David K. Dahn
dahndavid40@gmail.com
+(231)886568666/775546683
If the argument of submitting to the wind of generational change should be fostered without ‘diplomatic ambiguity’, it must first be preceded by adequate generational preparation in contrast to mere generational calculation. Given the recent vertiginous growth within our governance arena, the task for a generational change calls for new possibilities and concentrations in pursuit of individual and collective preparedness.
I caught a commercial ride, and jumping into the middle of an ongoing conversation, I heard a young chap expressing what psychologists call frustration of regretion-“In Liberia , it’s contact and not education because I am a staunch member of Party x. My uncle promised me a well paid job had he won a senatorial seat”. Wow!!, I said to myself throatily. Hearing a young man calculating his success reliant upon another person’s success without preparation was so hilarious to me. In my mind, preparation is making something ready for use, if even the timing is unspecified. On the other hand, “calculating for a success” is deliberately waiting that something of comfort, good nature or fortune will pass one’s way by a matter of chance.
Subject to a debate, I attempt to play on some words here. In preparation, one thinks of achieving a purpose, one thinks of the future, one thinks of personal integrity, one thinks of what I call characteral security, and one thinks of transparency because ahead lies accountability. Whereas in calculating for success void of preparation, one builds self confidence that something good will come somehow, one builds self pride that their connection is so strong to get somewhere, one builds the internal fortitude that they have personal needs which have to be satisfied at any expense and in one’s calculation rather than preparation for success, the willingness is there to sacrifice anything for everything.
Change is unconquerable due to its inevitability. Change is bound to come when it will come. When people anticipate change and prepare for it, it becomes a positive change that is autonomously driven. On the other hand, when change is induced or thrust on an individual or a nation from external or exogenous sources without preparation, its consequences are short live, discomforting, disastrous and leaves the targets of opportunity(those the change supposed to impact) with a very shallow strategic depth of understanding why the change itself occurred. In short, whenever there is an unprepared change, experiences have proven that it leaves the ‘nation’ weary and in misery. It then goes without saying that the proponents of ‘generational change’ must provide spirited guide to the process that leads to the trumpeted call of change. By romanticizing the concept of generational change, it occurs to me that there is already an ideologically grounded programs instituted over the years to ossify such new national consciousness. In all fairness of purpose, a generation that pursues a change must have its program matted foremost on primordial political conscientization and sensitization. Otherwise, the ‘generational change’ call will be a mere political posturing under the masquerade of what is known in Social Science as the “Rational Choice Theory”. By this theory, a ‘trustable individual’ is chosen and selection as such is influenced by an outgoing paramount leader. Rationalizing without justifying anything here, the selection of a ‘perceived trustable individual’ by a paramount leader is done under the veil of seeking two kinds of protection. First, to ensure ‘security guarantee’ broadly for the outgoing leader and second to ensure guarantee of maintaining the predecessor’s ‘legacy’ by which he/she can be adjudged/remembered. In a ‘political world’ of possibility, probability and predictability, anything is possible and therefore politicians dare not leave anything to chance. It is the view of this discourse that a retired paramount leader is practically never tired in influencing the normal(day-to-day) politics under the masking of fending off any perceived threat that would tint his/her legacy. It is also possible that the new leader chosen by a paramount leader could be resistant to political influence. By way of footnoting, I was orally told by a sage that President Edwin James Barclay, attempting to influence the reign of then ‘Young President Tubman’, was rebuked by Tubman in these words, “It was Barclay then, it is Tubman now.”
Trekking through memory lanes, it is gratifying to reflect that the final result that brought the Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC) to power in 2017 demonstrated that Liberians stood ready to support a government of their making. Under the doctrine of the ‘Social Contract Theory’, it was hoped that the government of the day understood its moral and political obligation to fulfilling the expectations of the people just as it was required by all patriotic citizens to support the then government that was instituted ‘by the people’. On account of reflection, with the folding of the electioneering politics, there emerged the challenge for the fulfilment of the dreams to improve the social and economic wellbeing of the ‘people’. In my humble consideration, dream fulfilment on the part of any government begins with the quality of those who are nominated, and where applicable, confirmed and subsequently appointed to assist the President in the task of nation building. In the process of nation building, due care must be taken to distinguish between nation builders and nation wreckers; between iconoclasts and those who oppose the veneration of cherished institutions; between selfish individuals who represent a cluster of hidden interests as opposed to people who are adjudged upright by their marks of integrity; between people whose activities have corrosive economic impact on the nation as opposed to people who seek gratification through the quality of service they provide to their nation. To paraphrase the words of the motivational writer on leadership, John Adair, to appoint a non-leader or a misleader to a paramount stately position is to court disaster in the country. It is anticipated that the Unity Party led government will cue out best practices or shun flawed lessons from the moribund CDC led government.
Liberia is hailed for upholding the term-limit presidency which now unfurls a new political epoch in our mainstream politics. Sir Francis Drake as quoted by Adair (2005, p.83), reminds us however, that “There must be a beginning of any great matter, but the continuing unto the end until it be thoroughly finished yields the true glory”. How democratic politics will be toyed with, maintained, and sustained under Liberia’s novel political dispensation is something being monitored closely under global democratic lenses. Certainly, people are the subjects of history and must be the center of any proposal for change. Interestingly, as William Borah points out, “The marvel of history is the patience with which men and women submit to the burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments”.
