Change: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
I sometimes wonder the thoughts that might have run through the minds of the first witnesses of guns going off in armed conflict. Where one party brandished these weird stick-looking things that sounded like thunder when triggered, against the other party wielding machetes, swords and other medieval weaponry. In Asia, in Africa and even elsewhere in other parts of the world which together, collectively shared in the misfortune of being left behind in the pursuit of lethality in conflicts of communal, national or even international nature, something tells me that the invention of the gun and its subsequent demonstrations on their home turfs were absolutely shocking if not completely astounding, to say the very least. What did they think? Were they horrified, upset or keenly intrigued?
If they were horrified, they had every right to be. Goes without saying. In the same vein, it goes against reason to contemplate the possibility that they were not even a tad bit, upset. Of course they would understandably be upset! And, if they did get upset, considering all the devastation this “thing” must have wrought upon them, they would be doing so within their rights. However, if their initial reaction was intrigue, then how they would go on to choose to engage that curiosity would ultimately change everything for them. Everything from warfare — conventional or unconventional — to fighting or indulging local crime, to arms manufacturing for local or international use, to revenue generation, to law and order. Whatever route they chose, change would have successfully broadened their horizon and in the process, alter life as they knew it. Now, the question is, what quality or kind of change is likely to ensue? How would they classify it? Would it be the good type, the bad, or the ugly?
The good
It has been opined on occasion; how adverse we humans are to change. The merits or demerits to such an assertion remain debatable to this day, but what is evidently clear, is that change whether slow or fast, no matter how many times its progress is impeded upon in efforts to thwart or even hasten it; is inevitable. It is also true that while it may pave the way for growth and innovation, it is also known to be met with resistance and sometimes, even apprehension. Duly so. In fact, it was Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher, who taught that you cannot step into the same river twice. That notion was further echoed by the beloved J.F. Kennedy when he asserted, in his address at the Paulskirche in Frankfurt on 25 June 1963, “change is the law of life. Those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future”.
Take computing for instance. When the Abacus system was introduced, I bet those who witnessed it could never imagine the need, much less the possibility of the IBM supercomputer. Conversely, those who experienced all the possibilities of the supercomputer probably never conceived the possibility of a device like the iPhone — a computer with the computing power of about a million supercomputers in the palm of your hand.
Furthermore, I invite you to consider the most powerful empire in recent history, Great Britain in all its majesty! So great was this empire, that at the height of its power, exercised dominion over 412 million peoples, spanning over 23 per cent of the known world’s land area, ruling directly or indirectly across at least three continents! It was said then that the vastness of this empire, was such that “… the Sun never sets” on it. Yet, when the time for change was nigh, not the armies, not the navy — which I should add, was the most fortified in the world of the early 1900s — was able to successfully mount a resistance formidable enough to stop it. In one moment, Great Britain was the most blessed isle with matchless beauty, as James Thomson in his famous poem declared. So sure, was their belief in more greatness, that A.C. Benson’s “Land of Hope and Glory” could close on the line, “…While the God who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet!”. Curtains come down, end of an era, and there, change happened.
Interestingly, while not all change is grand or as historic as the end of an empire, change does happen all around us. Twins in Nigeria for example. Today, I dream of having twins of my own. I pray, fantasize and think of how complete my life would be with those little bundles of joy, if I could only be fortunate enough to have them! Yet, in the corner of my mind, I am all too aware that not over a century ago, twins were anomalies in some cultures of my country, freaks of nature whose continued survival after birth, was a continued curse. At the very best, one would be left to live, otherwise, both were to be condemned to die. It took concerted efforts by the joint forces of education, religion and an activist called Mary Slessor, to put an end to such a malevolent practice.
Elsewhere across the world, President JFK, set the sights of American people onto the moon and declared the mission that would ultimately land man on the moon, and begin space exploration as the principle — and the norm, if I may say — of the prevalent times. Decades after his passing, space exploration has continued in earnest with the likes of Elon Musk, whose contributions to the laid foundation, have raised the bar by setting sights on the inhabitation of the planet Mars.
