Skip to main content

The Negative Side of Change

October 16, 2008

Some say change is inevitable and always good for us,while others say in Hausa parlance, it is ''dole'', meaning a ''most''. While I agree that change is inevitable, I totally disagree with the view that it is always good for us.Change of whatever kind come along with it,positive and negative effects as well.But in most cases in less developed nations of the world such as Nigeria,the negative effects of change outweigh its positive effects,because it tend to sweep away virtually all existing policies no matter how sound they are.

Some say change is inevitable and always good for us,while others say in Hausa parlance, it is ''dole'', meaning a ''most''. While I agree that change is inevitable, I totally disagree with the view that it is always good for us.Change of whatever kind come along with it,positive and negative effects as well.But in most cases in less developed nations of the world such as Nigeria,the negative effects of change outweigh its positive effects,because it tend to sweep away virtually all existing policies no matter how sound they are. More so, characteristically, political change connotes a complete change in policy and strategy of leadership. Political change is usually initiated by grassroots movements,professional associational groups and other non-state actors,fundamentally to dislodge authoritarian or dictatorial governments with unpopular or anti-people policies,and in most cases in a confrontational manner.

This is mostly a change for the better.In Kenya for instance, we have recently witnessed how grassroots movements changed the face of President Moi Kibaki's government by significantly reducing his powers through a systematic formation of a "Unity Government" in which opposition leader Mr Raila Odinga was included as a Prime Minister.In 1991, Zambia had fundamental political change from a single-party system to a multi-party system.This change was initiated by nascent pressure groups and trade unions who vehemently opposed the existing single-party system.A scathing condemnation of President Mobutu's regime by the Church,students' union and the organised labour led to the 1990civil unrest that forced the introduction of a multi-party politics in Zaire.

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });

However, political leaders also do initiate or stage a political change,but usually don't go down well with the people.In Nigeria for instance, aggrieved ambitious politicians usually swap political parties only to satisfy their deeply entrenched lust for power.They deliberately conceive an ill notion that they were victimised in their former party or they were refused a ticket.For this simple reason, a Nigerian politician will dump the very political party that he not only fought to establish but also helped into power.These political leaders reach out to diverse constituent support groups,framing issues to their advantage,tricking the people into sympathizing with their travails,thereby shipting public attention from current socio-economic turbulence (if there exist any) to their personal problems with incumbent administration.

While all these tricks are framed to cajole the electorate, a fundamental aspect of political change-''agenda-setting'', is thrown to the dogs.The initiators deliberately refuse to appreciate the fact that political change signifies complete change in policy,and usually poses a severe challenge to political leaders in the event that they succeeded in effecting the change. With no set agenda for leadership, political leaders end up forming administrations that are lackluster in performance, unable to deliver campaign promises, spendthrift, lacks rationality, prioritize frivolities and most significantly lacks capacity known of leaders to make effective decisions on important state matters due to clash of interests that cannot be subdued.A typical example of this can be seen in the administration of Mallam Isa Yuguda of Bauchi state.

According to Frank Myers [2001];'of the several approaches in the field of political science to the study of political change ,that which gives most weight to political leadership is the ''agenda-setting model'', which focuses on political issues,their source,how they are selected for serious consideration,how they are framed to attract support and how they influence the policy process''.This is where many political leaders who initiate a political change erred. Until political leaders recognise the importance of agenda-setting to leadership prior to aqcuiring power,the people will continue to be misguided into changing governments with well-organised programmes with focus-less and visionless ones and leadership will never be efficient and effective.

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });

Musa Ahmad Babale

10 Muhd Danmadami Road, Azare 08033015886

[email protected]

 

 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of SaharaReporters

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });