|
The Search for a Leader 3
Suddenly, Yar’adua, the PDP Presidential candidate, took ill. That changed the dynamism of the whole process, at least temporarily. Even insignificant I was hasty in my decisions; I was in the process of reviewing what I had written in the night just before posting in the Village that day, when the news came. I, however, chose to publish instead of waiting for the outcome. Every choice that we make, they say, has its consequences. Later, the news broke that he was dead. Next, his death could not be confirmed. Finally, he did not die. Yar’adua is still alive. What a relief to his family and his associates – party and friends. Somebody or some association is going to gain from all these. It could be Yar’adua himself.
In “The Search for a Leader 2,” I tried to argue that the image of fairness or unfairness of a leader, more than anything else, affects the numbers (number of followers or sympathisers). Meanwhile, the significance of the numbers is the effectiveness of leadership. As long as a leader commands large following, he or she is effective. That, however, has nothing to do with being a good or a bad leader. It is not clear what Nuhu Ribadu, the EFCC chairman, meant when he declared Adedibu and Akala as not fit to be leaders in Oyo State. Adedibu might not be a good leader, depending on a particular definition; he is an effective one but maybe not many people’s kind of leader. How he has managed to keep the numbers is worth examining. Adedibu is not just an election time benefactor of the masses of Ibadan; he is an all time patron. That swells the numbers around him.
To make a leader like Adedibu ineffective, you have to attack the numbers around him and this can only be achieved by painting him as an unfair person. That could be a tall order for his opponents. Even he, when he wanted to drop the number of sympathies for Ladoja, he painted Ladoja as an unfair person. He said, ‘…We all know that these governors collect around N65 million (naira) of security money every month that they don’t have to account for. Am I not entitled to half of that; is it fair?’ That did it. His followers did not see the illegality in his demands; they saw the unfairness of Ladoja. Instead of Ladoja going to Otta to plead with Obasanjo, who has the image of unfairness of his own, he should have painted Adedibu as an unfair person who wanted half of what belonged to the whole of Oyo State for Ibadan. He did not.
It was Abraham Lincoln who said, ‘if you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.’ History is full of examples of effective leadership, most of which were not necessarily good leadership. As evil as Hitler was, he had a good following of the German people. Tito did the same thing in the former Yugoslavia. In recent times, it is Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. These two organisations understand the principles of effective leadership. They project an image of fairness and justice. That is all the people need to follow them. They are ready to die, if so be it, because of a feeling of standing a better chance with these organisations in the lead. The Fatah was rejected because of the image of unfairness which was exemplified by corruption. United States of America is losing the world leadership role because of its image of injustice, unfairness and double standards.
The injustice of the holocaust was what gave the massive support to the State of Israel, in the first place. Now, it is a perception of injustice, this time, being meted to the Palestinians by the Israelis that are eroding that support. It is an issue of propaganda. Whilst the Israelis have projected a threat to their existence by the actions of a few belligerent Palestinians, the Palestinians have managed to paint the Israelis as unfair and unjust to the generality of the Palestinians. People do not readily appreciate a threat to life as being portrayed by the State of Israel, but easily feel a sense of injustice or unfairness. President Ahmadinajad of Iran is smarter than people think. First, he attacked the basis of support for the cause of Israel – the injustice of the holocaust – as a myth and then proclaimed that he would wipe it off the face of the earth. He reasons that if he could drop a high number of sympathisers for Israel by discrediting the source of its support, it would be easier to destroy the State of Israel. He knows that the threat to the existence of the State of Israel is second to injustice in the hearts of most people.
Back home, we are in the process of choosing our leaders for the next four years. What would be at the back of the mind of most of the voters? Is it going to be a choice of a good leader or an effective leader? A good leader is desirable, but if he does not have a good following he would be ineffective. If the leader is not effective, he would not have enough support to push his programs for the welfare of the people. An effective leader, on the other hand, would achieve much for the people. An effective leader, however, knows that to maintain the numbers behind him, he must be seen as fair and just. It is in this process of being seen as fair and just that the majority of the people will benefit. That process, however, calls for sacrifice from the leader. If both sides (the leader and the led) understand the principles of effective leadership and how to sustain it, it would better the state of society.
I had pointed out in the previous article, the failures of Obasanjo as our political leader and why he was not as effective as he should. I attributed it to an image problem of injustice that he disregarded. When it was reported that the village of Odi was wiped off the map for instance, the government of Obasanjo did not do enough to launder that image of injustice. That, however, has metamorphosed into the crisis in the Niger Delta. We, the people, did not do our part by forcing the government to make amends or launder that image. We did not talk, because we did not come from Odi. Three days ago, I came across an account of a holocaust survivor – a priest. He said of Nazism, ‘First, they came for the communists, but because we were not communists; we did not talk. Next, they came for the Jews, but we were not Jews; so we did not talk. Then, they came for non-Jews that did not share their dreams, but because we were priests; we did not talk. Finally, they came for us, the priests, by this time it was too late; there was nobody to talk to.’
A speaker addressing a group of Christian youths recently in an effort to sensitise the group about the upcoming election in Nigeria stated thus: Yet again, it is a season of choice, politically that is. It is the only time the Nigerian politician recognises that the people have a choice; therefore, you should use it wisely. As human beings, we are faced with choices every second of our conscious lives. However, each choice, like the political one you about to make, has its consequences. …The Christian community to which you are members was established by our Lord Jesus Christ to help in this and similar choices all the days of your lives. With his guidance, a guaranteed pleasure is the consequences of our choices; even if those choices appear painful. Would Christ have chosen a Christian or a God fearing person or persons? Do not forget the import of the parable of the Good Samaritan, who was a Gentile and not of the faith but a good man. With the crop of politicians available, our hearts are laden with what to choose from. But, Christ had charged, ‘Come to me, all you who labour and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me for I am gentle and lowly in heart and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.’
The beauty of the secret ballot is the privacy. It allows one to vote according to one’s conviction. That is voting with one’s heart and it is expected that a person would not lie to his heart. To me, it does not matter who is voted for, as long as we all know what it is to sustain effective leadership and how to change a leader that becomes ineffective. One can only postulate that our choice will have a bearing on the fear of God. It also does not matter whether who you vote for loses or wins. Even if your candidate has only one vote and that vote was yours, the joy is that you have voted from your heart. However, if by sheer coincidence and who you voted for happens to be the choice of the majority; then the majority carries the vote. Even such political victory is transient as the real test is the governance and there, there is no guarantee. After all, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected by the Germans. He, however, turned out to be the nemesis of the German people and invited the whole world to destroy Germany. We should also remember that Saddam also came to power through the ballot box.
Samuel Akinyele Caulcrick,
UK. Author of The Devil Must Be Laughing.
|
Posted by Robot| 15.03.2007 10:20