The administration of government business is one of the key fundamental issues in public administration theories and practices. The framework of administration determines the core performance objectives that enable the public service—as the engine room of the state—to coherently and efficiently complement democratic governance anywhere across the world. When the bureaucracy emerged in the nineteenth century, it was founded on a notion of public administration that is coherent only to the extent that it sees the state in action and interaction. In this context, administration becomes synonymous with government, and it essentially concerns the entirety of the state’s activities in terms of the coordination and enforcement of policies, and the people and agencies that are involved in these activities. The concept of government represents the prototypical hierarchical and rule-bound institutions of the state based on formal and fixed laws and norms of operations. Seen in this context, government refers to that very institution that exerts executive authority within a political system and over the society. Government becomes the complex and organizational centre of administrative power separated, by that fact, from the rest of society. 

This is the concept that gave birth to the management-by-directive tradition which undergirds Max Weber’s articulation of the nature of the bureaucracy. This tradition centralizes the decision-making process in a manner that gives the administrator or manager (in Nigeria and in a significant sense, the permanent secretary) a complete discretionary control over the employees and the entire administrative context. This tradition stipulates a set of administrative goals and objectives, rules, procedures, and regulations, as well as well-defined roles and responsibilities which serve as pathways to achieving these objectives. All these are codified as “general orders” that the employees are expected to strictly follow under the omniscient supervision of the manager or administrator. As a leadership paradigm, it follows what Martins G. Evans and Robert J. House call the path-goal trajectory of leadership effectiveness. This theory insists that the effectiveness of a leader is determined by the leader’s capability to assist the followers or employees in achieving organizational goals through motivation, clarifying the paths to the goals, and eliminating impediments.  

This tradition owes its most influential theoretical basis to the groundbreaking work of Max Weber who erected public administration on the command-and-control structure of the Prussian army. The idea of bureaucracy, for him, is based on the notion of legal-rational authority; in other words, it is a structure with an authority that activates basic democratic principles and codes which employees and the society recognize as legitimate and for which career officials are custodians. Each position in the bureaucracy has its clearly defined rules, procedures, duties and rights, which are clearly defined to determine how the given authority is to be exercised. The bureaucracy therefore promises a stable organization that is neutral, hierarchically organized, efficient and inevitable; and is characterized by precision, continuity, discipline, strictness and reliability. However, Douglas McGregor’s analysis of what he calls Theory X and Theory Y in the administration of government business provides the philosophical foundation for management-by-directive. Theory X and Theory Y constitute a theoretical diagnostic of organizations and systems. McGregor’s theory evolved as a human relations theory that outlines certain underlining assumptions that managers have with regards to organizational functioning and performance. 

The Weberian bureaucratic framework is founded on three basic propositions: first, management involves the deployment of people, material and money as means towards the achievement of particular economic objectives; second, that organizational objectives require the control and motivation of people; and, third, that without a strict organizational regimen, humans are usually unproductive and resistant to organizational needs. This theory is backed by a very dim and gloomy perception of human nature which conceives of an average employee as being (a) indolent by nature, (b) lacking in ambition and motivation, (c) naturally egoistic and therefore set to work contrary to organizational requirements, (d) naturally resistant to change, especially those that would contradict his selfish desires, (e) naturally deceivable. Given these assumptions, organizational goals can only be achieved if the discerning manager employs a very strong tactic in getting his indolent employees to achieve the set targets.

McGregor’s Theory X therefore demands the path-goal theory of leadership in its four iterations: achievement-oriented leadership, directive leadership, participative leadership and supportive leadership. Leadership is perceived in hierarchical framework. And this hierarchies are the basis for the assertion of administrative authority. The manager, for instance, stands at the zenith of that authority as the one person whose seniority enables her to monitor the administrative rules and procedures which those lower down the hierarchy must follow. This is the tradition that centralizes the significance of the Weberian administrative model for many years. It is the traditional model that constitutes the core of the framework for administering government business until the emergence of the managerial revolution in public administration in the second-half of the twentieth century. Managerialism upends almost all the assumptions that defines the bureaucracy in command-and-control terms. 

