By Sonnie Ekwowusi
Devoid of character, the words “politics” and “politicians” are synonymous with deceit and fraud. In the words of Federic Bastiat, French political economist, and philosopher, political activities are nothing but legalized plunder. Put differently, democracy bereft of democratic ideals can kill in the same way a military despotism kills. According to Peter Kreeft, “if we think we are automatically free from the danger of ignorant prejudice and tyranny simply because we are a democracy, we should reflect on the fact that it was a democracy that killed Socrates. A democracy can be as ignorant, as prejudiced (especially by fashion and popularity) and as tyrannical as a monarch. There is no automatic connection between numbers (how many rules) and wisdom or virtue, between quantity and quality…”
As some political analysts have stated, democracy rests on many assumptions. One of those assumptions is that men have enough wisdom and virtue to pursue the end of democracy-promotion of the welfare of the people. But viewed against the backdrop of history, men do not have enough wisdom and virtue to pursue the end of democracy. Democracy is challenged from within by sheer greed and the pursuit of personal interests at the expense of the common good and welfare of the people. Lest we forget, totalitarianism is present in a constitutional democracy as much as it is present in tyrannical militarism. Simply put, constitutional democracy is not a guarantee of progress and human flourishing in a country. In fact, if constitutional democracy must lead to true human flourishing it must transcend political experiment. I remember now that unique Conference I attended in Michigan, United States about seven years ago. Most of the Conference speakers did not mince words in drawing our attention to the fact that democracy is more than a political experiment: that it is also a moral enterprise with a national character that defines democracy and establishes the parameters and moral high ground in which democracy should operate in order to promote the wellbeing of the people. One speaker, in particular, focused on the work of the French historian and diplomat, Alexis De Tocqueville who actually travelled to the United States to study the American democracy and later commented in his often-cited classic work, Democracy in America, that democracy bereft of equality of conditions is bound to gravitate towards despotism. In the last days of that Conference, I came across at the bookstand a small booklet authored by Prof Rocco Buttiglione with the alluring title The Moral mandate for Freedom. In this small booklet, Prof Buttiglione shared the views of James Madison and Alexis De Tocqueville to the effect that democracy not run by highly-principled political leaders is bound to be catastrophic. But it was ancient philosopher Plato who, in my view, set out the parameter for gauging good democracy. Plato, as you are well aware, was hostile to democracy because he feared that the democratic powers and institutions would be imperiled under the watch of men of unruly passions and creatures of appetite. In his classic work, The Republic, Plato wants politics and democracy to be run by those he calls the experts, the enlightened, and the “guardian”. To Plato, politics is not for the unruly populace and creatures of appetite. Politics is for men and women of high ethical principles.
Plato wanted those he termed the “guardians” to be the governors of the States. Plato suggests that the guardians should be educated in these four cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. Of the aforesaid virtues, justice is the most important. The guardians ought to engage in just activity even when it doesn’t seem to confer an immediate advantage to them. Though the appetite lusts after many things, the guardians must not be “money-loving,” politicians. Plato likens the guardians to dogs for their strength, loyalty, intelligence and courage. The guardians need strength in order to defend their territory and fight for it when it is needed. They also need loyalty to make fair judgments; intelligence to make wise decisions and courage to pursue goals. The guardians should possess these virtues to enable them to establish justice in society and take care of the interest of the State as dogs serve their owners’ with loyalty and protect their interest. Therefore, defending their fellow citizens with high spirit and philosophical dispositions should be the only concern of the guardians. At the end of Book V of his work, Plato describes the way of life of the guardians thus: “Then let us consider what will be their way of life if they are to realize our idea of them. In the first place, none of them should have any property of his own beyond what is absolutely necessary; neither should they have a private house or store closed against anyone who has a mind to enter; their provisions should be only such as are required by trained warriors, who are men of temperance and courage; they should agree to receive from the citizens a fixed rate of pay, enough to meet the expenses of the year and no more; and they will go and live together like soldiers in a camp. Gold and silver we will tell them that they have from God; the diviner metal is within them, and they have therefore no need of the dross which is current among men, and ought not to pollute the divine by any such earthly admixture; for that commoner metal has been the source of many unholy deeds, but their own is undefiled. And they alone of all the citizens may not touch or handle silver or gold, or be under the same roof with them, or wear them, or drink from them. And this will be their salvation, and they will be the saviours of the State…”.
