Text of a public lecture delivered by Dr Bukar Usman at the Abdullahi Smith lecture Theatre, Faculty of Arts, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
This lecture focuses on leadership, security and national development from African and global perspectives. Security and what it constitutes can take many forms. However, it is all about the survival of an individual, a group or an entity such as a state. It should be noted that there is a duality in every country’s security challenges, and these manifest as the internal and external factors that shape its state of security. Due to socio-political and geo-political peculiarities, every nation’s security challenges and imperatives are, to a large extent, unique. This is why the security situation of one country, with its attendant implication for peace and national development, can be very different from another’s even when their external security challenges are similar.
Although national security problems arise out of conflicts or threats within or outside a given nation, how these conflicts are resolved, managed or contained is critically dependent on the effectiveness of existing governmental institutions for conflict prevention and resolution. This also entails the disposition and orientation of leadership at local and international levels. Social chaos is, therefore, often a manifestation of a failure of government machinery or governmental systems as may be revealed by a thorough and dispassionate examination of past conflicts. Indeed, government never became necessary until humankind saw the need to invent systemic machinery for managing social crisis and maintaining public order. This is why there is need to begin this discussion by looking at the evolution of formal or governed society as we know it today.
From State of Nature to State of Society
Overwhelmed by hazards in the unorganised natural environment and by the antagonistic effects of his own primitive self-centredness, man, generically speaking, needed a “neutral” authority to protect his life, family and property. Formal society developed out of this basic need to preserve oneself and one’s possessions. Organised society evolved over a long period before the dawn of civilization as we know it today. Political thinkers, notably the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), argued that individuals, persuaded by enlightened self interest, traded off the insecure “state of nature,”1 where only freedoms existed, for a state of society governed by a central authority that enforced the rights of everyone. The state of nature, according to Hobbes, was not only “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” but also in its entirety “anarchic.”2 The emergence of centralized government, responsible for common security, is therefore meant to curb the excesses of selfish and unscrupulously competitive individuals.3
Although the modern nation state is commonly the most developed form of the state of society, monarchy, a crude form of centralized social order in medieval times, had preceded it. Under the monarchical dispensation, the people were ruled by supposedly divinely appointed kings who reigned indefinitely, often for life, before yet another king took over to, literally, lord it over the populace. With time, it became clear that what the people needed was governing machinery, not a ruling institution.
Defining the nature of the relationship which should ideally exist between the state’s governing authority and the governed, John Locke (1632—1704) stated that such relationship should be in the form of a social contract that is subject to periodic public renewal of confidence.4 According to Locke, the authority of government should be based on “just powers from the consent [i.e. delegation] of the governed.”5 This gave rise to variants of the social contract theory, particularly in the 18th and 19th century, that became the bases of the evolution of systems of government powered by periodic elections. Thus, in the event of the elected authority losing the confidence of the public, the people, under the Lockean social contract system of governance, reserve the right to change it through the ballot box or, if necessary, by violent means. By this stance, revolution becomes justifiable in the last resort.
It should be born in mind that for one to talk of security and national development presupposes that there is a country or state and that there is a governing authority. A state or country is recognisable under international law only if there is a defined territory that is reasonably populated and has a de jure or a de facto government. A de jure government obtains in the event of a government in exile which is recognized by others.
Socio-Economic and
Political Modalities
A democratic state, particularly one where the people directly elect the leaders, is usually founded on the basis of a constitution or some other governing set of rules. Such rules set out the modalities by which human rights and the state’s commitment to the provision of the basic needs of the people are guaranteed on a sustainable basis. For such a high level of expectation to be met, it would entail the formulation of policies and programmes for national development. The constitution would, of course, establish a structure of government and provide for security machinery to create an atmosphere conducive for individual pursuits and for government to prosecute its national development programmes.
It is lack of consensus on the best formula or set of modalities for the achievement of such objectives that engenders continuing debate, nationally and internationally, among politicians, opinion leaders, and the intelligentsia. The issues under discussion have always been choice of system of governance, leadership disposition and orientation, performance of the institutions of government and management of resources. Around all this is the spate of continuing debate on the need for strong leadership or strong institutions or both.
