficent service to the peoples of Nigeria, in particular, and of Africa, and the black peoples of the world, in general.” It is clear from this pledge that living his life for history was about making a future for his people, that is, Nigerians, Africans, and the Black people of the world.
This conclusion about Awolowo’s approach to history-making as future-making, I suggest, is particularly critical in an era in which Afro-pessimists seem to have moved from regarding Africans as a “people without history” to a “people without a future.” An overview of the continent’s current conditions leads to distressing conclusions, with Nigeria standing out, given that it possesses not only the largest population but also the most vibrant and highly skilled labour force, even though a substantial percentage of this has migrated abroad. From the resurgence of military adventurers in West and Central Africa, the return of presidents-for-life, if they ever went away, in Central and East Africa, symbolised by the nonagenarian in Cameroon, or the octogenarians in Equatorial Guinea, Congo-Brazzaville, Uganda, and Eritrea, and the younger
version in Rwanda, to the relentless sufferings imposed on the people of the continent by interconnected crises arising from governance failures, corruption, poverty, poor infrastructure, unemployment, most worryingly the highest rate of youth unemployment (roughly one-third of Africa’s 420 million youth, are out of work or have stopped looking for jobs), and violent conflicts, all worsened by climate change and high dependency on primary resources, the extraordinary capacities of the people of the continent and their insuppressible cheerfulness have been challenged in different ways.
Yet, the continent remains salvageable, if not immediately, certainly in the near future. So too is Nigeria, according to Chief Awolowo. Awolowo always believed in the possibility of a glorious future, no matter the odds. This is based primarily on his modernist outlook, which underpinned his progressive politics. Thus, to reflect on the future-making that was central to Awolowo’s public project as a pathway to his theory of action does not constitute a simple politico-ethical response to the tragedy that Nigeria has experienced, or what, even in much better times, was described as the squandering of riches.’ Rather, it is to provide us with a programmatic idea and
ideal of what is to be done when a polity and its people confront such a tragedy. Moral outrage, while important, is not sufficient. Awolowo showed this clearly throughout his political career.
What is important is always to imagine a better future, no matter how bad things are. He was constantly asking, “What are the possibilities of a better future?”
This is why I have decided to focus today on “Politics as Future-Making,” using Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s ideas and his public career as a heuristic lens to examine Nigeria’s unending search for effective leadership. This idea of politics-as-future-making could represent a paradox, given that, classically, politics is the art of the possible. But Awolowo continues to speak from the grave because he decided, while on this side of the divide, never to surrender the future possibilities of politics (based on long-term thinking, planning, and development) to the personalised political exigencies of the search for power.
The question of temporality was always evident in Awolowo’s reflections. From thinking about what to do with the legacies of the past, both its assets and liabilities, to what kind of society and polity could be constructed in the present in order to create a better future, future-making was a focal point of his life’s mission. I think, therefore, that it is important that we use this to reflect on his legacy and re-evaluate the leadership challenges facing Nigeria. Awolowo looked back, only to look forward. He acted in the present of his time, only to ensure a greater future for the people. Thus, for him, the future constitutes, to use the language of some philosophers, an awakening of the present. In this sense, the past, present, and future are less about being (that is, who or what we are), but about becoming, that is, our future possibilities. This was why he was a man of incredible hope for the possibilities of a “new dawn.” We recall again his 1963 allocutus, partly a lamentation about what had become, and could become, the lot of what he described as “this great Federation.” Awolowo stated: “For some time to come, the present twilight of democracy, individual freedom and the rule of law, will change or might change into utter darkness. But after darkness—and this is a commonplace—comes a glorious dawn.” It is important to note here that, contrary to what might seem evident in Nigeria’s political history, Awolowo believed that the “ultimate triumph” of good over evil was “commonplace.”
Against the backdrop of his hope for Nigeria’s future, which some frustrated adherents from his region of Nigeria have now rejected and even reinterpreted, perhaps it is useful, in remembering him, to address our minds to a few pertinent questions about Nigeria. Why has Nigeria constantly produced some good leaders in every area of human endeavour, but has not experienced overall sustainable good leadership? What is it in the total composition and structure of Nigeria that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for sustainable good leadership to emerge?