Prominent Presidential aspirant Peter Obi easily fits into the mold of Plato’s guardian. Obi is distinguished for having governed Anambra on such a high moral ground of temperance and courage to the extent that, unlike Willie Obiano, his immediate successor, he (Peter Obi) left behind a gargantuan sum of N75 billion in the government purse before leaving office. He says that he left the PDP without bitterness because the values espoused in the party are at variance with his own political principles. He says he does not share money freely to people as some Nigerian politicians do. He says that the greatest undoing of Nigeria today is consumption without production. He regrets that despite the enormous human and natural resources at her disposal, Nigeria cannot feed herself today. He prides himself as being a trader and a wealth creator, who, if elected as President of Nigeria, can create a visible and measurable wealth within his first 100 days in office that will bring Nigeria out of the present doldrums of inefficiency and cluelessness in which she presently finds herself. Peter Obi is very humble, civil and respectful. He always calls himself a trader. He has a sense of distributive justice. He doesn’t return insult for insult. Like Plato’s Philosopher-King, Obi espouses wisdom. He is down to earth. He says that what he needs to get along in this passing life is little money to meet up his expenses and no more. He refused to participate or acquiesce in the bribery and corruption in the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the build-up to the party’s Presidential Primary. Peter Obi teaches that there is a convergence between politics and morality. Instead of giving bribes to party delegates against his conscience in order to win the Presidential Primary, Peter Obi preferred to quit the PDP and pitch a tent with the Labour Party. In doing this, he said: “I will rather lose doing the right thing than win doing the wrong thing. In other words, Obi believes that a politician cannot do wrong so that good may come out of it.
Unfortunately, the Nigerian democracy is severely challenged from within by corruption, ignorance, apathy, and pursuit of selfish interests. If democracy is said to liberate all men, it is on the assumption that there are political leaders with high moral principles ready to navigate democracy to a safe harbor. Unfortunately, most democracies including the Nigerian democracy are not run by men with high ethical principles. Most democracies unfortunately are in the hands of men of unruly passions and creatures of appetite. For instance, the separation of culture from politics or from public life in Nigeria has led to a palpable moral bankruptcy in Nigerian politics. This is why in the last twenty-five years or so we have been witnessing a steady and progressive deterioration of those cherished values which form the superstructures for the building of our national ethos. We say that Nigeria is a democracy yet we have been steadily excluding from our policy those cherished values that make democracy thick or lead to human flourishing.
Machiavellianism, unfortunately, rules Nigerian politics. A Nigerian politician, for example, can commit murder as in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, in order to satisfy his vaulting ambition and feel justified with the words of Lady Macbeth: “a little water cleans us of this deed”. A Nigerian politician, for instance, can bribe party delegates in order to win a Presidential Primary and afterward feels justified that he has attained his life’s ambition. Machiavellianism teaches that there is no intersection between politics and morality. Machiavellianism exalts pragmatism over exercise of moral virtues in politics. “The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous. Therefore if a prince wants to maintain his rule he must learn how not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need” (The Prince, 61).
In contrast, Plato and Aristotle exalt moral virtues over pragmatism. To Aristotle, the proper aim of politics is moral virtue: “politics takes the greatest care in making the citizens to be of a certain sort, namely good and capable of noble actions.” (Aristotle). I cannot agree less. It is not true that politics and morality are strange bedfellows. Political strategy doesn’t obviate the need to cultivate moral discipline. Contrary to Machiavellianism, the end does not justify the means. A politician cannot do evil that good may come out of it. He cannot, for instance, murder a fellow politician to grab political power in order to improve the welfare of the people. He cannot, for instance, worship the juju shrine in order to break the backbones of his political godfathers. According to Plato “…neither cities nor States nor individuals will ever attain perfection until the small class of philosophers whom we termed useless but not corrupt are providentially compelled, whether they will or not, to take care of the State..”.
Considering the monumental ruin that has overtaken Nigeria in the last seven years, we must vote wisely in the 2023 Nigerian Presidential election. We must vote for Plato’s philosopher-King or the guardian to become the President of Nigeria in 2023. We are tired of the reign of misfit. Therefore beyond social media idle gossip and arm-chair politicking, let us arm ourselves with our respective PVCs and get ready to vote in 2023.
There is no doubt that we need a national character, a national character that defines democracy and establishes the parameters and moral high ground in which democracy should operate in order to promote the wellbeing of the people. No democracy in which wrongs and social injustices are intentionally committed and perpetuated can lead to true human flourishing. No democracy in which the political leaders intentionally commit wrongs against the people can save the people.
