Stabilisation, Consolidation And Sustained Development: Why Continuity Matters

By Nonny P. Ugboma, PhD

As Nigeria marks Democracy Day this year and embarks on another campaign and election cycle, it is important to ask a fundamental question: how can the country achieve long-term national transformation without interrupting policy momentum? This question becomes even more important when viewed against the backdrop of Nigeria’s development aspirations and the recurring challenge of policy discontinuity that has characterised governance across multiple administrations. The reality is that development is cumulative. Nations do not become prosperous through isolated administrations, fragmented reforms, or constant policy reversals. Sustainable development requires continuity, knowledge acquired through consistent learning, and the discipline to stay the course.

Renowned institutional economist and author Ha-Joon Chang argues that countries that successfully developed into advanced economies did not achieve that transformation through isolated administrations or fragmented policy initiatives. Rather, their progress was driven by cumulative institutional development, strong industrial policy, and the long-term coordination of policies across successive governments.

Nigeria being the one of the largest economies on the African continent simply cannot afford to have government policies that are abridged because a new party or individual comes into power. It requires a system that enables leaders to be goal oriented, focused on the grand vision and not just the now. Policy continuity is therefore essential for achieving sustainable development and long-term economic transformation that can take the country to the heights it should own.

The Challenge of Personality-Centred Governance

One of the greatest challenges confronting Nigeria is the need to move from a personality-driven governance model to an institution-driven governance model. Too often, governance is viewed through a binary lens. Incoming office holders frequently feel compelled to distinguish themselves from their predecessors by discrediting previous administrations and abandoning inherited initiatives. In many instances, good policies and worthwhile projects are discarded simply because they were initiated by someone perceived as a political rival.

The desire to demonstrate that a new administration possesses superior ideas often leads to unnecessary disruption. Value-creating projects are halted, impactful programmes are abandoned, and successful initiatives are renamed, sometimes without acknowledging the contributions of those who conceived or implemented  them. In other cases, entirely new agencies, programmes, or structures are established to perform functions that existing institutions were already carrying out. Instead of strengthening those institutions, parallel ones are created.

The consequence is duplication, fragmentation, wasted resources, and weakened institutional capacity. Valuable institutional learning is also lost, and scarce public resources are diverted into recreating what already exists rather than building upon existing foundations and frameworks. I encountered this challenge firsthand during my time as Chief Executive of the MTN Foundation. Certain projects implemented through partnerships with schools, universities, hospitals, and government institutions became vulnerable whenever leadership changed. The new leaders would assume office and alter priorities despite existing agreements and commitments to sustain the projects.

What often followed was both unfortunate and avoidable. Maintenance budgets previously allocated to support projects were abandoned despite signed Memoranda of Understanding between the institutions and the donor organisation. Ultimately, this affected impact of projects over time. The phenomenon is not exclusive to the public sector. As a matter of fact, it occurs within private organisations whenever there is a “new sheriff in town.” A new chief executive, department head, or business leader arrives and immediately views everything associated with the predecessor with suspicion. Existing staff may feel pressured to distance themselves from previous leadership. Valuable initiatives are discarded not because they are ineffective, but because they originated under a different head. The result is often the same: unnecessary disruption, loss of institutional memory, and the abandonment of potentially valuable initiatives.

How the Four-Year Political Cycle Encourages Discontinuity

While discontinuity occurs in both the public and private sectors, it is particularly pronounced within government. One reason is the structure of the political cycle itself. In practice, a significant portion of a four-year tenure is consumed by politics rather than governance. Campaign activities, elections, tribunal proceedings, cabinet formation, political negotiations, and transition processes often reduce the effective period available for focused governance.

The result is pressure for short-term thinking. Leaders become increasingly focused on visible achievements and quick wins that can be showcased within a limited timeframe. Energy is directed towards projects capable of generating immediate headlines rather than long-term institutional reforms whose benefits may only become visible years later. Under such circumstances, programmes initiated by previous administrations (particularly those requiring long gestation periods) are often abandoned before their full value can be realised.

This concern is not new. In an article I published in June 2022 in the Alvin Report, titled Whose Democracy Is It Anyway? A Brief Apolitical Assessment of Democracy in Nigeria/Africa, I argued that Nigeria is too important to be subjected to a cycle of start- and-stop governance. The country requires a system that enables leaders to govern for the future by protecting developmental continuity rather than merely ruling for the present. Development requires patience, consistency, as well as the courage to continue worthwhile initiatives regardless of who initiated them.

The Cost of Policy Discontinuity

The consequences of policy reversals are far reaching beyond politics. As Nigeria pursues ambitious initiatives such as the Nigeria Agenda 2050, it becomes necessary to consider the risks associated with discontinuity. This is particularly important because Nigeria Agenda 2050 was designed as a long-term blueprint to transform Nigeria into an upper-middle-income economy. Such an aspiration cannot be achieved through fragmented implementation or policy reversals every electoral cycle.

The late Professor Adebayo Adedeji, one of Africa’s most respected economists and diplomats, consistently emphasised that Africa’s development requires coherent long- term planning frameworks supported by institutional discipline and continuity of implementation rather than fragmented policy experimentation.

