The underperformance of many elected officials in Nigeria, despite their promises and the high hopes placed on them, is a systemic issue rooted in a combination of factors that hinder effective governance.

It's rarely about a sudden loss of will, but rather a complex web of challenges and incentives that disincentivize good performance.

Here's a breakdown of the key reasons:

1. The Influence of Political Godfatherism and Patronage:

   • Puppets, Not Leaders: Many elected officials are not chosen by popular mandate or merit, but are rather "anointed" or sponsored by powerful "godfathers" or political elites. These godfathers invest heavily in their campaigns and, in return, expect their "godsons" to prioritize their interests (e.g., contracts, appointments, access to public funds) over the needs of the general populace. This reduces elected officials to mere puppets, unable to truly serve their constituents.

   • Recouping Investments: The enormous cost of elections in Nigeria (including nomination forms, campaign expenses, and alleged vote-buying) means that many elected officials enter office with massive debts or obligations to their sponsors. Their primary focus often shifts to recouping these "investments" through corrupt means, rather than delivering public goods and services.

   • Lack of Accountability to the Electorate: Since their ascendancy is often due to godfather influence rather than genuine electoral strength, elected officials may feel less accountable to the voters and more accountable to their political benefactors.

2. Weak and Compromised Institutions:

   • Lack of Checks and Balances: Institutions meant to provide checks and balances (legislature, judiciary, anti-corruption agencies, civil service) are often weak, politicized, or compromised. This allows elected officials to operate with minimal oversight and accountability, making it easy to underperform or engage in corruption without fear of consequences.

   • Ineffective Sanctions: The lack of consistent and impartial enforcement of laws means that corrupt or underperforming officials often escape justice, perpetuating a culture of impunity.

   • Bureaucratic Inefficiencies: A civil service often plagued by patronage, low morale, lack of capacity, and corruption can impede the implementation of even well-intentioned policies.

3. Policy Inconsistency and Discontinuity:

   • "My Policy" Syndrome: There's a prevalent culture where incoming administrations often abandon or significantly alter policies and projects initiated by their predecessors, regardless of their merit. This "out with the old, in with the new" approach leads to wasted resources, abandoned projects, and a lack of long-term strategic planning.

   • Lack of Institutional Memory: Frequent changes in political leadership often lead to the loss of institutional memory and expertise, hindering continuity and effective policy implementation.

   • Unpredictability: Policy inconsistency creates an unstable environment for investors (both local and foreign) and hinders sustainable development.

4. Corruption and Personal Enrichment:

   • Primary Motivation: For many, holding public office becomes a direct path to illicit wealth and personal enrichment rather than a platform for public service. This pervasive corruption diverts funds meant for development, leads to inflated contracts, and results in substandard or abandoned projects.

   • Systemic Corruption: Corruption is not just about individual acts but is deeply embedded in the system, making it difficult even for well-intentioned individuals to operate without encountering or being pressured into corrupt practices.

5. Lack of Capacity and Experience:

   • Competence vs. Popularity: Sometimes, individuals are elected based on popularity, ethnic/religious considerations, or wealth, rather than on their demonstrated competence, experience, or understanding of governance complexities.

   • Steep Learning Curve: Many elected officials enter office without a clear understanding of their roles, responsibilities, or the technical aspects of policy formulation and implementation.

6. Socio-Cultural Factors:

   • Pressure from Constituents: Elected officials often face immense pressure from family, ethnic groups, and constituents to provide direct financial assistance or jobs, rather than focusing on systemic changes and long-term development that would benefit a broader population. This "stomach infrastructure" mentality can drain resources and shift focus from governance to patronage.

   • Materialism: A societal emphasis on material wealth and conspicuous consumption can incentivize elected officials to prioritize personal accumulation over public good.

7. Security Challenges:

   • Distraction of Resources: Persistent insecurity (insurgency, banditry, kidnapping) in many parts of the country diverts significant financial and human resources towards security, often at the expense of development projects.

   • Disruption of Governance: Insecurity can prevent officials from physically accessing parts of their constituencies or implementing projects effectively, impacting their performance.

Addressing the underperformance of elected officials requires a multi-pronged approach that tackles political godfatherism, strengthens institutions, promotes transparency and accountability, prioritizes meritocracy, and reforms the electoral process to ensure that leaders are truly accountable to the electorate, not just their sponsors.