As I contemplate all of these huge moments, monumental decisions that have set the human race or countries on the path to achieving greatness, I am reminded that good change doesn’t always feel like it after the fact. On the contrary, sometimes it doesn’t feel all that great. Change, especially the good kind, is often required because progress demands it, because it is necessary, seldom because it is desired. The example from Donald Rumsfeld’s encounter with a South Korean journalist, gleaned from his book Known and Unknown; A Memoir, comes to mind. In the book, he narrates his experience with this journalist, on a visit to South Korea whilst he was Secretary of Defense. Apparently, this was around the time when the parliament sitting in Seoul debated upon whether to commit troops towards the American cause in Iraq or not. The journalist in this instance, a lady, asked Secretary Rumsfeld why South Korean troops should risk their lives in an American war. His answer while circumspect, demonstrated the price for change even when it is not acknowledged, especially when it isn’t sought; “why should Americans have sent their young men and women halfway around the world to Korea some fifty years ago?” he asked.
It is easy for such an exchange to get watered down to the legitimacy of the war in the first place, its success at the end, or even the implied reciprocity given the context, but, the clear result of the action referenced in this response offered by the Secretary, is the daylight of difference between how technologically, economically and otherwise progressed, advanced South Korea is, ahead of its neighbor and sister nation, North Korea. When that war was fought for the liberation of South Korea, it was fought for freedom and progress not just America’s national security concerns or even the nitty gritty workings of geopolitical permutations. No, on the contrary. South Korea stands to this day, as testament to the world of difference good global actors can contribute towards change. Meaningful change. Good change.
The bad
A few years ago, in the year 2020 to be more precise, the Nigerian youth stormed the streets nationwide, to protest against police brutality. Known as the EndSARS protest, it was marked as one of the largest gathering of protesters in this country, while making history as the most recent that was driven and coordinated by the youth. The trigger for this protest, was the perceived highhandedness of police against the youth, that was often characterized by undue profiling, extortion, torture and in some cases, extrajudicial executions. This was markedly a deviation from the ideals on which the country stands for, a farce to the claim of adherence to the rule of law.
My father used to lament to me and say, “I fear for your generation. Things have never been so bad!”. He once told me a story of how when he was a young boy, probably 14 years of age, a thief was once accosted at the market. This thief was required to be taken to the police station, but seeing as it was a market day and most traders would rather continue their business than be bothered by the task of taking this man to the authorities, a volunteer was needed. My father turned out to be the volunteer. He would laugh when telling this story and say, “here I was, just a boy, holding onto this man’s (the thief) arm, getting onto a bus to make the journey to the only police station in my village”. The lesson as he never failed to mention, was how good the system of trust was. On the one hand, the thief behaved within acceptable limits of reason as expected and demanded by society at the time, that one who acted in a morally questionable manner had a duty to answer to constituted authorities. On the other hand, such was the belief in law enforcement as a whole, and the rule of law in specific, that a young boy was handed over a criminal to serve as an escort on the journey to justice, without the thief being cuffed or tied, with full confidence and the expectation that everything would go smoothly.
Juxtapose that with how in 2020, an act of civil disobedience had to be staged, to get the government of the day to act responsibly by cautioning the police to stick to proper, state sanctioned rules of engagement and the rule of law, which presumes innocence until proven guilty by a competent court of jurisdiction. The EndSARS protest if anything, illuminates the very obvious reverse in progress in regard to law enforcement, and the deficit of trust from the citizenry towards their government and their police department which ironically claims, “police is your friend”, on full display for the world to see.
System engineers will always say no system is perfect, all systems have some loopholes through which they can be exploited. While I don’t argue with that, it is my submission that systems work best with a reinforcement culture. Back in the day, in the boyhood of my dad, a 14-year-old child could be entrusted with a grown-up thief in pursuit of justice, due to the prevailing culture of honesty, trust and possibly, even shame. When I look back at the 2020 protest, I find these tenets to be conspicuously missing in government affairs and the police by extension. Culture like nature, does not abhor a vacuum. Where truth and trust used to be, deceit and mistrust would sooner be replacements if the opportunity avails itself. Therefore, the policymakers to whom the task of fixing this broken system will fall to, would often miss the mark if their sole focus is on efficiency, law and staffing. Perhaps the culprit of this face-off between the police and the people it is tasked to protect, isn’t as simple as due process or even the rule of law, maybe it includes lack of change and therefore stagnation in the understanding of law enforcement role, rules, responsibility and mechanism by the department, or perhaps it is too much change happening all around the world at break-neck speeds, and someone left the department back in the days of my father’s boyhood, holding onto ideas about who is a “big man” and who should drive what car as defined by society all those years ago. Like the line attributed to Lao Tzu, the Chinese philosopher: “life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Don’t resist them; that only creates sorrow”. The answer in addition to upholding strong virtues by both citizenry and agents of government, is to seek 21st century solutions to 21st century problems. Otherwise, one can only wonder what a continuous build-up of unchecked cultural change of resistance, in both the police and the youth would amount to. I shudder to think.
