Opalaba asked me the other day how I would describe my experience of change almost one year to its introduction into our political lexicon. Perceiving a deviously laid trap, I cleverly wiggled out. “What is your definition of change? What does it involve?” I asked him.
“For me, it is simple. Change is the movement from an undesirable to a desirable state of affairs”, my friend responded. And on my part, I thought that I got him. So I agreed. “In that case, while there is still a lot to do, I can say that change is happening.”
“Sure, I guess you could say that” Opalaba intoned. But I knew that what was coming after was going to be damning in the least. So I hit back first.
“You cannot combine certainty with doubt in the same breath. You are either sure or you are guessing” I volunteered.
“Your grammatical sensitivity, my foot”, Opalaba shot back. “This is serious business and you better see it as such. For the very future of progressive politics is at stake. What I am witnessing is different than what you choose to see.”
My friend opined that it was not enough to define change as he did. “It is also important to give the conditions for its possibility. Leadership is important. Change requires leaders with the strong will and determination to go the whole length no matter what. Successful change requires humility and respect for the people, taking account of their suggestions and sensibilities. If change is meant for the good of the people, their voice deserves to be heard in the process of effecting change.”
Opalaba then lounged into a litany of complaints. He acknowledged the fact that the government of change inherited too many undesirables, including executive impunity, legislative licence, institutionalised corruption, ethnicised politics, inflation, unemployment, wage compression, infrastructure decay, value deficit, violent clashes, etc.
My friend observed that in the best of times, with a robust forex earnings capacity, the inherited pit is too deep for the nation to climb out of. In the regime of harsh economic realities, it is simply Herculean. But this is hard to explain to the victim of untold poverty and unbearable suffering. While the masses of our people are unemployed or self-employed in drudgery, the country in general, and the media in particular, does not appear to be perturbed by the condition of the wretched of the earth in our midst. Yet homelessness, hunger, and disease have been their portion in recent times.
Resentful of the advantaged position enjoyed by the well-positioned, Opalaba observed that we know more about the undesirable condition of public servants who are owed months of salary payments because they have the voice to make their case and they have labour unions to fight their cause. But we do not have a union of the unemployed and the homeless. Yes, these have advocates in NGOs, but these are too busy on the large issues- the root causes—to bother about the surface matters of immediate need for food and shelter.
Talking about wages, Opalaba agreed that “labour deserves its reward.” He noted that part of the challenges that the nation must face squarely is the impact of centralisation on the ability of states and local governments, the largest employers of labour, to meet their obligations. We have a system that centrally imposes financial obligations on states without taking into consideration their differing abilities. What is more absurd, the system that imposes uniform wages throughout the country’s public system doesn’t take account of the differing cost of living between Lagos and Lokoja or between Port Harcourt and Potiskum.
“The consequence could not have been any different from what we have or less devastating. States devote 80 per cent to 90 per cent of their revenue to workers’ salary, leaving 10 per cent to 20 per cent for developmental projects. Of course, the rest of the population have a right to complain when roads are impassable or they have no access to drinking water or they have no effective protection against kidnappers and armed robbers or violent herdsmen because of an inadequate security regime.”
But while the foregoing are issues of immediate concern, my friend was concerned that the people are being let down by the apparent absence of willingness to deal with them head-on. As he put it, “one expects that an issue that stands in the way of a progressive administration’s effective delivery of pledged services to the people would be its foremost concern. The assumption is that upon securing power, a progressive party that presides over the executive and legislative branches of government will make government restructuring for effectiveness a priority. That this has not been an urgent concern of the new administration in its first year is unfortunate and shameful.”
As I urged him to clear his mind and assured him of my listening ears, he fired on. “In the matter of what is preventing a robust engagement with the serious and fundamental issues of refocusing government on its real mission your guess is as good as mine.” When I retorted that I didn’t have a clue, Opalaba struggled to avoid my distraction but simply cleared his throat and continued.
“The progressive government at the centre took off on wobbly and crippled limbs. Things fell apart from the beginning due to insatiable greed and oversized ambition. The effort that should be focused on progress for the nation was spent on scheming the political survival of individuals. And in a bizarre turn of events, the government of change is on a collision course with reason. Or is it rational for an entity that is not suicidal to create the suitable condition for its demise?”
“From the fight over position to the unabashed declaration of solidarity with a leader in contempt of the people, to the messy handling of the budget, there is too much noxious air in the political landscape. Disenchantment with the ruling party in its first year is evident around”, my friend declared.
But he was not done: “One year into the progressive administration, the signs are terribly ominous. As if the gods are aligned against progress, agents of retrogression are on prowl. Taking on these evil agents and fighting them to the ground will take the strong will of the Primus inter pares whose charisma and past achievement catapulted back to power.”
“Why is this an important task? In 1999, progressives claimed the six states of the Southwest. They embarked on great progressive policy implementation based on the cardinal programmes of education, health, rural development and employment. Their party did not control the centre. They relied mostly on federal allocation. Federal might was deployed against them, especially from 2002.
“Of course, they also got carried away by primordial instinct syndrome. Relishing the fact that the president was a son of the soil, they promoted him beyond reason and got whacked by him. Abandoning the principle that brought you to power and running after chimera does not go unnoticed by the savvy electorate and the mischievous opponents who exploit electorate apathy to rig elections. It happened in 2003. And it can happen in 2019”, Opalaba, the mystic, warned.
“Those who must worry about such a repetition of history are irrationally cutting their nose to spite their face. They are gearing up for 2019 even when they are not perturbed about 2016. But if they are not part of the solution of the challenges of 2016, do the pseudo progressives expect their party to be taken seriously in 2019? And if it is not taken seriously by voters who loathe disappointment, what’s the expectation of these ambitious politicians and what is their prospect of doing well in the polls in 2019? Unless of course their plan is to jump party ship again in 2019 as some of them did in 2014.”
With an air of finality and arrogance that I have always despised, Opalaba fired the parting shot. “Just know that my fellow-citizens are now in the driver’s seat of electoral politics. Get your act right or be prepared to be booted out” Ouch!!! A classic fiend, he is!
NATION
END
Be the first to comment