14 May 2009 |
|
“Playing” or “Practicing” Politics By Napoleon Esemudje In the wake of the Ekiti election rerun fiasco, a visibly agitated colleague, in a moment of exasperated despair, blurted loudly; “we don’t practice politics in Nigeria. We just play politics!” Having long assumed a detached albeit regretful stance on Nigeria’s long running political melodrama, I was at once bemused by his rather abrupt deduction & intrigued by the peculiar frame of what I took to be his neurotic hypothesis. The premise of this neurotic diagnosis, I submit, is the hair splitting definition and interpretation of “playing” as against “practicing” politics. I suppose my friend’s malaise, (if I may be so bold to term it such); is symptomatic of a deeper national affliction, arising from the unrelenting antics and traumatic blows from our political class. But perhaps, beyond the psychoanalytical profiling, it is worth exploring the differences between playing and practicing politics, if simply for a fleeting ontological understanding of the murky concept of Nigerian politics. Once could for instance adopt the pedestrian application of “playing” as taking part in a fun related activity or game for which the expected results are for personal glory or conceited road trips towards making a difference. “Practicing” on the other hand suggests a more professional conduct with strict recognition for the formal & informal rules in such a way that the expected results ensures not only personal satisfaction and honour but also meets the expectation of professional colleagues, the relevant institutional laws and ethical values of civil society, independent observers and stakeholders. But then again, not being a renowned politician or political scientist, my inferences may lack the decisive proclamations of a reductionist definition. With this in mind, we may do well to consider the recorded definition of politics by the “experts”. In doing this, it is quite prudent to seek for definitions with some local relevance. Perhaps, no other definition lends itself to the Nigerian situation as that of the legendary political scientist, Harold Laski. His seemingly primeval definition of politics as “who gets what, when and how” seems to rhyme with the underlying philosophy (in its purest and primitive form) of the “amala” politics pugnaciously espoused by the late Adedibu; the so called garrison commander of Ibadan politics. Indeed, proponents of amala politics would be only too happy to chorus Laski’s definition as a conceptual recognition of their strain of politics which at its base is devoid of any pretentious affiliation to some elegant, if higher purpose ideological essence. If anything the closest our amala politicians have come to any ideological leaning is the compulsive predisposition to the baser forms of capitalist exploitation typified by an all-out self-preservation, greed and dishonorable peccadilloes. So, is the dearth of a higher purpose ideology defined by altruistic moral codes and values at the core of our political malaise and floundering attempts at representative democracy? Perhaps. Surely, from this perspective, my friend’s pent up outbursts is perhaps understandable and indicative of the frustration with the political class and the heavy burden of their misrule. Regretfully, I’m inclined to believe that the dearth of a higher purpose ideology is not simply lacking in our politicians but also missing in most of us, including, I dare admit, my very concerned friend. It is this lack of a moral compass doggedly set true north, which perhaps explains in part, the serpentine transformation of our erstwhile crusaders for civil justice and national rebirth. Certainly, the likes of Segun Adeniyi, Dora Akunyili and Levi Ajunoma can make an indulgent defence of their present stations as a sort of invasive procedure to engineer change from within government. Alas, the emerging outcomes are tainted sutures and pus seeping lesions of a distressing variety for yesterday’s good men and women. It does make you wonder. Are we all susceptible to the sweet poison that lurks in the shadowy corridors of Aso Rock; that seemingly transforms otherwise good people to a fading shadow of their consciences? Are we all that capable of that great evil of unbridled hypocrisy? Perhaps, for an answer, it is worth recalling the thoughts of Martin Luther King Jr. about the existence of two selves in each of us – a higher self and a lower self. Mr. King recognised the existential struggle of keeping the higher self in control at all times because once the lower self takes over; even the best of us fails. Mr. King should know. All his life, behind the neon lights of his civil rights advocacy, he fought relentless, rearguard battles with; to put it mildly, the pleasure seeking demons of his lower self. For all my enduring curiosity about my friend’s neurotic hypothesis, it follows that we cannot effectively “practice” politics, until we win the civil war of the mind with the robust arsenal of moral values and ideologies that supports the public good. Indeed, history reminds us in vivid tales of blood and tempests that the growth and viability of representative democracy in the West were hinged on the towering strength of inspired belief about the best way to govern society for the ultimate common good. As in the West, the great philosophers of Asia also recognised the need for a form of inspired ideology to channel the creative energies of their peoples in a way that brings honour and triumph to their homeland. The nerve-racking tragedy of our native soil is the lack of this reawakening creed in our political systems. Aside the transitory efforts of a few selfless pioneers (Julius Nyerere and Thomas Sankara comes strikingly to mind) as well as other notable activists scattered in dying bits across the continent, Africa seems to have suffered a crippling drought of philosopher kings with the sacrificing spirit to match their sublime rhetorics. For Nigeria, the “playing” politics pastime goes on; taking increasingly, the viciously Hobbesian set-up of a Russian roulette. Perhaps, this is just as well; because if Thomas Jefferson (3rd president of the United States and key author of the inaugural US constitution) is right, and “the tree of liberty” has to (sic) “be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” then our political evolution has only just began. It is going to be a very long night.
|
||||||||||||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.