When complaint is seen as messy and divisive

The recent statement by the presidency cautioning citizens from protesting against worsening insecurity and Mr. President’s refusal to remove the service chiefs, which the vast majority of Nigerians believe have overstayed without achieving meaningful results, have not only elicited worry but also brought to mind the fact that there is something deeply troubling about the […]

The recent statement by the presidency cautioning citizens from protesting against worsening insecurity and Mr. President’s refusal to remove the service chiefs, which the vast majority of Nigerians believe have overstayed without achieving meaningful results, have not only elicited worry but also brought to mind the fact that there is something deeply troubling about the present Federal Government in relationship to finding solution to the present security challenges in the country.

Understandably, it is a human nature to avoid confrontation, coupled with the fact that people feel awkward when they are corrected of their bad behaviors or action by others.

What, however, caused more frustration to Nigerians is not government’s asymmetric admonition but the passivity of, and support of government’s position by the supposedly men of goodwill. As many, in recent days argued that even in a democracy, government is at liberty to take or discard advice and public opinion.

In their view, public opinion do not always provide clear-cut policy guidance, and even when public opinion is clearly in favour of a certain course of government action, the authorities may decide otherwise – particularly when they realize how uninformed, superficial, and changeable most opinions really are. Government may also reject people’s opinion as a result of its own convictions, the recommendations of the public service, the pressure of advocacy groups and lobbyists, or the rigidity of the ruling party.

Whenever leaders fail to follow a clear-cut preference among the public opinion, they may actually be relying on a deeper understanding of the issue, the greater information at their disposal, a more sophisticated analysis of its implications, a concern for minority groups’ rights, or a less prejudicial attitude.

Arguably, a structured position but that notwithstanding there are reasons for Nigerians to complain and possibly protest, looking at the degree of insecurity in the country, the prevailing harsh economic situation, a state of depression (or is it recession) that has been designed by yet-to-be-established architects, and of course, the recent fiscal, sociological, political and communal happenings in the country; coupled with the pockets of ethno-religious upheavals and misgivings from one region against another or powerful personalities against each other.

Aside from the fact that protests against obnoxious government policies or inaction remain not a privileged but an organic necessity in a great society – for without objective criticism, the government cannot govern; as there is no adequate way in which it can keep itself informed about what the people of the country are thinking, government’s disdain for facts, and their lack of curiosity to finding new information that might produce a deeper understanding of the present security and other policy challenges have obviously become a reality that the vast majority of Nigerians now worry about.

Also, Nigerians may have for the moment lost all fear of punishment and yielded obedience to criticism because, fundamentally, the present crop of leaders failed to “demonstrate a passion for their purpose, practice their values consistently and lead with their hearts as well as their head. They consistently failed to establish long term relationship with the people and lack the self-discipline to get results. They (leaders) lack all the attributes of authentic leaders outlined by Bill George, a Professor of management practice at Harvard University.

Indeed, while the vast majority of Nigerians believe that the only recourse for our leaders in this present situation is to restructure the nation and rejig the security architecture – an advice the Federal Government has continually rebuffed, there are many other reasons why the people are not happy with the present situation in the county.

In many ways, the present administration may have a sincere desire to move the nation forward, but there are two major militating factors. First, there is no clear definition of our problem as a nation, the goals to be achieved, or the means chosen to address the problems and to achieve the goals. Secondly, the system has virtually no consideration for connecting the poor with good means of livelihood – food, job and security. This is the only possible explanation for this situation.

To correct this narrative and appreciably curtail the level of insecurity in the country, the Federal Government must recognize that ‘a country’s defense capability has to be continually upgraded as new technology, especially information technology, is incorporated into weapon systems. This requires a sound economy that can afford to pay for new weaponry and a highly educated and trained people who can integrate the various arms into one system and operate them efficiently and effectively.’

There is also a lesson to draw from China

As documented, during the height of the Cultural Revolution in China, the system broke down. Favoritism, nepotism, and corruption infected high places. The whole society was degraded as opportunists masqueraded as revolutionaries and achieved “helicopter promotion” by betraying and persecuting their peers or superiors. Corruption became worse when China embarked on its open-door policy in 1978. Many communist activists who felt they had been deceived and had wasted the best years of their lives set out to make up for lost time and enrich themselves in every way they could. That was between 1966 and 1976.

But today, China has experienced a period of economic growth, the likes of which the world had never seen. Its model, says a report, blazes a new trail for other developing countries to achieve modernization and offers a new option for other countries and nations who want to speed up their development.

This is happening because their leaders believe in two things. First, that public order, personal and national security, economic and social programmes, and prosperity is not the natural order of things but depends on the ceaseless efforts and attentions from an honest and effective government that the people elect; with the second being the fact that it takes a prolonged effort to administer a country well and change the backward habits of the people.

To truly build the nation of our dream, we must learn as a nation how to place the future of our nation in the hands of our youths, promote stability and cohesion in society and develop the culture of great reverence for education and knowledge.

Utomi writes from Lagos, Nigeria.