The legendary social activist and lawyer, Mahatma Ghandi, best remembered for his non-violent campaign for India’s independence from Britain once said, “whatever you do for me, without me, is against me.” Most people use the words “govern” and “rule” interchangeably but there is in fact a subtle difference in their meaning and in the image each term conjures up in one’s mind. The Oxford Dictionary defines “govern” to mean “conducting the policy, actions and affairs of a state, organization or people with authority.” To “rule” it defines as, “having a powerful and restricting influence on something or somebody.” The word “govern”, is used most appropriately when referring to a democratic form of administration, where leaders are answerable to the people. Where the leaders are mere representatives of the electorate who put them there and the leaders in turn conduct themselves and the affairs of the state in a way which reflects where they believe power ultimately lies; in the people.
To “rule” on the other hand signifies a dictatorial form of administration; one where the leader’s word is law and he can, to all intents and purposes, do as he wishes without any recourse to the people or proper consideration of what will best serve the people’s interest. When describing the history of government administration in Nigeria, it is my opinion that they have ruled far more than they have governed and this is not prejudicial to whether they have been military or civilian governments. The one who governs is acutely aware of the transience of power as he acknowledges that he only holds it in trust. It doesn’t begin and end with him and he holds it only for as long as he is deemed to be using it well.
Read also: China grew economy on land reform, Nigeria can
Lording it over the people has become the modus operandi of all levels of government in Nigeria. Admittedly, some state Governors are far more democratic in the way they conduct themselves and administer their states better than others. Several of them have acquired the odious reputation of sending security operatives after citizens for daring to criticize their actions. Many journalists have suffered the fate of being locked up because they wrote uncomplimentary reports, even if factual, about them. Even though these Governors were amongst those who waxed lyrical about the beauty of democratic rule on the campaign trail, as they sought the people’s votes, they appear not to have fully grasped what it truly means. Democratic concepts and practices appear alien to many Nigerian political leaders. The larger than life image that our leaders assume once in office and which seems to bestow upon them the “licence” to operate above the law, I believe is largely responsible for the desperation for everybody to become somebody in our society.
It would be a fallacy to say that leaders of developed nations are perfect in character but it would not be wrong to say that they are usually held to a higher standard and made to account for their actions. Their behaviour is constantly put under the spotlight and every step out of line is severely condemned by the press and the public. Leaders’ errors are condemned by the press and public here too but that, unfortunately, is usually where it ends, so no lesson is learned. Leaders in the developed world live with the consciousness of being watched with the expectation of setting a good example. Recognizing that the same people who voted them or their party into power can also vote them out the next time around, they will usually whip themselves back into line. In most developing nations however, the story is very different.
A huge scandal broke out in the United Kingdom in 2009, which resulted in many Members of Parliament (MP) losing their parliamentary seats. It involved the misuse of government funds. Dubbed the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal, it was discovered that many MPs used public funds, which they were entitled to use for their official residence only, for their private homes as well. The vast majority of cases involved what we would call minor or even negligible sums (sometimes not more a couple of hundred pounds) used to buy cutlery of crockery but this nevertheless resulted in multiple resignations, sackings, retirements and de-selections from committees. In addition to repaying these misused allowances, several MPs faced prosecutions and some even served prison sentences. Now, this serves as an example of where your position doesn’t place you above the law. A clear link can often be established between the rule of law being upheld, no matter who’s involved and societal progress. And vice versa too.
Nigeria is a country where time and time again, might has been shown to be right. As much as this speaks of the quality of leadership that we have in our society, it sadly also speaks of the aggregate character of the people. I say this because a major contributory factor to the malaise in the Nigerian society can be traced to our penchant to venerate power rather than respect it. When this combines with a general mindset amongst the people of “what can I get away with it” rather than “what is right or wrong” the result is what we now see; leaders who have been made to believe they are the beginning and the end all. Leaders who believe their actions are no worse than what the average Nigerian would do if given half the chance. So, they feel justified. What is that famous saying about power? “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I believe the revered Abraham Lincoln is the one credited with having said, “nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Need I say more?
Lording it over the people and rubbing their noses in it has become part and parcel of Nigerian politics but it is far from what governance should be about. Governance should be about serving the people and administering the country’s resources in a way that most benefits the greatest number of people. As Jonathan Bentham, the British Jurist, political reformer and ethicist put it, an action can be deemed to be morally right only when it produces the greatest amount of happiness and good while causing the least amount of pain for the greatest number of people (the Utilitarian theory). One does not need to be a PhD holder to know that “governance” in our society fails this test woefully. “Governance” here can best be described as the “rule of the few, by the few and for the few” and there appears to be a sturdy resolve by the beneficiaries to keep it this way.
Changing the nation…one mind at a time.
