In How much land does a man need?, renowned Russian writer Leo Tolstoy told the story of a peasant who at first appeared content with the peace and tranquillity of peasant life, free from the anxieties and temptations of the rat race, which he roundly denounced. He wanted just one more thing and all will be perfect: a little more land to cultivate his seeds and rear his animals. By some contrivance he soon got 40 acres, and he was happy indeed, but in time he fell out of favour with his poorer neighbours.
In How much land does a man need?, renowned Russian writer Leo Tolstoy told the story of a peasant who at first appeared content with the peace and tranquillity of peasant life, free from the anxieties and temptations of the rat race, which he roundly denounced. He wanted just one more thing and all will be perfect: a little more land to cultivate his seeds and rear his animals. By some contrivance he soon got 40 acres, and he was happy indeed, but in time he fell out of favour with his poorer neighbours.
He moved away and got more land elsewhere, but discontent soon followed, until at length he moved to a place where the chief and his people were willing to sell him, for the same price, as much land as he could walk in a day. He could not believe his luck, and he started walking and walking to mark off as much of the fertile lands he can grab. In the end, tired and exhausted from walking the whole day across valleys and plains and mountains, he returned to his starting point, and dead on the spot. Tolstoy wrote: "His servants picked up the spade and dug a grave long enough for Pahom to lie in, and buried him in it. Six feet from his head to his heel was all he needed."
In recent weeks one of the leading stories in the Nigerian political arena concerns the number of aides and special assistants employed by governors. Mr Rochas Okorochas brought a dramatic twist to it when, in addition to all sorts of bizarre designations, he employed a 'chief comedian' of the state. Now, here was the man who said all the right things during the electioneering campaign, including strident criticisms of the then incumbent govenor's waste of the state resources. For good measure, and certainly for maximum publicity, he was reported to have taken a drastic pay cut on his salary, and announced refunds of fees paid by secondary school students as well as major cuts for state university fees. By appointing so many aides whose designations are at best frivolous, he appeared to have taken a U-turn.
Now, according to information given in an interview by Human rights lawyer Femi Falana, we are now told that Governor Kayode Fayemi has in fact appointed special representatives in all local government wards in the state, in addition to other special assistants. This is peculiarly troubling for a governor with a pedigree as a progressive and pro-democracy activist, and one who had to fight manipulators of the democratic process to regain his mandate.
What, we ask, is the primary motivation for governors in appointing so many aides? It is all about the need to consolidate power, and little or nothing about service delivery to the vast majority of citizens whose mandate they hold. We don’t need extensive investigation to discover that many of these aides have no job description related to governance. They are usually the band of supporters who campaigned for the governor and must now be personally settled in monetary terms, and not just in lump sum but regular payments, and with some title to match.
Of course, we are not naive to think that political support for candidates anywhere is offered for nothing in return. In more advanced democracies, supporters usually organized themselves into groups, and offer their supports for candidates on the condition of collective demands for which they are prepared to hold candidates to account and continue or withdraw future support. In Nigeria, political support is hopelessly self-centred, for the most part. Even those who present themselves as community leaders are only interested fulfilling their own personal ambitions and self-interest, and what the politics of aides has done is feed and maintain the vultures.
Is that kind of strategy moral or sustainable, to maintain 100 citizens with funds and resources sufficient for 10,000? If these political leaders have just a bit of vision and are not lacking in courage to act, surely what the self-seeking minority of supporters need is not an encouragement of their destructive self-interest, but a reorientation to much higher and noble role of authentic community leadership where they pretended to start in the first place. For example, rather than commit N20million naira to the maintenance of 10 supporters, is it not better to use the same fund to engage the 10 individuals in a well-planned effort to lead 100 more persons in their community to obtain a job? And in the end, they gain the noble satisfaction of true leadership, the satisfaction of their own jobs, and admiration and respect of their community folks. For those who make themselves out to be progressive, what is progressive in using new methods to maintain the status-quo, the very one they purport to change? What is safe about it in fact?
Make no mistake about it: the now silent majority will not always be silent in the midst of unmitigated distress. Sooner than later many in their ranks will be driven by the sheer force of despair to the edges of irrational violence. In the ensuing conflagration the political leader, for all his accumulation of power and aides, may not be spared. Already we can see the gathering clouds.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });