POWER, CHANGE AND THE PRACTICE OF GOVERNANCE

The age of reason has turned out to be the age of structure; a time when, in the absence of purpose, the drive for power as a value in itself has become the principal indicator of social approval. And the winning of power has become the measure of social merit. -John Ralston Saul There is an intuitive notion of what power actually is, and that is what informs, in part, the ideas herein contained. Power here connotes the capacity to perform in the context of subjects such as politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law, and the enforcement of legal codes by authority. What these concepts are, why they exist, why they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms must a government protect (and what must not) and why, what form government should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe a legitimate government, and when a people may reject a government (whether legitimately or not) are key questions that addresses the nature, limits and character of power. Such is the embodiment of power. Liberal arts is yet to formulate a statement on the concept of power that is all encompassing and rigorous enough to be of use in the systematic study of this important social phenomenon. With these concepts, (politics, liberty et al) it is possible to rank members of a specific society according to their “power” whether they are state actors or just citizens, and such ranges from the roles of executive rule, legislation, adjudication and citizenship. Change, on its own part, simply implies a "swap" from the "old" to the "new"; not necessarily for the better, it could also be for worse. Change could even be a "regression" of the "old order" to the "older order". Hence, it would be misleading to classify change as being essentially good, better and/or positive. Consider Nigeria: the country has evolved into a dawn of a new era because its national agenda has translated from "transformation" to "change"; the leadership of the government has moved from PDP to APC; the former opposition has moved to control power at the centre (thereby becoming rulling) and the former ruling party has taken up the status of national opposition; Buhari is now head of national government and Jonathan has ceased from being head of national government; the list mounts. What this implies is change. The way political power is exercised will be better or worse; the way policies are made and implemented will be better or worse; the attitude of citizenship towards leadership, and vice versa promises to have a shift which direction only time and space would divulge. This is what change is. Hence, it shows that change, as above related, is a function dependent on time and space. When power and change converge, a functional synergy is formed. This synergy is the character a government wears. The character of a government is a function of the character of the leadership that constitutes it in relation to the citizenship it leads. What then are the implications of government? Government (irrespective of whether the consent of the governed is sought in its formation or not) is an institution of State which a group of individuals within a society, having access to the most of human and material resources within the geographical space, wield influence and control so as to handle the processes which they feel is necessary for the existence and sustenance of a society. For instance we had the government of Obasanjo, Yar'Adua, Jonathan, and now that of Buhari; all within the Nigerian state. These governments exercise power in various ways, and over a period of time it changes to another; but the Nigerian state remains unchanged. Hence, government is an institution that wields power, but submits absolutely to the inviolable principles of change. On the other hand, the state wields power through its agents in government, but the roles of the government does not necessarily change the state to something other than what makes it a state. Hence, the state is not absolutely a function of change, especially in the sense in which change has been aforementioned. The roles of governments does not change what the state actually is; the existence of the three tiers of government, the Armed Forces, the Judiciary, the Executive, the Legislature, the Customs, the Police, the Central Bank, and so on, remains whether Goodluck Jonathan's government is on saddle or not. Such is the implication of what a State is. A government is given full expression of purpose through governance; or the way it governs. Governance is an elusive subject because there are many in-roads to it, but its centre is leadership and its target is the citizenry. But when leadership and citizenship is exercised by an inadequate value system, the impact created is dangerous, not only to the totality of society, but also to the sustainable means and ends of what governance ought to be. If the motivation of both (especially that of leadership) emanates from motives of power, material and prestige, the leadership and citizenship so made, will flounder in its efforts to amass the symbol of each. The symbol of leadership strictly entails looking into a desired future and developing a vision of it, so as to conquer it. And that is because the concept of "tomorrow" threatens the very existence of any people; hence the need to look into it so as to device a survival kit. Such is the essence of governance. The symbol of citizenship is the proper leverage, scrutiny and support on the gains/defects of leadership, especially for common good. It is however, noteworthy to state here that leadership and citizenship depend on each other to function optimally. Furthermore, each owes the other a responsibility that makes one act on behalf of the other at critical times; hence, their complementary stance at sharp points. The symbols of governance (whether of leadership or citizenship) is the mark of Participation, the Rule of Law, Transparency, Responsiveness, Consensus Orientation & Building, Equity, Effectiveness & Efficiency, Accountability, and Strategic Vision. As regards PARTICIPATION, good governance implies that all men have a voice in decision-making, either directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests (not necessarily by the consent of all); for the RULE OF LAW, legal frameworks are to be fair and enforced impartially; on TRANSPARENCY, good governance means that processes, institutions and information are directly accessible to those concerned so as enable them understand and monitor such; on RESPONSIVENESS, institutions and processes should serve all stakeholders (leaders and citizens alike); on CONSENSUS ORIENTATION & BUILDING, good governance mediates differing interests to reach a broad consensus on what is in the best interests and of common good; in regards to EQUITY, good governance implies that all men and women must have equal opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being; on EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY, good governance connotes that processes and institutions must produce results that meets needs while making sustainable use of resources; as regards ACCOUNTABILITY, policy-makers and decision-makers in government, in the private sector and in civil society organisations are to be accountable to the public, as well as to institutional stakeholders; on STRATEGIC VISION, leadership and the citizenship ought to have a broad and long-term perspective on good governance and human & material development, along-side a sense of what is needed for such development, so as to sustain it. Such is the embodiment of the nexus of power and change. The nexus so formed by power and change, if it must be positive and all-encompassingly beneficial, ought to provide governance which should not be motivated by the motives of power, material and prestige but by an adequate value system that is passionate for sustainable development. While this is a task, it is also the crux!