The lack of consensus at the international level leads some countries or a bloc of them to resort to ideological warfare or armed intervention to persuade or cajole other countries to adopt certain socio-political and economic systems. This behaviour, which ensued for several decades, characterised the Cold War and still appears to be the pursuit of some powerful countries which act outside the dictates of the United Nations. With the ascendancy of the capitalist market economy system, following the apparent defeat of communism and the collapse of the communist bloc in the late 1990s, the intensity of the Cold War has greatly reduced. However, a strong undercurrent is still evident in some turbulent spots of the world.
Leadership and Global Security
International security covers a variety of interconnected issues within states that have impact on the peace, stability and survival of individuals and groups across states. The issues range from “traditional or conventional modes of military power, the causes and consequences of war among states, economic strength, to ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts, trade and economic conflicts, energy supplies, science and technology, food, as well as threats to human security and the stability of states from environmental degradation, infectious diseases, climate change and activities of non-state actors.”6
The leadership role of the United Nations, particularly the role of its Security Council, has been rather ambivalent. Events of the World War I (1914-1918) and the failure of the League of Nations, formed to prevent such wars in the future, led to the occurrence of the World War II (1939-1945) and the formation of the United Nations. The UN kicked off with the five leading victorious powers becoming the permanent members of the core group, the UN Security Council, and arrogating to themselves veto power. Those powers enjoying such a unique privilege have so far resisted moves to reform the Council and admit new members with veto power. This situation has prevailed in spite of agitation and significant contributions to the maintenance of world peace by UN member countries outside this club.
UN Leadership Style, Globalisation and Sovereignty
The leadership style of the United Nations, particularly its growing tendency to over-scrutinize the affairs of members of so-called developing countries while glossing over the malfeasance of some world powers, has reduced its credibility among the developing countries. This ambivalent leadership style has also led to a situation where globalisation has been allowed to undermine seriously the exercise of state sovereignty. There is now a thin line between what should be regarded as internal affairs of a country and what should be matters of international concern.
These days, foreign countries and organisations take more than casual interest in the conduct of elections and national census. While this may be excusable because of lack of openness and fairness in the manner these exercises are carried out in some polities, what about unsolicited foreign interventions in the policy-making process of sovereign nations? In many developing countries, the formulation and execution of national development plans are undertaken in collaboration with foreign countries and international organisations. Such collaborations, though helpful in many ways, can be suspect. Indeed, some foreign aids can be classified as the proverbial Greek gift while others arrive with conditionality that worsens the security and developmental challenges of recipient countries.
The motives and actions of some countries and international organisations may pose great dangers to a country’s survival. For instance, over the last few decades some foreign organisations and countries loaded some countries with ill-tailored loans, ostensibly meant for development, but which left those nations poorer, more debt-ridden and insecure. Social upheavals that compromise a country’s sovereignty and even jeopardise its very existence as a viable entity usually arise when the debt burden becomes unbearable. Some loans are so suspect that the supposedly friendly donors appear to have set out to deliberately mislead and undermine the development efforts of a target country just to subjugate or even destroy it altogether.
What could make a country to be so adversely targeted? A country’s commitment to an independent path of development could make it a target, particularly if it is a country of great potential. All kinds of accusations are usually contrived to intimidate such a country and make it toe the line dictated by some powerful nations threatened by its independent strides. Such tactics employed to undermine certain countries have been elaborately reported. One of such notable reports is that of John Perkins who revealed how targeted countries were ensnared, leading to high ranking individuals falling victims of “tragic story of debt, deception, enslavement, exploitation and the most blatant grab in history for hearts, minds, souls, and resources of people around the world.”7 According to Perkin’s account, the victims, mainly heads of state and OPEC member countries, were under constant threats and surveillance.
Nowadays, under any pretext, a country, particularly one without the backing of a permanent member of the Security Council, could be invaded for “reasons” ranging from human rights concerns to humanitarian considerations. Such UN-sanctioned interventions, these days, are hardly primarily based on the criterion of threat to international peace and security, which is the clear provision under the UN Charter.