Why has the country’s evident good human agency (in areas such as medicine, law, civil advocacy, the arts, including literature, music, etc., etc.) been incapable of weakening, if not neutralising the strong and recalcitrant agency of bad national political leadership?
Mr. Chairman, I will be immodest by suggesting that I have some answers. I intend to wrap these answers around the questions raised by Awolowo’s ideas and practice. I therefore invite reflections on these questions in this forum as we commemorate a man who devoted his entire public career not only to addressing these questions but also to demonstrating the limitless possibilities of good leadership.
Let me quickly explain what I mean by future-making. It is a proactive, thought-based and practice-oriented process of conceiving, shaping, enacting, and propelling desired future states rather than merely predicting and imagining them. This process of conceiving a collective future and enacting the conditions that would produce such a future involves
- founding, or what others call “active creation,”
- defining the goals and purposes of that collective future,
- designing the strategies and tactics necessary to achieve the goals and purposes of that collective future, and
- mobilising the people through various means, including electoral
politics, to march towards that future.
Awolowo’s vision of the future was captured by the slogan of his first political party, the Action Group: “Freedom for all, life more abundant.” (This was the impetus for the Yoruba sloganization of that universal ideal as “Afenifere.”) In the 1950s, this was a revolutionary idea that made Awolowo an enemy to local and foreign forces that would later combine to ensure he never became Nigeria’s leader. In Awolowo’s egalitarian vision, “equality of good fortune” through shareable social projects for all citizens without presupposing equality of outcomes is within the capacity of the modern state. But those who could not contemplate such a world asked:
“Freedom for all” and “life more abundant for everyone?” “Where would that place those of us who are enjoying age-long privileges based on religious or religio-cultural authority?” “The children of the poor peasants and the children of the high chiefs and high clerical authorities would be provided with a level playing field in which they can all thrive? What a dangerous idea!”
Such worries, expressed or acted out in various ways by Awolowo’s adversaries, sparked a clash of visions of Nigeria and the temporary political and electoral defeat of Awolowo’s vision, despite its notional and even ideological triumph. Indeed, one could argue that while the worst of political leaders no longer challenge Awolowo’s egalitarian vision in principle—even while working hard to ensure that it would never become dominant or triumphant at the national level—Nigeria continues to face the challenges of good leadership precisely because of the failure of the dominant political elite to embrace this vision. Yet paradoxically, it is evident that Awolowo’s vision of an egalitarian society has fueled all the struggles to build a better society and polity in the post-Awo years, from the anti-Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) protests
and the June 12 struggle through the “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign to the “EndSARS” protests.
I return to the central question: Why has Nigeria, despite having produced such great and good leaders in politics as well as different areas of socio-economic life, and at different levels, failed to produce sustainable good leadership?
About four decades of sustained engagement with Awolowo’s thoughts through his writings and speeches, combined with my study of Nigerian history, politics, and society, have led me to distill four cardinal reasons why it has been difficult for the polity to produce sustainable good leadership and transform this suffocating Lugard–ian enterprise into one in which there is freedom for all, and life more abundant.
The first is the nature and dynamics of state composition. In his career and published works, Awolowo devoted considerable effort to analysing and understanding how we arrived at the pre-independence era. This included the legacies of Nigeria’s various ethnocultural groups, particularly in his own region. This analysis included the liabilities and assets of the past. This formed the backdrop for his critical political analysis of the colonial experience. From this basis, he examined the nature and dynamics of the inherited postcolonial state.
The fundamental challenges of such a postcolonial state as Nigeria—especially given the nature of its ethnoregional composition, the inequalities and inequities built into the system not only by the British, but also by differential exposure of the different peoples and regions to the Enlightenment project and their different degrees of readiness to surrender parts of their ethno-cultural heritage
that were incompatible with the march of human progress—constituted, for Awolowo, perhaps the greatest impediments, for creating a fully humanizing polity. This was why he called Nigeria a “geographical expression,” even as he recognised the potential for good leadership to transform the nature and dynamics of state composition. Thus, Awolowo theorised and later articulated what needed to be done not only to end colonial rule but also to institute a new form of governance, grounded in the best legacies of the Enlightenment. He also linked this to the best cultural legacies surviving from the histories of Nigeria’s different regions, to build a workable federal democracy and a welfare state. For him, at this point in the 1950s and 1960s, the ideological and political bases of this were the triple instrumentality of Constitutionalism, Federalism, and Democratic Socialism.
