Politicians generally own their good time convincing themselves, that the more Machiavellian tactics they explore in pursuing and protecting their immediate interests, the more accomplished they are. If you ask any of my former students, they would say it is very uncharacteristic of any leadership. But many things are uncharacteristic of our country’s politics and leadership since independence, such that the vices that characterize our politics, are for want of terms, a paradox of absurdity.
Like a wizard stuck at the bark of the last tree in the depleting Salagi forest, the very political culture and leadership that kept us abbey since independence are yet again, manifesting themselves in the conversation around our constitutional building processes. Anyone would have, without prejudice, considered that the interest that lies at stake in any constitutional building process, is the sovereignty of the People, the very foundation of our nation-state. Relying strongly on that assumption, we should easily find answers as to the collective “interest” we should aim to ‘protect’ in this very crucial process. Certainly, it must not be aimed at serving the immediate political interests of a few- whether for those in power or for those seeking the same.
The conception of a continuous systematic review of laws in general, and constitutional building process in particular, is rooted in the demand for stability in a continuously changing political nation-state, values, and global political ecosystem. There is, therefore, a need to reconcile the exigencies of repaid changes in society and manage the changes, or readjustments that are required for a new social order(s). That is the legal philosophy of continuous review of laws and constitutional building processes- continually overhauling legal foundations to refit them to “unexpected situations” or developments in the political ecosystem.
Admittedly, despite the professed aim of constitutional building, it is both a legal and political process. It thus, demands great vigilance and circumspection, especially in a highly tense political environment with a regressive political culture, and political players at odds in their pursuit of diverse political objectives.
There is thus a need for all of us to remind ourselves, but more so the politicians, and all persons of authority and influence of the overriding duty to protect the aim of our constitutional building process and must particularly do so by guiding ourselves against and lessening the immediate diverse political interests that confront us. There is thus a need for a “delicate balancing act”. In reemphasising the sovereignty of the people through the constitutional building process, and in reshaping the foundation of our nation-state, the principal agenda must be to pursue the complex collective objectives we set for ourselves, as a People and nation.
Therefore, for those who successfully win over political power, there are greater responsibilities that undergird them in this process: The tasks to objectively set the legislative agenda, making the crucial decisions to better the lives and livelihood of our people, and ultimately must be held accountable to the electorates for the outcomes of those decisions.
Moreover, these responsibilities signal the delicate nature of balancing political interests and genuinely taking effective steps to satisfy the responsibility placed upon them to serve the people- in an efficient democratic governance system. The advantage for those in power, if to be called as such, is that an effective and efficient functional democratic system protects political power. Our political leaders must thus come to the realization that hard political power is not attractive, because it does not enable the creative use of the same. It does not protect but exposes leaders, nurture their animalistic traits, and reduces every one of their pursuits to mere ‘materialistic considerations”.
Similarly, we must first admit and rightly view our constitutional building process in the context of a transition from a dictatorship to a democracy. It is this transitional agenda, albeit its lack of structure, that must inform our constitutional building process. To transition from authoritarian rule to an effective functional democracy requires a reversal of roles, a new approach to governance based on the rule of law, respect for human rights, and transparency and accountability.
It is a challenging process, not least because of the “natural” tenancy for a refutation of change but equally, it is further complex by the interplay of competing political interests: To either maintain and continue the dictatorial system, which solely serves the interest of consolidating political power with the tendency to enable the abuse of the same; or departing from it with a view to implementing the necessary reforms, for a truly democratic society guided by a progressive constitution and other legal frameworks, and not one that relies on the political “goodwill” or personality of political leaders. Unless, therefore, there is “a delicate balancing act”, and our political leaders exercise reflective equilibrium in their decision-making process, the bedrock upon which this transition should be built on, will collapse definitely.
The case of exercising reflective equilibrium in decision-making processes has moral fruits for leaders. Let me attempt to demonstrate this point. In a recent conversation with a politician friend, I quizzed for his opinion, as to whom among former President Kairaba Jawara, Kwame Nkrumah, and political activist and unionist Edward Francis Small, is most revered by the Gambian youth, and if there were a poll, who would emerge first. He admitted that what is supposed to be a simple question, was thought-provoking to him. After buying off some time- clearing his Attaya cass and throat he answered: Nkrumah would come first but he would not say who would come second between Kairaba Jawara and E.F Small. I proceeded to inquire about other political figures whom I was certain he wouldn’t remember despite his age and active participation in politics.
