WHAT IS CHANGE?
“Change is the only constant in life”
HERACLITUS, Greek Philosopher (540BC – 480BC).
The idea of change brings to mind two notions that on the surface seem contradictory – inconsistency and constancy. In the case of the earlier, it is a difference in a state of being or affairs at different points in time. Yet, at the same time, change is a principal constant of life.
Creation itself survives on change and motion. Indeed change is so pervasive that it almost escapes notice and defeats description, especially when you happen to be a part of what is changing. Few of us realise for instance that we’re living on a planet that is tearing through space around the Sun at over 100,000 kilometres per hour! Or that all matter, even the most “solid” or “stationery” in appearance, consists of tiny particles in a constant state of motion. Indeed the entire universe is in a constant state of motion and change, and the idea of a state of no-change is nothing but an aberration.
CHANGE AS A POLITICAL RHETORIC
“This is your time, and it feels normal to you, but really, there is no normal. . .”
MERYL STREEP, Renowned American Actress (born 1949).
In human societies, change has always been both inevitable and relentless over the ages. Indeed, mankind owes its survival and civilisation process to a built-in mechanism of continuous evolution. The tricky bit has always been our ability and our willingness to recognise this change, both defined by our viewpoint. This viewpoint is enhanced or constrained among other things by information available to us, our level of sincerity and open-mindedness, and our objectives.
In spite of the unprecedented level of information available to most people across multiple channels today, it is incredible how much change and development around us still goes unnoticed by most of us. In my own country for instance, I learn everyday of new developments of the last few years, and it’s amazing that I haven’t noticed them earlier.
I’ve always heard of the innovative idea of Almajiri Schools; I just didn’t notice that government has constructed over 150 of them already in just 3 years! This is a major intervention in a most unfortunate gap which has existed for too long, with far reaching social, economic and security implications. I’ve also known about one or two new federal universities; what I didn’t realise was that beginning with 27 of them developed in 63 years between 1948 and 2011, the current administration has added almost half that number, 13 to be precise, in less than 4 years from 2011!
I don’t wish to mention other examples, as this piece is neither about the achievements of the Goodluck Jonathan administration, nor about those who have failed to notice them for an innocent lack of information. Indeed I need to clarify that I’m by no means an advocate of Jonathan. My concern is rather about the dubious and dangerous dummy being sold to the unsuspecting masses of my country by elements who lack both sincerity and the altruistic objectives they peddle, by invoking the questionable promise of change. I am disturbed that a cheap but potent strategy that has been deployed by political opposition around the world and throughout history is being unleashed on my countrymen, in a most unfortunate season.
By far the most basic and effective strategy of the opposition has always been to try to undermine the incumbent by controverting every positive development in the society, while amplifying the negative. Opposition must of necessity seek out all that is wrong in any situation or even portray positive developments in bad light, while promising near-magical cures to all ailments of society. The promise of change can be at once suspicious, yet attractive and effective in mobilising political sentiments against the incumbent in every clime.
Change was the message that catapulted a relatively unknown Barack Obama into the White House in 2009. Change was equally the promise of Robert Mugabe in 1980; Saddam Hussein in 1979; and Adolf Hitler in 1933. Zimbabwe went on to break the world record in inflation in recent history under Mugabe’s watch, to the point of abandoning its national currency. Hussein led Iraq into a series of wars that have left most of the country in ruins and in arms to date; while the roles of Hitler in the Second World War and the Holocaust are too well known and inhuman to be repeated here. The promise of change was initially an appealing message in every case, though we now have the privilege to judge with the benefit of hindsight.
I listened in amusement as President Goodluck read out extracts of the coup speech that brought General Ibrahim Babangida to power in 1985. Hear him on the ousted government of General Muhammadu Buhari: “With the nation at the mercy of political misdirection and on the brink of economic collapse, a new sense of hope was created in the minds of every Nigerian. . .” He continues: “Since January 1984, however, we have witnessed a systematic denigration of that hope. . . Events today indicate that most of the reasons which justified the military takeover of government from the civilians still persist.”
A relatively unknown Brigadier Sani Abacha had, less than two years earlier in December 1983, announced the replacement of the civilian government of Alhaji Shehu Shagari with Buhari’s military junta. Ten years later, the same goggled soldier eased out the contraption anchored by a hapless Ernest Shonekan in the name of Interim National Government with another coup speech. In every case, the arrival of each new regime was heralded by tales of woe of the preceding administration, and rosy assurances of positive change. Posterity has given us a sufficient dose of the unpleasant truth. Or has it?