The second challenge to building good leadership is the nature of the political economy. Though Awolowo devoted a considerable amount of time and his life’s work to understanding, analysing, and then articulating the nature of Nigeria’s political economy, at the point in the 1950s up to the late 1960s when he published some of the most important works on this subject, agriculture was the backbone of the Nigerian economy. It also dictated the nature of regional and federal revenue and, to that point, the structure of Nigeria’s fiscal federalism. But as crude oil displaced agriculture, both fiscally and culturally, Awolowo foresaw the dangers that the emerging ethos of “national cake” would pose to the future of the polity. But those in power and the core of the political elite did not heed the warning. As petrodollars flowed into the national coffers, not only did the military-in-power tilt the structure of federal revenue towards dispossessing the constituent parts and the poor masses, but the emergent fiscal federalism became that only in name. Despite their flaws, the moderation and relative fiscal sense of proportion of the leaders of the First Republic gave way as the oil-based political economy transformed not only the leaders but also the broader elite formations, the middle class, and even some segments of the working class into a profligate socio-economic and political formation.
When, in the early 1970s, a Nigerian leader reportedly said that Nigeria’s problem was not money but how to spend it, the elite led the people into an era of “spend first and think later.” Investment in the future, both in a fiscal and a social sense, was not considered. And in less than a decade, the oil boom turned into oil gloom. However, before that happened, a prodigal political economy had affected not only the social and cultural environments but also our politics. Deliberate and process-oriented leadership was no longer desirable. “The Army of Anything Goes,” as one mournful departing Chief of Army Staff captured the reality in the late 1980s, turned Nigeria into a “country of anything goes” with a damaged political economy, which, even when the economic index improved, could not change the culture of looting. Thus, the dominant political economy is incapable of encouraging, promoting, supporting, or even tolerating good leadership. The implications of this for governance, and for party and electoral politics, have been devastating.
Indeed, while much of the blame must go to the political class and the elite, the people-aselectorate cannot be absolved of their share of the blame. It is difficult for a pay-me-to-vote-for you political culture to produce sustainable good leadership.
The third reason for the absence of good leadership is the nature of social composition. The emergent social formation is a product of our collective refusal to transform the nature and dynamics of state composition and the political economy that have produced the current social dynamics. Because of the two factors I elaborated earlier, we have developed a beggarly culture which has not only deepened in the last few decades, particularly since the era of “settlement” as a “directive principle of state policy,” but it has also been federalised and canonised. We have worked hard toward the near-total destruction of the ethical basis of public culture. We have taken the worst aspects of our socio-cultural notions and practices, which have been exacerbated by the cultural ill-logic of oil wealth, and expanded and extended them while ignoring the best and the most positive aspects of existing ethno-cultural formations and practices, such as the
Yoruba notion and practices of omoluabi (gentleman or the well-bred), the Hausa notion and practices of mutumin kirki (good man), and the Igbo notion of ezigbo mmadu (a person of good character). These point to the virtues such as high moral standards, integrity, temperance, and good conduct that are critical for a citizenry that would build and sustain a good polity, and from which good leadership could emerge. Because of the fundamental importance of leadership being constituted by men and women of temperance, Awolowo consistently emphasised the need for personal discipline and for physical and mental mastery. When we look around in the last few decades of our national politics, even though the country is not lacking in men and women of temperance, the omoluabi, the mutumin kirki, and the ezigbo mmadu, how many of such people have the nature of state composition and the political economy allowed to rise to the highest levels of power? Yet only a federation in which a critical mass of the omoluabi or mutumin kirki, or ezigbo mmadu associates and organises for power, either directly or indirectly, can good leadership emerge and be sustained.
