Between Ethic and the Rule of Law!

Can Nigeria , as an entity, survive while its people ignore their moral obligations? As we move towards another critical phase in our nation’s history, the prospect of a vibrant society is frightfully worrisome. We have allowed greater latitude in our morality, particularly at the leadership level, and thus unwittingly have put at risk the very thing that is very dear to our hearts – our existence as people. Wherever you turn, a state of moral bankruptcy stares back at you! It is often thought that a standalone enforcement and adherence of the rule of law can better the state of society. But, the human race has various and varying degrees of needs which could only be satiated on the platform of morality. Even basic things like the enforcement of and adherence to the rule of law are moral obligations.

Therefore, it is not the rule of law by itself that guarantees the survival of a group. It is in conjunction with the sum of the moral obligations of the people within the group. Take for example a policeman who is expecting an off-the-book payment or who had already been prepaid off the book (bribed), he, in that state with all the legal backing, lacks the moral authority to carry out his task. In the end, he and society suffer. The giver and the taker of the bribe, through such act, have put their immediate survival, which is temporary, ahead of that of the group. As innocuous as it may seem within our own society at least, it most threatens the existence of the society. Failure therefore to act by the group, jeopardises the survival of the group. If we now extrapolate this singular act into the larger society, a picture of chaos emerges. It is then difficult to enforce and adhere to the rule of law.

Civilisation is defined as a complex and highly organised society. This high level of organisation is, as history has shown consistently, predicated on the net high level of morality within the society. In any activity that people interact, moral codes are always developed. When people gather together they always draw up a long list of agreements to guarantee the survival of the group they have subscribed to. These are the moral codes. Unlike the law that needs enforcement, morality is an obligation to the group or nation. What is considered moral or legal is that that contributes to the survival of the group and what is immoral or illegal is destructive of the survival. As a nation, few things are more treasonable than immoral or illegal acts; as they knock on the foundation to which society stands.

These two are somewhat different. Apart from the codification that the law had gone through, they both work hand in hand in modern society. However, morality has been pushed to the backstage in recent times. This seems to be a ruse by those whose trade is the business of the law and it has caused undue strain within the fabric of most societies. That was what I think led to an article posted by someone in the Village, “First, kill the lawyers.” God Himself must have realised the confusion lawyers could bring; He has excluded their services from the final trials on Judgement Day. As human beings, we live by moral values and not legal values. From the Judge to the judged, we all live and act by hierarchically stacked values. My disposition, for example, is based on how high or low a particular value is in the hierarchy of the set of moral values that I live by. The higher it is in my own set of values, the more likely I am ready to stake my life on it. There is usually something I will not do even with a gun to my head. Each one of us has such things. That is the potency of a moral value.

Though the rule of law is desirable in the society, it must be guided by society’s high morality. To debate this, I will deviate slightly if I may. Mankind as we all know belongs to the animal family and its superiority within that class is its higher degree of reasoning. Two of the attributes that exist in mankind’s consciousness are love and hate. Love and hatred are functions of reasoning and are, therefore, not our innate characteristics. Otherwise, God will not command us to love in the first place. This means you and I must be conscious and have the capacity to think in order to love, to like, to hate or to loathe. If you have ever seen a known racist, who in a state of drunkenness (state of reduced reasoning), hug somebody from other race whom he would normally spat on were he to be sober; you will understand what I mean. If it is established that we have to reason to hate, then group-hate that racism or tribalism or nepotism or sectarianism, etc. is is the most unreasonable form of hatred because it is without reason.

Hate or discrimination based of one’s affiliations or classification is generalisation, or stereotyping if you may. It is, therefore, condescension to the level of the lowest of the animals of the group-hater because it is devoid of reason. There is strength in a group, no doubt. A sense of lack of security is often responsible for stereotyping. When one is confronted with a man-to-man situation that one considers one might come out as second best, one usually hides under the aegis of a group and champions unsolicited cause of the group. This is the hallmark of racism, tribalism or sectarianism. In the Nigerian context, tribalism has been much talked about but has always been openly condemned. Meanwhile, all of us have been striving to live by that proclamation.

Further deviation! The other day, there was an argument in the Village concerning the most controversial figure in Nigeria – at least both sides agreed on that. I have always thought that an icon from one’s tribe is a hard sell to people of other tribes in Nigeria . For that, I do not even try no matter how I feel about a local hero. I do not want to offend the sensibilities of those who still see through the lens of a group. However, what I am borrowing from that argument is the issue of tribalism. If it is agreed that tribalism is a shameful act, there should be bigger shame on the rest of us particularly somebody like me who after all these years could still not rise above the lowly act of discrimination based on tribe or race. Notwithstanding the recrimination on a particular individual, it seems tribalism is the underbelly of our society. We, the rest of us, hide our acts by pointing accusing fingers on a soft target. It is like a murderer defending himself by accusing Cain for being the first to kill.

I am seriously working on mine. I want to wake up one day and be able to see Halilu, Chukwu, Oname, Edet, Yomi, etc. for who they are and not where they come from. When that happens, I think I would have found peace with myself. You will agree with me that it is not easy but it is the right and reasonable thing to do.

If tribalism is despicable, it is however pale in comparison to what is on ground in Nigeria presently. Today, we do not even favour our street, let alone our tribe, but instead we give undue advantage to our house at the expense of others. Is this a regression in tribalism or have we just furtively devised another form of discrimination. Do not forget there was once federal quota. The Nigerian Constitution, in fact, states that no Nigerian should be discriminated against. That absolves the Sarakis, the Obasanjos, the Adedibus, etc. for any legal wrong doing by populating their children into key political positions. It is also a fact that only children of prominent people get important jobs these days in Nigeria . These children of VIPs, however, are Nigerians and should not be discriminated upon, in accordance with the constitution, on the circumstances of their birth. They could just be the best for the jobs.  