The managerial revolution has as its most fundamental premise the argument that market-based business management principles and the entrepreneurial culture possess the most formidable capacity for ensuring public service efficiency in ensuring democratic service delivery to the citizens. The justification for this transition is simply that, for managerialists, the Weberian bureaucratic model is much too rigid, rule-bound, cumbersome, costly, inefficient and unresponsive to the needs of the citizens as the customers of public services. In its place, managerialism expects a government that is FAST—flatter, agile, streamlined and technology-enabled. The traditional structure of the bureaucracy, being rigid, inward-looking and founded on outdated competencies, must therefore be modernized in ways that make it more collaborative, transparent, flexible and participatory. This translates into a public service that is expected to be (a) fast-moving, intelligent, professional, information-rich, flexible, adaptable and entrepreneurial; (b) less employee-focused and rule-driven, deliver quality service; (c) performance-focused and accountable; and (d) operated by multidisciplinary team of new generation public managers and project teams. 

In this managerial context, the real challenge is not what government does, but rather how it is done—the measurable means by which government business is effectively and efficiently administered to produce significant outputs and results. To achieve this performance-based results, therefore, it becomes important to reflect on the public service and the functions of public managers. Contrary to the transactional model of leadership which takes public manager as mere administrators who measure the temperature of the bureaucracy, managerialism insists that public managers must be freed from the bureaucratic operating mechanism and framework that limits their vision, creativity and capacity for managerial innovation. This then implies that administrators and front-line managers will not only be empowered to make critical decisions and achieve discretionary autonomy as a measure of the responsiveness of the system, they will also be held accountable for performance and measurable outcomes which emphasizes customer satisfaction and productivity. 

McGregor conceptualizes managerialism in terms of Theory Y which not only provides a better understanding of human nature that undergird the bureaucracy, but also articulates a transformational understanding of administrative leadership. While Theory X has a gloomy perspective on personnel dynamics, and of employees in an organization being motivated only by the bare need for food, shelter and survival, the Theory Y paradigm insists on the contrary that humans in any system or organization are motivated by the need to satisfy the higher-order needs like social relationship, the search for esteem and dignity as well as the need to exercise their creative genius especially with regards to organizational performance. 

McGregor’s Theory Y does not constitute a wholesale rejection of the Weberian traditional understanding of public administration. And this makes it a perfect theoretical framework for a neo-Weberian reconsideration of the required paradigm for rethinking the administration of government business. Given the failures of both the traditional Weberian tradition and the new public management and its managerial revolution, the neo-Weberian paradigm possesses the capabilities to incorporate useful insights from both frameworks. Its understanding of people, and of human resources management and human relations, constitutes a tremendous plank in building an organizational framework that gives the nod to productivity and performance. 

But more than this, the framework of a shared transformative capacity of a leader, required by the Theory Y, turns public administration itself away from being a mere theory of government to a new understanding of it as a theory of governance. And within this new framework of governance, it provides the basis for a distributed paradigm of leadership that is the centerpiece of what has been called the change space model of leadership, rather than the path-goal theory. The change space model emphasized the idea of a leadership rather than that of a leader anchored on a personality. Thus, even when there is one public manager around which the administrative dynamics are anchored, the leadership trajectory is distributed across many multilayered points, from the permanent secretary to the front-line manager.

How then can we begin to reimagine the transition from Theory X to Theory Y which the neo-Weberian institutional framework permits? I will outline two fundamental variables in terms of which we can assess any bureaucratic system. The first concerns the dynamics of the workforce and the workplace, and the second has to do with the implication of the Theory Y for the structure performance management protocols of the public service. Theory X and Theory Y both have different frameworks that provide different perspectives of the workplace. Within the Theory X, the assumption that employees are lazy and irresponsible leads to a management style that is autocratic and utilizes the carrot and stick method to motivation. And a rigid bureaucratic environment that essentially stifles the employees’ creativity and entrepreneurial innovation. 

But if we shift the assumption and rather see employees as self-motivated and ethical, and management style becomes more participatory and empowering, then we arrive at more employee engagement at the workplace that boost morale and motivation, enhance creativity and innovation, and enhance more efficient performance and productivity outcomes. The idea of decentralization (let managers manage), for example, provides department and individual managers with more autonomy and discretionary capacities in decision-making, while also empowering employees to have more say in procedural and performance matters. This makes for more job satisfaction that enable the workforce to do more. However, this transition must also carry forward the understanding that some responsibilities might need the management-by-directive mechanism that demands direct supervision. 

