Societies are basically put together to form a country, and from there it becomes the responsibility of the people in the union to determine the nature and extent of development they want to have. They also determine at what speed. The make up of the society, whether single race or heterogeneous entity, would not matter because they must work on what they have resolved and pursue the vision arising from their resolve.
Pace must be an issue as noted earlier. Controversy over pace gave us such political terms like evolutionary or revolutionary. Evolutionary means gradual. Those who subscribe to this process don›t want the old order uprooted in one quick swoop. Revolutionaries want changes to be immediate, they don’t mind if massive damages are inflicted and innocent lives lost in the process, so long the goals of change are served. Many in the society or country dread this path. They want gradual change effected through the change of human personnel.
One of the issues for evolutionaries is age. They are often of the opinion first that life and public service is a turn by turn affair or generational matter. To them after a particular generation has served, may be from 60 years going up, they should naturally give way and let the the “younger ones”, take over. The other argument is that vision and passion die once a person reaches 60 years so they should retire from all aspects of public life. The quest to make “elderly” people give way has been as old as creation. In modern societies it has been a serious matter. The agitations have in many instances provoked unorthodox ways of changing government.
At a time in Britain and America, the phenomenon was a major issue. It caused kings to lose their hold on power, with many losing their lives in the process. The American episode seemed very fascinating to many of my class because it grew into a huge political movement, which led to formation of a political party and the party going ahead to contest elections and even to win the country›s presidency. In that experiment under the banner of what they termed «Young Americans», the young people of America in the bid to take over the running of their country formed a political party.
They were angry and determined. While they took on society and her institutions head on, many including officialdom thought it was a joke carried too far, but the surprising thing was that what passed as a joke turned out to become a political tsunami that upturned the existing structures, and put in place an entirely new class of persons at the helm of affairs in the highest level of power. In their first attempt they won seats in the parliament but lost the presidency. However, in the subsequent effort they won the presidency.
See the thing which should be the crux of the matter about the phenomenon: youths will always have a higher percentage of the population. They could win elections if they channel their efforts but after that would their experiences be enough to carry them through? The four years of the Young Americans were not only marked by abysmal policy enunciation, their attitude and action threatened the very existence of the country. That outing left the world with huge lessons.
The first is the question of development of a country or any society at all. It would require combination of experience and youthful energy to build a successful nation. Experience will enhance stability and youth will guarantee innovation and speed. None can do without the other. The other important and equally strong to note is that wisdom and vision are not the exclusive preserve of age. One can be youthful and well educated yet very stupid, unintelligent even to the point of his own personal hurt. On the other hand a person could be well over 75 years and still brimming with creative ideas and full of passion to achieve set objectives.
Finally, in a democracy such as we have chosen, it is more about gradual change. What is entailed here is that the replacement of personnel and even institutions is done gradually, young people grow through the ranks, those with exceptional abilities break the ranks into the ruling cycle very quickly. In a democratic, civil environment all citizens have the democratic right, constitutionally and naturally guaranteed, to take part in how they are governed. Participation can be either in the form of contributions from a distance or direct participation. It cannot be abridged for any reason except on the grounds of personal conviction.
So, it sounds out of this world for anyone to stand idly by and expect another to vacate the space just because he must give way for another to thrive. It doesn›t happen that way, people walk themselves up by possession of something, skills and competences that are far superior to currently existing models. To climb one must exhibit far higher stuff.
The other issue would be this: the youths harassing everyone for opportunities in public service are they well equipped? Have they sufficiently prepared themselves to usher in the new order they sing about? It is doubtful if one goes by what we see. It is true frontiers of education have grown but it remains uncertain if the system has made it possible for good seeds to be planted in the minds and heads of our young ones. First is attitudinal. The family, schools and even faith-based organizations which used to be the foundation for character molding have since either given up or misdirected efforts. Materialism has taken over and our young ones are the worse for it.
Yes, they go to school, speak fantastic English but it ends there; they graduate still remaining empty brains. Only few can think for themselves. If one can›t think for himself how then can he think for a country? Most young ones in public spaces came as understudy of their discredited forebears. The critical question would then be, what they did they learn? Wouldn’t it be correct to say the same old tricks?
How do we handle the crisis surrounding our leadership recruitment process? Very simple. Those that currently have the sense of right judgment to agree, should sit down and agree to have a country. Agreement will always preceed performance, otherwise the rest could be pissing out with one or two pissing in. Naturally, the effect of the two will muddle up the environment and make it unhealthy for any productive undertaking. We have seen that already, that even with guns peace can be very elusive.
Sitting down will create a vision, vision will produce passion and energy. From this point we allow people’s antecedents to determine choice. Meritorization of our society is where the solution is! If it is done, citizens will work extra hard to gain their places in the highways of public service. It is not climb by age.