Written by Mohammad Qaddam
Monday, 27 December 2010 05:57
Fair elections are said to be the
bedrock of good governance that
guarantees peace, stability and
prosperity. However there is much
to wonder why many a times
popularly elected governments
through generally fair elections fail
to make any difference in the lives
of their citizens anyway? This is
what I intend to address with a
view to identifying the missing link
between such popular and fair
elections and commensurate
development in many countries
and entities around the world.
Interestingly this tricky paradoxical
scenario happens exclusively
among the developing countries. It
is also noteworthy that I am not
here to refer to unfair elections,
which are marred by rigging and
violence etc. I instead refer to the
very elections under which
candidates who actually get higher
votes are declared winners.
Fair elections could of course
guarantee good governance but
not under any circumstances. What
actually determines whether fair
elections can lead to good
governance is the extent to which
the electorate enjoy decent
standard of living in the first place.
For instance, a hunger-stricken,
destitute and fear-gripped pauper,
whose preoccupation is how to
keep body and soul together, can
hardly have any guiding principle,
independent opinion and/or
reasonable self-esteem, to enable
him to even identify the best
candidates let alone elect them.
It needs no deep investigation to
realize that the vast majority of
electorate in Nigeria for instance
are not in the position to make
right choices. Their votes are in
most cases effectively for the
highest bidder (i.e. politicians), who
exploit their plights with meager
and tantalizing inducements. Many
of such electorate also fall victims
of mislead under the pretext of
ethnicism, sectionalism or religious
disguise.
Politicians who maneuver
themselves into political offices as
such can not deliver of course. And
the so-called dividends of
democracy would continue to elude
the electorate, which explains how
after every election exercise
including the fair ones the plights of
the electorate deteriorate further.
The bottom line here is that, human
needs and rights are not of equal
importance. They are
fundamentally classified into two:
(1) “Needs to survive” and (2)
“Needs to thrive”. Needs to survive
are those most basic needs without
which one can hardly survive or
can not survive at all. Things like
food, shelter, health, security,
hygiene and basic knowledge fall in
this category. “Needs to thrive” on
the other hand are those needs
that have to be provided in order
for individuals and communities to
lead and enjoy most befitting living
standards. Things like freedom of
information, freedom of
expression, freedom of association
and of course freedom of political
participation etc, fall in this
category.
Though very crucial “Needs to
thrive” are entirely subject to
“Needs to survive”. People are
naturally preoccupied with the
challenges that directly affect them
in the first place. And their mindsets
and attitudes are conditioned to
respond accordingly. The challenges
of modern days have linked
people’s potentials to think
constructively to the grades they
are able to record on their
scorecards in “Needs to survive”
list. The general rule today is, the
better one ’s living condition is, the
higher his chances to think
positively and achieve his
potentials. And the slight exception
to this general rule does not affect
its relevance.
Popular political elections –no
matter how fair- in circumstances
whereby the vast majority of the
electorate are paupers can not
guarantee good governance,
because only those who have
resources to offer and tricks to play
can be elected, which explains the
mediocrity, incompetency and lack
of accountability that characterize
the governments they form. And
the poor masses would always pay
the price dearly.
Having practiced military
dictatorship in Nigeria in the past,
and various democratic systems
including the current one without
commensurate difference, one
may wonder what is the
alternative? And the question is
more confusing for average Muslim
electorate, who had been made to
expect a lot as a result of the
introduction of "Islamic Shari ’a" in
their various states.
Basically there is no alternative to
real participatory system of
government in the modern age.
However for it to yield positive
results, the electorate should-at
least- not be under severe
economic pressure, which unleashes
despair and frustration. Even the
so-called civilized countries, which
boast of functional democracies,
had to provide sound grounds for
their democracies to flourish. In
some points and times many of
them had to sacrifice a lot of
democratic values in order to
impose certain realities on the
ground before introducing full
democratic systems. In fact some
of them had even gone to the
extent of bloody revolutions.
Though I am not advocating for
bloody revolution in Nigeria, neither
do I call for any violence for that
matter, I nevertheless believe that
there would never be any
appreciable progress so long the
status-quo remains unchanged.
Nigerians therefore have to learn
from the experiences of other
countries, which had gone through
similar or even worse crises before
they succeeded in getting it right,
when they decided to do the right
things. Things are rapidly getting
out of control in Nigeria, warning of
a spontaneous anarchy if care is
not taken. See "Looming Class
Struggle in Nigeria".
To sow the seeds of real change in
Nigeria, there shall be an elite
movement of unconventional like-
minded progressives of different
professional, intellectual, business,
technocratic and political
persuasions. They shall have
detailed guidelines, blueprint and
roadmap to guide their activities.
Their desired destinations shall be
the most strategic positions in the
land including the presidency
without any apology. Their
mechanisms shall be flexible but
consistent. And they shall also -
though loosely- adopt the notion
that says “the end justifies the
means” with appropriate
reservation of course.
Once they get to the top, they shall
provide a style of leadership that
assumes that the vast majority of
the citizenry do not necessarily
realize their actual interests and
strategic needs in the first place. (I
do not mean any insult at all.) They
shall systematically impose
systemic and social realities that
focus primarily on the provision of
decent living standards in the light
of “Needs to survive” list, even if it
entails sacrificing some
“ decorative” rights and privileges
as contained in “Needs to thrive”
list.
As the people begin to enjoy such
standard of living, their mindsets
simultaneously begin to improve
until they get to the right level,
where they will be more
enlightened and get better self-
esteem and consequently be ripe
enough to handle the intricacies of
other rights and privileges e.g. full
democratic principles. For example,
the citizens of the oil-rich Arab
countries in the Gulf are ripe
enough for full democracy.
Though sustaining the momentum
of such phenomenon could be as
challenging as creating it, it is
nonetheless sustainable through
creative hard work, until it is right
time for normal democracy.