The final reason is directly related to the previous two: the nature of elite composition. Let me use the end of military rule and the process that led to the Fourth Republic as an example of the grotesque nature of elite composition in Nigeria, particularly of the dominant political elite, which some describe as an oligarchy. This oligarchy may have an ethno-regional core, but we would be deceiving ourselves if we failed to recognise that every part of Nigeria has contributed to, and continues to contribute to, its membership. As General Sani Abacha’s murderous and plundering misrule collapsed and the rump of the military worked their way out of power, this tiny but very powerful and strategically- and tactically-potent elite, combining both their civilian and (retired and retiring) military wing, came together to ensure that the long battle for federal democracy and egalitarian rule, which predated but was restarted almost as soon as the military seized power in December 1983, was hijacked and trivialised. As democratic and progressive forces were, between 1998 and 1999, struggling to create political parties and political alliances across Nigeria to produce good leadership, as they had tried to do unsuccessfully before the First and Second Republics collapsed—and as they did again with near-success in the Third Republic—the dominant faction of the ruling elite, to use street language, pulled a fast one on the progressive forces and the masses of Nigerians. They quickly recruited one of their own to stop Nigeria’s march towards democratic progress in its tracks and halt our movement to reimagine egalitarian rule and push Nigeria towards what Awolowo called its “birthright and its destiny,” that is, “Africa’s leading light.” Since that successful transition to civil rule but abortive transition to good leadership and egalitarian rule in 1999, the nation has been groping for the rediscovery of the vision and mission that informed the long pro-democracy struggle.
Despite the formidable odds against effective leadership in Nigeria, we must acknowledge that the factors I have identified are not immutable. This is one of the most critical lessons Awolowo taught us. And it is integral to his theory of action. Good leadership is most critical when public issues remain unresolved and are even unsettling. In fact, Awolowo remains a shining example precisely because of his capacity to lead the polity and society in overcoming grave odds.
What then can be done about these odds? Again, as the late thinker and political reformer showed, the most critical factor of political transformation is political agency. However, in the context of what has transpired since Awolowo’s transition, the leveraging of political agency to ensure good leadership is only possible through the reengineering of elite formation and composition. This is because human agency is at the heart of the process for correcting the challenges posed by the other three factors that I elaborated earlier: the nature of state composition, the nature of the political economy, and the nature of social composition. To move against the odds and produce the socio-economic and political conditions that will ensure sustainable good leadership in Nigeria, I will conclude by reflecting on Awolowo’s theory of action and the lessons we can learn from his political life.
Chief Awolowo already showed us the path. We need to adopt and adapt his methods, tactics, and strategies for the present, and reverse-engineer how he delivered effective leadership and governance in the Western region.
How can Awolowo’s theory of action help us to confront and resolve this leadership challenge in the context of politics as future-making?
Politics as Future-Making: Awolowo’s Theory of Action
As widely acknowledged, in his project of socio-economic and political transformation of a typical plural postcolonial state such as Nigeria, Awolowo moved from diagnosis to postulation and, on that basis, from planning and elaboration to action and implementation. Thus, from his writings, reflections, and active leadership, we can discern a theory of action on future-making. In my research on Awolowo’s life and leadership—which I hope will lead to another book in the future—I have discerned his theory of action in five of his books. In these five books, we can clearly see his project of moving from diagnosis and prognosis to elaboration, a programme of action, and then implementation. These include the “path series,” Path to Nigerian Freedom (1947) and Path to Nigerian Greatness (1981), and the Trilogy on the structural and agential
conditions for transforming Nigeria into a great country: Thoughts on the Nigerian Constitution (1966); The People’s Republic (1968); and The Strategy and Tactics of the People’s Republic of Nigeria (1970). In each of these books, the work of future-making is clear: whether that future is of freedom for all, the greatness of the country, a constitutional Republic, or that of a people-centred Republic, as well as the strategy and tactics of building such a state and society. Path to Nigeria’s Freedom is a seminal political manifesto that Awolowo published at age 38, in which he advocated how Nigeria could move from “a geographical expression,” as he famously described the Lugardian contraption, to not just a united nation-state but a great one and a beacon
of hope for the black people of the world and humanity, in general. In this book, while some of his contemporaries were either still floundering in the alley of ideological obfuscation or too ill-equipped to envision a future beyond the trappings of tradition, Awolowo outlined the need for rapid self-government and advocated federalism as the only viable system for a united Nigeria. Such was the strength and clarity of his argument that even his staunchest opponents eventually embraced this political architecture. Despite all the violations that the federal system has experienced, particularly under military rule, and the uses and abuses of the system to serve
narrow ends, it is a testament to the strength of Awolowo’s vision that almost 80 years after he first defended this system and elaborated its specific value and process of enactment for Nigeria, no one in the country today, even the most ardent hegemons, now reject federalism as the desirable system for keeping Nigeria together. The challenge that remains is how to make Nigeria “truly federal,” and the battle is ongoing. It is clear to the politically discerning that there can be no sustainable good leadership in Nigeria, if there is no true federalism.