Change when it is bad, points to the dereliction of duty either by individuals, communities, nations or government. Unlike other types of change, this one exacts a toll on both its architects and its victims alike. We know now, looking back in history, that in fact not all Germans participated or even endorsed the campaign against the Jews. However, even they who chose to stand against that barbarity, have had to pay a high price for a Reich which never lived up to its stated potentials, nor won the military war, or even the cultural war which sought to create a supremacy of race like the world had never seen. Bad change is easily recognizable even at its development stage. Those who fail to act in opposition to this change, will not be exempted when it matures and begins dishing out consequences to all and sundry.
The ugly
It is possible that I am more aware of the immigrant crises in the UK today, because I am Nigerian. Being Nigerian in this case is worth mentioning because, Nigeria seems to be one of the countries with the largest immigrants in the UK. Every other day, I hear of friends, distant relatives, neighbors and others who are relocating to the UK. It is all too familiar. Either that or maybe the immigration crisis in the UK is just so bad, the news feels almost suffocating.
Whichever it is, the facts indicate that Great Britain does have an immigration crisis in its hands. Reports indicate that an estimated 585,000 illegal migrants reside in London, accounting for one in 12 residents. The Times suggest that nationally, the number of illegal migrants exceeds one million, with nearly 60 per cent concentrated in the capital. To be fair, a lot of these immigrants probably started off as documented immigrants who chose to defy the terms of their contract with government and chose instead to overstay their visas.
When you stack that possibility of legal immigration turned illegal up against the humanitarian efforts the UK government has taken up as policy, to provide safe haven to Syrians, Pakistanis and other peoples outside the Middle East, you immediately get the picture of just how bad things can get. Offering help to other nationals in distress is a commendable policy. I would go as far as say it is a moral duty. However, moderation is the word. When government policy leans into immigration as a means to help, but also to provide cheaper labor in an effort to bolster economic production, it also has a duty and a responsibility to mitigate against excesses in the public interest. We observe, albeit from the narrow lens of concerned citizens, how other nationals threaten the way of life, worship and basic freedoms of the British people, without any kind of timely intervention by the authorities. Of course, this trend of open borders began under the conservative government and as such, has led to dissatisfaction with the party, so much so that, Labour party which has not been in government for over a decade, has had a leg-up in the last elections to the top job due mostly to mistrust of how the Tories handled immigration.
Unfortunately, there’s no silver bullet in this scenario, but certainly, the knee-jerk reaction of changing multiple PMs and even political parties, barely fixes the problem. Sure, efforts are being made to increase the cost of Visas into the country as a deterrent for those planning to visit in the future, amongst other thoughtful measures — I’m sure. However, very little is done in efforts to reclaim public trust and protect the British citizens from the excesses of foreign nationals who feel repulsed by British values.
If this ongoing situation isn’t ugly enough, I invite you to cast your minds back to about five years ago when it seemed like the whole world stopped for a little bit in the wake of the coronavirus. So unexpected was the breaking of this virus, that understandably, no government had answers on how to handle it much less, move on from it.
Citing the example of the Trump administration; here was a government that chose to respond to what speedily became a global pandemic, racking up mortalities faster than any natural disaster the US had ever seen, by burying its head in the sand and pretending it wasn’t as bad as it was reported. My country’s government went the other way by copying — without regard for justifiable indicators nor outcomes, everything that the west was doing. The outcome in both cases and in a lot more cases that are unmentioned around the world, was possibly the needless death toll recorded at the end of the peak period.
