Importancia de la Inteligencia Emocional

corruption. But how such claimed achievements in the fight against corruption contribute to the Nigerian corruption perception index within the period in question?

National Corruption Control Outcomes: To ascertain the actual contribution of the past Presidents to corruption control, the researcher had to rely on the following indicators as seen in the Transparency International (2016). They are: quality of budgetary and financial management rating; transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating; corruption perception index; and corruption perception country-ranking (see Appendix B, Table viii).

Figure 11: Correspondence between National Corruption Control Rhetorics (Promises/Claims) and Outcome (Reality)

The data in figure 14 explains the extent to which Nigerian past Presidents contributed to the reduction or otherwise of corruption in Nigeria and the extent to which their rhetorics on

administrations recorded a very low contribution to the growth of corruption (0.25, 0.32, and -0.54 WADA scores respectively) in the country. In a nutshell, none of the Presidents reached the development contribution benchmark of 2.5 in corruption control, as such, it is safe to conclude that none of them kept to his promises of controlling corruption and neither were they truthful in their claims to have contributed significantly to corruption control within the period under study.

Relating this finding with Nigeria’s experience, it is surprising that President Jonathan should have the highest development contribution score in terms of corruption control looking at the huge sum of money that Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) and other financial crime commissions had so far recovered and are still recovering from a few individuals who served under President Jonathan’s 2011-2015 administration and the fact that he was the first and only sitting President to be voted out of office for his perceived inability to tame the rising tide of corruption in his government among other political factors. Meanwhile, others who had records of open confrontation and fight against corruption were on the negative spiral. For instance, with all the campaign by President Obasanjo against corruption throughout his two tenure and the establishment of the EFCC among other agencies and legislations to fight corruption, he only contribute to the growth of corruption (-0.54 and -0.25 WADA scores for the 1999-2003 and 2003-2007 administrations respectively). Again, President Yar’Adua/Jonathan who put up similar fight against corruption from 2007-2011 also recorded a low contribution to the growth of corruption (-0.32 WADA score) in Nigeria.

These contradictions may not be far from the public attention that is usually drawn to corruption when there is an open war declared against it as against when the sitting President appears to be silent on corruption related cases that goes undercover like President Jonathan’s administration.

It means corruption perception and ranking goes negative as the idea receives more attention and is assumed to be minimal when people in authority talk little about it even when it is glaring that corruption is highly prevalent.

Historical Analysis of Nigerian Presidential Rhetorics on Infrastructure and Development (1999-2015)

National Infrastructural Development Objectives: Infrastructural development also commanded some level of attentions in all the five Inaugural speeches studied. For instance, President Obasanjo who vowed in his Inaugural speech in 1999 to improve on water supply, energy, telecommunication, ports, roads, housing, airways, national shipping, Nigerian railways, etc.;

also said in his 2003 Inaugural speech that he ‘intend to construct more roads and maintain old ones, to improve transportation and ease movement of goods throughout the country’; ‘improve the quality of power supply and to expand output to at least 10,000 Megawatts’ to enhance the industrialization vision. Not satisfied with the level of infrastructural achievements of his predecessors, President Yar’Adua pledged in his 2007 Inaugural speech to concentrate on rebuilding the nation’s physical infrastructure like railroad to enhance mass transportation, and energy (power generation, transmission and distribution) in order to take the country forward.

President Jonathan also promised in his 2010 Inaugural speech to improve Nigerians’ access to electricity, water, education, health facilities and other social amenities. He further made similar pledge in his 2011 Inaugural speech to be committed to improving power generation, transmission and distribution to drive the industrialization vision; and creation of ‘efficient and affordable public transport system for all our people’. Suffice to say that the infrastructural development objectives enumerated above cut across most of the infrastructural needs of the country at the time.

National Infrastructural Development Outputs: In view of the above infrastructure development objectives, successive Nigerian President introduced different policies and programmes with the view to achieve their infrastructural development target. Key among them is the telecommunication reform of President Obasanjo’s first tenure; the 7 Points Agenda of President

Yar’Adua and the dredging of River Niger and Benue programme, different energy reforms;

President Jonathan’s Transformation Agenda, to mention but a few.

Financial provision for recurrent expenditure in infrastructure from 1999 to 2015 stood at N1439.5 billion only. However, President Yar’Adua/Jonathan’s 2007 to 2011 administration made more money (N641.01 billion, meaning 44.5%) available for recurrent expenditure in infrastructure (construction, transportation and communication), while President Obasanjo’s 1999 to 2003 tenure had the least (N125.62 billion, that is 8.7%) (see Appendix C i and ii).

Nevertheless, successive Presidents claimed to have recorded considerable results in national infrastructure development.

National Infrastructural Development Claims: To start with, President Obasanjo explained in his 2007 Handover speech that under his administration, ‘infrastructural facilities, like telephones, which were once regarded as the preserve of a privileged few, are now commonly accessible to all’, adding that Nigeria has prospered in Science and Technology within the period of his governance. ‘To address the glaring inadequacy of critical national infrastructure’ however, President Jonathan said in his 2015 Handover speech that his administration focused on ‘the Power Sector, Roads, Railways, Aviation, Ports and Harbours as well as on Water and Sanitation, Information and Communication Technology.’

National Infrastructural Development Outcomes: To ascertain the authenticity of the above claims however, the researcher relied on the following four indicators as proxies for infrastructure development. These are: Access to electricity, quality of port infrastructure, number of passengers carried by railways, and electric power transmission and distribution loses (see Appendix B, Table vii)

Figure 12: Correspondence between National Infrastructural Development Rhetorics (Promises/Claims) and Outcome (Reality)

Figure 12 contains data generated on the Presidents’ contributions to national infrastructural development and the extent to which their rhetorics on infrastructure development correspond with available independent data. The data show a somewhat very low contribution (0.13) from the four administrations within the period under review as none of them reached the 2.5 development contribution benchmark. While President Yar’Adua/Jonathan only promised to enhance the infrastructural state of the country and never claimed to have achieved the said objective in their Handover speech’s 2007-2011, the administration recorded low contribution to of 1.25 to national infrastructural development followed by President Obasanjo’s 1999-2003 very low contribution of 0.034 to national infrastructural development. Ironically, other Presidents like Jonathan (2011-2015) and President Obasanjo (2003-2007) who promised same in their Inaugural speeches and claimed to have done so in their Handover speeches recorded very low contributions of -0.72 and -0.034 to national infrastructural underdevelopment respectively. This means, the four administrations under study did not keep their promises towards national infrastructural development and also were not truthful on their claims to have contributed to the development of the nation’s infrastructures.

1999-2003, 0.0342003-2007, -0.034 2007-2011, 1.25

2011-2015, -0.72 Generaal, 0.13

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Infrastructural Development

Infrastructural Development

This finding is not surprising considering the level of infrastructural decay that is prevalent in almost all parts of the country. Over 16 years after the military handed power over to civilian elected government, Nigeria continue to suffer poor transportation network, inadequate power supply, and inadequate social facilities among others.

Figure 13: Correspondence between National Political Development Rhetorics (Promises/Claims) and Outcome (Reality)

The data in table 5 and figure 13 above shows the graph of the past Nigerian Presidents’ national