In Path to Nigerian Greatness, Awolowo reflects on the political and socio-economic
foundations necessary for Nigeria to achieve national, continental, and global greatness. Drawing on his experiences as a thinker and doer, and based on what had happened in the more than three decades since he outlined the path to Nigeria’s freedom, and against the backdrop of Nigeria’s return to civil rule in 1979, he lays out the principles of ethical governance, federalism, economic planning, and social justice. In the book, described as both “a political manifesto and an intellectual contribution,” Awolowo explores Nigeria’s challenges and opportunities and offers a comprehensive framework for national development and democratic stability.
However, despite the fascinating and, in the case of the first book, inaugurating, insights in these two books on how to build a country that would not only stand the test of time but would also be the envy of the continent, it was in his Trilogy—Thoughts on the Nigerian Constitution (1966); The People’s Republic (1968); and The Strategy and Tactics of the People’s Republic of Nigeria (1970)—that Awolowo most ably demonstrated his future-making thinking and vision.
In his project of ensuring “freedom for all and life more abundant,” Awo presented his
intellectual and political legacy to the nation in each of these three books. As a leader convinced that the structural basis of any federation was critical to the potential success of such a union, Awolowo returns to the subject of federalism in Thoughts on the Nigerian Constitution, arguing that true federalism is the only viable system for Nigeria. While denouncing the creeping unitarism in the wake of the collapse of the First Republic and the advent of military rule— which later fatally damaged Nigerian federalism—and just before the civil war, Awolowo insists in this book that recognising Nigeria’s inherent diversity is critical to national unity, economic development, and effective governance. As for The People’s Republic, Mr. Chairman, permit me to quote elaborately from Awolowo’s Preface to the book. Perhaps this will be a direct reminder of the kind of mind that was once at work on the question of our national survival and the possibility of Nigeria’s national greatness. States Awo: “This book is in three Parts. The first Part deals with British Rule in Nigeria, whilst the third sets out a blueprint for a stable administration in an independent Nigeria. Part 1 is an indispensable background to Part III: the one depicting the ‘base degree’ from which the ascent in the other is
to be scaled. Part II is an exposition of political, economic, and social principles that are of universal application and validity. It is interposed between Parts 1 and III in order that the raison d’être and the rationale for a clean break with the British administrative heritage detailed in Part I, and the imperative need for the acceptance of the blueprint in Part III, may be clearly understood and appraised.”
He continues: “Part II does more than this. It demonstrates the applicability of [the methodology of any kind of social problem] and insists, by undisguised implications, that all social problems can and should be solved by employing the tools of scientific investigation. Before Bacon put his imprimatur on the method of induction, mankind had depended for everything it did on trial and error and the rule of thumb. But since his time, the tools of observation, empiricism, analysis, classification, synthesis, and generalisation have been thoroughly forged and perfected, and can be confidently used in the investigation of any phenomenon, or in the search for a solution to any problem. In other words, mankind has not reached a stage in its development when it will be
inexcusable ignorance, pigheaded stupidity, and unpardonable dishonesty on the part of anyone, society, or community, to adopt an unscientific approach to any of its problems.” I will pause for a moment to emphasize the critical point that Awo makes here: Any leadership that fails to adopt a scientific approach to social problems is engaging in “inexcusable ignorance, pigheaded stupidity, and unpardonable dishonesty.”
To conclude the long quotation, after noting the limits of the early philosophers who engaged political theories that were “mere analyses, classifications, and definitions of past and existing political institutions,” without deducing “laws and principles of universal application and validity, which can be invoked with confidence in dealing with new situations or with the evolution or establishment of new institutions,” Awolowo concludes:
“For my part, I regard the whole world as man’s laboratory. Since Herodotus and other
historians, and since Aristotle and other men of logic and science, innumerable facts and data required by man in unravelling any social problem with a high degree of precision have been accumulated in this laboratory; and the methods for accumulating more facts and data are no longer in doubt. Besides, for about forty centuries now, man has been performing various experiments in this laboratory. One of them is the experiment in the science of government, or of managing a State in such a manner as to guarantee prosperity and happiness for the people. It is my considered view that enough experiments in this sphere have been performed to enable a clear and valid enunciation of principles of universal application to be made.”