The perpetual contest for power in international relations portrays a picture of predator relationship between the bigger and smaller nations. The bigger powers jealously protect their privileged positions, hegemony and spheres of influence against states perceived to have the potential to challenge their supremacy. Size of territory and population may matter in the assessment of power relationship but more relevant is the level of technological skill and general mobilisation of human and material resources. It has also become clear that the weapons of warfare employed in the power contest at the UN are no longer primarily traditional military hardware, more sophisticated though they have become. The media has become an important battle field, and would be more so in the future. An observer succinctly put it thus:
Global media, social media, ICT and powerful nations or regional groups working in concert are the tools of warfare, no longer merely tanks, missiles and battalions.8
A bit of such media propaganda and campaign was employed during the Cold War with positive results. Since then, there has been a general improvement in ICT and the medium is being perfected to a higher degree. Media warfare is real; hence, the increasing cry of cyber attacks and other acts of illegalities among world powers.
In spite of its shortcomings, the UN remains the organisation the world most direly needs for the maintenance of world peace. Its formation in 1945 became necessary when mankind and the powers that be realised that maintenance of international peace and security was beyond the capacity of a single nation. Supplementary to that was the felt need to establish international organisations as UN specialised agencies dealing with cross-border socio-economic issues that may endanger mankind. Hence, UN organs and agencies, such as the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), World Health Organisation (WHO), the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), United Nations Economic Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),9 came into being.
The importance of such organisations is underlined by the realisation that peace and security cannot be guaranteed by application of military hardware alone. The activities of the UN agencies are therefore intended to forestall or mitigate occurrences that threaten the international system without the involvement of military means. Imperfect though the current arrangement, supported by regional defence groups, may seem, it remains about the only central machinery on which the maintenance of international peace and security is anchored. Success of this arrangement is supposed to allow member states to conserve their resources and focus their developmental efforts on meeting the needs of their people.
Unfortunately, such conserved resources are being drained in many countries by the challenges of dealing with the problem of insecurity.
muster every available means to quickly restore normalcy and reassure the public.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be observed that in spite of the centrality of man in security and development considerations, conduct and performance of states, group of states and non-state actors would continue to dictate events in the international system. As man in a state of nature is said to be selfish so are the states presently in their conduct, including the insensitive positions many powerful nations have taken on environmental matters. But there is a glimmer of hope in the determination of the global community to tackle the heating up of the environment which portends great danger to humanity.
The year 2014 was said to be the hottest in recorded history. After the Lima Conference of December 1-14, 2014, attended by 195 member countries, all hopes are now placed on the Paris Conference to be held this year (2015). At the Paris Conference, countries would be expected to specify their individual contributions towards checking climatic activities in their countries that contribute to carbon emission and global warming.
Unfortunately, many countries are only out to promote their national interests at the expense of others. Unwarranted violence inflicted against others and even beneficial collaborative efforts among them, such as the determination by certain countries to review the world economic order and create more global financial institutions to remove the prevailing bottleneck in access to money required for investment, infrastructural and social development, must be seen in that light. The United Nations as a supra-national body is not a government. It has no standing army. A few privileged members acting individually or in concert with other nations sometimes arbitrarily invade other nations hiding under a manipulated resolution.
An international court of justice is in place but a look at those who have so far been arraigned before it shows that it is selective. Some leaders commit similar or worse crimes against others and get away with it simply because they are powerful. Powerful nations act as predators against weaker nations who may be unjustly punished for trying to develop potentials that could rival their entrenched positions. Thus, the world, in spite of the existence of a supra national body, is still operating in a state of nature governed by the law of the survival of the powerful, a law that replicates or typifies the conduct of man in a state of nature.
Under the leadership of the United Nations, mankind may not have entirely escaped the savagery of the state of nature. However, some sections of mankind, like many nations of the Western world, have made commendable strides in leadership, security and national development. African leadership can galvanize positive changes in their various nations instead of looking up to the prejudicial leadership of the UN to bail the continent out of its current security and developmental challenges.
