Chikelu: Biological vs Ideological Age
By Okey Ikechukwu
Our people say that an experienced elder who observes the dance steps, and footsteps, of a young man who got the traditional Ozo title at the age of 20 will know whether the young man will live to old age. If the young man in question is so caught up with his self-celebration that he does not care whether he is stepping on people’s toes, or stirring up a lot of dust and making too many people to sneeze in the village square, then he has the wrong things coming for him, down the road.
It is also a well-known saying that “It is only the child who washes his hands very well that is allowed to dine with elders and titled men.” This statement is a metaphorical way of saying that the person who is biologically young, but who exhibits, or exudes, a level of maturity/personal grooming, that befits an adult of full value, earns himself the honour of being among the leaders and knowledgeable trendsetters in society despite his biological age.
The mantra: “Give the young ones a chance” is right. It is wrong when “young ones” is defined strictly, and only, in terms of the biological age of individuals and groups – rather than the age of the ideas and aspirations people are aspiring towards. We must, therefore, re-examine the ideological orientation, guiding values and general motivation of many young people who aspire to leadership, or who are holding leadership positions in Nigeria today.
When we consider that largely the same people have been the principal actors in our national life for the last 40 years, the question we must ask is: ‘Is the leadership of the federal Republic of Nigeria some kind of hereditary chieftaincy for them”? Most of these people should have since given way to a well capacitated Replacement Generation that is properly situated within contemporary 21st century leadership, governance and developmental paradigms.
But before we hurry off to sweep everything ‘old’ away, we must ask and answer the following questions: (1) Can someone be biologically young in age, but ideologically old in his orientation, because of his beliefs and values? (2) Do we have ample evidence of a direct positive relationship between biological youth and great performance in public office in the last 23 years of democracy in Nigeria? (3) What should we do when the presumably young and newly bred re-enact with great aplomb the worst forms of malfeasance perpetrated by their elders?
I ask the above questions against the background of recent developments in our national life, wherein the supposedly young, intelligent and upwardly mobile do not espouse the 21st century leadership, followership and service values.
If, as the constitution says, the primary purpose of government is to cater for the welfare and security of the people, it should be the younger generation in particular that would demonstrate this at every opportunity; because it is their world we are talking about. If the primary business of anyone in public office is to focus on everything that would strengthen the welfare of the people and ensure a more secure nation, then it must also be expected that young men and women who have held, and/or are still holding, public office in Nigeria would be beacons of hope.
For the record, they once were. Think back to the days of Nigeria’s founding fathers, the age of those who negotiated the nation’s independence; as well as the age of those who threw up the grand economic, human capital and overall regional and national development programmes and initiatives.
They contrast remarkably with a large percentage of the biologically younger ones, of the same age, of today. What is the age bracket of those who have been governors and House of Assembly members in the states? Have majority of them performed, or are performing, spectacularly in the positive sense? Many who have had a go at leadership positions apparently did not wash their hands well enough before stepping forward and dipping. And it is not that they are unintelligent in the academic sense, or incompetent; even from the angle of enlightened self-interest.
But enough of that!
Let us, dwell on the profile and tenure of a Nigerian who became a minister in his thirties, and who left an incredible record of probity, integrity and forward-looking paradigms. That was in 2004, exactly 20 years ago, under President Olusegun Obasanjo.
We are talking about Chief Chukwuemeka Chikelu.
He was Minister of Information and National Orientation. He was simple, focused and methodical. His constant refrain was this: “Excellence, national interest and a commitment to the Best Global Practices should characterize everything we do here; because this is service to God, by serving human beings and our fatherland in the right way”. As minister, he was always on the lookout for informed opinions, professional advice and policies with measurable impact. He did not at any time allow the melodrama of “authority” to colour his outlook.
In his first meeting and briefing with the ministry’s leadership and staff, he informed a somewhat confounded audience that the was reporting to work as a minister was to work with them in serving the people and the national interest. Chikelu remained his sober, decent, simple and unpretentious self throughout his tenure as minister. He deliberately ensured that there was no separation between Chukwuemeka Chikelu as a person living his normal life, and Chukwuemeka Chikelu as a minister going to work like every other citizen who is reporting for duty elsewhere.
He lived in his private house throughout his tenure as minister. He drove in his own car and only occasionally used the assigned official car for purely formal events, where his car would be inappropriate mode of transportation according to the state protocols. The rent, and other personal expenses, of all his aides were borne by the aides themselves; and not the ministry. And he was a brilliant young man by every standard. with very pronounced personal preference for orderliness, clear targets and easily measurable results.
As would be expected of a young man who is guided by 21st century leadership and service paradigms, the questions Chikelu often asked when presented with any proposals, whether from within or from outside the ministry, are the following: (1) How will this advance our job here and also benefit the people and the nation? (2) How do we measure the positive results, if indeed there is much to be expected from it? (3) Can we justify the proposed costs? (4) Would we gladly spend this amount of money on this project if we were paying with our own personal resources? (5) Can we work out the cheapest possible figures for this project and scale up from there? He was that meticulous.
Chikelu would not or propose approve anything that violated any clear policy frameworks, or administrative guideline. He paid close attention to every public event organized under his watch. He had a personal aversion for empty ceremonies, flashy “programmes” and high-sounding schemes; which he sometimes described as excuses for wasting public funds. He always saw expensive programmes designed without any real value to the nation as reprehensible and dishonest ways of pretending to be working when one is actually not doing anything.
Chikelu would insist that records of expenditure should not be mistaken for evidence of beneficial impact of government programmes on the welfare of citizens. Some ministry personnel who were astounded by his disposition and orientation even openly opined that “a serious Minister” should not be looking into the routine “chop and let others chop” culture in government. “Afterall, it is not anyone’s father’s money is involved”.
As was said on this page five years ago, and 10 years after Chikelu left office as Minister of Information and National Orieintation, “The ministry got a totally new approach to a lot of things under him. He explained that it was an efficient information machinery, and not the high visibility of government ministers, that made the US, UK, use behind the scenes efficiency to maintain effective global communication”.
Chikelu predicated most of his submissions on the simple fact that there were Best Practices in all human affairs, including information management and public communication. He would argue that “Modern nations build, develop and sustain government communication as part of the overall social process”.
His tenure brought into the very idea of the job of Information Minister an agenda for national reorientation on what to expect from, and demand of, that office and other institutions of state. Like the current Minister of Information and national Orientation, Chikelu did not think that every critic of the government was automatically an enemy of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He held that government communication should not strive primarily to please the powers that be.
His methodical approach to his job was consistent with what would be expected of any member of his generation anywhere in the developed world. He recognized the following three problems in the job of national information management, namely; (a) How to procure authentic information and use credible persons and platforms to present and project it; (b) How to separate useful information from idle charter and ego-massaging government rhetoric; (c) How to make credible information available to his various publics, in such a way that even those he does not win over will, at least, not swell the ranks of those who would not bother to listen at all.
That is why, while dealing with the job of national communication, he also focused on: (i) Developing personnel skills and strengthening structures and processes in the ministry; (ii) Restoring the government’s institutional capacity for distilling useful information; (iii) Synchronising the activities, programmes and projections, of the information ministry and related agencies for unity of purpose and to avoid duplications and wastages; and (iv) Showing that public office holders have a duty to insist on the right paradigms and not play to the gallery, even if uninformed public opinion wanted it otherwise.
Given recent national events, I repeat what was said at the beginning of this article: “The mantra: ‘Give the young ones a chance’ is right. It is wrong when “young ones” is defined strictly, and only, in terms of the biological age of individuals and groups – rather than the age of the ideas and aspirations people are aspiring towards.