For the future-maker, politics involved deploying not just the art of government, but more crucially, the “science of government, or of managing a State” for a sole purpose: “to guarantee prosperity and happiness for the people.” That was what Awolowo envisioned for Nigeria: a genuine People’s Republic.
The last of the Trilogy is The Strategy and Tactics of the People’s Republic of Nigeria, which he regarded as a “follow-up” to the first two. There are two points which Awolowo made in the Preface to this book that are worth emphasising. The first is that he starts the book by returning to his core arguments in The People’s Republic, noting that keeping any State together without specified aims and objectives “will undoubtedly generate discontent, instability, and public disorder”—the kinds that Nigeria is witnessing now and has been experiencing for a couple of decades. Yet he argues that it is not sufficient to have national aims and objectives; they must be of such quality and character that “will evoke [an] abiding sense of patriotism and loyalty from the citizens… and must be such as will, in their execution, benefit all citizens substantially and without exception.” The other is that, given that he was writing the book as the country was
engrossed in a civil war, though the aim of the war was “to keep Nigeria one,” he argues that “This [that is keeping Nigerian one], by itself, is an abstract concept, which could not have sustained us in the present struggle for so long….” The ultimate aim, he argues, was “because we all realize that a united Nigeria has a lot more to offer for the promotion of the welfare and happiness of its citizens than a dismembered country…. ‘To keep Nigeria one’ is, therefore, not an end in itself. It is a means to great national ends, goals, and targets, which are ascertainable and attainable.”
He concluded that “It is these ends that I have, with as much diligence as I can muster, sought to discover, define, explain, and justify in this and the other previous two books.” This book, grouped into three parts, Objectives, Priorities, and Institutional Organisations, examines the economic, social, political and constitutional objectives which Nigeria must pursue, the order in which the objectives must be pursued, and the institutional organisations which are essential for the execution and attainment of the stated objectives. I urge those who are yet to read them to do so, and those who have read them to read them again. You cannot but come away with one conclusion and perhaps a question: What a mind we had in Awolowo! And how could a country that produced such a mind and which has access to such a programmatic path for national redemption and greatness continue to suffer the violent paralysis that Nigeria has experienced, particularly in the post-Awo era?
It was not for nothing that the Unity Party of Nigeria in the Second Republic had the light as its symbol and that that light was placed at the heart of the map of Nigeria. As the leader of a political elite that was invested in the domestication as well as the elaboration of the Enlightenment in Nigeria, Awolowo could not have been anything but an optimist. Those who still wonder or are indeed stupefied by his commitment to Nigeria’s potential glory should read these books (again). How could anyone who laid the path to national greatness and demonstrated it twice when he had the opportunity be anything other than optimistic about Nigeria’s future? If the country continues to fail to match its potential, why do some go back in time to accuse Awolowo of undue investment in the possibilities of Nigeria, as if Awolowo, as a political leader and as a thinker of possibilities and actualities, did not do his part to ensure that the country rose to its potential? If Nigeria has failed to fulfil her potential, is it not already evident that the problem lies not in the potential itself but in what succeeding rulers have made of the constraining and enabling capacities they inherited, as Awolowo clearly articulated them?
Let me conclude by outlining the key processes of future-making again, based on a theory of political action, as evident in Awolowo’s political life and writings, that the political leadership of this age needs to reflect on and adopt if it is committed to building a better society.
- The first is a deep, hard-edged, or critical analysis of the historical conditions under
which a socio-political agenda must proceed, with a focus on future possibilities
- In this analysis, attention must be paid to the structural and agential conditions of the
context. For instance, what are the enabling and disenabling realities of the existing
institutions and institutional processes, such as the state, the political system or political
architecture, party system, the constitution, etc., etc.? Here, the issue of a new democratic constitution and true federalism must be considered. And what are the realities of existing forms of human agency, such as the level of education of the population, their state of health and access to medical facilities, the parameters and quality of infrastructures, and the quality of the political, economic, industrial, cultural, and other elites, etc., which will affect or determine the nature of the transformation that is possible and necessary? This will serve as the basis for convening like-minded individuals to build a political movement and a political party that can lead the necessary process of establishing an egalitarian polity and a greater nation-state. For Awolowo, this was possible mostly through a progressive political party.
