![At 3-33 on 9th oct, some children Playing inside Aayin Camp Benue [Photo Credit Popoola Ademola Premium Timesv]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2026/03/WhatsApp-Image-2026-03-07-at-05.54.10.jpeg?resize=360%2C180&ssl=1)
The minority, may, however, construct “oases of excellence.” The conceptual driver here is both negative and positive. By guaranteeing that the dominant ethos wherever they may be is one that favours merit (and related good conduct) over the kind of choices that would otherwise be made in parlours smothered in smoke and mirrors, members of an ethical minority may build a moat around themselves, their ethical beliefs and practices. In this sense, the “oasis” metaphor is most revealing.
“Truth is, few Africans are democrats. We love hierarchy and authority ranking too much for it to be otherwise.” I posted this on my social media handles a couple of days ago. The most poignant feedback invited me to speak for myself. Apparently, “democrats” on the continent are too plenteous to fit under the “few” rubric.
|
|
How true is this? A simple thought experiment would help delineate (if not clarify) matters. Imagine yourself a non-participant observer looking in on a sandbox – a newly arrived Martian, perhaps, looking in on any part of our blue world. In the sandbox are a hundred active entities; ninety-six of which have been involved over the course of the period of observation in remarkably similar conduct. Four of them, however, are organised in activities so spatially and qualitatively distinct and different as to stand apart clearly. Statistically, those four do not matter. Still, it would be a factual error to describe the state of the sandbox as one in which “All of the entities are engaged in the same activity.” If, however, the choice available to the observer was between characterising the two cohorts as “sane” and “insane,” my sense is that the larger number would count for much.
In a society where the route to power, seniority, and all forms of authority skirts merit in favour of crosscuts through influence peddling, favour currying, and nepotistic practices, it is difficult for the notion of the fundamental equality of all persons to thrive. This goes beyond denying voice to minorities. Yes, kids are brought up in these parts not to look their eiders in the face when talking; no talking back is allowed, of course. Which would have been okay if we did not define the category “elders” too loosely. It is not just about parents and guardians. Nor teachers, even. Bosses at work are “elders,” too. As are faith leaders. And, alas, senior politicians.
|
|
|---|
To these “elders,” deference and respect is due, especially when they do not know what they are about. And so, our societies are denied the benefit of the multiplicity of views that less ossified cultural, social, and political structures would have bequeathed them. In this circumstance, cultural, ethno-national and social minorities get the short end of the stick as well. Even as notions of honour and value struggle to drop anchor in the miasma that brown-nosing and arse-kissing behaviour stir up.
If it is easy to agree that rapid social changes and economic development will find it difficult to take root in such places, it is far more difficult to agree to the parameters, agents, and channels through which the desired changes may occur. One question that always gets asked in discussions of the development challenge faced by the African continent is, “Can the few change the many?” I have a friend who, having read the Federalist Papers innumerable times, marvels at how the thinking of a few people altered the trajectory of the world through the outcomes of one country. She, therefore, is on the side of the four in the sandbox in our earlier thought experiment. If their praxis is grounded in reason, equity and truth, should it not eventually become the dominant cultural experience?
Aside from the difficulty with describing the spatio-temporal dimensions of “eventually,” a second question follows from this Panglossian take: “Does this not understate the value of a conducive nutritive medium?” Surely, the authors of the Federalist Papers would have had a more uphill (if not completely ineffective) task if they had somehow gathered in 18th century Russia, instead of the nascent United States of America? All of these, though, is to quibble. Statistics. The law of averages. Etc. None of these – except in those fantastical martial arts film extravaganzas – support the chances of a minority besting the larger number.
The minority, may, however, construct “oases of excellence.” The conceptual driver here is both negative and positive. By guaranteeing that the dominant ethos wherever they may be is one that favours merit (and related good conduct) over the kind of choices that would otherwise be made in parlours smothered in smoke and mirrors, members of an ethical minority may build a moat around themselves, their ethical beliefs and practices. In this sense, the “oasis” metaphor is most revealing.
The ability to protect one’s space from the predation of others ought not to be conflated with the ability to sustainably grow that space. Oases exist at the sufferance of the deserts that they are integral parts of. It is more likely, then, that deserts take over their oases – as when divas take off their jewellery – than for this process to work in reverse. The long-term outlook of the four in our thought experiment is not enviable it would seem.
Uddin Ifeanyi, journalist manqué and retired civil servant, can be reached @IfeanyiUddin.