All this has direct implications for performance management. This is to the extent that the workforce and its responsibilities are crucial to how we shift the focus from processes to results. Performance management is therefore a process of (a) communicating organizational aims and objectives to all stakeholders, (b) setting performance targets to measure the achievement goals and objectives, and (c) ensuring that all these activities provide a basis for continuous learning, improvement and performance accountability. Within a bureaucratic environment that is participatory, the performance management system (PMS) cannot be codified within the general orders. What is to be achieved, and how it is to be achieved will be a function of shared understanding. It will also involve a decentralized organizational process that, first, connects plans, strategies and blueprints to budgeting and funding; and second, cascades all this to the operational timelines of the ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs). 

This enables the MDAs to arrive at their own vision, mission and value statements, as well as the performance strategies that distill, at the individual levels, performance contracts and target outputs between the key policy actors. This is what it means for a performance management system to emphasize a participatory planning of performance goals, service standard setting, and establishment of performance improvement plans and measures between the superiors and subordinates. The system also ensures the setting up of a performance-based reward and sanction linkage that connects performance to individual and departmental accountability in ways that encourage continuous learning and incremental improvement. For example, it is on the basis of performance reviews that supervisors decide as to whether their subordinates can be promoted, whether they need specific training to enhance their performance, or whether they deserve any performance-based rewards for the execution of their duties and responsibilities. 

Nigeria’s democratic experiment since 1999 has been riddled with inconsistencies, manipulations, and outright subversion of the people’s will. One of the constitutional tools that have suffered significant frustration is the recall process of elected legislators. Enshrined in Section 69 of the 1999 Constitution, the recall mechanism was designed to empower constituents to remove non-performing lawmakers. However, history has shown that while this process exists on paper, its practical application has been anything but successful. With the ongoing recall attempt against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, it is crucial to examine the history of failed recall efforts in Nigeria, the systemic bottlenecks, and the potential implications of the latest move against the Kogi Central lawmaker.

Without a doubt, Nigeria’s political paths since 1999 is replete with the footprints of futile recall attempts.  Since 1999, there have been multiple attempts by constituents to recall their representatives, but none has succeeded. Political analysts argue that Nigeria’s political class has deliberately ensured that the recall process is practically impossible to achieve, weaponizing institutions such as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and security agencies to frustrate legitimate recall efforts.

For instance, the most high-profile recall attempt in Nigeria’s democratic history was the move against Senator Dino Melaye in 2017. His constituents, reportedly aggrieved by his controversial conduct and alleged lack of representation, initiated the recall process. The exercise quickly became a battleground for political forces, with the state government playing a visible role in mobilizing against Melaye.

Despite INEC verifying over 188,000 signatures from his constituency, the recall process collapsed under legal gymnastics, delays, and alleged manipulation. The signature verification exercise recorded a woeful turnout of about 5.3% of registered voters, well below the constitutional threshold required for a recall. The process, rather than being a reflection of the people’s will, became an avenue for political grandstanding, rendering the recall mechanism effectively impotent.

In a similar vein, in 2016, some constituents of Borno South attempted to recall Senator Ali Ndume, citing poor representation and insensitivity to their plight. The effort, however, did not even advance beyond the initial petition stage, as it was heavily resisted by political forces loyal to the senator. The recall attempt eventually fizzled out without any substantial traction, once again demonstrating the structural weakness of Nigeria’s recall system.

Also in a similar vein, the recall attempt against Senator Jubril Aminu in 2005 was one of the earliest tests of the recall process in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. Some of his constituents accused him of being disconnected from grassroots issues and initiated the process to remove him. However, it ended in futility, as the petition failed to meet INEC’s requirements due to alleged intimidation and vote suppression.

Beyond these high-profile cases, there have been multiple recall efforts against state and federal lawmakers, including former House of Representatives members like Farouk Lawan and Abdulmumin Jibrin. Each attempt faced insurmountable challenges ranging from the coercion of petitioners, political interference, judicial delays, and voter apathy.

In 2018, constituents in Kaduna attempted to recall Honourable Garba Datti Mohammed, citing neglect and lack of accountability. However, the recall effort never materialized beyond media discussions, as political heavyweights in the state quickly shut it down.

Similarly, in 2012, some constituents in Anambra Central reportedly attempted to recall Senator Chris Ngige, but the effort crumbled as allegations emerged that the petitioners were being intimidated and coerced into withdrawing their support for the recall.