- A reflection on and then an evaluation of the most appropriate and effective
philosophical-ideological lens through which to understand and change and/or strengthen existing realities by means of structure and agency. This will be followed by the elaboration of a concrete and achievable agenda of state-building and social reformation that is as alive to the strictures of the existing society and polity as it is imbued with a bold vision of human possibilities that can power the making of a greater future. A critical part of this agenda will be to shift the fundamental basis and logic of our political economy from a distributive one based on hydrocarbon resources to a productive one sustained by redistributive justice. The instruments of such redistributive justice include, as attested to by experts, progressive taxation, cash transfers, investment in human capital, regulation and inclusive growth strategies. The primary goal of such redistributive justice will be the creation of an egalitarian polity and society.
- Next is the scientific path, as championed by Awolowo. That is, the gathering of facts and data, including comparative experiences in other societies and states, that are necessary to create new structures or structural possibilities, as well as to create new forms of, and deepen and expand, human agency and human capacities, thus establishing the building blocks of a better future. On this basis, the structural changes and institutional processes that must be put in place or strengthened must be accompanied by new and expansive forms of human agency. For example, at the heart of this is education—which Awolowo regarded as the most effective instrument for transforming human agency and society— and its closely related institution and process of human sustenance, healthcare. For instance, if Chief Awolowo were alive today, he would have gathered experts around him to consider the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) for Nigeria and Africa.
Before I move to the last stage, let me quickly provide a further example of Awolowo’s investment in scientific social planning and specifically, the role of education in such planning. Barely three months after the start of the Nigerian Civil War, specifically on October 19, 1967, as the Federal Commissioner for Finance and the Deputy Chairman of the Federal Executive Council, Chief Awolowo made a national broadcast to outline a “Blueprint for Post-War Reconstruction.” Among the economic, infrastructural, and social plans that he announced were a special annual fund to be created at the end of the war for the specific purpose of “stepping up the training of high-level manpower in the Nigerian Universities, at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels; raising the secondary school and trained-teacher population in the States which are lagging behind… and preventing wastes at the secondary school level in the more advanced States;” [and] “providing free primary education for the children of all members of the Armed Forces.”
- The last stage is the careful implementation of the agreed agenda, at two levels: first, at the level of the political party that would seek to gain power and implement this vision; the other is at the national, collective level, in which the masses of Nigerians are
mobilized around an egalitarian vision and imbued with a sense of ownership that would
ensure that they fully participate in this task while supporting a leadership that has a firm
and unyielding focus on building a much better future for the greatest number.
Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Guests, Chief Awolowo always started from first principles, as I hope I have shown in this lecture. In the future-making project, he began with “What is the nature of the problem?” and then moved to “What is to be done?” He recognised what was inherited in Nigeria of his age from the precolonial, through the colonial, to the postcolonial eras, and the implications of all this for the nature of state formation in Nigeria. But he refused to be paralysed by the challenges of that inheritance. Rather, he asked and acted on what needed to be done to create a much better future, in the face of objective reality, to bend the arc of history toward justice, freedom, and egalitarianism.
Also, as a scientific thinker, Awolowo never believed—as he argues in the long passage I quoted earlier—that Africans were exempt from natural laws or that, as a people, we
constitute an exception to any of the rules that were brought to bear by the Enlightenment, even if the Enlightenment was first consummated in Europe. In the 1940s, for instance, he totally rejected the idea that Africans and African polities were not ripe for freedom and democracy. As that Oxford historian of Empire, Margery Perham, acknowledged in her 1961 Reith Lectures in London, which was published as a book entitled The Colonial Reckoning:
The End of Imperial Rule in Africa in the Light of British Experience: “Indeed, Chief
Awolowo has declared that any Western tendency to excuse deviations from democracy [in Africa] is only another insulting colonialist assumption that Africans are too primitive and barbaric to conduct what he calls ‘this beneficent and ennobling form of government.’” Perham, acknowledged, perhaps grudgingly, that Awolowo, as Premier of the Western Region, was “a practical ruler,” who “did much to construct an impressive welfare state.” As I have argued, Awolowo was not only a future-making thinker, but he was also a practice-oriented future-maker. As Premier of the Western Region and as Federal Finance Minister, he showed how historical and social analyses, social thought, research, deliberation, debate, the bringing together of highly skilled, public-spirited men and women of goodwill, in addition to organisational insight and foresight, can help to leverage a socio-economic and political project and ensure its success. This is why the quality of governance, in both thought and action, in the Western Region under his leadership remains unrivalled to this day. When he
was acknowledged by the late Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu as the best president Nigeria never had, it was not a mere expression of admiration for the man; it was a testament to a statebuilder whose vision of a greater polity and accomplishments remain unparalleled in Nigeria’s political history.
