Opinion | By Clement Uwayah | 22. 03. 2022
Life has been evolutionary and almost every aspect has undergone some degrees of transformation from one aspect to another. Same way, governance and the processes of establishing governments have been undergoing reforms towards the attainment of what is perceived a better process. The various forms of government practiced in different countries today are certainly in relation to what is settled for in the long run.
The reformation of the processes towards securing best leadership outcomes has not only continued to evolve but also be encouraged, because as long as life remains dynamic the processes to drive and survive governance must be followed dynamically. Even the world’s acclaimed best form of government, democracy, do have some disadvantages that regularly makes it unrewarding as it ought to be, one of which is the strength of might against right.
Indeed, one of the undeniable features of democratic practices is the unarguable fact that the majority always have their way while the minority end up with their say. Put succinctly, democracy makes the side with ‘might’ to carry the day in real life situations through the power of numbers or votes. That voting power is where might takes a very superlative force in the emergence of leaders. There are various dimensions of might in the build up to actual elections. There is a dimension of might in political leadership emergence that is predominantly visible within political parties, and it always seems to seal the chances of attracting and getting the most suited leaders. Such might are built on one’s political lineage, financial strength and ability to either influence or curry away political party decisions and outcomes to one’s favour. This might is either by oneself through some form of planted and nurtured structures over time or through political godfatherism.
Unfortunately, the use of might has always left much to be desired in the entrenching quality leadership. This is because, often times very eminently qualified and competent political office seekers face frustrations and denial of opportunities. Those who have the deep pockets repeatedly get the tickets, not because they are the best, but because they have the might. This is the scenario across board, especially for the major political parties, and we end up choosing from less competent lots, more so that we seem too crazy over political party affiliations against personalities and capacities.
Several renowned personalities the world over have given critical analysis of the issue of might with respect to right. From all indications, it has long become indisputable that some drastic steps need be taken to de-emphasize the continued repression of rights for might. Edward Abbey once said that ‘might does not make right but it sure makes what is’. This is the scenario we are faced with today. We seem to so cherish the seeming absoluteness of might over right as if it is irreversible. Little wonder that John Heywood posited that, ‘might have gone further and fared worse’, a position that corroborates T. H. White position when he insisted that, ‘might does not make right! Right makes right! True to expectations and against the unending proclivities of our political sojourn, might must not take the place of right in striving to attain a new and better order of possible egalitarianism and progressive politics and governance. This was the exact reason that informed Abraham Lincoln’s positive hint that ‘It has been said of the world history hitherto that might makes right. It is for us and our time to reverse the maxim, and to say that right makes might’. Again, we need to know that, ‘might without right is blight’, as forewarned by Agona Apell. There can be nothing false about what Koich Tohei said about might, that, ‘If might is right, then the world would tear itself apart. We must strive to create a world in which right is might’.
As the various political parties warm up to choose their flag bearers, and in consideration of the very poor leadership cum governance outcomes in Nigeria, one would ask, has might always been favourable or beneficial towards our political leadership choices and good governance? At critical times like this when Nigeria is in dire need of real change agents to herald a totally different approach to leadership and governance, is it right to be carried away by the might available to contestants at the detriment of societal good? If the supposed might by which leaders have been emerging has not helped us, don’t we therefore think that it is high time we started seeking the better option, to help change our governance narratives? Must we continue to endanger our future by constantly allowing the same pattern that has consistently thrown up mediocres in our political system?
Knowing the imperfections created by attachments and reliance on might to throw up leaders for us, we would need to concede to it’s deliberate halt. A retrospection of the flaws in our political leadership choices with the resultant heart-breaking performances entails that every well-meaning person be involved in killing what is killing us – might. There certainly would come a time when it would be fair to take might as right, but not now. By then, we would have gone past the stage of undue dominance and influences that could undermine throwing the bests from various political parties. Again, the system would have to be such that ethnicity, religion and other primordial sentiments would be far from being a determinant factor. This was nearly the case in 1999 when Chief Olusegun Obasanjo and Chief Olu Falae became the two contenders. It gave room for people to weigh their individual capacities and competencies. Many sentiments were already killed, thus giving room for healthy analysis.
No strong nation can ever emerge when we keep up with our culture of allowing might to reign over what is right in our political choices. As it is now, knowing how it has always been, several well, able and competent persons for various positions seem not to be making the expected moves because they fear it is a waste of time. It is time for us to come to terms with the fact that ambitions do not culminate to the much-desired capabilities, transparency and foresightedness required of leaders. What point do the regular old folks and old brigades currently jostling for positions to prove that they did not have with previous opportunities? It would appear that the solution to a much better political transmogrification would be for us to forsake the comeback syndromes of our politicians. How could some of these our politicians be hobnobbing from one political party and position to the other for decades, spanning almost the time frame of being in service, yet with no good things to showcase, and yet with audacity to seek for continuity? Laughable how our governors have turned the red chambers of the national assembly to a retirement or resting ground. It would make sense for the sake of the generations unborn to kick start a process that would enshrine the expected result-oriented governance.
And, though we would always be quick to talk about experience, we should also know that not being directly in position does not erode or foreclose actions in advisory capacities. Let’s for once be on the side of prosperity and allow right to be right by killing the might of a few that would ultimately subject us to another round of unwarranted sufferings. Nigerians deserve to be alive and not merely exist. The inevitability for a conscientious concession now stirs us in the face daily, and we just can’t ignore it. The elites and every well-meaning Nigerian ought to, should be and must strive to enthrone any and every arsenal to catapult us away from the shambles of economic strangulations and social malaise that have long become our lot. Nothing shall be impossible when right effort is matched with God’s desires. Therein lies our emancipation from regular and existential calamities occasioned by ineptitude in leadership.
Mr Uwayah, a public affairs analyst writes from Delta State
