Beyond Sentiments: Choosing Leaders for Who They Are, Not for What They Give Us
By Herberts N.B Bandawa.
I looked at two scenarios while reflecting on what to write today: the political movements in Taraba State and the ongoing leadership conversations within the United Methodist Church in Nigeria (UMCN).
Although these are two very different spaces, I see a striking similarity in the way we sometimes choose and defend leaders.
Too often, our judgment of leadership is influenced more by personal benefits, relationships, emotions, and loyalties than by credibility, character, competence, and capacity.
Someone gets a job from a politician, receives financial assistance, benefits from an empowerment programme, or gets support during a significant family occasion. and suddenly, that person becomes the unquestionable choice for leadership.
But I think we need to pause and ask ourselves an honest question:
If everything you personally received from this person were taken away, would you still consider that person worthy of leadership?
Remove the family relationship.
Remove the financial assistance.
Remove the appointment.
Remove the personal favour.
Remove the friendship.
Remove the expectation of future benefits.
Then ask yourself: What remains?
What is the person's character?
What is the person's record?
What is the person's vision?
What has the person demonstrated over time?
What values does the person represent?
And, most importantly, would I still choose this person if I had nothing personal to gain?
That is where genuine judgment begins.
Leadership Must Be Bigger Than Personal Benefit
A credible leader should not become credible simply because he or she has been good to you personally.
A person can be generous and still lack the qualities required to lead. A person can help you financially and still make poor decisions for the larger society. A person can be your relative, friend, employer, benefactor, or even someone you deeply admire, and still not necessarily be the right person for a particular leadership responsibility.
True leadership should survive the removal of personal attachments.
A good leader is someone whose qualities remain visible even when there is nothing to gain from supporting them.
It is someone you can admire from a distance.
It is someone whose record speaks even when you are not a beneficiary.
It is someone whose character you can defend based on evidence, not merely because of what you have received.
We should therefore be careful when our personal experiences become the only measure of a leader's performance.
The Politics of Personal Loyalty
In Taraba State, we have seen how political support can sometimes become deeply personal.
When you see people passionately supporting particular political figures, it is not always difficult to predict the nature of the conversations that will follow. The same applies across different political camps.
Supporters often defend their preferred candidates because of what they have experienced personally, the opportunities they have received, the relationships they share, or the expectations they have for the future.
But politics should be bigger than personal transactions.
A leader's responsibility is not only to those who received appointments, contracts, financial support, or empowerment. Leadership is ultimately about the larger population—including those who never met the leader, never received anything from the leader, and may never have the opportunity to do so.
So, when evaluating a political candidate, perhaps we should ask:
If I were not a beneficiary of this person's government or generosity, would I still consider this person competent enough to lead?
That question can change the way we think.
The Church Is Not Exempt From Human Sentiments
The same principle applies to leadership within the Church.
In the conversations surrounding leadership in the UMCN, I have observed different groups expressing strong convictions about different candidates.
Some people strongly support Rev. Philip Micah Dopah because they have experienced his generosity or assistance. For them, those experiences have become powerful evidence of his suitability.
Others strongly identify with Rev. Abainatus Akila Hamman, particularly among young people who see him as someone who represents their generation and interests. Some argue that because Bishop Ande was a youth-oriented leader, another young leader should also be given an opportunity.
But we must ask:
Is God's call to leadership determined by age or generational identity?
Likewise, some elders appear to support particular candidates because of disagreements or reservations they may have about another candidate.
And then there is Rev. Dr. Eunice—a woman with years of service and experience in the work of God. Yet, instead of allowing her record, spiritual journey, leadership capacity, character, and commitment to the Gospel to form the basis of evaluation, conversations can sometimes shift toward personal and marital matters or the extent of her relationships within the wider global Church.
Again, we must ask ourselves:
What exactly is the yardstick?
Is it personal connection?
Is it financial generosity?
Is it age?
Is it gender?
Is it friendship?
Is it who has the strongest network?
Is it who has the most vocal supporters?
Or is it character, calling, competence, integrity, vision, spiritual maturity, service, and the ability to lead God's people faithfully?
Where Is Our Faith in the Process?
This is where the Church must be especially careful.
If we have prayed, fasted, and asked God to guide the process, why do we sometimes behave as though the outcome must conform to our personal preference?
We cannot claim to have surrendered the process to God while simultaneously trying to manipulate the outcome through our emotions, relationships, alliances, and personal interests.
There is nothing wrong with having a preferred candidate.
There is nothing wrong with appreciating someone's kindness.
There is nothing wrong with identifying with a particular generation or leadership philosophy.
But there is something dangerous when our attachment becomes so strong that we can no longer objectively evaluate the person we support.
Faith should not eliminate discernment. It should deepen it.
We should be able to say:
"I like this person, but I will still examine the person honestly."
"This person has helped me, but I will not allow that help to determine my judgment."
"This person is my friend, but I will not confuse friendship with leadership qualification."
"This person belongs to my generation, but I will still ask whether the person has the spiritual and leadership capacity required."
That is maturity.
Let Us Remove the Attachments
At the end of the day, the responsibility is still in our hands.
Before supporting any candidate, remove the emotional attachment.
Remove the family connection.
Remove the financial benefit.
Remove the friendship.
Remove the expectation of future favour.
Remove the political camp.
Remove the generational identity.
Remove the personal disagreement with the opponent.
Then look at the candidate again.
What do you see?
If, after removing all those attachments, the person still possesses the character, competence, integrity, vision, experience, and capacity required for the position, then your support has a stronger foundation.
But if everything supporting your preference disappears once the personal benefit is removed, perhaps it is time to reconsider what is truly influencing your judgment.
I have seen people rise, and I have seen people fall.
I have seen admiration become disappointment and opposition become appreciation.
That is why we must never make permanent judgments based solely on temporary experiences.
Leadership is bigger than us.
Politics is bigger than our personal interests.
And the Church is certainly bigger than individual loyalties.
Let us choose leaders for what they truly represent—not merely for what they have done for us.
Let us judge with wisdom.
Let us evaluate with fairness.
Let us separate personal relationships from public responsibility.
And where we claim to have entrusted the process to God, let us have enough faith to allow Him to lead beyond our personal preferences.
The goal is still in our hands.
Remove the attachments. Examine the candidate. Evaluate the record. Test the character. Consider the capacity. Then allow truth - not sentiment - to guide your judgment.
That is where credible leadership begins.
Selar.
I'm LAPACY.
Herbertnaphtalibel@gmail.com