FANTASY AND REALISM IN NIGERIA' POLITICS
Ozodi Thomas Osuji

 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:   

Webster’s Dictionary defines fantasy as “imagination or fancy, an illusion or reverie; fiction portraying highly imaginative characterization”.  It defines reality as “the quality or act of being real, fact; tendency to face facts and be practical; picturing people and things as they appear to be” (not as one wishes them to be).

       In political science there are essentially two methodological approaches to social-political phenomena: Realism and Idealism. 

         Realism faces facts as they are and idealism wishes that the facts on the ground were different. For all practical purposes, idealism is the same as fantasy.

    Real politics accepts empiricism and history; indeed, real politics is what passes as the science of politics in the sense that science describes what is, not what one want to come into being.  It looks at human behavior over time and describes what it sees, the facts on the ground, and draws conclusions as to their nature and behavior. Given human beings past behaviors, political realism makes the inference that they tend to behave in a certain manner, and would probably continue behaving as such in the future. For example, throughout recorded human history, men have fought for territory and prestige; they have fought for power and control over their fellow human beings. As political realism sees it, politics is the struggle for power whereby the more powerful (or the more cunning) win over the weak.  Political realism teaches that everywhere human beings are found that they struggle for power and control over their territories and that the more powerful rules the weak, regardless of our wishes. If you disagree with the propositions of political realists, they ask you to show them where on earth weak persons have ruled strong persons?  

      Idealistic politics, on the other hand, tends to use human wishes, imaginations and thinking to come up with how human beings ought to be governed. Having mentally constructed how people ought to be and how social institutions ought to be, the political idealist wishes that human beings were, in fact, governed as he wishes that they were. Generally, the political idealist wishes for good governance; he wishes for a society where all people are protected by the rule of law; an economy where the government provides certain basic services for all citizens, such as education for all, medical insurance for all etc. (The preceding view is political idealism on the left; there is also political idealism on the right, such as fascism.)

         Political realists accept human beings as they appear to be: aggressive, brutal with the strong ruling the weak; they do not waste their time and energies wishing for how human beings ought to become, such as wish for them to be loving and caring for each other.  Political idealists, on the other hand, keep on wishing for an equalitarian society and a participatory democracy where all citizens participate in how they are governed.

        Clearly, the two approaches to politics struggle in people’s minds, with some persons leaning more to one and not the other. In actual politics what seems to obtain is a mix of real and ideal politics with tilt towards more real politics.

       It is doubtful that there can be human beings who are totally realistic and do not have a tiny little bit of idealism. If human beings were totally realistic they would be predatory animals; the strong would simply lord it over the weak without qualms. In the real world the strong tend to rule but throw some handouts to the poor. In America, for example, five percent of the white population own ninety five percent of the wealth of the land; of course, this is not fair (the realist would ask: who defines what is fair, God? since when does God help the poor?), so to prevent the poor from rioting and causing anarchy, they throw some bones to them, such as welfare for women and some social safety nets (the so-called entitlement programs like social security).

         The salient point is that there are idealists and that there are realists and that generally realists tend to rule human polities, and that idealists tend to be in the background making noises as to how things ought to be.

       Idealists appeal to our feelings and realists address our reasoning, our heads.  The idealist wishes for a better world, a better political system, an economic system that serves our social interests. Of course, he is not going to bring his utopia into being. 

        Indeed, some thinkers believe that idealists are playing God. As it were, they are trying to recreate an evil world into a loving world. Apparently, a wicked god created human beings to suffer (the good book said, in genesis: man must earn his daily bread through his sweat; what a loving god). Apparently, a sadistic God created human beings to suffer to gratify his sadistic proclivities. As Greek tragedians never felt telling us, it seems that human beings are the amusing things of the gods. 

        Appreciating the suffering of human beings, idealists wish that people were in better circumstances. In effect, the idealist wants to kill the wicked god and replace him with a loving god, himself. Yes, the idealist is on a power trip, he wants to destroy the real god, an evil god, and replace him with an ideal and loving god. He wants to chase the evil god out of his creatorship throne, and usurp it and proceed to become the good god who cares for human beings. 

        The idealist, of course, will not destroy the wicked god for the wicked god is more powerful than the good god. Thus, the idealist merely lives in the world of fantasy, dreams and illusions. He uses his thinking to imagine an alternative to what is; his ideal world is mentalistic, is invented by his mind and is not real. He then tries to transpose the imaginary into the real and necessarily must fail.

       Thus, everywhere idealists (aka socialists, liberals etc) tend to be frustrated and die disappointed folk. (For a good read on an idealist, please read the biography of W.E.B Dubois; this black man wished that white folks were not racists; alas, as long as whites have a preponderance of contribution to science and technology they would consider Africans unintelligent hence discriminate against them; if Africans want to be taken as the equals of whites they must contribute as much as  whites to science and technology; Dubois died a frustrated idealist for his goal of a racism free society could not come into being.)