His argument remains as relevant today as ever. The costs of discontinuity can be examined across several dimensions. First, there are economic costs. Projects are abandoned midway, public funds are wasted, investors become uncertain, and governments often replicate programmes that already exist instead of building upon them. Next, there are institutional costs. In this case, frequent policy reversals weaken public trust, create bureaucratic fatigue within the civil service, and even reduce morale among public servants responsible for implementation. Thirdly, there are societal costs. Citizens bear the burden of repeated adjustments arising from policy changes. Governments frequently alter direction before reforms have had sufficient time to generate meaningful benefits, leaving citizens to endure the costs without ever experiencing the gains.

There are also developmental costs. Long-term development is interrupted, public value creation is weakened, structural transformation is delayed, investor confidence is undermined, and national competitiveness suffers. From the first National Development Plan after independence to Vision 2020 and numerous other strategic frameworks, the country has produced ambitious development blueprints. Yet, many have fallen short of their objectives due largely to inconsistency in implementation across successive administrations.

As Ha-Joon Chang reminds us, sustained development requires long-term coordination of policies that allow institutional learning to occur. Development cannot

thrive within fragmented policy cycles. Countries learn by doing. Institutions improve through repetition, adaptation, feedback, and refinement. When policies are repeatedly interrupted, that learning process is interrupted as well.

The same principle applies to Nigeria’s recently launched industrial policy. Transforming the country from a consumption and import-dependent economy into a production and export-led economy cannot be achieved within a single political cycle. Industrial transformation requires consistency over decades. Successful industrial economies, particularly the developmental states of East and Southeast Asia, achieved transformation through institutional continuity that persisted across multiple political transitions. These countries did not abandon national priorities every few years. Rather, they built on previous gains, strengthened institutions, and stayed focused on long-term objectives. Strong governments worked collaboratively with the private sector to pursue clearly defined national development missions.

Peter Evans’s concept of embedded autonomy helps explain this success. Effective developmental states combine bureaucratic competence with long-term strategic continuity. Public institutions possess sufficient autonomy to pursue developmental objectives while remaining sufficiently embedded within society and the productive sectors to understand emerging realities and adapt accordingly. These conditions are difficult to sustain in highly politicised systems, yet they remain essential for meaningful transformation.

How Can Nigeria Mitigate Policy Reversal?

There are a range of possible approaches, but the following offer some food for thought. The first is to consider ways to institutionalise national development priorities perhaps by embedding them into our constitution. Long-term development plans should not merely exist as policy documents but part of medium to long term laws. This way, successive administrations are required to align their programmes with nationally agreed objectives.

Countries have adopted different approaches to achieve this. Ghana operates a model in which long-term development frameworks are supported through legal and constitutional arrangements. Successive governments are expected to align medium- term programmes with nationally agreed national development priorities. South Africa adopts an institutional oversight model through mechanisms such as the National Planning Commission and parliamentary oversight structures that monitor alignment with long-term developmental objectives. Nigeria can draw lessons from both approaches.

Another important consideration is the need for multi-partisan and cross-sectoral involvement in the design, implementation, and sustenance of long-term national development plans. Broad-based ownership increases the likelihood that such plans

will survive changes in political leadership and remain focused on national priorities rather than partisan interests.

Equally important is the role of the civil service. Nigeria requires a strong, professional, and dynamically capable civil service. For context, dynamic capabilities refer to the organisational abilities that enable institutions to sense changes in their environment, connect resources and stakeholders strategically, and shape new pathways for achieving societal goals.

There are dynamic capability inhibitors and enablers in every system. While inhibitors erode dynamic capabilities and, ultimately, the creation of public value over time, enablers facilitate their development, deployment, and sustainability. A strong, professional, and dynamically capable civil service is one with robust institutional memory systems and the capacity to sustain reforms across political transitions. Such institutions must also be sufficiently insulated from political interference, which can be an inhibitor often undermining continuity, weakening institutional learning, and constraining the capabilities required to drive long-term development.

Next, there is also a need for credible third-party institutions development partners, and civil society organisations, to support accountability and continuity through clearly articulated monitoring mechanisms. These may include implementation dashboards, continuity scorecards, and annual progress audits and reports that track progress against agreed national objectives.

Finally, governments must communicate effectively with citizens. Citizens must understand the direction of travel, the rationale behind key reforms, and the long-term benefits they are expected to deliver. Effective communication helps build public trust, sustains support for difficult but necessary reforms, and reduces the risk of misinformation or the politicisation of long-term development initiatives.

In conclusion, Nigeria’s transformation depends not only on the quality of its policies but also on the consistency with which those policies are implemented. Once again, development is cumulative. It does not occur through isolated projects, fragmented reforms, or changing policy directions every electoral cycle. It is built gradually through continuity of purpose, institutional learning, sustained implementation, and the consistent creation of public value. If Nigeria is to realise its long-term development frameworks, it must strengthen the institutions that preserve continuity across administrations.

Sustainable development requires continuity of purpose that transcends political ideologies, personalities, and electoral cycles. Ultimately, the nations that prosper are not those that constantly change direction, but those that build strong institutions, stay the course, and ensure that sustained progress is made in all the areas that truly matter.

– Dr Nonny Patricia Ugboma is a corporate leader, board director, and public value advisor with over 25 years of experience spanning finance, corporate social investment, and institutional development. She holds a PhD in Innovation and Public Policy from University College London’s Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP).