THE ILLUSION OF A SINGLE TERM: Governance, Time And the Pursuit of Transformation

Former Governor Nasir El-Rufai’s assertion that “four years is not enough to make meaningful impacts and changes in government” resonates deeply with the realities of governance, policy implementation, and socio-economic reform. His experience as Governor of Kaduna State (2015–2023) underscores a critical truth: one term is rarely sufficient to confront entrenched problems, deliver sustainable development, and leave behind a lasting legacy. This perspective challenges the seductive but impractical notion that a single four-year tenure can produce transformative governance.

The Time Constraint in Governance

Governance is a complex and time-consuming process. A new administration spends its early months navigating a steep learning curve, assembling a competent team, understanding bureaucratic structures, and drafting a strategic plan. This foundational phase, though necessary, consumes valuable time before meaningful policy implementation begins.

Major developmental projects further illustrate this constraint. Infrastructure such as highways, bridges, power plants, or urban renewal schemes require feasibility studies, financing arrangements, and extended construction timelines. Rarely can such initiatives be conceived and completed within four years. As a result, a governor who embarks on ambitious projects may find them truncated at the end of their term, subject to abandonment or reversal by a successor with a different vision.

The political cycle compounds this dilemma. In practice, the first half of a term is spent formulating and launching policies, while the latter half is often consumed by the distractions of re-election campaigns. This shift of focus from governance to politics reduces the time available for sustained reform. Without continuity into a second term, many well-intentioned reforms risk stagnation or reversal.

The Deceptive Appeal of the Single-Term Promise

In Nigeria’s political space, the slogan “I will serve only one term” is often presented as a badge of selflessness, a commitment to serve without clinging to power. This is often a “deceptive slogan to mislead voters.” While it may appear noble, the promise of a single term is usually more of a political tactic than a genuine governance philosophy.

For one, such pledges are strategic tools to differentiate candidates from career politicians and to win over electorates weary of recycled leadership. A leader may calculate that strong performance in a first term will spark public clamour for a second, thereby providing political cover to abandon the pledge. In this sense, the promise is less a covenant and more a calculated gamble.

More dangerously, leaders who genuinely commit to a single term risk prioritizing quick, populist projects that create the illusion of progress but do little to resolve structural issues. This “firefighting” style of governance may yield ribbon-cutting ceremonies and photo opportunities but it fails to address long-term challenges like education reform, healthcare overhaul, or economic diversification. Real reform demands patience, consistency, and political longevity.

El-Rufai’s critique thus exposes a deeper weakness in political rhetoric: pledges of brevity often underestimate the time needed to achieve meaningful change. Worse still, when leaders renege on such promises, citing “popular demand” or unforeseen challenges, they undermine public trust in an already fragile political culture.

Why Continuity Matters

The argument for two terms is rooted in logic rather than ambition. The first term is typically a period of experimentation and foundation-laying, while the second offers a chance to consolidate, refine, and scale. Freed from the distraction of another re-election battle, a second-term leader is often better positioned to pursue long-term reforms with confidence.

Continuity allows for stability and policy maturation. It ensures that ambitious projects are not only initiated but also completed. It enables reforms in complex sectors like education, healthcare, and infrastructure to move beyond pilot phases into full implementation. Above all, it shields governance from the instability of policy reversals and the stop-start cycle that plagues States where leadership changes too frequently.

Conclusion

The metaphor of governance as a marathon rather than a sprint is apt. A single four-year term may satisfy political slogans but it is inadequate for the sustained effort required to confront systemic challenges and deliver enduring progress. The promise of a single term, far from being a virtue, risks creating superficial legacies while leaving deep-rooted problems unresolved.

El-Rufai’s reflections remind us that true transformation demands time, patience, and continuity. A leader committed to meaningful change must view governance as a long road, one that cannot be meaningfully travelled in just four years. In the practical realities of modern governance, two terms are not a luxury but a necessity for genuine progress.