       Our world is an imperfect place; it is a world of space, time and matter; a world of past, present and future. These factors apparently conspire to make sure that nothing can ever be perfect and ideal in this world. In our minds we can conceptualize ideal human beings and ideal social institutions but when we try to actualize them in the real world, space, time and matter conspire to make them imperfect. The environment limits what we can do and how much we can perfect the world.

        As long as the environment remains constant, human beings and their social institutions are not going to be perfect. 

        We can reasonably conclude that the idealist lives in fantasy land, in castles in the sky, in the world of illusion, in a dream land that is never going to replace the imperfect world we live in.

NIGERIA

        History and experience shows us that Nigerians, indeed, Africans, for a thousand years (900-1900 AD) sold their people into Arab and European slavery.  Apparently, they used the money they obtained from selling their own people to seem very important persons in their eyes. Everywhere Africans sought admiration and attention from their fellow Africans and used whatever money they had to buy titles that seem to make them important persons. Narcissism, as any one with eyes to see can testify, is the most perceivable attribute of Africans.

       These people sold their people into slavery and from all available evidence did not feel guilty from doing so. (They blame the whites who bought their people; they apparently believe that the rest of the world cannot figure out that there must be willing sellers for there to be willing buyers).

        The history of Africa shows us a callous people.  Psychologically, these people appear to primarily have narcissistic and antisocial personality types. They are selfish to the core. They seem motivated to survive at the individual level and seldom care for other people. There is no time in their history where there were persons devoted to serving other people.  

         In contemporary Africa, especially Nigeria , politicians seem to know only one thing: form street gangs (which they call political parties) and fight among themselves for the control of the country’s oil revenue. The most powerful of these criminal gangs wins elections and proceeds to redirect the resources of their country to their pockets. They do not care for the suffering of their people, just as their ancestors did not care for the suffering they brought to the slaves they sold to the Americas .

       (In fact, when some of these criminal characters come to the Americas , as if the evil of their ancestors were not sufficient, they would tell African-American women that they love them, lies, marry them and use them to obtain permanent residency in America , and as soon as it is opportune, discard those women. These people would use these poor women like scrap iron and unceremoniously discard them, and exhibit no feelings of guilt and remorse.)

         The history of Nigeria shows a brutal people who live for the individual but seldom for the public. Their past elections were always characterized by criminal gangs masquerading as political parties fighting among themselves, killing each other, burning property etc.  It appears the goal is for one criminal gang to defeat others by all means necessary and proceed to transform the national treasury into the gang members’ pockets.

       In contemporary Nigeria , members of the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, are the current ruling gang members; they do whatever they could to defeat other gang members so as to have control of Nigeria ’s oil revenue.

        If you believed that Nigerian politicians ought to be serving their peoples social interests that would make you an idealist. You are ignoring Nigerians empirical history; you are ignoring political realism and focusing on what Nigerians could be, not what they are. As far as history goes, there has never been a time when Nigerians did something for the public.

         What is the point of this essay?  It is that political realism disposes us to see the present dance of elections going on in Nigeria as nothing but criminal gangs jostling for power and control over the Niger Delta oil revenue. These criminals are in for themselves and not for the public. It does not matter what criminal gang wins, none of them is motivated to help ordinary Nigerians. 

       One should not delude ones self with misguided fantasy. One should not engage in wishful thinking for a better Nigeria . It is magical thinking to think that a people who historically only exploited their people would suddenly help their people. It is not in their blood to be social serving. In fact, if you are social service oriented, many Nigerians would call you a mugu, an idiot. These people are selfish beyond belief.

      Is the situation hopeless? In the short run the answer is yes. One expects Nigerians to be corrupt.  However, in the long run it is possibly to correct this seeming hopeless situation.  The situation can be corrected when a new generation of Nigerians is socialized to be social interest serving, to put public service ahead of personal interests.

       Of course, we are not going to have a utopian society in Nigeria . In the real world criminals will always exist. However, if we can structure society such that, say, only ten percent of the population is antisocial and engage in criminal activity, and the other ninety percent engage in social service, we shall be well served. At present, the majority of Nigerians are invested in thievery and no society can have economic development with that kind of criminal ratio in the population.

       There are those who wish for there to be a revolution in Nigeria' s situation where a social minded group takes over the government and use brute force, as Stalin did in Russia , to transform thieves into their brother’s helpers.  May be this is ideal. However, history teaches us that idealistic revolutionaries often become brutal self-serving dictators, such as was the case in Russia .

