By Oreva Godwin
I studied Public Administration, and I still remember my first GSS class on philosophy and logic. That course changed something in me. I fell in love with philosophy. Greek methodology was my obsession, the way they broke down ideas, the way they tried to understand how the human mind works. I was totally fascinated. Idealism. Realism. Logic. These were not just theories to pass exams. They became tools for understanding power and leadership.
Later, we studied African philosophy and Western philosophy in depth. One thing shocked me: many ideas that people once rejected as unrealistic are now playing out in real life. What philosophers said centuries ago, are now coming to pass in our time. Time has a way of proving great thinkers right.
Among Western philosophers, the one I was most drawn to was Niccolò Machiavelli. His book The Prince carries a statement that many people still struggle with: it is safer for a ruler to be feared than to be loved.
Because of that statement, he was called evil. Manipulative. Wicked. A teacher of bad leadership. But I don’t see him that way. I see him as a realist. He looked at human beings the way they truly are, not the way we wished they were. He never said a ruler should be hated. In fact, he warned against hatred. What he said was simple: fear is more reliable than love. Love changes. Fear keeps people in line.
I once told a lecturer friend that Machiavelli was my favorite philosopher. He laughed and said my heart was too pure to admire someone like that. He said philosophers like Socrates and Plato suited me better. I laughed too. Not because I disliked Plato or Socrates, but because people think understanding power means you lack morality. That’s not entirely true.
Machiavelli wrote at a time when Italy was politically unstable. Cities were fighting. Leaders were betrayed. Power was fragile. If a ruler was weak, he could lose everything overnight. So when Machiavelli talked about fear, he was talking about stability. He was talking about control. He was talking about survival.
Some people think he meant leaders should treat citizens like slaves. That was not what he meant. He did not encourage cruelty. He simply said that people would respond to authority when there are clear consequences. There is a difference between oppression and discipline. There is a difference between being feared and being hated. Hatred causes rebellion. But fear, when it is backed by law and fairness, keeps order.
Now let’s look at Plato. In his book The Republic, Plato talked about the philosopher-king. He did not believe someone should rule just because they were born into royalty. He believed leadership should be based on wisdom and character. The person who understands truth and justice should lead.
Plato said that a true leader should not use power to make money. Leadership is not business. It is a duty. A ruler should live simply and focus on serving the state. Education was very important to him. A leader must be trained deeply, in thinking, reasoning, and understanding complex issues before making decisions that affect everyone.
In his postulation, a true leader should not have a family, family is a distraction, and the subjects are your children. Of course many people criticized this, claiming one can lead while having a family.
But Plato was not against family per say; he was against distractions. He argued that nothing should hold a leader back from making the tough decisions necessary for the good of the people.
“Plato’s ideals aren’t just ancient musings, they offer a blueprint for leadership today.” Think of it like this: politicians in Nigeria who favour relatives or allies over citizens are often compromised.
Plato’s point is clear, leadership demands loyalty to the people first. Personal ties must never cloud judgment or prevent hard decisions for the greater good.
Imagine our Nigerian leaders leading with wisdom, discipline, and character. Imagine leaders who do not see public office as an opportunity to get rich. Imagine leaders who are educated enough to understand the long-term consequences of their actions.
Now imagine leaders who also understand power. Not leaders who are controlled by the system. Not leaders who watch institutions destroy the country without consequences. Imagine a leadership where authority is respected because wrongdoing is punished.
This is where Machiavelli and Plato meet. Love is good. Morals are important. But leadership without authority becomes weak. On the other hand, authority without morals becomes tyranny. We need balance.
Human beings are mercantilists by nature. Yes, we are more concerned about self-interests by nature. We go where the benefit is. We support what favours us. Loyalty often follows advantage. This is not an insult; it is reality. When there are no consequences, people act carelessly. When leadership is weak, loyalty shifts easily.
Look at political defections. Today someone belongs to one party. Tomorrow they move to another. Why? Interest. Advantage. Survival. If leadership were firm and structured, would people move so easily without thinking of the consequences?
Yes, we have human rights. We have freedom of movement and association. But freedom without responsibility creates chaos. A system must have order.
When people talk about extending governance to sixteen years, four terms, we must ask: are we moving forward or backward? When one party becomes too dominant and we still call it democracy, are we being honest? When public officials openly embarrass the government they represent and nothing happens to them, what message are we sending?
This is what Machiavelli meant. Not wickedness. Not oppression. But consequences. When there is no fear of consequence, people misbehave. Systems decay. Authority becomes decoration.
Now imagine a country led by people who are both wise and firm. Leaders who think deeply like Plato described, but who also understand reality like Machiavelli did. Leaders who have conscience but are not weak. Leaders who are strong but not wicked.
On the 1st of March, I attended the Citizens’ Townhall Meeting on the Electoral Act 2026 in Abuja, and I must say, Nigeria has a very long way to go when it comes to transparency.
The rate of political apathy is steadily increasing because citizens feel their votes do not count. It’s one thing to register under INEC; it’s another thing entirely to come out and vote. Many Nigerians have voter cards but have never exercised their franchise. We need to get it right in Nigeria.
My generation needs to hear this clearly: our fathers have failed us in many ways. Education is not a scam. Political office is not a platform for revenge or oppression. It is a place to build. Yes, politics is a game of interests. But it should also be catalyst for change.
It is time for great minds to lead. Yes, the strong survive in this world. Yes, the Machiavellian mind understands power. But let the Platonic ideal guide our hearts. Let morality shape our intentions, even as we understand reality.
We do not need weak leaders. We do not need tyrants either. We need leaders who understand both fear and virtue.
Until we get that balance, we will continue to struggle, neither disciplined enough to be stable nor morally upright enough to be just.
*Oreva Godwin, The Southerner
REDEFINED
