As Nigeria approaches another consequential season of political choices, the country may need to rethink not only the leaders it elects, but also the questions it asks those seeking public office.

For decades, political campaigns have largely revolved around promises. Candidates are asked what they will build, how many jobs they will create, which roads they will construct, how they will improve education and healthcare, and what they intend to do about insecurity, poverty and the economy.

These are legitimate questions. But Nigeria’s experience suggests that they are no longer sufficient.

The deeper question should be: What kind of governing system will this candidate leave behind?

A government can construct roads, commission hospitals, launch programmes and announce reforms. Yet if those achievements depend entirely on the personality, political will or personal intervention of one individual, their sustainability remains uncertain.

Good intentions do not automatically produce good governance. Even capable leaders can preside over weak institutions. Conversely, a strong leader may deliver impressive results while in office, only for those achievements to decline or disappear when that leader leaves.

The real measure of political leadership, therefore, should extend beyond what a person accomplishes while occupying power. It should include what that person does to strengthen the institutions, rules, processes and human capacity that continue functioning after the individual is gone.

This raises a more fundamental question for Nigerian democracy:

What will you build that can outlive you?

It is from this premise that the following ten questions are proposed—not as a finished national template, but as a framework for public debate, criticism, refinement and, potentially, broader adoption as Nigerians assess candidates for public office.

1. The Institutional Legacy Test

Which institutions within your responsibility will be demonstrably stronger when you leave office than when you entered, and how should citizens measure that improvement?

The first test should move beyond individual projects and examine institutional capacity.

A governor may construct roads. A minister may launch a programme. A president may introduce a reform. But what happens to the institutions responsible for maintaining those achievements?

Citizens should ask candidates to identify the specific institutions they intend to strengthen and explain how improvement will be measured.

Will public agencies become more efficient? Will regulatory bodies become more professional? Will public records become more reliable? Will service delivery improve? Will recruitment become more merit-based?

The objective is to determine whether a candidate understands that governance is not simply about what an officeholder personally does, but about the capacity of the state to continue delivering after the officeholder leaves.

2. The Sustainability Test

Which of your major reforms should still be working five years after you leave office, and what will you do to ensure they survive you?

Nigeria has experienced numerous government programmes that disappeared or were substantially altered when administrations changed.

Some initiatives fail because they were poorly designed. Others fail because they were too closely associated with a particular political leader.

A serious candidate should therefore be required to explain how major reforms will be institutionalised through legislation, regulations, professional systems, funding mechanisms, administrative procedures and institutional culture.

A reform that depends entirely on the continued presence of its creator may be a programme.

A reform embedded in institutions has a better chance of becoming policy.

3. The Self-Restraint Test

Which powers currently dependent on personal discretion will you convert into transparent, rules-based processes?

One of the most important questions in public administration is whether government can operate without excessive dependence on the personal approval of the political executive.

The familiar Nigerian phrase—“Oga must approve”—captures a deeper institutional problem.

When too many government decisions depend on the discretion of one individual, institutions become weaker and public officials become more interested in anticipating the wishes of political leaders than following established procedures.

A leader committed to institution-building should be willing to reduce unnecessary discretion and establish transparent processes that work regardless of who occupies the office.

This is not a limitation on leadership. It is a test of mature leadership.

4. The Independence Test

Which institutions will you strengthen sufficiently to investigate, audit, challenge or sanction your own government, associates and political allies when necessary?

It is relatively easy for a government to establish institutions that constrain its opponents.

The more difficult test is whether those institutions will be permitted to scrutinise the government itself.

A candidate should therefore be asked how they intend to strengthen audit institutions, oversight bodies, regulatory agencies, anti-corruption mechanisms, procurement systems and other accountability institutions.

Would these bodies be free to investigate a political ally?

Would an official close to the governor or president be treated differently from an ordinary public servant?

Would the government accept an adverse finding from an independent institution?

The answer to these questions provides a useful indication of whether a candidate sees institutions as instruments of governance or merely instruments of political control.

5. The Competence and Merit Test

How will you ensure that competence, rather than patronage, increasingly determines who enters, advances and leads within the public service?

No government can permanently outperform the quality of the machinery through which it governs.

A politically popular leader may have an ambitious agenda, but implementation ultimately depends on civil servants, regulators, administrators, professionals, technocrats and public institutions.

If recruitment and promotion are dominated by political loyalty, personal connections or patronage, the quality of governance will inevitably suffer.