       Where all hope is lost, life ends. Where there is life there is hope; one, therefore, still has hope for Nigeria . How what is hoped for, good governance, is going to come about one does not pretend to know. In the meantime, the trick is for one not to fall into the trap of cynicism and, like the cynical prostitutes and thugs ruling Nigeria , behave amorally. Though the future of idealism appears bleak, one should never join the bandwagon of the living dead called Nigerian politicians.

Ozodi Thomas Osuji

April 19, 2007

*Dr Osuji teaches politics, psychology and management. He can be reached at ozodiosuji@gmail.com

Robot  Villager

# 1 ...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 20.04.2007 00:22

oluye  Villager

# 2 Should I congratulate you or myself that I finally read one of your articles from beginning to the end? I am comfortable with some points, but among other things, I think you polarised realism and idealism beyond reality. In truth, most people, including politicians do not belong to any of the extremes, but are to be found at different levels of the spectrum between both. As we may talk of appropriate technology in science, there is also appropriate realism in politics. Those who eventually carry the day are those whose vision does not drive the nation beyond the idealism it is ready to accept and tolerate. That is why in moving away from the extreme realism of might makes right, there must be a gradual but constant succession or transformation of leadership to the appropriate levels of idealism. Abacha representing the realism polarity, Obasanjo found his place on the ladder, Nigeria has moved beyond Atiku's level of realism (because it is very similar, if not stronger than that of Obasanjo in matching might with might). YarAdua may just find his level, being more idealist than the more realist party backing him up. Utomi's time is yet further down on the idealist polarity, it has not yet come. The priviledge we have, which we seem to ignore, is that we have had a realist who believes in more idealism and is applying his realist tendencies to birth a more idealist government. It seems the only way is that a realist who understands the game should be converted and knowingly or unknowingly lead us to the next level of idealism. Should idealists strive to beat realists at their game, they merely become converted and lose their edge(Bola Ige and Tai Solarin are examples).-those who take up the sword, perish by the sword, only the offspring of the fire, knows how best to tame it. Posted by oluye| 20.04.2007 01:35

tanibaba  Villager

# 3 I want to thank you for this beautiful piece. It is very educative and can add value to a lot of people in their bid to understand themselves and our country. taslim Posted by tanibaba| 20.04.2007 04:31

Femi Longe  Villager

# 4 Much as some points in the essay make sense, I think it is neccesary to clarify where realism ends and defeatism begins. It seems people who are called realist in the Nigerian context are actually people who have accepted defeat from the existing system. Change and visions only come into being when idealists can convert ideals into reality. But how do you reach that state without first having the ideals? Or when you are constantly ridiculed for being an idealist? I admit I am an idealist but I think it's a necessary state to be in if any change of paradigm shift and system change is to happen in Nigeria or the world at large. I think I am also a realist because I recognise the nature of the system at the present moment. What I desist from doing is accepting the present reality as the only reality possible irrespective of what history or any quoted precedence shows. This is where I broadly differ from the author. Posted by Femi Longe| 20.04.2007 06:13

tanibaba  Villager

# 5 @femi longe You wrote: Much as some points in the essay make sense, I think it is neccesary to clarify where realism ends and defeatism begins. In as much as i agree with your submission, i want to put it to you that in reality the two concepts are related; indeed sometimes the point of defeatism provides the impetus for a new begining. I think something they call "the dialetic process" However , for a new begining an appraisal and appreciation of the present system must be carried out and ascertained with absolute care and responsibility. It is only when this has been done (and during that period indeed some may term it as defeat) but it may be the period of incubation or re-strategising for a new course of action. Empires have fallen just at the point when the empror thought that the people were already captured. There is something in nature that puts an end to everything both good and bad..\ But to act like an ostrich and be engrossed in fantasy (utopia) without taking concrete positive physical and mental action is to be deceiving oneself more later. Osuji thanks once again for this piece taslim Posted by tanibaba| 20.04.2007 11:21

ComradeX  Villager

# 6 Dr Osuji, So you think DuBois died a frustrated idealist, huh? By agreeing to head the rather worthy Encyclopedia Africana project in Ghana (where he lived for a while and later died), do we retrospectively conclude he merely entered “the world of fantasy, dreams and illusions”? I know political commentators like yourself sometimes have to exist in a state of detachment, but serving up a churlish summary of DuBois contribution to the civil-rights struggle (in the US) and pro-independence movement (taking shape in Africa), at a time when Black people were colonized the world over, at best, defies belief. Funny how there was room to concede some doubt that there are “human beings who are totally realistic and do not have a tiny little bit of idealism”; without offering any hint that the reverse may also hold true. In closing, where Nigeria is concerned, you dangle the rather dubious intangible called “hope”, but fail to locate it in the context of either fantasy or realism, leaving this reader in askance… Posted by ComradeX| 20.04.2007 15:14