EDITORIAL

EXCESSIVE MATERIALISM AND ITS IMPACT ON A NATION

 AUGUST 29, 2009

Recently a news item caught my eye, and made me wonder what is happening on the ground regarding the Land Use Act that is presently in the process of being amended. What I read was that all state governments in Nigeria and the Federal Capital Authority have endorsed a bill that will strip them of power over land allocation procedures in their localities. Though I must confess that I do not have any details as to what is going on presently, even after online research of Nigerian press, it still sounds a little out of place. 

What was tabled as the reason for the amendment was to get as much benefit financially from the land as possible.  What I got by this rightfully or erroneously is, literally take control of the land, out of its present owners’ hands who are not utilizing it “efficiently” through mortgaging to the banks or highest bidder for money, then gradually distribute it to those highest bidders.  Because by disengaging the local authorities from making the final decision based on the local residents’ interests, the amendment will seek to bypass those local authorities.  But will that ultimately augur well for the nation.

A nation is not just facilities and infrastructure; it is basically and most importantly made up of people.  The right balance between the two is what creates a sustainable system of coexistence that is both durable and workable. And to factor in the people, is to factor in their ingrained value system, and short term as well as long term interests. That was why after intense deliberations back in 1978, the Land Use Act remained basically a framework within which state governments have the leverage to weigh land use issues before deciding to endorse sale of land, to whom and for what developmental purpose.

Development is positive, and everyone will agree that we need to progress positively.  But at what expense, and where do we draw the line. Too much of everything is bad.  When we employ such attitude in some aspects of our lives, we are labeled as extremists.  What is termed extremism in one arena, when the same criteria are applied in some other sphere, should also be tagged extremism as well.  Is there such thing as excessiveness in capitalism where people are enslaved and relegated to some low position, so also their values, just to allow corporations to amass wealth? Let us find out.

The idea that people should strive to make productive their life is universal and ancient.  But the first country to do it so well, and sustain it for close to two and one half centuries is the United States of America.  One of the key reasons for its success is the enactment of a constitution that not only states boldly the right of individuals, but also guarantees it.  This allows the individual the support structure to go about freely making as much out of his productive years as possible.  Strong laws and law enforcement apparatus guarantees the certainty of security to enjoy his income along with a guarantee of almost certain protection from those who might want to illegally snatch what he had acquired legally.

As with anything good, as time goes on, people may lay back and become so comfortable to work that hard at protecting the laws that made the prosperity possible.  In such instances the law becomes either inadequate to the demand for it, or else fails to protect the people from the greed from those carried away by amassing wealth at all expense.

Since ancient times, man realized that any value he holds, while living in a community of people, must take into account the welfare of others around him.  It is actually based on coexistence, and shared rules for comfortable coexistence, as the sociologist will tell you, that such common values form the norms for the society.  These are approved ways of conducting self and any action or business within the community.  For this basic reason, any action that tarnishes the rights of others, are outrightly rejected as they would lead to disagreements and consequently chaos (the breaking down of law and order).

Please forgive my going back every now and again to moral and ethical values.  It is essential, for the two are the backbone of law and order, also justice and fair-play. We cannot run away from those values, and demand that our communities remain prosperous and secure.  You can only prosper and have the opportunity to enjoy that prosperity, when peace and security exists within your society.  And these two, can only exist and be guaranteed when justice reign.  So long as some or a significant number of the community are disproportionately disadvantaged that creates tension and consequently social problems.

Now, if the amendment is trying to completely disengage the local authorities from determining land use and land transfer, then it is not the right thing to do.  With the present position even as we speak, where people have been forcefully thrown into poverty, mass defaulting and consequent disownment of lands will occur without any doubt. When you start mortgaging lands to people who have no interest in the welfare of the local community, or even foreigners who also have interest only in the profit they will be making, that will no doubt spell doom for local communities.   Taking such an action will be tantamount to creating a social problem that will soon explode.  People forced out of their lands may rightfully react one day, and the result sometimes as we have seen in universal history is the razing down, in anger, of the same infrastructures built. Taking the middle course, which could still be implemented using the same framework already in place, seems to be the key to success.

Anyone with genuine interest in setting up any business or infrastructure should not find it difficult to convince the leadership of the community to allow him to erect such a business.  As for the local officials, as long as the venture is laudable, they will be behind it, even if to brag about their accomplishment for future political gain.  It just sounds fishy, and out of place if State Governors and their counterpart in the federal capital territory would have to forgo any right to review and approve issues of land use and transfer.

  (c) The Optimist Voice. All Rights Reserved.