Like the immigration crisis in the UK, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic across the US and many other countries around the world, was probably a tad little too late. Borders could have been closed, vice-like regulations and restrictions would have helped, public safety measures could have been revisited to ensure compliance in the necessary quarters to keep all parties involved safe and accountable. Unlike the immigration crisis however, the world has changed for the better as a result of the onslaught of an unplanned, rude, ugly change. Now remote work is more acceptable and even encouraged as a direct result. The world has learnt how to function regardless of a pandemic, and also managed to keep productivity on a steady growth trajectory. In the UK however, it remains to be seen just how the burden on the NHS and the police department amongst other state services, the seemingly growing need for a specific type of immigration from less developed countries, and the open border policy for humanitarian purposes, pans out. It may seem that all ugly change is transformational. Unfortunately, not all ugly change is positive.
Implications
As advice attributed to Maya Angelou has it: “If you can’t change it, change your attitude.” That should be the outlook to change. Resistance may throw a wrench in the turning wheels of oncoming change, but it would only slow, never stop the inevitable. Perhaps Great Britain forgot how to be great, or maybe the times changed in such a way that advantage was handed to another empire. Maybe IBM made a bet on the wrong future and by doing so, gave room for a startup working out of a garage in Palo Alto, to take the lead in making computers that people needed. Maybe I would eventually have those twins someday, or not. Whatever happens, a debt of gratitude is owed to all those who changed the perception of those who could not come to terms with the idea of two little humans coming out of the same womb, at a time when only one child was the acceptable standard. However, whatever the case may be, change should not only be embraced, good change can only be achieved when we actively seek it. The betterment of society and the world at large, depends on not only ingenuity and smarts, but the need to seek out answers for the questions waiting in the future that signal betterment for all. In that regard, what Isaac Newton said was prescient: “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me”.
The point remains that change is not necessarily a positive or negative thing. Perhaps that explains the apprehension it is so often greeted with. However, change has been one of, if not the catalyst behind all human progress in the thousands of years we have occupied this place we call home. It is change that drives our science to ask the important questions that often lead to progressive answers. It is change that drives our politics to go from theocracy, to monarchy, to aristocracy, communism, democracy and God knows what else. The simple act of trying and failing and then failing up until what works is stumbled upon, is the whole reason change will always prevail.
I concur with the saying that there are decades where nothing happens, but there are weeks where decades happen. Change doesn’t happen on a clock. There’s no saying when, where or how it may happen. Somedays it happens right before your eyes, some other times, you learn of those changes, big or small, from the benefit of hindsight or through the eyes of historians. What is important, the thing that holds intrinsic value where change is concerned, is paying attention to the trends we participate in, the ways our culture and decisions whether informed or less so, shift as a people. Whether these changes are seismic or tremor-like in scale or proportion, change is coming and we have the choice to embrace it by making it as positive as we can, or stay unprepared and ignore all the signs thereby making an ugly situation with little opportunity to make it work for us in the end, or outrightly indulging in actions whose consequence we are willing to pass on to our unborn, for the simple reason of chasing euphoria that alienates others but protects us.
Change is a universal truth. It is an unwanted but highly esteemed visitor. We could make the conscious decision to acclimatize to it, or not, but one thing it will not do is disappear. Whatever form it presents itself: is it in the form of space travel and exploration, in a bid to seek out a conducive planet for human habitation? Perhaps in the form of standing against traditional or cultural precedents that no longer augur well with human civilization, or available intelligence. Could it be in the form of uniting against a global pandemic and taking measures towards changing systems and norms to outlive any such dangers that occur in the future? I do not know. Who does? It could be a biting immigration crisis that borders on short-term thinking of long-term problems, or letting systemic rot make institutions oppress those whom they are mandated by charter, to protect. Whatever kind of change it is, it is an opportunity to face it head on, and make it work in your favor. If given the chance, we would all choose good change. But seeing as change doesn’t come with an identification tag, I would say good outcomes, meaningful change, good change, can only come about when the outlook is to make any kind of change favorable, and back that up with resolve.
So, in conclusion, whatever those people thought at their chanced encounter with a gun for the first time, whatever emotion they felt: horror, being upset or intrigue, the moment they saw that gun go off, in that very moment, the genie left the bottle. That left them with no choice but to adapt; keep up or die. Yes, change can be harsh too.