As the political season heats up, a debate has emerged pitting proponents of merit-based leadership against advocates of zoning as a deciding factor. Some dismiss zoning as a political settlement, arguing it compromises competence. However, this argument often confuses competence, merit, and experience.
The notion that holding office automatically signifies competence is flawed. Experience matters, but limiting opportunities can prevent capable individuals from gaining leadership experience. This hypocrisy is evident in the ruling party’s stance, which denies automatic tickets to other aspirants while staying silent on the presidency.
Opening leadership positions to more people can deepen participation, competition, and the selection of merit-based candidates. However, merit in leadership is subjective and multifaceted. Zoning can be a more representative approach, considering diverse factors beyond fixed traits like education, experience, age, or sex.
A leader’s effectiveness depends on various factors, including perceived justice, equity, and goodwill. What might be considered “merit” in one context might not be effective in another. Ultimately, leadership merit lies in what makes the majority happy, calm, and supportive, rather than a narrow definition of qualifications.
Bagudu Mohammed can be reached at bagudumohammed15197@gmail.com
