Governance: How well does it account for "learning on the job"?

Governance: How well does it account for "learning on the job."?

In Governance, the stakes are just too high, and every action and inaction has its consequences. When you learn on the job, you're not fully aware of the direct consequences of your inactivity, but everyone else who depends on what your office is meant to do certainly feels it.That’s one of the reasons why elections in democratic settings are so important. Voters should do the job of sifting out candidates who don’t truly understand what the role entails.

To be the president of a country, you must actually know everything there is to know about that country, understand how it operates, and grasp the values on which it is built. For a country like Nigeria, the inability to meet this basic standard should immediately disqualify any candidate. However, this knowledge only comes through direct experience ; oral traditions, history reads, advisory roles, and assistance services cannot provide anything close to this level of understanding.

Any effective learning on the job must come from a place of realistic knowledge, not ignorance. 

For example, how can you create a cycle of production within a geographic location if you don’t fully understand that area? No one would establish a business in a region where they are unsure of the topography, culture, or environmental viability. These are the key factors that determine whether a production center will be set up locally or internationally. Previously, the country has relied on international refineries, and questions have often been raised about why local refineries have been neglected. While intellectual answers abound, realistically, it’s usually the leader who understands how the system works who knows why international refineries are favored.

This principle applies across all sectors. Even seemingly less important aspects, such as certificates that confirm formal education, can become crucial over time. The inability to communicate effectively, for instance, can lead to delays in vital economic and social activities, or even a complete shutdown. This is why all these criteria are necessary.

In my opinion, "learning on the job" should be excluded when it comes to vital offices. It’s too much of a cost to bear, as the people led by such individuals usually suffer the consequences. Knowing fully what a job entails also helps preemptively in solving problems before they arise. If you bring in someone who is highly competent but doesn’t fit culturally within the government, no matter how much they try to adapt, that gap will always be noticeable.

Does this mean that countries or states with citizens who have worked abroad should ignore these individuals at the peril of their states? Not necessarily. The solution is that these exceptionally competent people should be gradually introduced into the system before they take on top positions. Of course, this comes with a price, which they should be willing to pay. It takes a certain level of self-assuredness to leave a well-defined space to enter one that is not as structured.

In governance, there are three kinds of competent people:
Those who started off in the system and developed a deep understanding of it as they rose through the ranks.
Those who began within the system but later ventured into more favorable environments.
Those who started off in favorable environments.
The first group have the deepest knowledge of the system, followed by the second, and then the third. The solutions they offer will naturally differ.

When faced with a problem, the first group might advise you to consult someone familiar with the landscape, someone who has faced similar situations. The second group might prefer to import a foreign solution that has worked elsewhere. Meanwhile, the third group might offer a simple, universally applicable solution (for instance, how do you make a problem disappear in 24 hours? Put it on a WhatsApp status—true enough) that may not apply due to local complexities.
Our country has reached this point because the first group dominated for so long. By maintaining their confidence, they have remained relevant to this day.