Change is just an illusion

They say the history repeats itself and that nothing is new under the sun. Someone went further to add that we should always strive to be on the right side of history when it repeats itself, for it surely will. But what is the definition of “History”? According to Hegel (1770-1831) history is the gradual liberation of humanity from ignorance. In a similar way, Auguste Comte (1798-1857) saw history as transitioning from phases marked by relative ignorance to phases of increased enlightenment. In simple terms, history is anything that happened in the past (and the past can be as close as yesterday). The expectation therefore is that current and future similar happenings have to be better and more advanced, but similar in vein.

It is important to note that one cannot learn from something they do not know. For that reason, therefore, to be on the “right side of history”, you must first know that which occurred in the past. It will not only give you a better context to what is happening currently, but also help you theorize how it will develop. This then helps one react appropriately so as to not fall prey to the “mistakes” of the past.

Take the most recent world crisis for example. When COVID-19 pandemic broke out, many historians were quick to draw parallels with the 1918 influenza pandemic. A number of interventions made by the World Health Organization and other stakeholders had similarities with the 1918 case, al beit superior in execution. The outbreak over a century ago was therefore a vital reference point and while COVID-19 resulted in several fatalities, it was not at the scale of the one before.

Politically, there is always a common theme: Change. Almost every leader seeks to ascend to power on the message of change and many of those who campaign on the platform of continuity hardly ever make it. It is fashionable to preach change even if the person you seek to replace has done a tremendous job. We all are naturally attracted to change. In direr cases, there’s often talk of revolution which should essentially bring this change.

?I recall when Robert Mugabe fell from power in November 2017, I spoke to a few friends of mine there. They were ecstatic at the events of the 21st day of November. These were people who had known only one president and because of this, all the ills of Zimbabwe were associated with him. There could have been good things too that he did in the country but the mere fact that he had held on to power for that long erased all of these. I challenged one of my friends regarding the fact that Emmerson Mnangagwa, the successor to Bob had been his deputy for so long and definitely shared in the misdeeds of the regime. As a matter of fact, I quipped, the two only disagreed on who was to succeed Bob as it was rumored that he’d step down and at the time (he) favored his wife as his heir. In a simple and curt reply, my friend replied “Anyone and anything is better than Mugabe at the moment!”.

?Historically, there are several examples of change that never was. World over, leaders have ascended onto power on the wind of change but very few have actualized any meaningful change. There could be several reasons to this but two immediately come to mind. First, many at times, change is just a word and while the citizens expect socio-economic change, the real change is in the faces occupying the office. So, when the leaders preach change, what they actually mean is the exit of the current occupant so that the new person can assume office and practice the same things. A good example is in Kenya in 2002. Before the elections, many people especially the opposition leaders and the civil society were clamoring for a change of the constitution. Most of them won elective posts in that year’s elections and the expectation was that the constitutional change would eventually crystallize. The leading opposition candidate and the eventual winner, Mwai Kibaki, even promised a new constitution in the first 100 days in office. Once they assumed power, the bickering begun and the 100 days became a joke in the streets. Amidst all these, Kenyans realized that the push for constitutional change was only meant to clip Moi’s overreaching powers but once power changed hands, the new team were very eager to exercise the same with much vigor than even their predecessor. In fact, a cabinet minister came out openly and stated it publicly. Michela Wrong captures this quite well in her book titled It's Our Turn to Eat: The Story of a Kenyan Whistle-Blower.

The second reason why change doesn’t happen is the citizen’s obsession with the past. This is what a famous Kenyan writer called “Moism without Moi”, the situation after 2002 where Kenyans wanted change but were still mesmerized by Moi’s ways of doing things. Due to his personality and possibly ill-health, Kibaki would not be all-over the screens like Moi. Public events were less colorful and “there was no money”. Even the Kenya Army band had to change the music they played during the inspection of the parade by the Commander-In-Chief who could not march with the same energy of his predecessor. All these and many more were used as a reason to explain why “we were better off with Moi”.

Change is a painful and costly affair that requires very strong-willed persons who understand and desire it. It is a complete overhaul of certain societal and cultural practices which have permeated the society for long. It needs to be practiced over a period of time for the benefits to be realized. On days when you face the greatest opposition, the agent of change must put their foot down and insist on a forward match. Sounds a little dictatorial but the assumption is that he/she has the end-game clearly spelt out, and it is for the good of the people. In most cases, the change agent may not even live long enough to enjoy the benefits. Such people end up being very unpopular and the public cannot wait to get them out of office. It is only after they leave office that people start appreciating some of the deeds.

In about 10 days, Kenyans head to the polls to “exercise their democratic rights” and elect their new set of leaders. Many of the candidates have promised change. Hey! Even the incumbents, including the president, are promising change. Many eyes are trained on the leading presidential candidates and their running mates. But take a moment and remove these two sets of candidates from the picture. Look at the people behind them who are propagating their presidency, including those behind the scenes if you can. Tell me if these faces look any different from those who have lead this country over the past 10 years and beyond. Cast your vote if you must, without fear or regret, but manage your expectations!

?…To be continued…