The tragedy of incumbency is that it gives you the opportunity to perform, yet with that comes ample opportunity to make mistakes, or to fail to solve all the problems of society immediately, completely, and to the satisfaction of diverse interest groups. Most people fail to realise that the governance process is an endless work in progress. History has no record of any leader who succeeded in solving all the problems of his or her society, especially where such problems have transcended the immediate domain of the leader.
I’ve heard of a presidential candidate promising during the ongoing campaign rallies to end the religious insurgency in Nigeria in a few months if voted into office. I immediately wondered whether some people are deaf or blind to the global reality of fundamentalist Islamic insurgency which has spared no region, including that of the very custodians of the religion itself. It also beats me how an army general, who could not protect his military regime from a bloodless coup by fellow soldiers, now hopes to defend a civilian democracy against well-armed terrorists and their multinational collaborators. I’ve even heard a more humorous promise by the same candidate to stabilise oil prices if elected president! Pray, how much more comical can this get?
It is for this reason that I’ve described this as an unfortunate season for the incumbent administration in Nigeria. Truth be told, these are not the best of times for our country. Period. The message of change as it relates to insecurity and economic downturn are very powerful ones at the moment, admit it or not. There is a climate of disappointment and discontent that Goodluck and his compatriots would only disregard at their own peril. Now is not the time to play ostrich concerning the challenges that confront the ordinary Nigerian. The situation is made worse by the fact that not many are wont to situate some of these unfavourable developments in their proper global context – social, economic and political – especially where we cannot boast of a largely enlightened electorate. At a time like this, only few people pause to consider that this crusade of change which daily hounds us really offers no guarantee of the nature and timing of that change
Rather, it is all too tempting to fail to notice the positive developments we’ve witnessed over the past few years – the unprecedented stability in the retail supply of fuel; the efficient distribution of fertiliser to target farmers; the capacity being built in the power sector; or the dismantling of the fraudulent oil subsidy racket that had survived several previous administrations. We may not have noticed the independence enjoyed by the national electoral commission to date, or politics without a meddlesome and confrontational president. But that is understandable – it’s called human nature.
My fear is for us to forfeit the gains from many ongoing physical and socioeconomic projects, each of which gestation period transcends the current term of this government, by taking a blind risk on the birthing of a change we can only see on campaign tee-shirts and the social media. Our history of dismantling or reversing the gains or initiatives of previous governments, and always tending to start afresh, provides no encouragement either. I cringe at the thought of losing the potential benefits of implementing the report of the recently concluded national conference for instance. That, to my mind, is the first sincere effort at sitting together to try to address some of the fundamental flaws of our structure and processes as a sovereignty, especially coming at a time of an unprecedented level of distraction to government. This, like some other recent developments, constitutes not just mere change, but a very bold challenge to deeply entrenched inequities and inefficiencies that have hindered growth in every region without exception.
WHAT MANNER OF CHANGE?
“The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence”
OLD LATIN PROVERB.
As it stands now, anything other than what we presently have is better for us. That is what I’ve heard from some quarters. But my question is what is that anything? What do we really know about the only real alternative to the incumbent government of Goodluck Jonathan? Yes, GMB, as General Buhari is now stylishly referred to, was head of state of this country, but I only really recall seeing his deputy Tunde Idiagbon actually running the country then. True, he was chairman of the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) set up during the Sani Abacha administration; but I hardly saw evidence of any meaningful contribution, executive or advisory, that justified the symbolism of his appointment. Granted, the PTF functioned as a parallel federal government, providing services and infrastructure in certain sectors; but in the end, what we heard more were tales of imbalance in regional distribution of development projects, and funds unaccountable in billions, all arising under GMB’s watch. And I ask myself, does change refer to a leader with a history of abdicating responsibility?
I wouldn’t want to compare GEJ (Goodluck Ebele Jonathan) with GMB in such areas as human rights record, or women and youth empowerment, as it would amount to a lopsided contest, for obvious reasons. I’m however concerned that change may be referring to a man who for some curious reason has been either unable or unwilling to present evidence of the minimum academic qualification required for the position to which he aspires, the President of my country – a secondary school certificate! I wonder, is there something we’re missing here?
I’ve tried taking a closer look at the promoters of the GMB candidacy, for the benefit of doubt. In the end, I’m really hard put to reconcile GMB’s promise to send all corrupt officials to Kirikiri Prison with the roll call of his sponsors, beginning with the godfather and investor-in-chief of what some mischievous characters have dubbed the Association of Past Criminals (APC) Plc. It reminds me of my first encounter with fraudsters who peddle chemicals for printing of fake currency, over 20 years ago. My senior friend to whose office a haggard looking salesman had brought his dubious wares asked him just two questions; “If you really have the secret to making money, why haven’t you used it to change your own life first? Haven’t you ever heard the instruction Physician heal thyself?” This odd patchwork of regional gladiators who have failed serially to grab the star prize, and their collaborators who have lost out of the ruling party cut a stubbornly persistent image of strange bedfellows. But they are not my real concern though.
