The change agenda of the Muhammadu Buhari administration has been under intense scrutiny by the citizens in recent times. It went high with the introduction of the “Change Begins with Me” campaign, which as we have been told is intended to achieve attitude modification. The argument as in our character has been on two extremes: those for and against. There is hardly a middle course, which is indicative of so much emotion with little or no imaginative cognition. I hold the view that if reasoning was part of the debate, it is possible the nation would have had something that would aid the quest for proper development of our nation. Some of the debaters hold the view that the change mantra is a misplaced one and many were particularly hard on the resolve to work for attitudinal change, even insisting that it is worthless for a nation held down by poverty and structural disorganization.
Those more charitable maintained that the attitudinal change initiative is good but should have started at a time when President Buhari would have fulfilled a few of his promises. But there is a group I didn’t find their argument funny at all: they interpreted the launching of “Change Begins with Me” to mean transfer of responsibility from the leadership to the people who as they said are already traumatized by the outcome of many years of poor governance. As I observed earlier, I find the positions not only very extreme but unhelpful to the task of instituting a positive governance culture in the nation. Given where we are and the ruin we have made of our nation, any true nationalist would have no difficulty in concurring that change is not only desirable but indeed an idea whose time has come; the truth is that at the point where we are, the contradictions we have accumulated across 40 years has brought us to a situation where a change in mentality and the way we do things has become inevitable.
This point is important, if Jonathan or any other person had won the 2015 Presidential Election and refused to recognize in very clear terms the necessity for a change in approach, the revolution we all fear would have been inside the house and not at the door where it hovers. The drop in oil price and shortage of forex would have precipitated a people’s revolt the dimension no one can imagine. So for me I think the Buhari group read the mood very correctly and to that extent, their prescription of the Change Agenda is fine. Cogent concerns may be those expressed about the ability of the change drivers to do a good work and to carry the campaign to a logical end. This point brings me back to the observations I made earlier regarding the debates not being useful to the nation.
If we had allowed informed rationalization to guide our outburst we would have seen the need for such a programme and this understanding would have shifted emphasis away from its necessity to the more germane question of filling gaps and providing ideas for those in-charge. We all don’t have to be in government for a genuine national programme to be seen as such and pursued with zeal. I read somewhere of a citizen claiming that the Change Begins with Me project is his idea and that he has not been so acknowledged. I didn’t make much of that public posturing because in civilized settings where development is greatly cherished, it is not uncommon to find citizens as originators and contributors of mind-boggling ideas, not being recognized may be an issue but it is not one that should warrant dancing naked in the market square. Our sensibilities have been assaulted in this regard because of distorted valu, which have led to the commercialization of everything including acts that should ordinarily fall within the purview of patriotism.
What may not be right with the change mantra as it is, is the absence of noticeable framework about what it is, what it is designed to achieve, target areas and strategies for realization. Nations that moved from backwardness to sophistication initiated change in one form or the other, but what made those efforts very successful was articulation of a blueprint before actions. Change is not only about character modification, if even it were to be, the different aspects ought to be captured and strategies for reversing the negatives clearly outlined. But the issue of change is far bigger than that, for a society like ours, it encompasses political liberation, which includes credible electoral system, enhanced political education and participation, centrality of democratic dividends such as freedom of life, religion, thoughts and expression. Economic independence is also part of it, work ethics for instance is so important if self-sufficiency is cherished. To create wealth a society must engineer a deliberate push to wean citizens from liking foreign goods to having crave for whatever that is produced locally. Nations rich in self-sufficiency got there by deliberate indoctrination of their citizens; my encounter in Berlin, Germany, was very instructive. I had desired to purchase a Japanese camera and was rebuffed by German shop owners who wanted to know why they should sell Japanese camera in Germany, asking to know what would be the fate of their own companies and workers if they became agents of foreign products. But here, the sellers would encourage you to go for foreign goods. This is not only an aberration, it is a sword directed at the soul of the nation, if our nation has been terribly down, this is one the factors.
Change is also about social justice, equity and good conscience, justice and their processes. Today these important pillars of society are largely defined by how deep one’s pocket is; such crucial aspects of national life like health, education and service delivery in Civil Service have been so bastardized and reconfigured that all we get is dehumanization and untimely deaths. These should be the target of change! For a message to be credible, the messenger must be seen to be very credible, least it raises doubt and when doubts come in-between serious projects, it can destroy it. Change Begins With Me with me is good, but rather than a ministerial project, it should be a pan-Nigerian task. The president should take over and get all Nigerians beginning with all political parties, faith-based organizations, traditional rulers, civil society organizations professional and social bodies to buy into it. Three weeks after it was launched, it still looks like a joke. If the government means business, it should be seen to be doing more than it is doing now. There should be pamphlets, television, radio jingles, including newspaper adverts, there should be visible means of engaging the people and letting them know what is involved. It is like National Orientation Agency is moribund. The truth is that leaders create a nation and the kind of citizens that inhabit it. That is the story of America, China, Italy, Russia, Germany, Brazil and even Singapore of yesterday. My friend Dr. Madukwe Ukaegbu dropped a candy wrapper on the floor of a Singapore Airport; in two seconds, a young Singaporean walked up to him and said politely, “Sir, please pick up and dispose properly.” He did, laughing. The intervention was because of good tutorship and that is what we want. Is this what Buhari intends? If it is then the government must re-strategize, especially against the fact that some initial steps have been costly.

Related News