Candidates should therefore explain how they intend to strengthen merit-based recruitment, professional development, performance management and institutional expertise.

Political appointments will always exist in a democracy. The question is whether political considerations will completely overwhelm professional competence.

A capable state requires capable people.

6. The Performance Test

What few measurable outcomes should citizens use to determine whether your government is actually succeeding?

Nigerian politics often measures activity rather than outcomes.

Governments announce projects. Committees are inaugurated. Meetings are held. Budgets are presented. Contracts are awarded. Press conferences are conducted.

But activity is not the same as performance.

Citizens should ask candidates to identify a limited number of measurable indicators by which their governments can be judged.

How many additional jobs?

How much improvement in learning outcomes?

How much reduction in maternal or infant mortality?

How much improvement in electricity access?

How much reduction in crime?

How much increase in internally generated revenue without excessive taxation?

How much improvement in public-service delivery?

The specific indicators will differ between levels of government, but the principle should remain the same: citizens should be able to measure outcomes rather than simply consume political narratives.

7. The Transparency Test

Which important government processes will you make sufficiently transparent that ordinary citizens can scrutinise them without privileged access?

Democracy becomes weaker when information about government remains the preserve of insiders.

Budgets, procurement processes, government expenditure, appointments, project locations, contract values and implementation status should increasingly become matters of public information.

Transparency is not simply about publishing documents. Information must also be accessible, understandable and useful to ordinary citizens.

A government that publishes thousands of pages of technical documents that nobody can reasonably interpret may technically disclose information without creating meaningful transparency.

Candidates should therefore be asked what information they will publish, how frequently they will publish it and how citizens will be able to interrogate government performance.

8. The Consequence Test

What happens when someone in your government breaks the rules—including someone who is politically important to you?

This may be one of the most revealing questions a candidate can face.

Rules become institutions only when consequences do not depend on the identity of the person who violated them.

A government that punishes opponents while protecting allies does not demonstrate institutional strength. It demonstrates selective enforcement.

Candidates should therefore explain what happens when ministers, commissioners, advisers, legislators, contractors, political associates or senior officials violate established rules.

Would the administration investigate?

Would due process apply?

Would sanctions follow where wrongdoing is established?

And would the same standard apply to the politically connected and the politically powerless?

The answer should reveal whether the candidate believes that political loyalty is superior to institutional accountability.

9. The Succession and Continuity Test

How will you ensure that government does not suffer institutional amnesia whenever leadership changes?

One of Nigeria’s recurring governance problems is discontinuity.

A new administration arrives and abandons projects, policies, databases, strategic plans and institutional practices associated with its predecessor—not necessarily because they failed, but because they belonged to someone else.

The result is a cycle of starting again.

A mature state should preserve institutional knowledge regardless of political transition.

Candidates should therefore explain how they will strengthen records management, professional civil services, institutional archives, policy documentation, monitoring systems and long-term development plans.

Political administrations should change.

The state should not have to forget everything each time political leadership changes.

10. The System Test

What safeguards will you build so that an average, incompetent or even self-interested successor cannot easily dismantle what works or inflict extraordinary damage?

This may be the ultimate institution-building question.

A country cannot design its political system around the assumption that every future leader will be exceptional.

The real test of a strong system is what happens when an ordinary leader takes power.

Can institutions constrain abuse?

Can independent bodies challenge executive overreach?

Can public finances be protected?

Can professional civil servants maintain continuity?

Can courts, legislatures, regulators, auditors and citizens exercise meaningful oversight?

A successful system should enable competent leaders to accomplish extraordinary good while limiting the capacity of incompetent or abusive leaders to cause extraordinary damage.

That is the essence of institutional resilience.

From Questions to a National Conversation

The value of these ten questions will ultimately depend less on who originated them than on whether Nigerians begin using them.

For citizens, particularly young Nigerians, the framework offers a way to look beyond charisma, campaign theatrics, ethnic and religious identity, political slogans and immediate promises.

The objective is not to discourage citizens from asking what candidates will deliver. Rather, it is to add a deeper layer to that conversation.

Do not merely ask what a candidate will build.

Ask who will maintain it.

Do not merely ask what reform will be introduced.

Ask how it will survive the next administration.

Do not merely ask whether a candidate is trustworthy.

Ask what institutions will prevent abuse if that trust turns out to be misplaced.

For the media, these questions could help transform political interviews and election debates.

Too often, candidates are permitted to repeat familiar talking points without being required to explain the institutional mechanisms behind their promises.

Imagine presidential and gubernatorial debates where candidates are asked not only what they intend to accomplish, but also which institutions will deliver those objectives, how success will be measured and what mechanisms will ensure continuity after they leave office.

That would shift political journalism from personality-driven questioning towards governance-driven interrogation.

For civil society organisations and professional bodies, the framework could form the basis of an independent Institution-Building Leadership Scorecard.

Candidates could be required to make specific commitments before elections. Those commitments could then be documented and independently assessed at regular intervals during their tenure.

This would create a bridge between campaign promises and measurable governance performance.

For political parties, the questions could become part of candidate evaluation.

Manifestos tell voters what a political party wants to achieve. Institutional questions can reveal whether its candidates understand how sustainable government is actually constructed.

For the organised private sector, the framework could broaden engagement with political candidates beyond immediate policy requests.

Business leaders should be interested not only in tax rates or individual incentives, but also in regulatory predictability, contract enforcement, institutional continuity, rule of law and the stability of economic reforms.

For traditional, community and faith leaders, the framework could provide another language for discussing political leadership.

Nigeria’s political conversations are often shaped by ethnicity, religion, geography, personality and patronage.

Those considerations will not disappear overnight.

But they should not be allowed to become the only criteria by which political leadership is evaluated.

For universities, think tanks and policy institutions, the ten questions could become the starting point for empirical research.

Researchers could test whether the questions are measurable, whether they accurately predict institutional performance, which indicators should carry the greatest weight and whether a credible scoring methodology can be developed.

The framework could eventually evolve into a 100-point Institution-Building Leadership Index, provided sufficient methodological rigour and institutional consensus can be achieved.

The Questions Must Also Be Questioned

This framework should not be treated as a finished product.

Its own principles require it to be subjected to scrutiny.

Are these really the ten most important questions?

Should institutional independence receive greater weight than transparency?

Can candidates provide meaningful answers to questions about succession and institutional resilience?

How should performance be measured across different levels of government?

What constitutes evidence of institutional improvement?

How can political parties, civil society organisations, academics and the media independently verify candidates’ claims?

Could the framework unintentionally favour technocratic approaches while underestimating political realities?

These questions matter because the purpose is not to create another political slogan.

The purpose is to develop a credible instrument for evaluating institutional leadership.

That requires evidence, methodology and sustained public scrutiny.

Beyond the Search for the “Perfect” Leader

Nigeria does not necessarily need to find a perfect politician.

That is an unrealistic standard.

What Nigeria needs is a political and institutional environment in which even imperfect leaders operate within systems capable of limiting abuse, preserving continuity and rewarding competence.

The central challenge is therefore bigger than individual character.

It is institutional design.

A country should not depend indefinitely on finding another exceptional individual whenever a capable leader leaves office.

If one governor transforms a state but everything collapses when he leaves, the deeper institutional problem remains unresolved.

If one president succeeds because of exceptional personal discipline but the system cannot reproduce those standards under another president, then the country has not fully institutionalised the achievement.

The strongest leaders should therefore be judged partly by whether they make their own exceptionalism less necessary.

That is the paradox of institution-building leadership.

The greater the institution, the less dependent it becomes on the personality of the person at the top.

The Ultimate Question

Nigeria’s politics has become increasingly sophisticated at determining who can win elections.

The country may now need to become equally sophisticated at determining who can build institutions after winning them.

Elections are important because they determine who receives public authority.

But elections alone do not guarantee good governance.

The quality of governance depends significantly on what happens after the ballots are counted: how institutions function, how public resources are managed, how rules are enforced, how officials are appointed, how information is shared and how power is constrained.

That is why Nigerians should not only ask candidates:

“What will you do for us?”

They should also ask:

“What will you build for us?”

And perhaps the most important question of all is this:

If Nigerians give you power today, what will you build that will make Nigeria less dependent on finding another person like you tomorrow?

That question moves the political conversation from personality to institutions, from promises to systems, from immediate achievements to enduring capacity.

It is not the final word on leadership.

It is an invitation to begin asking better questions.

And perhaps changing Nigeria’s leadership outcomes must begin, at least in part, with changing the questions we ask of those who seek the privilege of governing us.

Suleyman A. Ndanusa, PhD, OON, is an economist, lawyer, strategic studies scholar, and public policy thinker and practitioner with extensive experience in financial markets, regulation, governance, national security and development.