Yet we must acknowledge that Awolowo’s signal error was to conceive of politics solely, and unrelentingly, as an instrument of social good. In fact, it was his near-fatal error. It almost cost him his life, but it cost him his freedom for a few years; and it cost him federal electoral victories four times; while also costing him the permanent scorn of members of some elite formations and their heirs who were and still are either threatened by his egalitarian vision of a country where no one can be a slave to the circumstances of their birth. Even when he offered to repeat on a larger scale the benefits that the people of the Western Region had
gained under his administrative genius, they said “No.” So, what was his error in this? Awo assumed that once you showed the people the light, they would eventually follow it. He initially underestimated the odds that he faced at the national level—both political and cultural. And the infernal commitment of rival elite formations to ensure that his form of egalitarian rule was never practically federalised.
However, while we are all focused on how to get Nigeria back on the path to a greater future and ensure good leadership, it is important to focus on the fundamentals of that hope. We don’t just need good leaders; we have a few, some in the right places and many in the wrong places. What we need is overall good leadership, one that is produced by and supported by a healthy political system (true federalism), a constitutional democracy, a strong political party system, an ideological and politically strong yet fundamentally egalitarian elite formation,and an educated and committed citizenry that both believe in and are convinced about the possibility of a greater future for the country, despite the current formidable odds.
A strong and enlightened political agency is and must be the foundation of a collective
imagination of a greater future. It is the business of social and political reformers, political leaders, and state-builders—as Obafemi Awolowo showed—not only to raise fundamental questions about the state and society and to think through the solutions by mobilising the whole polity, but also to provide practical solutions to the challenges of social life today in order to create a greater society in the future. No one has thought this thought better and demonstrated the great impact such political thought could have on the future better than the man who beckoned on Nigeria in the UPN anthem—and it’s better to hear it in his own voice:
“T is a duty that we owe
To our dear, great motherland
To enhance her and to boost her, in the eyes of all the world.
Egalitarianism, is our national watchword
Equality of good fortune, must be to each sure reward.
Liberty and brotherhood are the goals for which we’ll strive
Plus progress, plus plenty, and all that good things of life.
Up, up Nigeria. And take thy rightful place, it is thy birthright and thy destiny, Afric’s leading light to be.”
It is the task of our generation to heed that voice of wisdom, of courage, and of unity.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, please grant me the indulgence to dedicate this lecture to that irrepressible party man who departed a little over a year ago. No one could have shown greater commitment to defending the Awolowo ethos and doing whatever was in his power, even in his last days on earth, to ensure that Nigeria moved, no matter how reluctantly so, towards Awo’s vision for the country. I recall a few of us, his younger compatriots, sitting around him by his bedside a few months before his passing. Even in that retired physical state, the old man was still spitting fire at those he accused of compromising the nation’s future. No one exemplified party spirit better than he did. You might disagree with him, but you could never fault his commitment to any settled party cause. As a party man, he was a political bulldozer—the metaphoric track-laying party tractor with caterpillar tracks and a broad, curved, upright blade at the front for clearing political ground. I am speaking, of course, of the departed lion of
progressive politics, Chief Ayo Adebanjo. May his soul continue to rest in peace.
Thank you for your patience.
Ikenne, Nigeria. March 9, 2026.
- Adebanwi is the Presidential Penn Compact Professor of Africana Studies, with a secondary appointment in the Department of Political Science, and the Director of the Centre for Africana Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
