Regime change

WITH the exception of the president and some governors who will be entering their second terms in office, a set of new governors will in the next 48 hours; May 29, assume the mantle of leadership in the various states.

Before the current efforts to institute June 12, as democracy day, May 29, is celebrated to mark the eventual disengagement of the military from the political process after years of incursion in governance. On that date every four years, newly elected presidents and governors are sworn-in to commence a four-year term of office. This is in tandem with democratic norms of keeping elected representatives accountable through periodic renewal of their mandates at elections.

Through periodic elections, the electorate is given the choice to select candidates who will serve their collective interests better. And having expressed their collective will at the ballot box, they wait eagerly for that day set out for them to assume the mantle of leadership.

That date therefore denotes so many things to so many people. It is not going to be any different this year as a new set of leaders take their oath of offices at both the federal and states levels. May 29 this year, is even more symbolic because it marks the very last time it will be celebrated as the nation’s democracy day given current efforts to give legal effect to the proclamation by President Buhari making June 12, the nation’s democracy day.

If everything goes on well, that date will lose significance as soon as it is deleted from the calendar of the nation’s major events. But that reality does not in any way, whittle down the import of the coming swearing-in and handover ceremonies in many states. Rather, the significance of this year’s exercise is given further fillip by the fact that it will be the last time it will serve that purpose. Nigerians are anxiously waiting for that date to usher in a new set of leaders. They yearn for new leaders in the hope that they will begin to savor the numerous promises in-coming political office holders made to them during their electioneering campaigns. That is to be expected.

For a country a majority of its people wallow in abject poverty while few swim in scandalous affluence, slightest sign of leadership change instantly rekindles hopes that things may turn out for the better. That perhaps, accounts for the enthusiasm and celebrations that mark the coming into being of new governments in this country. Whether these expectations are usually met is another kettle of fish altogether.

Perhaps, the yawning gap between expectations and their fulfillment is the reason for the palpable excitement each time there is a change of baton. The feeling is that with successive changes in leadership, prospects of the emergence of good and quality people are enhanced. This may be correct. But it has remained an irony of sorts that governments come and go with little impact on the standard of living of the ordinary people.  Our people have at best, remained hewers of wood and fetchers of water.

The country still ranks very high in the poverty index. Yet, this is a nation Mother Nature has endowed bountifully. The inability of the country to take its rightful position within the comity of nations is easily traced to incompetent and self-serving leadership; rship that is propelled by greed rather than the greatest good of the greatest number of citizens.

We are a home of leaders whose prime motivation in offering themselves for political offices is propelled by prebendal considerations. It is little wonder not much has changed in the overall living conditions of the common man. Unemployment soars by the day as our schools continue to churn out graduates in geometric progression while available avenues to employ them only grow in arithmetic progression.

This has resulted in lethal consequences for the society with all manner of social vices having a field day. The nation is contending with armed robbery, kidnapping, terrorism of all hue, and of late what has been termed banditry. Different theories have at different times been propounded to account for the prevalence of these social maladies. They range from the economic to the sociological, religious to ethnic and failure of leadership or a combination of these.

Failure of leadership is largely responsible for the sorry state in which this country finds itself. For, the primary duty of the government; any government is to address the objective conditions that fertilize and accentuate societal ills. It is the duty of the government to create conditions that will substantially obviate social the vices that are increasing holding this country to the ground through good governance.

It is the duty of governments (state and federal) to create jobs, promote the right orientations, attitudes and dispositions that conduce for the making of Nigerians from the disparate groups in the country. It is the duty of the government to inculcate a common sense of belonging in all citizens so that they can begin to see themselves as Nigerians and not members of their ethnic groups in constant competition with the central authority for the loyalty of the citizens. Gaps in these areas have been the greatest undoing of this country.

Ironically, the right ideas on things to do to reposition the country and place it on the right path to steady growth and development are not in short supply. Many of them are well documented in the various reports of the national conferences of Nigerian leaders. Despite the wide gamut of national consensus on these measures, some segments of the Nigerian population appear to have vowed not to allow them see the light of the day.

With such opposition, our march to progress and accelerated development has remained a similitude of motion without movement. As the various newly elected leaders and the president take their oaths of office, they must resolve anew to place the overall public good over and above personal predilections. It is sad that leaders especially at the national level have not been able to detach themselves from their primordial cleavages.

These negative dispositions have been a huge disincentive to the germination and growth of a common sense of belonging without which nation building will always remain a pipe dream. Even as our laws made copious provisions for equity, balance and the federal character principles as effective tools for stabilizing the system, complaints of alienation and marginalization have reigned supreme despite pretences and double speak from those in authority.

Competition for power especially at the federal level has been colored by ethnic and religious sentiments even as leaders fail to show detachment from these destabilizing tendencies. Skewing of our collective patrimony disproportionately to ethnic and religious cleavages has remained our albatross. And we have seen these manifestations play out in appointments, location of projects and dispensation of favors.

These systemic deficits are responsible for the bitter competition and do or die attitude that characterize our electoral process. We must therefore part ways with this ruinous past if we must make real progress as a nation. It is not enough to parrot platitudes and grandstand on the unity, progress and indivisibility of the country when our dispositions do not offer much help.

It is not sufficient to lay claims to patriotism when the system favors your interest only to fan the embers division, hate or outright calamity when others seem to have some edge. That is not in the nature of patriotism. It is more of self-serving and parochial interests masquerading and finding expression through other means. We have not fared well with such stereotypes.

As new leaders take their oats of office, they must resolve to do away with our ruinous pasts. The times require new ways of doing old things; old dispositions must give way to new orientations to fast-track balanced development and substantial improvement in the lives of our people. This country must be built on equity, fairness and equal opportunities for all, if it must make real progress.