The point: There are three classical sorts of chambers of historic reward for leaders: Those who are remembered for the inspiration and positive impact they had on the lives of their people; those who are remembered for their horrible deeds, and the sufferation they caused their people; and there are those who are not even remembered at all.
It is therefore not enough to win political power or to be an opposition figure and will influence society when the objective is to serve personal interests, widely inimical to the creative use of power to meet the objective of good governance and the collective objectives that the people set for themselves. One is either greatly remembered by history, remembered in a bad light, or not remembered at all!
All great nations that ever stood from Greece, Israel, and colonial Britain to the imperial United States of America, and most other nations in our contemporary time who did register great progress, their leaders greatly think and act for the ‘future’, the common good of their people and at many instances, sacrifice their immediate political interests. Those leaders are today’s reference. Kwame Nkrumah is today a reference. E. F Small is a reference, and will forever be, not because of how much power he had willed or how much wealth he had accommodated during his lifetime but how much he was willing to sacrifice for the common good, for his people. Many of his peers are dead deaths.
The title “When Politicians Own the Country”, is deliberate, and rightly provocative to remind our political leaders, that their conduct must not reflect a sense of entitlement, particularly in a conversation about a constitutional building process. The difficult task we all owe to our people, most of whom do not understand the intricacies of the constitutional building process, is to genuinely guide the process bearing in mind the ‘future’, the ‘future’ which most of us will not live to witness in the next seventy (70) years. This task thus requires critical thinking, beyond the gimmicks of politics, and entitlements.
It has never been good when politicians ‘own’ the country. In the 1970s, Nigeria faced one of the most serious crises in its history. The celebrated author of African Tripple Heritage, Prof Ali Mazuri described these phases as the pressure of “privatisation versus militarisation”. In the privatisation of the state, “the state’s resources went into private hands” and the attainment of political power was largely seen as a means and opportunity to exclusively control and serve oneself, especially by exploiting the state resources for self and associates.
Soldiers, who themselves barely escaped the lure of raiding state coffers, thought that such ‘greedy-corrupt’ practices of the elite managing and exploiting the state resources and the economy for themselves was unacceptable. Thus, under the pretext of “save-serving” the nation, they conducted several coups, some against their fellow military men, ironically, only for them to perpetuate the same debaucheries they promised to fight against leading to the militarisation of the State, consequent of which history tells us of an anarchic rock Nigeria within that period.
The Gambia, in 1982 and 1994, and on various minor instances, would come to hear exact rhetoric from citizen rebels and later soldiers who thought, whether rightly or wrongly, that they needed to save their country from the Jawara regime whom they accused and adjudged to be not only corrupt but that it was only serving ‘self and their immediate loved ones”.
I don’t expect those still nursing the nostalgia of the so-called good old days to share the sentiments raised by the soldiers then, nor do I expect them either, to validate their actions. However, what is evident is that we need a serious retrospection as to the force informing their respective positions, and the cumulative reasons leading to the unfortunate major incidences in our political history.
While we may all agree not to equate our political and economic predicaments and unsolved social governance issues which our country has faced over the years with that episode of Nigeria’s history, or even come close to validating the 1982 and 1994 ‘uprising’ and military coups respectively, we must be clear in highlighting that “when a few politicians with the aid of their associates capture and continuously exploit the State and its government machinery to serve their interests or manifest traits that suggest “they” own the country, the very essence of government is threatened and if not properly handled, will be defeated.” We must, therefore, seriously guard the State and Government and indeed all state institutions against being used as “committees” for the management of the interests or affairs of a few.
As we, therefore, seek to have a new constitution, we must have a rethink, and avoid entirely making decisions based on the narrow diverse interests that confront us, and instead, be driven by a sense of patriotism, to build a solid foundation for the future our country- enough for what history will reward.
