Do We Need Risk a Society, Again? -By Vahyala T. Kwaga

To Nigerian readers familiar with occasional change-in the direction-of governance paradigms in the United Kingdom (and Germany), the title of this piece may provide some humor. This stems from the fact that the United Kingdom has transitioned, from viewing governance and social development majorly through the prism of “Risk”, to something more encompassing, at least as of today. This does not mean that analyzing social progress and man’s interaction with the natural and artificial world-in terms of risk-has disappeared from governance but it does not take center stage, as it once did. At its zenith, the “Risk Society”, was one that concerned how to respond to uncertainty, inherent in: human progress, the future and inexorable change (whether the change is benevolent, benign or bellicose or combinations of the former), that arose as a result of modernization.

By way of explanation, Risk is connected with data-driven scientific analysis, management of uncertainty (in various aspects of governance and business) and study of the probability of various situations occurring. It acknowledges system vulnerabilities, that make the occurrence and treatment of risk, undeniable. This conceptualization-by Sociologists-of society seeing change and its treatment, through the lens of risk, presupposes an understanding of potential consequential risks, as well as hazards (fortunately, it also means there are opportunities that can be positively exploited). The modernization of Western Europe-involving shifting industrial, scientific, social and economic overlapping spheres-were viewed as ‘risk laden’, requiring vigilant observance. Anthony Giddens, a prominent voice for this way of looking at change, took the view that these fluctuations were not all similar-some were intertwined within modernization (in all its iterations), while others were an outcome of modernization. Considerations for the environment, human welfare and social justice, began to take a more compelling nature. It was realized that there is only so much control, that humanity has, over change and the best way to face it, was to admit this but also prepare for it. 

Historically and for the most part, Nigerian governance, has not been fortunate in having scientific exemplars guide public administration (for example, it would be difficult to trace any major decision in Nigerian governance, within the last 50 years to analysis given by our nation’s Sociologists!). From our census figures (which are extrapolations from data gathered about half a century ago), to our inability to provide comprehensive data on street locations and house numbers in major Nigerian cities: the joke above, reveals a ‘darker nature’. The question then becomes: what then, guides Nigerian governance, vis-à-vis social change? It would certainly be unrealistic and inappropriate for Nigeria to blindly ‘follow in the footsteps’ of its European counterparts, primarily, because their problems, have subjective components. Yet, these Western European countries apparently thought a ‘Risk society’ was a forceful way to think about governance, administration and change, at the time they did, perhaps for a reason.

Generally, the abstract ideals that guide public planning (the thinking behind policy and governance), is at least acknowledged, in Nigeria. For example, we are aware that every responsible government ought to seek reductions in poverty, for an identifiable number of X% of its most vulnerable citizens, based on having defined, measured and analyzed critical components (i.e., poverty, classification of the poor, income thresholds). We also know that the specific approach can vary. Going back to our earlier narration, the reasons why Western Europe reacted the way it did and began to measure, analyze and manage its “Risk society”, was due to natural calamities, man-made disasters (like the Chernobyl debacle) and socio-economic risks (the result of the challenge of catering to an increasing number of poor persons, for example). Though Nigeria does not have the industrial sophistication of the United Kingdom, it has a much greater situation on its hands, than just ‘modernization:’ it is besought by globalization. Scholars have debated whether globalization is benign or not; beneficial or not; and problematic or not. Yet, one thing is certain: our reactions to situations it generates, will be critical, to determining the continued existence of our nation.

Whether it is Nigeria’s intended foray into Nuclear Power, its management of the impending post-oil world, or its reaction to influx of small and light arms, from international terrorist groups: it must develop specific, realistic and scientific risk management principles. It must acknowledge, that there are various system vulnerabilities that-in combination with shifting and overlapping industrial, scientific, social and economic spheres-will create the expected and the unexpected. This would not just require drafting a few policy guidelines (and also would not require setting up a “Ministry of Risk Management”) but a transformation of how it thinks about probable hazards, their effects and their most optimal ways of being handled. The most rational guide, for Nigerian governance in the 21st century, should always involve asking the question: ‘regarding our society and what we observe-what does the data say, how should we think about it and what is the worst that can happen?’.

Nigerians need to think differently about how to manage change, in light of the nature of globalization and its attendant ‘Schrodinger-like’ components. We would never experience ‘modernization’ (of the type defined by Western scholars) but we will have to confront the changes that we bring about and the ones over which we have no control. Existentially, we must admit that we have only ‘so much’ control over change and acknowledge that scientific and rational thinking are the best place to start. To expand on this, the effects of the current Coronavirus pandemic were unforeseen (at least, as at November of 2019). These effects may have also been less severe, globally, if there was less developed air travel than there is today, for example. Unfortunately, the world is more intertwined than we think and unless Nigeria can decouple itself from the globe, it has to ensure that the broad changes inherent in globalization do not fatally surprise. It must incorporate scientific thinking about the probability and consequences of change, at all public levels (and if possible, private spheres). The current levels of inequality in Nigeria, for example, is a manifestation of risks that were never properly studied, nor addressed. Fortunately, scientific policy and risk analysis, provide a retinue of methods and approaches to planning and problem solving. The Nigerian public and governance itself, would benefit immensely, if the government were not only adopting some of these frameworks but regularly informing the public of its positions, as regards current and future scenarios. The benefits of this kind of coordinated and comprehensive thinking and action, would prove invaluable, once implemented. It would prove invaluable, because it means the country could begin to realize that to a reasonable extent, responsibility and blame for its successes and failures, rest squarely on the backs of leadership and society. Perhaps, (though thinking wishfully since there is nothing like ‘zero-risk’) one day we would have a society that thinks, plans and implements. A society where the riskiest thing, is a song, off of Davido’s “A Good Time” album.

Vahyala T. Kwaga
Vikwags@gmail.com