Published in 1983, The Trouble with Nigeria constitutes Chinua Achebe’s most direct and uncompromising political intervention. Written after the Nigerian Civil War, prolonged military rule, and the collapse of the Second Republic, the book advances a singular and provocative claim: Nigeria’s persistent crises arise fundamentally from leadership failure. Achebe explicitly rejects cultural determinism, ethnic fatalism, and geography as sufficient explanations. While acknowledging the distortions introduced by colonialism, he insists that Nigeria’s ruling elites exercised moral agency and repeatedly chose expediency over responsibility.
EXPLORE NOW: Biographies & Cultural Icons of Nigeria
Achebe’s argument is intentionally moral rather than institutional. He does not propose constitutional redesigns or technocratic reforms. Instead, he frames Nigeria’s predicament as an ethical collapse sustained by both leaders and followers. This stance places the book outside conventional political science and closer to civic moral philosophy, a positioning that made its judgments unsettling, particularly where Achebe interrogates revered nationalist figures.
Achebe’s Conception of Leadership
Achebe defines leadership as a moral vocation grounded in discipline, integrity, and commitment to the collective good. Intelligence, charisma, or ideological sophistication are, in his view, meaningless without ethical restraint. Leadership failure, therefore, is not ignorance but abdication.
He situates Nigeria’s foundational failure in the late colonial and early independence era, when political competition crystallised around ethnic and regional identities rather than national purpose. Achebe does not deny the structural pressures of colonial rule, but he insists that Nigerian leaders possessed sufficient autonomy to act differently. Their failure was moral before it was political.
Obafemi Awolowo: Ideological Discipline and Moral Ambiguity
Achebe’s treatment of Obafemi Awolowo is among the most controversial in the book. He acknowledges Awolowo’s intellectual rigour, organisational discipline, and policy coherence, particularly in the Western Region’s education and welfare programmes. Achebe recognises these achievements as unmatched in the First Republic.
However, Achebe’s critique is sharper than mere disappointment. He argues that Awolowo’s increasing reliance on ethnic mobilisation, particularly through the Action Group’s regional consolidation, contributed significantly to the normalisation of ethnicity as the primary currency of Nigerian politics. For Achebe, this was not an unavoidable tactic but a moral failure to imagine a genuinely national politics.
Achebe addresses Awolowo’s 1963 conviction cautiously but symbolically. He does not adjudicate the legal merits of the case, nor does he claim definitive personal guilt. Instead, he treats the episode as morally corrosive in its public impact. The conviction, regardless of its political context, undermined the credibility of ideological purity and reinforced public cynicism about leadership integrity.
Nnamdi Azikiwe: Nationalism, Ambition, and Ethical Inconsistency
Achebe’s critique of Nnamdi Azikiwe is more direct. He recognises Azikiwe’s foundational role in Nigerian nationalism, journalism, and political mobilisation. Azikiwe’s contribution to awakening political consciousness is not disputed.
Nevertheless, Achebe argues that Azikiwe’s political career was marked by inconsistency and excessive concern with personal prominence. He highlights Azikiwe’s transition from Lagos-based national politics to dominance in Eastern Region leadership as ethically troubling, not procedurally illegitimate. Achebe interprets Azikiwe’s use of media influence and political alliances as indicative of opportunism rather than principled conviction.
Importantly, Achebe does not present Azikiwe as uniquely culpable but as emblematic of a political culture in which loyalty to personalities displaced competence and ethical accountability. His critique focuses on tone and example rather than legality.
The Civil War and Moral Ambivalence
Achebe’s discussion of the Nigerian Civil War is notably restrained. He comments on Azikiwe’s shifting public positions but avoids definitive moral judgments. Achebe acknowledges the extraordinary pressures of wartime politics and does not accuse Azikiwe of betrayal in a legal or treasonous sense.
Instead, he raises a broader ethical question: whether national leaders, particularly elder statesmen, provided sufficient moral clarity during moments of existential crisis. His critique remains interpretive and deliberately unresolved.
Aminu Kano as Ethical Contrast
Achebe presents Aminu Kano as evidence that alternative political ethics existed within Nigeria’s founding generation. Aminu Kano’s identification with the poor, rejection of aristocratic privilege, and ideological consistency distinguish him from dominant political elites.
Achebe does not claim that Aminu Kano possessed superior political effectiveness. Rather, he values his moral clarity and commitment as proof that Nigeria’s failure was not inevitable. Ethical leadership was possible but marginalised.
Shehu Shagari and the Limits of Personal Virtue
Achebe’s assessment of Shehu Shagari is measured and restrained. He acknowledges Shagari’s personal honesty and modest lifestyle but criticises his inability to confront systemic corruption during the Second Republic. For Achebe, Shagari exemplifies a recurring Nigerian dilemma: personal decency without moral authority or institutional courage is insufficient for governance.
Legacy and Contemporary Relevance
Achebe concludes that Nigeria’s contemporary governance challenges are rooted in habits established at independence. Ethnic mobilisation, patronage, and moral evasiveness persist because they were never decisively repudiated. While Achebe acknowledges emerging civic consciousness, he remains sceptical that reform is possible without ethical renewal.
The Trouble with Nigeria is not a historical indictment but a moral reckoning. By subjecting nationalist icons to ethical scrutiny, Achebe challenges the culture of hero worship that insulates leaders from accountability. His argument insists that nations are shaped by choices rather than myths, and that moral responsibility remains central to political life.
READ MORE: Ancient & Pre-Colonial Nigeria
Author’s Note
This article re-examines Chinua Achebe’s political thought as a moral framework rather than partisan critique. Achebe’s enduring challenge lies not in condemning the past, but in demanding ethical seriousness from citizens and leaders alike—a challenge that remains unresolved.
References
Achebe, C. (1983). The Trouble with Nigeria. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers.
Coleman, J. S. (1958). Nigeria: Background to Nationalism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sklar, R. L. (1963). Nigerian Political Parties: Power in an Emergent African Nation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
