Sometime last week, President Muhammadu
Buhari gave an apology. This was for his administration’s improper
dissolution of university boards. Apologies are uncharacteristic for
Nigerian presidents in general, and for Buhari in particular. This is
why his words are worth noting: “There is nothing wrong in saying sorry
and going back on your decision. So, we said sorry and allowed all the
universities to continue with their councils.”
I think of this as an example of
leadership. Of course, a singular rethink on a decision does not
automatically make Buhari a great leader. We will have to wait for the
cumulative effect of his policies before we can consider any claim to
greatness. But that is for later. Right now, this openness to correction
indicates a welcome potential. President Buhari is often at his best
when he discards ego and engages people and processes with empathy.
But this article is not just about
Buhari. It is, instead, concerned with the conduct of public officials
in Nigeria. It seems difficult for the majority of officials—from
governors to special advisers—to act reasonably. They are too clueless
to see the antithesis between public roles and their private biases, too
proud to admit mistakes of conduct.
This attitude was present in Mr. Femi Adesina’s interview with Channels Television
last week. Without irony, the spokesperson stated that Nigerians
complaining of power failure should direct attention to pipeline
vandals. Consider also Ms Abike Dabiri who, during a Twitter
conversation last week, snapped at the person engaging her for
expressing pessimism with the Nigerian condition. This type of attitude
in our public officials is worrisome. It is indicative of a mentality
that neither understands the complexity of the public nor the
representative role of an official.
Public office comes with responsibility.
This responsibility implies that decisions cannot be absolute;
statements have to be weighed; and private opinion should not influence
official capacity. Public office in a democracy is designed to be
uncomfortable—and we need to impress this fact on the occupants.
The Nigerian Constitution outlines a
Code of Conduct for public officials. However, because there is—and
rightly so—a limit to which we can legislate human conduct, the
provisions focus more on financial misconduct. In the Constitution, only
the president and governors (and their seconds) are subject to a,rather
vague, notion of “gross misconduct” that can be cause for impeachment
proceedings.
This does not mean there are no
standards for the behaviour of public officials. There are ethics
necessarily implied by a democratic society. This is best understood by
considering the nature of “customer service” in commercial transactions.
Customer service is much more than the material value of money. We
cannot weigh a smile or a courteous greeting in naira and kobo. But we
expect decorous conduct when we pay money for goods and services.
The business world understands that good
behaviour ensures customer loyalty. The idea that the customer is
always right is less about subservience and more about
self-preservation. This simple reasoning keeps eluding the directors of
African democracies.
Good behaviour is equally—if not
more—important in governance. We pay public officials in cash and kind,
and our lives are dependent on the sensibility of their decisions. The
effect of a bad-mannered business owner may not last beyond a sour
memory, but an insensitive public official can generate serious social
divisions.
But why is bad behaviour so widespread
in our public service? First, we tend to ignore misbehaviour because our
colonial and military heritage has damaged our social psychology. We
expect nothing and so we are unmoved when we get nothing. But if we are
to evolve this democracy from mere form to substance, then we have to
start insisting on good service.
Also, public officials feel secure
because there is no available opposition to take their posts. A
functional opposition party is more than just a nuisance. It is a
necessity. Educated Nigerians have to push for the existence of a
credible opposition party. It is the customer that benefits when the
market allows healthy competition.
Credible opposition cannot emerge where
sycophancy is widespread. This servile tendency is a hallmark of our
political economy. Sycophancy is a consequence of an economic system
where access to government is a pre-condition for material wealth. It is
not unusual that those who praise Buhari’s “courage” in making a
decision are likely to be the same ones to praise his “humility” if he
reverses the decision.
Intellectual dishonesty is the worst
type of sycophancy. These are the ones who proffer arguments that a
public official is “just being frank”. Public officials are not paid to
be frank—that is what social critics do for free—we pay public officials
to serve the public. It is in a sick society that the educated class
defends the excesses of public officials instead of the rights of the
citizenry. Sycophancy is hard to eradicate in a developing country.
However, with mass education and a corresponding increase in the middle
class, we can minimise its dangerous effects.
The Constitution states “sovereignty
belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this
Constitution derives all its powers and authority”. This is a clear
statement of government subservience to citizens. We bear the
responsibility of demanding good conduct by public officials. It is bad
enough when public officials steal our money, we don’t have to roll over
and allow them rob our dignity as well. Even so, corruption feeds on
indignity. Corruption of greed begins when someone in the society
considers that they are more entitled than others. A governor who is not
hesitant to order the beating of a civilian who blocks his convoy will
not be hesitant to steal money.
A Yoruba adage says that the person who
lies will certainly steal. I say look out for public officials who feel
entitled to a right of way: those ones are very likely to be corrupt.
No comments:
Post a Comment