Leadership Beyond Language: Why Native Dialect Shouldn’t Decide Who Governs Edo, by Isaac Asabor

In the vibrant tapestry of Nigeria’s political landscape, there exists a common belief that fluency in a native dialect equates to good leadership. However, this is a misconception that could lead to the wrong choice of leaders if allowed to persist. While the ability to speak a native dialect is an admirable trait, it should not be the defining criterion for electing a leader, especially in a country as diverse as Nigeria.

Take the case of Asue Ighodalo, a prominent figure who has recently gained attention in Edo State’s gubernatorial race. Ighodalo, despite his impressive credentials and vision for the state, has faced criticisms from certain quarters solely based on his perceived lack of fluency in the native dialect. These critiques overshadow his proven track record of competence, integrity, and leadership in both the private and public sectors.

Similarly, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, the Labour Party candidate in the last gubernatorial election in Lagos, was victimized for not being fluent in Yoruba, the predominant language of the state. Despite his strong credentials, innovative ideas, and genuine commitment to public service, many focused on his linguistic skills, or perceived lack thereof, rather than the substance of his campaign. This misplaced priority distracted from the real issues at hand and reduced the electoral process to a superficial examination of language rather than leadership qualities.

The argument that a leader must be fluent in the local language to connect with the people is rooted in cultural pride, but it is important to recognize that leadership extends far beyond language. Effective communication is certainly vital, but it is the substance of what is communicated, the ideas, policies, and vision, that should matter most.

Asue Ighodalo and Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour are prime examples of how a leader’s capability should not be judged solely by their linguistic skills. Both have demonstrated exceptional leadership and a commitment to public service. Their focus on economic development, infrastructure, and social welfare are precisely the qualities that should be at the forefront of voters’ minds, not their ability to converse in the native tongue.

After all, colonial masters who ruled Nigeria and left decades ago remain a significant part of the country’s history, and their influence is still visible today in the form of enduring infrastructure. These infrastructures, ranging from railway lines, bridges, schools, and administrative buildings to hospitals, continue to serve Nigeria’s populace, standing as testaments to the colonial era’s contributions to the country’s development. Despite the many criticisms of colonial rule, these structures provide a complex legacy that cannot be ignored.

Interestingly, the colonial leaders who presided over these developments did so without fluency in any of Nigeria’s native dialects. They ruled and administered the country, navigated its complex ethnic and cultural landscape, and instituted policies that led to significant infrastructure development, all while communicating in English, a language foreign to the majority of Nigerians at the time.

This historical context challenges the notion that fluency in a local dialect is a prerequisite for effective leadership. If colonial leaders, without understanding or speaking local languages, could still leave a lasting imprint on Nigeria’s infrastructure and governance systems, it suggests that the ability to communicate in a particular dialect should not be the sole measure of a leader’s capability, particularly in Edo State.

In contemporary Nigeria, the debate around leadership often includes discussions about a leader’s fluency in local dialects as a measure of their connection to the people. While it is true that speaking a local language can enhance relatability and trust, it is not a definitive indicator of leadership quality or effectiveness. A leader’s vision, integrity, competence, and ability to deliver results should be the primary criteria for their suitability, rather than their linguistic abilities.

In fact, it is not a misnomer to in this context opine that leadership should transcend language barriers, focusing instead on the capacity to address the nation’s challenges, improve the lives of citizens, and foster unity among its diverse populations.

Reason for the foregoing view cannot be pooh-poohed with mere wave of the hand as denying a capable leader the opportunity to lead based on his or her fluency in a local dialect ignores the lessons of history and risks overlooking individuals who might bring about significant positive change. Instead of prioritizing linguistic proficiency, we should focus on the broader qualities that make for effective leadership. Just as the colonial masters left behind infrastructure that still serves us today, we should seek leaders who will leave a legacy of progress, irrespective of the language they speak.

Without a doubt, the emphasis on language fluency can inadvertently sideline candidates who possess the right skills and intentions to lead. It narrows the pool of potential leaders and risks promoting those who may lack the necessary qualities to drive progress simply because they are fluent in the local dialect.

In as much as it is challenging but not impractical to expect a leader that was raised in the Diaspora to be fluent in his or her local languages, it is germane to opine that what truly matters is the ability to understand the diverse needs of the people and to communicate effectively in ways that resonate with all, regardless of language.

This issue resonates even more deeply for those in the Diaspora. The fact cannot be ruled out that many Nigerians are married to spouses from other ethnic groups across the country. As a result, it is often difficult for their children to learn and speak our native dialects fluently. Should these children, who may one day return to contribute to their various states of origin, be disqualified from leadership opportunities simply because they do not speak the language of their ancestors? The answer, clearly, is no.

Therefore, electing a leader based on their ability to speak a native dialect rather than their capacity to govern effectively is a disservice to the electorate. It is essential to evaluate candidates on their policies, vision, integrity, and ability to deliver on their promises.

As Nigeria continues to evolve, it is crucial that the electorate moves beyond parochial considerations and embraces a more holistic approach to leadership selection. The future of governance in Nigeria depends on choosing leaders who can bring about meaningful change, not just those who can speak the local language.

In fact, while cultural identity and language are important, they should not overshadow the qualities that truly define good leadership. As the cases of Asue Ighodalo and Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour illustrate, leadership is about vision, competence, and the ability to serve the people, not merely the ability to speak their language. For those of us in the Diaspora, where linguistic diversity within our own families is a reality, this understanding is even more pertinent. Let us vote for leaders who can lead us to a better future, regardless of the language they speak.