At this juncture, it is expedient to ask, “Why do recalls fail in Nigeria?” The consistent failure of recall processes in Nigeria can be attributed to a combination of legal, institutional, and political factors:

First is unrealistic signature requirement. This is as constitutional provision that mandates a recall petition be signed by at least 50% of registered voters in the affected constituency is an uphill task in a country where voter turnout in elections rarely exceeds 40%.

In a similar vein, is INEC’s role in verification exercise. INEC, the electoral umpire responsible for verifying signatures, has often been accused of playing a biased role. The verification process is cumbersome and susceptible to manipulation, as was evident in Dino Melaye’s case.

Also in a similar vein is political interference. This is as political godfathers and state actors often intervene in recall processes to protect their loyalists. In many cases, state governments deploy resources to frustrate recall attempts, as seen in Kogi State under Governor Yahaya Bello’s tenure.

Still in a similar vein is that of security agencies being used as political tools. In fact, the police and other security agencies have been accused of intimidating petitioners and suppressing protests in favor of recall attempts. This discourages constituents from fully engaging in the process.

Another factor borders on judicial delays. The foregoing factor cannot be farfetched as the Nigerian judicial system is notorious for its slow pace so much that politicians facing recall often rush to the courts, obtaining injunctions that stall the process indefinitely.

Again is that of voter apathy and manipulation. Even when recall attempts gain traction, voter turnout during signature verification and the actual recall referendum remains abysmally low, making it easy for the process to fail.

Against the foregoing backdrop, it is germane to ask, “Is Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s recall another political charade?

The reason for the foregoing question cannot be incredible as the latest recall attempt targeting Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan follows a familiar script. Akpoti-Uduaghan, a vocal and independent-minded senator representing Kogi Central, has been a thorn in the flesh of entrenched political interests in Kogi State. The recall initiative against her, rather than being a spontaneous expression of the people’s will, appears orchestrated by powerful interests seeking to silence her.

The lessons from past recall failures indicate that the process will likely face the same fate as others before it. While her detractors may gather signatures, it remains to be seen if the threshold for recall will be met and if the process will be free from political interference. If history is anything to go by, the recall will likely fizzle out in the face of legal and political obstacles.

At this juncture, it is expedient to opine that the recall process in Nigeria, though a constitutional provision, has been reduced to a mere theoretical concept. Since 1999, every recall attempt has failed, not necessarily due to a lack of public will but because of systemic manipulations and political subterfuge. The ongoing recall attempt against Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan must be viewed with skepticism, as it bears all the hallmarks of politically motivated recalls in the past. If Nigeria’s democracy is to mature, the recall mechanism must be reformed to truly reflect the people’s will rather than serve as a political weapon wielded by the powerful against their adversaries.

The ongoing political turmoil in Rivers State has once again brought to the fore the unchecked influence of former Governor and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike. Amid the crisis, Elder Anabs Sara-Igbe, a respected voice in Rivers politics, has rightly called for Wike’s suspension, arguing that he is the mastermind behind the chaos engulfing the state. Given Wike’s track record of political maneuvering, his open defiance of democratic norms, and his role in undermining Governor Siminalayi Fubara, President Bola Tinubu must heed Sara-Igbe’s call and suspend Wike from office.

It is no secret that Nyesom Wike wields an almost dictatorial grip on Rivers politics. Even after leaving office as governor, he has refused to relinquish control, treating the state as his personal fiefdom. His political antics, characterized by high-handedness, intimidation, and absolute disregard for democratic processes, have created a toxic atmosphere that has stifled governance in the state.

The recent political upheaval in Rivers State, which led to President Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency, is a direct consequence of Wike’s desperate attempt to retain influence. Despite installing Siminalayi Fubara as his successor, Wike has consistently sought to undermine him, ensuring that the new governor remains a puppet rather than an independent leader. This approach is not only undemocratic but also a dangerous precedent for governance in Nigeria.

Without any scintilla of hyperbole, there is no denying the fact that Tinubu’s one-sided sanctions is a blatant injustice. Against the backdrop of the foregoing observation, it is not illogical to be in support of Elder Sara-Igbe’s argument that Wike should be sanctioned alongside Fubara as such decision would be seen to be rooted in fairness and justice. This is as the decision by President Tinubu to suspend Fubara and his deputy while allowing Wike to remain in office reeks of bias, and condemnable enough. If political instability is the basis for intervention, then it is only logical that the chief instigator of the crisis should also face consequences.

