..also published in Daily Trust
One thing I observe
with different nationalities is that, the average people in underdeveloped countries
are generally more interested in politics than their counterparts in developed
and wealthy developing countries. This is perhaps understandable though,
because while the obsession of the average people in developed and prosperous developing
countries basically centers on affording the latest lifestyle trend with its
associated flamboyance, their counterparts in underdeveloped countries still
languish in absolutely avoidable deprivation of basic human needs,
infrastructure and services necessarily needed for human survival today.
While the average
person in many developed and rich developing countries thinks about where to
spend his next summer holiday or what car brand he would buy when the latest
brands hit the markets, his counterpart in an underdeveloped country is
still worried about basic human needs, and indeed endures acute shortage of
basic services e.g. electricity/potable water supply, education and healthcare
services etc., which are also of extremely poor quality where they exist.
In advanced and
affluent developing countries, public service delivery system is hardly politicized
for it’s considered too vital to be politicized. In these countries, the provision
of public services and development projects remains the responsibility of
relevant government agencies, which they carry out systematically starting from
the point of project proposal, feasibility study, designing, contract awarding,
execution and maintenance. The involvement of the political office holders
overseeing these agencies remains strictly within the confines of their
supervisory functions to ensure compliance with government’s strategic
policies.
Consequently, people
in these countries take quality public services and sustainable development
projects for granted, which explains why they apparently don’t see the need for
being obsessed with the politics of public service delivery. This however
doesn’t make them politically naïve. After all, their largely well-informed
pattern of voting during elections proves the sophistication of their political
exposure. They vote for politicians based on their individual merits, because
they are too enlightened to be tricked into voting in the so-called “SAK” way,
for instance, under any circumstances.
In underdeveloped
countries, however, the average people’s excessive obsession with politics
doesn’t result in political awareness. In Nigeria, for instance, the average
people’s never-ending lamentations over leadership-inflicted misery they have
been subjected to, hardly go beyond social media platforms, their Mai
Shayi joints and other hangouts. Their persistent reluctance to take
matters into their own hands by revolutionizing their political mindset and
voting pattern during elections, suggests their lack of real commitment to
achieving the kind change they supposedly aspire to achieve. Instead, they are
seemingly contented with the semblance of solace they apparently derive from
such empty and boring lamentations.
This situation is
particularly manifested today on Nigerians’ space of social media where a wave
of lamentations often breaks out over a scandal in government or its failure to
provide something, which generates a controversy that lasts for a certain
period of time only to be overshadowed by another round of controversy
generated by another wave of lamentations, and the trend goes on.
Worse still, the controversy
hardly centers on addressing issues, and where it actually does; it hardly
addresses them in light of Nigeria’s peculiar challenges and circumstances. When
a Nigerian critic laments over a situation, condemns an incident or makes
criticism over a particular issue in the country, he consciously or
unconsciously displays disproportionate shock as though the issue he is making
criticism over isn’t already prevalent in the country. For instance, when
he condemns a case of, say, human right abuse, he sounds too shocked as though
human right abuse isn’t actually rampant in the country, and he also sounds as
though he is addressing the issue in the context of, say, New Zealand (one of
the best countries in the world in terms of respect for human right), not
Nigeria where human right abuse is already pervasive.
Similarly, when he
condemns a case of corruption in the country, he equally sounds too surprised
as though he is condemning a corruption case in, say, Norway (one of the most
transparent countries in the world), not Nigeria where corruption is already
endemic and is in fact effectively institutionalized. Also, when he recommends
strategies to tackle it, he overlooks the fact that Nigeria’s peculiar
challenges and circumstances in this regard warrant the provision of
unconventional strategies effective enough to address these peculiar
circumstances. He therefore sounds quite oblivious of the fact that the conventional
strategies he offers prove effective only in countries where corruption
penetration is manageable.
Incidentally, though an
emotional reaction of such nature to such serious problems isn’t entirely
misplaced, it suggests how such a critic effectively dismisses the imperative
of addressing the problems within Nigeria’s peculiar context, which is actually
an intricate network of corrupt practices, impunity and mediocrity perpetrated
over the decades that also must be tackled as a whole and concurrently as well
for an effective and sustainable solution to be achieved. Besides, in most
cases it turns out that he harbours some politically or ethnically motivated
prejudices that motivate him to deliberately ignore the need to address the
issue in its proper context knowing that this would necessarily entail
criticizing some individuals he doesn’t want to criticize.
Anyway, in the same
vein, he mistakes Nigeria’s massive economic potential for instantly spendable
resources, hence he unnecessarily overestimates the amount of resources at
government disposal. This explains why he can’t come to terms with the fact
that Nigeria is, by all economic standards, currently poor, in fact, very
poor for that matter, and it would remain so or become even worse off until
it actually and properly exploits its abundant but largely abandoned economic
potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment