CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS
I previously
attempted to explain the origins of the prevailing deficits mode among Uganda's
elites as a function of a highly liberalized education system. I argued that
the society operates in deficit mode because of intellectual obesity resulting
from fast food type education being offered by the numerous private schools.
In
this article, I will attempt to examine the nature of elite in Uganda in
an attempt to hypothesize on their non-responsiveness to social change. I will
reiterate that the lackadaisical nature of the elites signify a low degree of
class consciousness, which as a result, has affected the extent of class
political organization to challenge the status quo.
The non-responsive
nature of the elite in the struggle for social transformation requires a
critical study from sociologists. In the absence of such highly specialized
authority, many cynical commentators have resorted to ridiculing the Opposition
as a group whose singular mission is to wrest power from Mr. Museveni. In this
rather plain and simplistic excuse for their cold feet, the overarching urgency
of transforming this society for posterity's sake is compromised.
Scholars in sociology
aver that elites are seen as inevitable part of every society. By elite, they
mean the enlightened, educated and those in positions of power. Some scholars
like J. Allen Whitt (1982) observed elite mannerism and deduced that the
character of the elite determines the direction and character of western
societies such that, social change comes about when the elites embrace it.
However, Whitt argued that where power stability is in the offing, change
happens incrementally, sometimes very slowly, since the elites are the very beneficiaries
of institutional powers. Could this analogy be applicable to our situation in
Uganda?
The relevance of
Whitt's argument is that it contextualizes the nature and character of the
Ugandan elites, exposing their dual identities, contradictions and seeming
inertia – their resistance to the forces of social transformation.
Another Elitist
theorist, Thomas Dye (1976) observed that Elites are those who occupy positions
in large institutions and influence it. Dye identifies the institutional bases
of elite's power as industry, finance, utilities, government, the news media,
laws, foundations, civic organizations and Universities. Thus far, these institutions
are in critical areas of socio-economic well-being of our nation. Ironically,
their services are delivered with distinctive deficits in quality and quantity
to the public.
The state of public
service today is in contemptible shape. There is a nationwide crisis in public
service characterized by discourteous, unkempt, irritable, belligerent,
unethical, sluggish, indifferent, blatantly corrupt, and incompetent servants.
They serve as if their jobs were a form of punishment. They feel no obligation
to the public. Every person in the workforce is there for the benefits and the associated
prestige of the office – not service. Today, more educated people are dropping
off resumes in search of jobs to proprietors who are modestly schooled because intellectual
obesity deprives them of the capacity to innovate and compete in the markets of
deficits.
The more
sophisticated the qualification, the higher the deficit in services delivered.
This explains why architects build houses that sink, road constructors build
potholes, Prosecutors and Judges convict suspects in wrong jurisdictions,
Nurses inject clients with infected blood, teaches award marks for sex or
without reading scripts, police officers operate by brutality, quality of
legislation is daunting, electricity and water are occasional, and so forth.
The
class dialectic theorists have studied such deficit phenomena and have
questioned the ability of such elites if it is befitting of their societal prestige. Unfortunately, it is the deficit mode which also shapes the consensus
processes within the elite strata. Whitt and others argued that the elite
consensus process is inherently contradictory because the range of disagreement
among elites is generally narrow. And, even then, the disagreements are
generally confined to means rather than end. This is because the degree of
class consciousness is ordinary such that it affects the extent of political
organization and their vision of society beyond the existing hegemony.
END
No comments:
Post a Comment