By Douglas Anele

The mantra of change facing ordinary Nigerians and their throbbing desire for improved living conditions. But how many of those who vociferously chanted ‘change,’ especially APC leaders and their supporters across the country, actually understand what genuine social change is all about? What are the philosophical underpinnings and dimensions of change? Are all changes desirable – and if so what types of human beings or groups are best qualified to actualise it in a given society?

What are the parameters for measuring change? Anyone with a patina of philosophical knowledge would appreciate the difficulties associated with efforts to understand the phenomenon of change. To take a seemingly simple example, for millennia the change from day to night and back again to daytime was not satisfactorily understood until the requisite astronomical and geographical information became available after the works of Copernicus and Galileo.

But of course, the desire to understand change is coeval with the emergence of our species through evolution. There is abundant evidence that prehistoric peoples were aware of the incredible varieties of change occurring all around – and within – them, and postulated an amazing array of myths to explain what they observed. Burning desire to understand changes in the natural environment compelled ancient philosopher-scientists and priests all over the world to investigate reality more closely, which ultimately led to the emergence of scientific knowledge. In philosophy, one of the core problems concerning change is the connection between change and time, and how both relate to human beings.

Although change is a basic element of our experiential reality, there is a strong element of otherworldliness in Western and Eastern philosophies, characterised by belief that the quotidian world of changing entities and processes are inferior or unreal in comparison to a more fundamental and unchanging reality. After Parmenides and Heraclitus formulated philosophical theories of permanence and change respectively, Plato reconciled the two with his doctrine that the real world, the world of forms, is unchanging whereas the ordinary world of our daily experience is one of constant change.

African worldviews are predominantly this-worldly, which explains why the idea of an unchanging changer of the universe or immutable God is rare in traditional African religions. Now, the notion that the changing, decaying world is a reflection of an eternal, incorruptible and changeless reality is central to Abrahamic religions and constitutes a core tenet of absolute idealism. And notwithstanding that the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics tend to undermine belief in an unchanging reality, a plausible case can be made that scientific account of change invariably proceed by identifying an unchanging law relevant to the phenomenon or group of phenomena under investigation, or an unchanging quantity conserved in the process.

This implies that explanation of change always proceeds, according to Simon Blackburn, by finding that which is unchanged. For a long time in physics, every change was explained by appeal to movement of particles, although after Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell, changing fields of forces became as important as material atomic particles. Developments in contemporary physics have shown the limitations of purely mechanical explanations, such that change is now rendered in the form of abstract mathematical equations.

With respect to social and political phenomena, the problem of change becomes somewhat more complicated principally because of the human element involved, even though, as Karl Popper argued in The Poverty of Historicism, the methodological problem of explanation is the same both in the natural and social sciences. Because the factors responsible for social phenomena are usually multifaceted and complex, any meaningful programme of change in a society must be preceded by careful analysis of the institutions that play important roles in that society.

Aside from posturing in the media, there is very little to indicate that the APC leadership, through whatever means, undertook a thorough examination of the critical institutions in the country before the elections in order to prepare its candidates for leadership. Of course, there is a big difference between using ‘change’ as a campaign slogan and implementing well thought-out programmes that can positively transform the lives of suffering Nigerians.

Because of Buhari’s relentless promise of “moving quickly to change this and change that” if elected, some impatient fanatical apostles of ‘change’ are beginning to experience the psychological boomerang of unrealistic high expectations that might not materialise after all. The key issue is that, a little over a month after President Buhari was sworn in, a cross section of Nigerians who uncritically believed the change shibboleth are in a hurry to experience the change he promised.

But only the most gullible Nigerians did not know that the presidential machinery of APC deliberately hyperbolised Alhaji Buhari’s purported transformational credentials for the sole purpose of electoral victory just as its counterpart in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) deliberately downplayed the extent of the problems President Jonathan was leaving behind for his successor. Thus, it is unreasonable to expect radical changes in the system at this time because the tasks confronting the President are extremely daunting indeed.

That said, it is plainly deceitful for Lai Mohammed, APC’s vuvuzela, to claim that the President has performed excellently well, for the simple reason that it is too early to reach definitive conclusion about his performance. Besides, President Buhari has not done anything of significance yet to bring about positive changes in the key areas of our national life. The country is still moving mainly on the momentum and structures of governance left behind by the administration of Jonathan.

It follows that recent improvements in electricity and fuel supply, for example, are more the effects of cessation of sabotage against Jonathan’s government than the consequences of actions taken by Buhari himself. Moreover, it is possible that some personnel in the power and oil sectors are trying hard to impress the President in order to survive the much-anticipated winnowing machine of his reform agenda.

President Buhari has hit the ground but is yet to start running. In my humble opinion, the President and his supporters are wasting precious time and energy criticising Jonathan’s government and complaining about the parlous state of the nation, an approach that is completely at odds with what is required to bring about meaningful change. In otherwords, incessant (and sometimes exaggerated) complaints and blame games are not substitutes for good governance.

Probably, given the on-going turbulence in the Senate and House of Representatives, APC leaders are beginning to realise that it is much easier to shout change as a strategy for winning elections than to actualise it in a fractured, fractious and economically shambolic geopolitical environment such as ours. More importantly, the kind of change Nigeria needs now is not mere replacement of the ruling party by another, neither is it change in the individuals running the executive and legislative arms of government.

The change Nigeria requires very urgently is an intellectual and moral revolution among members of the ruling elite, which could lead to appropriate behaviour modification necessary for responsible and responsive leadership. But APC cannot give what it does not have; the party is incapable of changing the warped mindset of its members holding exalted political offices because it is dominated by agbata ekee politicians mainly motivated by the desire for power, easy wealth and sybaritic lifestyle.