CBN, Moses, the people and God (II)

One, because from what experts have said on the issue, it will do our economy some good, not some harm. Two, Ghana (which we Nigerians love to always compare every of our things with) is said to have carried out a similar exercise and the measure is reportedly yielding good fruits for their economy. If […]

One, because from what experts have said on the issue, it will do our economy some good, not some harm. Two, Ghana (which we Nigerians love to always compare every of our things with) is said to have carried out a similar exercise and the measure is reportedly yielding good fruits for their economy. If it is good for Ghana, surely it will be good for Nigeria too. If experts say there are merits in a particular thing and in addition to that, we even have an example of a country nearby that has done it and is benefiting from it, why don’t we go ahead with it regardless of the strong objections of those who are not very informed about the issues at stake?
Three, going ahead with it and reaping the anticipated benefits will give the govern-ment an opportunity to educate some of our less humble compatriots a thing or two about humility. Some Nigerians must be properly taught that democracy or the rights to freedom of speech does not mean that every citizen must speak on every conceivable public issue even when they do not quite understand what is at stake. It is of course fashionable for all of us to want to speak in exercise of our democratic rights to speak. But when we carry democratic rights too far, our intervention may tend to hinder rather than enhance good thinking and action on a particular matter. I feel that if a citizen does not know a thing or he does not possess sufficient knowledge on an issue, it is not compulsory that he should volunteer an opinion on such an issue. Allow others to speak for you.  
I also happen to think that the concept of representative democracy we are practising actually means that if citizens surrender some of their rights to a governing elite what that means is that they should learn to trust in their sense of judgment. Democracy does not mean that everyone must have his say, not to talk of his way on an issue before a sound decision can be made in the interest of all.
The number four reason why it seems I am trying to re-open an old wound is because I am not happy with the rather meek manner the President submitted to the largely ill-informed wishes of the so-called majority. A leader, especially one presiding over a young democracy such as ours wherein both the informed and the uninformed want to be heard on every conceivable issue, must show strong leadership. If he chooses to submit very meekly each time he is intimidated by many rancorous voices which are not very informed, he stands the danger of being accused of surrendering leadership. A good democratic leader must have a streak of positive stubbornness or else he will end up not leading from the front but leading from behind which is very dangerous for a society like Nigeria that is yearning for strong leadership.
A President should at all times contend with the people for the success of his policies and plans which he believes are for the good of the people he is leading. That is what leadership sometimes requires. Jonathan must be ready to contend for his belief or his viewpoint. There is a whole gulf of difference between arrogance and self-confidence and between self-confidence and timidity.
Our leaders owe it a duty to themselves and to the people they lead to lead. This sounds like a play on word or some nonsensical paradox but it is true. If leaders fail to be self-assertive they can sometimes be wrongly led by the people as happened in the case under discussion. A noisy clamour for or against something does not mean that the people are right on the matter and should therefore have their way.
My practical experience as a commentator and events watcher has shown me that the voice of the people is sometimes a very poor indicator of the soundness or otherwise of a particular policy.
When the former FCT minister, Malam Nasir el -Rufai, was in charge here in Abuja and evolved a policy and a course of action to sanitise the capital city and restore it to its planned glory, many called for his head. The clamour against el-Rufai was so much that one though the next moment, God would send thunder and lightning to smite him dead to show the people’s disapproval of the work he was doing. But God did no such thing. He stubbornly and courageously held his grounds, confident of what he was doing. The fact that el-Rufai defied the people, marched on courageously and eventually sanitised the FCT and today he is being praised by some of the very people who were abusing him and calling on heaven and hell to rain fire and brimstone on him, is a clear indication that some people do not voice God’s will or wishes.
 There is a very good lesson to learn from the fact that the millions of Nigerians who wished el-Rufai dead some years back are the very millions who are today hailing him as the most successful FCT minister ever and one of the best public officers to have been seen in recent Nigerian history. The lesson is that it is in the very nature of human beings to be resistant to planned change especially if the change will occasion some pains or if its gains cannot be easily ascertained. People generally become comfortable with planned changes when they start seeing the gains.
Another inescapable truth about resistance to change is that sometimes the objection is orchestrated by people who have vested interest and is not necessarily a free expression of people’s feelings. The voice of the people can be influenced, manipulated and channelled by some wicked or mischievous people to achieve certain sinister selfish objectives.
In fact, political opponents in modern democratic settings often feed on the ignorance or discontent of the people to sometimes thwart noble government policies intended for the good of the people.