TO RULE OR NOT TO RULE
RULE,as a verb, has multiple definitions but for purposes of this article, I have settled for one of the definitions from the Random House Dictionary of the English Language which defines “rule” as “… to exercise authority, dominion or sovereignty.”
This meaning implies someone, or a group of people, exercising authority, dominion or sovereignty over other people.
In terms of politics, exercising authority and dominion means having the power to preside over and leverage the governance framework on behalf of the people. This, ideally, is achieved by way of popularly delegated powers which are conferred through periodic elections.
Humans have been associated with one form of rule or the other from time immemorial. This is primarily because leadership is essential for any organised society and lack of it has the potential to breed veritable mayhem and intractable chaos.
The world owes Greeks for the genesis of democracy (rule by the people) and democratic governance. Given the universal consensus around the centrality of leadership to organised society, the debatable question is: Who should aspire for election to political office?
The answer should be derived by primarily examining what the people, the real and authentic owners of political power, are intrinsically entitled to by dint of being citizens of a country.
Citizens of any country are entitled to the enjoyment of basic human rights. These include right to life, right to security of person and property, right to health, right to safe water and sanitation, right to education, right to information and similar others.
In most national constitutions, these rights come under the Bill of Rights. Based on this understanding, citizens of any country are designated as “Rights holders.” Now, to ensure that citizens have access to and enjoy these rights, leaders are periodically elected through a popular vote.
Publicly elected leaders are designated as “Duty bearers” as they have the inescapable duty to ensure the unbridled enjoyment of basic human rights by all citizens.
The importance of this is that persons who choose to vie for election to public office should not be driven by their desire to attain what they want but, rather, by the desire to help people attain what they want.
Unfortunately, many aspirants to public offices miss this vital leadership requirement.
Instead, many aspirants to political leadership are motivated by prospects of personal gain. They treat contestation for political leadership the same way they would treat contestation for a lucrative job in the private sector. Consequently, the end-objective of wanting to acquire political office gets reduced to getting close to and personally beneftiting from national resources.
This unfortunate mind-set, invariably, compromises the ability to draw a dividing line between public and personal property. In addition, the elected leader will redefine the “Rights holder-Duty bearer” relationship and begin to see himself or herself as a benefactor!
A benefactor is a kind and altruistic person who, out of deep concern for the welfare of other people, freely gives to the needy. Implied in this is the fact that what the benefactor freely gives to the needy comes from his or her resources.
This markedly with dispensing contrasts various forms of national resources to citizens who are the real and authentic owners of the same.
On the part of citizens, the misinterpretation of the “Rights holder-Duty bearer” relationship causes them to treat elected leaders as people who help them out of their kindness!
In the end, this attitude blunts and kills their alertness to the abuse of public resources, let alone the need to hold elected officials accountable.
Further, before they know it, they will start worshiping the elected leader and treating him or her as a God-sent messiah! All this will be happening without their realisation of the fact that what they are receiving is, after all, theirs and the elected leader is just a servant they have allowed the privilege to serve them.
The moral of this narrative is that men and women who choose to vie for political office should, first and foremost, do a deep self-introspection with a view to ascertaining the extent to which they are conscientiously altruistic and committed to discharging the role of “Duty bearer.”