(Opinion) What is it about 100 days in office?

Tayo Ogunbiyi

The concept of democracy has received varying definitions and interpretations from scholars and political observers depending on the ideological leaning or interest of the contending scholars. Being a political ideology that firmly has its root in the United States of America, certain American political traditions and tendencies have understandably crept into other democracies of the world. One of such is the concept of a first 100 days in office which is an offshoot of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s presidency in the United States of America.

Popularly referred to as FDR, Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States had the unenviable task of piloting the affairs of his country during the Great Depression when nearly a quarter of the nation’s banks had failed and unemployment rate was at 25 percent.

The 100 days expression was first invented in a July 24, 1933, radio broadcast by President Roosevelt.

Even though he was actually talking about the 100 day session of the 73rd United States Congress that was held between March 9 and June 17, rather than the first 100 days of his administration, Roosevelt had inadvertently given rise to what is to become a global political tradition that would outlive him and his government.

Over time, across most democratic climes, presidents, governors and other elected public officials have been judged against that useful, if somewhat illogical, standard. Today, it is a tradition that is applied to practically all levels of governance as it is being used by the public, the media and scholars to measure success or failure.

While famous American writer and author, Kenneth T. Walsh, believes that 100 days should not be the ideal yardstick to establish the success or otherwise of a leader or government, he still regards it as a functional device for measuring effectiveness. Kenneth Walsh opines that democratically elected public officials could be quite efficient when they newly assume office. This is because their leadership style seems to be new and the air of victory is still charging. Thus, their impact on the public is usually at its height during this period. But as soon as a leader or government settles down to face the stark reality of the complexities of public governance, the initial aura gradually mettles down to give way to a more realistic and pragmatic approach to governance. Consequently, Walsh submits that there should be nothing magical or unusually significant about 100 days.

In spite of Kenneth Walsh’s stand on the subject, the first 100 days of any elected public official could represent a significant milestone. This is because it is the foundational period when solid socio-political and economic framework upon which the future destiny of the people hanged is put in place. What happens during this period is akin to what a builder does preparatory to the construction of a structure. Any slip at this stage could spell doom for the building.

Therefore, for any visionary leader who wants leave an indelible mark in the sands of time, the first 100 days in office are not only significant, but could be quite epochal The first 100 days certainly sets the tone and course for any new government. Every journey starts with a single step, and every presidency begins with the first 100 days. It offers every new leader a unique moment and, perhaps, most excellent opportunity to redefine governance according to his own agenda and

vision.

It should however, been stressed that success in the first 100 days does not really translate into an enduring success afterward. In same vein, initial difficulties do not, in any way, signify that a presidency or government is doomed to failure. It is neither here nor there, depending on the dynamics of the times and the personality of the man in charge. In the political annals of Nigeria, examples clearly abound to reinforce this perspective.

The military administration of General Ibrahim Babangida, which came into office in August 1985, clearly stands out as one that enjoyed early momentum but couldn’t actually translate it into a lasting phenomenon. Within its first 100 days in office, the administration came out with well defined political and economic blueprints that were well applauded by a cross section of Nigerians.

Ironically, by the time the administration was stampeded out of office in 1993, it has become deficit in integrity and popularity. Today, many are still of the view, correctly or erroneously, that the foundation for the social, economic and political ills of the contemporary Nigerian nation was laid by the IBB administration. The national economy was almost in shambles as General Babangida himself confessed that it was a miracle that the economy had not totally collapsed by the time he was leaving office. On the political front, the well crafted and initially applauded political programme of the administration did not fare any better. Rather than providing light for the country, the Babangida political programme effectively threw the nation into gloomy darkness.

On the contrary, upon return to civil rule in May1999, the Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration was roundly attacked for being allegedly slow in tending to critical issues of governance. Lagos roads were reportedly filled with loads of waste that made them nearly impassable. Security situation was almost at low ebb with men of the Odua Peoples’ Congress (OPC), armed robbers and various transport unions constituting themselves into huge security threats.

However, by the time the administration eventually got its act together, it became a reference point of governance in contemporary Lagos. Agencies such as Lagos State Advertising Agency, LASAA, Lagos State Traffic Management Agency, LASTMA, Lagbus Asset Management, LAGBUS, Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Agency, LAMATA, Kick Against Indiscipline, KAI, Office of Public Defender, among others, are some of the enduring legacies of the administration. It was the administration that began the systematic fixing of the state’s infrastructure. Roads were rehabilitated and expanded, drainages and carnal were cleared. Perhaps, more importantly, the Tinubu administration put the state on the trail of economic independence as it shoved up the monthly revenue base of the state from a meagre N600 million to over N10 billion.

The on-going controversy over President Muhammadu Buhari’s 100 days in office is, therefore, a needless one. The President was voted into office to direct the affairs of the country for four years. What he did or did not do in 100 days could not be effectively used to situate his government. It is only after his four –year contract with Nigerians has expired that his score card could be efficiently scrutinized. Then, his political destiny, as well as that of his political party, would be determined on the basis of his performance through the same process that ushered him in.

Ogunbiyi writes from Alausa, Ikeja.