In fact, suspending an elected governor, who, by all indications, has been the victim of political bullying, while allowing the primary aggressor to remain in power sends a dangerous message. It suggests that those who wield influence at the center can manipulate the system to their advantage, regardless of the harm done to democracy and governance. If Tinubu truly believes in justice and stability, Wike must be held accountable.

Beyond the current crisis, Wike’s political career has been marked by arrogance, divisiveness, and a disregard for due process. He has insulted political elders, disparaged ethnic groups, and fostered an environment of fear and sycophancy in Rivers State. His open defiance of political allies and enemies alike has made him a divisive figure whose continued presence in government is a liability rather than an asset.

Under his leadership, Rivers State became a theater of political warfare, where opposition voices were stifled, and dissent was met with brute force. His controversial tenure as governor saw a weaponization of state institutions against perceived enemies, and his transition to the federal level has done little to change his approach. Wike’s recent actions in Rivers only reinforce the notion that he thrives in an atmosphere of chaos and conflict.

If Wike is allowed to continue operating unchecked, the consequences for Rivers State and Nigerian democracy could be dire. Political instability will only worsen, and governance in Rivers will remain stalled as a result of Wike’s overbearing influence. Already, the state has been thrown into turmoil, with disruptions in governance, civil unrest, and an erosion of public trust in the democratic process.

Moreover, Wike’s continuous meddling will embolden other power-hungry politicians to subvert the democratic process for personal gain. If one individual can manipulate the political system without consequence, others will undoubtedly follow suit. This will set a dangerous precedent and undermine efforts to strengthen democracy in Nigeria.

If President Tinubu wants to restore peace to Rivers State and maintain his credibility as a leader committed to justice, then he must act swiftly by suspending Nyesom Wike. The call by Elder Sara-Igbe is not only valid but necessary to prevent further deterioration of governance in Rivers State.

By taking decisive action against Wike, Tinubu will send a clear message that no individual, regardless of their political influence, is above accountability. It will also signal to other power-hungry politicians that Nigeria’s democracy is not a playground for personal ambitions at the expense of the people’s welfare.

Additionally, Tinubu must go beyond just suspending Wike. He should institute a thorough investigation into the ongoing crisis in Rivers State to determine the root causes and hold all guilty parties accountable. A neutral committee should be set up to assess the political situation, listen to key stakeholders, and recommend long-term solutions that will ensure Rivers State is free from undue political interference.

While the president has significant executive powers, the judiciary and law enforcement agencies also have a role to play in ensuring justice prevails. Investigative bodies should be empowered to scrutinize Wike’s actions in Rivers State, particularly his political dealings and any infractions committed while in office. If evidence suggests he has engaged in activities that threaten democracy or contravene the law, he should be prosecuted accordingly.

Furthermore, law enforcement agencies should remain neutral and resist being used as political tools. The Nigerian Police Force, the Department of State Services (DSS), and other security agencies must protect democratic institutions rather than side with political actors seeking to subvert them. A politically motivated approach to security matters in Rivers State will only deepen the crisis and lead to further instability.

Beyond the government’s intervention, civil society organizations, the media, and the Nigerian people must also play a role in demanding accountability from political leaders. The press must continue to shine a light on the situation in Rivers State and expose any attempts to manipulate the system for personal gain. Civic engagement is also crucial, Nigerians must demand better governance and hold their leaders to higher standards of accountability.

Public opinion should not be ignored in this matter. The people of Rivers State, in particular, must raise their voices against political oppression and interference. Their state should not be used as a battleground for the egos of politicians seeking to remain relevant. Instead, Rivers should be allowed to thrive, with governance centered on the needs of its people rather than the ambitions of one man.

The political crisis in Rivers State is a direct consequence of Wike’s desperate hold on power. Elder Sara-Igbe’s call for his suspension is a reasonable demand that should not be ignored. If President Tinubu genuinely values justice, fairness, and stability, he must take the bold step of suspending Wike. Anything short of that will further erode public trust in the administration and embolden politicians who believe they can act with impunity. The time for decisive action is now.

If the federal government fails to take action, the political landscape in Rivers State will continue to deteriorate, with dire consequences for democracy and governance in Nigeria. Suspending Wike is not just about politics, it is about restoring justice, upholding democratic principles, and ensuring that power is used for the people, not against them.