Rather, I ask myself, how do these people plan to cohabit with a President Muhammadu Buhari? Is it possible that the GMB candidacy is just a trick to up the posture of the party and brighten the chances of its other candidates? Is my friend correct in his prediction that GMB would go the way of Nuhu Ribadu whose adoption as flag bearer of the defunct ACN was just a stepping stone for negotiating the presidency to the ruling party, in exchange for the governorship of their states and some National Assembly seats? What is the post-victory strategy of these compatriots of GMB for survival, recovery of “costs”, and continued relevance? Could there be a meeting point between the puritan credentials they attribute to their candidate and their own known antecedents? Or is there something we don’t know? Do we expect either of them to convert the other? Or failing that, can this be a case of “antelope dey plan to chop okro; okro sef dey plan to purge antelope”? I really wonder, jokes apart.
I’ve warned myself against concocting or subscribing to any conspiracy theories on this matter. I’ve vowed not to suspect that some people have noticed how absentminded and nonchalant GMB has been on duty in the past, and are planning to make hay while the General is not paying attention, should he emerge president. Worse still, I don’t even want my mind to dwell on the recent campaign venue demand of the apostle-in-chief of stomach infrastructure, namely that APC should come clean about the health of their presidential candidate. Yes, he may have crossed the goodly age of three score and ten. True, he may have faltered in step at a recent rally, and forgotten the name of his running mate at another; but I refuse to join anyone in attributing those to any manner of physical or mental challenge. I certainly don’t want to contemplate that Nigeria is about to be treated to Part Two of our recent loss of a sitting president. The good Lord forbid it!
Or. . . hmm. No, no, no. . . don’t even try to propose that some people know what the rest of us don’t. I rebuke that suggestion! The south-west enjoyed the presidency under a man who utilised the office to the fullest for eight good years. Now you want me to believe that someone has planted a surrogate as running mate to a man whose health he knows is not sound? So are you saying that in voting for GMB, we would unknowingly be voting for someone else? Please, please. . . if that’s a joke, I dare say it’s a sick one. I can’t see some people accept to be taken for the same ride twice in such quick succession. The Nigerian electorate will certainly not demand Panadol, and accept PantDoll instead.
LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP
“Change will not come if we wait for some other person, or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” – BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America.
In all of this, my sincere deduction is that instead of our leaders, what we require to change the more as the electorate in this country is ourselves. My recommendation is for a more ingenious and dispassionate framework for assessing incumbent and aspiring leaders, by properly examining their manifestos against their practical antecedents. The fact that a political candidate has not failed where another one has, may arise more from not being similarly tested, than from superior capability.
To the best of my knowledge, in spite of any shortcomings of GEJ, no one is yet to draw any convincing lines to match these gaps with GMB’s proven antecedents. Indeed if GEJ has performed below expectation, most of us complaining today must hold ourselves responsible. After all, the last presidential contest was similarly and essentially between this same duo. If we knew that GMB was better, why did we vote GEJ as president? And if our sympathy for GEJ has now dropped after putting his performance to practical test, to what would we attribute our new confidence in GMB? Performance? Or blind faith? If we now feel that GEJ was a mistake, are we sure we’re not about to make the same mistake again? Or maybe a worse one? Have our parameters for estimating the suitability of a presidential candidate changed in any way? Or has this become a seasonal ritual of trial-and-error, all in the name of the sentiments of change?
As I said before, this piece is neither a case for Goodluck Jonathan, nor against Muhammadu Buhari. Rather, it is a call for caution. It is an admonition for greater care in examining the contents of the change that we are being promised. The prerogative for selecting the next president of this most populous black nation on our planet lies with us the Nigerian electorate. If we’re not sure how well we utilised it the last time, this is another golden opportunity which we must not squander. Let’s shine our eyes well. Next time we hear “change”, let’s ask ourselves “change to what?” Let’s keep sentiments aside and make a choice we won’t regret a few years down the line.
As for me, call me conservative if you wish, I elect to remain where I am now, till I find sufficient conviction that the alternative will either make me better off, or at the worst leave me the way I am now. I’m guided by what they say about the devil you know. . .
Good luck to Nigeria.
***MFON AKPABIO. Architect, Social Commentator.