But, as human being, we do not live on legal values but on moral values. This should be at the back of the mind of a leader. These families, by so doing though legally covered, have broken the moral codes of the society. I wonder; were their predecessors done the same, would they have gotten to where they are? These public icons, as we are all aware, were children of “nobody” in the society in their time and only got to their present positions because the people ahead of them created the opportunities for others other than their own families. This is what you get in a state of diminishing opportunities. In that state we tend towards the state of a basic animal and reason less. This is an example of the desirability of morality holding higher grounds against legality in a society. I do not think we can move forward until morality dominates our social interactions.

A leader is someone whom people follow and leadership is the ability to lead, to guide and influence people. Whatever a leader does has a rippling effect. A leader is like a stone dropped in the middle of the pond. No matter how tenable the position of a leader is legally, the moment a leader loses his moral right to lead, he ceases to be the leader. That is the way the world works. No amount of tinkering can change that because mankind lives by values. The rule of law is ineffective without moral backing. Even things like the joys of legal victory are usually transient and are not as deeply rooted as moral victory. There are many advantages morality has over legality. It has been proven that moral judgement also diminishes rancorous reactions. Mankind, for instance, accepts with humility when judged morally wrong, but fights back bitterly, or even dangerously, when adjudged legally wrong. You cannot blame mankind, it is just human nature.

I have lawyers as friends. “This is the law,” some Nigerians particularly lawyers are quick to say – referring to what some Americans sometimes say. But, the American Constitution has survived not on its laws but on its moral values. I feel bemused when lawyers frustratingly complain about a particularly important person flouting court orders. Obeying court orders is a moral obligation but could be ignored particularly if you pay the pipers. Those responsible for diminishing the important role of moral values in the society could only have themselves to blame. As we lay aside our moral obligations in our society, we create activities inimical to the public good. Lawyers, from the Chief Judge to the defence lawyers, are trained in the techniques of law and cases are won not particularly on truth but on technical points. That is what is titillating about that profession.

However, these law practitioners are human like you and I and should they not be subject to live by moral values too? Some of them are visibly religious and I wonder how those are able mix immorality and legality. God as we are told is all for morality. It must be a very complex life. In an extreme case, it must be traumatic for a lawyer who knew his client had just killed but still went ahead to defend him. Lawyers must be superhuman. It could be why they are so revered. Having said all these, the role of lawyers in modern society cannot be overstated.  

If lawyers have not made our lives easier then politicians have made them worse. The recent theatrics by the two most senior citizens in Nigeria exemplified the degeneration of morality in the Nigerian society. It is a development that portends danger, but it also tells us, as people, to look elsewhere to move on. The politicians have failed to organise our society, yet again, just like the soldiers before them and they have descended Nigeria into the abyss of disorganisation. I have come to regard the disorganisation in the Nigerian society as a planned one. It is a deliberate attempt by Nigerian leaders to keep us busy while we grapple with what ordinary people in other lands have taken for granted. That way, their moral bankruptcy will remain invincible, they think.

The problem started as the British left. We watched as those that replaced the British in government change at whim the immutable laws of the British to favour a particular circumstance or person. The rest is the history of Nigeria . To rectify this, we would have to go back to basics and organise ourselves in a nongovernmental structure and most likely apolitically just like our founding fathers did. And then embark on public education. We will need strong arguments in the street to convince someone the significance of strengthening the group as against the individual, for instance. What is in it for him not to accept bribe or to take his turn in the queue? How does one convince a man not to accept something he needs to better his life or to give up an advantage he has created illegally for himself? How does he see a bigger picture in which the existence of he and his society hinges on; we could as well be telling it to the marines.

Society would have to show the ordinary Nigerian what he will gain and not just that it is illegal. What is legal anymore because the goal post keeps moving? Only morality is steady enough. The technicality of the law is a moving target. Until when the Nigerian is made to see a bigger picture instead of the myopic one, he will continue to do what he has always done. The policeman that expects an off-the-book payment to augment his meagre salary will need a lot of convincing not to accept such payments.

So, there is a lot of work ahead and not merely the extravagance of politics. There are people in our midst who are capable of lifting us from this disorganised state. Some have come forward but others need nudging. The question is who will even protect them from people like us. Unfortunately for the society, these people are few and tend to have a strain of traits that are uncommon. They are arrogant as well as candid – very rare traits. There is, however, something in the rest of us that makes us uncomfortable in the presence of these arrogant and forthright people. Without naming names, I am sure we can suspect who these people are – I am talking about those still alive. The truth is that, we are more comfortable with those who are diplomatic (official lies). Even when we discover that they had lied to us; we usually explain it as playing politics.

Should by divine help, we manage to have one of the angels in heaven as our next leader; who is going to protect him against us? The divine help should not be for the choice of the leader alone, but for us too. We could start to see a bigger picture and then render our moral obligations to the society. The gamble could pay off and become profitable to us as well as the society at large. Those willing to better the state of Nigeria sure have a daunting task. By the way, can a thief condemn the act of stealing because people, being people, will question my moral authority to debate these issues?

Samuel Akinyele Caulcrick, the Author of The Devil Must Be Laughing.

Lagos .

Robot  Villager

# 1 ...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 30.01.2007 11:58