The Correct Construal Of Vision 2020

By

Anosike Wilson

wilsoniyke@yahoo.com

Introduction

Vision 2020 has become a mantra in the Nigerian society—that symbolic year when Nigeria will emerge as one of the twenty best or leading economies. The proclaimed year, whose right of passage is being celebrated by the consolidation of banks and the restructuring of the economy by the economic team and other governmental agencies, championed by Prof Soludo and his former deputy Shamsudden. However, the so called vision 2020 remains ambiguous and beckons for further clarifications. What does it mean to be among the twenty leading economies? How do we cash this out in concrete terms? As the year draws near, I wish to revisit the vision 2020 issue and offer what I think is  the right construal of what that vision should mean.

Governance and comprehensive aim

Does the function of governance require a comprehensive aim or grand plan—like vision 2020? It seems to me a mistake to suppose that governance will be impossible or be losing focus if it is not guided by such far-reaching envisaging of vast future states of affairs capable of being brought to being by efficient government. The envisaging or imagining of such state of affairs is not a prerequisite for a government to be oriented and motivated by concern for the common good of  her society (family, school, political, cultural etc.), a complex good involving the respect for citizens rights and their wellbeing. Any government that misunderstands her function and the common good of her society will be tempted by the envisaging of vast goals or comprehensive aims and by the passionate experience of technical efforts of achieving them—“millennium goals”, “vision 2010”, “vision 2020.”

The task of governance should not be viewed from a perspective of competition. “we want to be the best state”, “the leading economy.” It is wrong to think of nation-states as spaces that should engage each other in economic competition. If states and governments have such conceptions, governance and policies will alienate those for whom government is meant for, the rights and needs of the citizens will give way for the achievement of such lofty envisaging. However, it should be reiterated that government is meant for the people, to promote their wellbeing and human flourishing and these functions are not competitive in nature. Government exists to ensure that citizens are provided with the enabling environment and incentive to flourish within the available resources of the societal space. Any attempt to compromise the people and their rights for such grand plans and visions amounts to corruption and travesty of governance.

Vision 2020

Governments, in their effort to provide enabling environments for their citizens, can equip themselves with guides and such guides must always be people-oriented. It is in this context that the issue of vision 2020, being championed by the Nigerian government, can start to make sense. However, the concretization of that vision is still much an issue. Nigeria is not alone in the vision 2020 mantra, other countries have theirs. However, it’s worth mentioning that the United States has its own version of vision 2020, perhaps where the Nigerian appropriation of such mantra came from. In the American context, vision 2020 is military in nature, tagged joint Vision 2020 (JV2020). It is that coming of age when:

military forces will be less platform-centric and more network-centric. They will be able to distribute forces more widely by increasing information sharing via a secure network that provides actionable information at all levels of command. This, in turn, will create conditions for increased speed of command and opportunities for self-coordination across the battle space.[1]

This vision of the US which is military in nature is also geared to the destruction of societies and the citizens who are called to embrace such visions. Such visions will see young people in the war fronts of Afghanistan and Iraq to the mercy of the opposing forces—say Taliban or the Iraqis.

Credit, although, should be given to Prof Soludo and his team for articulating the so called vision 2020 in economic terms, though vague. Does our version of Vision 2020 resemble the Chinese articulation of economic growth –indeed China is among the twenty leading economies—where the wellbeing of citizens are sacrificed to the maintenance of huge foreign reserve? Or will it be the American model where the citizens are burdened by the maintenance of war machines. The crux of the matter is not whether vision 2020 will collapse like its predecessors: “the Year 2000” “Vision 2010”, rather, the place of the citizens and their wellbeing in such lofty vision. What impact will such a vision make on the life of Nigerians in general?

If vision 2020 is to be accepted as a correct guide for the Nigerian society, then it must be construed as:

the humane [year] that empowers the [Nigerian] citizens at all levels of social organization and enables the total flowering of his or her human potential, as individual or as a member of a basic unit of the [Nigerian] society.[2]

In that case, Vision 2020 has to widen its scope; it will no longer be construed, in the myopic way, as the year in which Nigeria will be counted among the twenty leading economies, rather a year in which Nigeria will be counted among the most developed nations, where development expresses the level of wellbeing and human flourishing.  Vision 2020 will represent the will-be state of affairs where religious intolerance and insecurity will no longer decimate the lives of citizens; a state of affairs where corruption, hunger, unemployment and infrastructural decay will be reduced to their barest minimum and, conversely, education, political change and elections will be responsibly handled.

 In that case, also, the so called economic team that is in charge of the vision will in turn widen its membership. Membership will no longer be restricted to economists or government-hand-picked individuals; rather, it will include educationists, religious leaders and labour-unionists, etc. These people will be tasked to fashion out ways and means through which that ideal vision will be concretized. They will ensure that the rights and wellbeing of citizens, both as individuals and communities, are not sacrificed on the altar of a lofty economic pursuit—like the proposed millennium tower in the face of excruciating poverty. If this is done, vision 2020 will then be

 found in the very process of the citizen’s self-regeneration, the richness of identities within the community to which he or she belongs, and the security of a system that succeeds in merging the autonomous realm with a collective identity and fruits of productive collaboration. In short, a stable non-grudging polity, an assembly of partners and equals, not abstract System and compliant units.[3]

Conclusion

Visions and grand plans and projects are good guides, but they should and must not be expressed to the detriment of the citizens whom they are called to serve. Therefore, the correct and right construal of vision 2020 is that state of affairs in which the Nigerian people will realize their human fulfillments and flourishing without much hindrance by corruption, infrastructural decay or religious intolerance. Vision 2020 should not be seen as a guide for competition with other nation-states. We must seek first the wellbeing of our people and all economic edge above other nations will be given unto us.

Anosike Wilson MA( National University of Singapore)