Introduction: The Hidden Choice Every Presidency Makes
In our last post, we explored System 3 of the Nigerian Presidency as the internal control centre responsible for creating coherence across government operations. But coherence is only possible once you decide what you’re trying to cohere.
Every presidency faces an often-unspoken but decisive design choice: How will we structure our operational units (System 1) to deliver on our promises?
Most governments default to the inherited architecture of ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs). But that is only one of several possible organising logics, each with its own strengths, weaknesses, and political implications.
Here, we outline four distinct ways the Tinubu Presidency could organise its System 1 for delivery.
Four Competing Logics for Organising System 1
Option 1 - The Familiar Path: MDA-Based Delivery
♦ Logic: Work through the existing ministries, departments, and agencies.
♦ Pros: Familiar, politically safe, immediate implementation.
♦ Cons: Fragmentation, silos, duplication of effort, weak cross-sector integration.
♦ Example: Ministry of Works builds roads, Ministry of Power handles electricity, but no integrated “infrastructure system” linking both.
Option 2 - The Structural Path: Beckford’s Fundamental vs. Social Infrastructure
♦ Logic: Reorganise around two spheres from John Beckford’s Intelligent Nation model: (i) Fundamental Infrastructure (includes Energy, Water, Waste, Transport, ICT, Agriculture, Environment) and (ii) Social Infrastructure (consisting of Education, Health, Commerce, Housing, Public Administration, Defence, Justice, Tourism).
♦ Pros: Links delivery to systemic viability; focuses on foundational capacities.
♦ Cons: Requires structural overhaul; bureaucratic and political pushback likely.
♦ Example: Linking roads, ports, and energy into a single “national capability platform.”
Option 3 - The Promise Path: Pure VSM-by-Promise
♦ Logic: Treat each electoral promise as its own viable system, with dedicated Systems 1–5.
♦ Pros: Outcomes-driven, cross-cutting, agile.
♦ Cons: Complex to coordinate; demands strong System 2 and 3; risks conflict with MDA turf.
♦ Example: “1 million digital jobs” as a System 1 composed of Education, Youth, ICT, Labour, and private sector actors.
Option 4 - The Catalytic Path: Promise Model (Intelligent Nation Model) Overlaid with Developmental Economics
♦ Logic: Prioritise promises based on catalytic impact, using developmental economics insights (e.g., Hirschman’s linkage effects, unbalanced growth strategy).
♦ Pros: Maximises leverage; integrates economic theory with delivery.
♦ Cons: Politically hard - prioritisation means deferring some promises.
♦ Example: Choosing power-sector reform before agriculture expansion because energy enables multiple other sectors.
Why Governance Is a Wicked Problem
Governance is inherently complex i.e. a wicked problem. It is not wicked because it is malicious, but because it is systemic, interconnected, and resistant to simple solutions. The challenge of System 1 design reveals this vividly. Furthermore, whichever organising logic is adopted will have to engage with structural, market and social realities the presidency can't fully control.
Fragmented Economic Reality
Nigeria is a mixed economy, with services delivered by both public and private actors. This uneven reality makes recursion inconsistent:
♦ In sectors where the government delivers services, System 1 includes full recursion i.e. Systems 2, 3, 4, and 5.
♦ In sectors where the government regulates, recursion is partial, typically Systems 2, 3, and 4.
No single organising logic fits all domains. A structure that works for public hospitals cannot govern fintech regulation or private power generation. Governance, therefore, operates across multiple systemic layers with different rules of viability.
Cross-Cutting Promises in a Fragmented System
Many flagship Renewed Hope Agenda promises cut across sectors:
♦ Job creation for youth and women.
♦ National infrastructure fund implementation.
♦ Food security.
♦ Digital economy expansion.
Delivering these requires stitching together ministries, regulators, and private partners that were never designed to work as one. Even with clear presidential vision, execution depends on coordination among semi-autonomous institutions, each with its own mandates, incentives, and rhythms.
Four Logics in Collision
The presidency faces the collision of four competing organising logics:
♦ Structural inertia (the MDA model).
♦ Systemic viability (Beckford’s framework).
♦ Outcome-driven agility (VSM-by-promise model).
♦ Developmental prioritisation (Hirschman’s linkage strategy).
Each offers partial coherence but none can capture the full complexity. The result is constant tension between reform ambition, political feasibility, and operational bandwidth.
The Deeper Problem: No Cohesive View of the Whole
At its root, governance struggles because there is no unifying view, no mechanism that continuously integrates these perspectives into one evolving picture. This absence of a cohesive frame is what makes governance not just administratively difficult, but conceptually wicked. It explains why reforms rarely outlive their architects and why national plans often collapse under their own contradictions.
Conclusion: Making the Choice Explicit
The presidency must declare which organising logic it is adopting. This choice determines how power, accountability, and learning are structured. It is the foundation upon which coherence (System 3), intelligence (System 4), and purpose (System 5) will rest.
Without an explicit choice, governance becomes a drifting equilibrium, reactive rather than strategic.
In the next post, we will explore System 4, the part of the Viable System Model that gives the presidency the cohesive and coherent view it needs to navigate these wicked problems and adapt in real time.
