Politics as philosophy

Even as a number of politicians can be highly self-conscious or, as it happens in few instances, speculative philosophers who are able to write insightful books which could be deemed philosophical, we will still have to unravel the riddle whether philosophy is better than politics or put differently; Is politics better when it is more philosophical?

Can politics be assessed according to the value of the philosophy, which it adopts or brandishes? Or can politics be judged by “extraneous” criteria or by the degree with which it has modified original thought?

The true collaboration between politics and philosophy is reached when there are politician-thinkers like, to suggest a memorable example, Obafemi Awolowo who straddled the Nigerian political sphere in the pre and post-independence Nigerian political practice era; or, in the not-too-dim past during the Renaissance when a lot of literature poured forth for enriching the reasoned symbiosis of politics and philosophy; or, later in Germany, when Goethe was both an original philosopher and political pundit.

It is a moot point whether philosophical standards should be the unyielding criteria of political practice. There are in this cline, for instance, strident objections to the “excessive intellectualism” or “dizzying height” philosophical approaches to political practice.

Objectors have awfully argued that politics is not philosophical knowledge translated into theories or complicated postulations. They insist that politics by its very nature merely expresses a generally suitable way a society may be run. That politicians may be called upon to answer questions, which may be themes of philosophy, it has been strenuously put forward, does not necessarily classify their responses or sensibilities as needing philosophy.

It is noteworthy that philosophical issues or problems e.g. the concept of man, the place of fate in the affairs of men, the problem of nature, man’s relation to death, the concept of love, etc. are inextricably linked to the purpose of political practice in society. The general attitude of politicians to these matters may only be studied or understood in relation to their philosophical beliefs.

Changing attitudes towards love and marriage, contemporary conception of death in contrast to earlier ages’ musings concerning it and the curious sensibilities often displayed today, all have tended to affect legislative attitudes or the formulation of laws in those respects. There is little doubt that sentiment changes with time. Conventions or customary practices only slow down its pace or direction.

This century’s attitude to love, for instance, is amusingly different from that of the past two centuries. Tears and sentimental effusions accompanying the death of loved ones are far more restrained today than in the days of say, the literary icon, Dr. Johnson. Today’s less-intellectualist point of view in politics tends to define, less-tangibly, overtly formulated attitudes, ideas and policies.

This danger is visible or is openly manifested in the ill-digested policies or programmes rolled out from time to time and seemingly deemed derived from rigorous philosophical or ideological standpoints. This confusion in understanding is deducible from even the most un-intellectual inquiry. Society is not amused by doubt that is aroused about policy proponents’ ignorance of the underlying assumptions behind ill-fated undertakings or policies.

Free education at all levels, free health services, fundamental human rights and welfare of the people are philosophical ideals. For a leader to attempt the performance of these ideals he must combine a visible believable political trajectory for addressing contemporary socio-political problems with an intellectual understanding of their foundations. It is to be recognised that there are some people in society who are unrepentantly committed to maintaining or continuing the evil and destructive status quo: the status quo of the rich to become richer even as the majority will become poorer. Thankfully, we have a sprinkling of sober dialecticians or rigorous politicians who are necessarily versed in the understanding of the coherence of all cultural and other activities of man.

They are also possessed of the objective spirit of their time. Even as the practice of politics varies from very deep theoreticians like Awo, to quibbling, bombastic, pseudo-mystical nabobs, the difference is palpably clear. The Awo period in Nigerian politics has proved to be a veritable hunting ground for identifying the positive and negative influences of the time.

A good or positive enunciation thereof is found in Awo’s magnum opus: The Strategy and Tactics of the People’s Republic which not only defines the spirit of the age as a conflict of antithetic tendencies between the socially or properly circumstanced and the poor or disadvantaged masses but relentlessly pursues his formula through all human activities or interactions.

By a strict or uncommon analogising, Awo arrives at the triumphal conclusion that his age gratuitously brandished manifest conflict, contradiction, and tension throughout its manifestation. The conception of change in terms of a time spirit may however not be understood as sharply distinct or discontinuous as of one age not been a continuation of its forerunner. The basic constants of human nature have made such classifications futile, false or untenable.

The characteristic philosophical attitude for countering unprincipled or unethical governance is a revolutionary change of attitude to life and politics to the end that the execrable filth that abounds in society will be perceived by all as abhorrent. Until a truly educated reformer or revolutionary comes forward to lead the polity to a complete reversal of the prevailing un-natural state of affairs, only the fittest politically and socially and financially (most of whose wealth is stolen from the public revenue), together with their children and close dependants will survive.

As leadership continues to be bereft of new or invigorating ideas and also incapable of appreciating effective solutions or apply them sensibly when they are offered altruistically, the ship of state will continue to meander rudderlessly and run aground. Many of our politicians in Nigeria visibly lack the possession or contemplation or appreciation of the right philosophy of public service. In spite of the generous perquisites by way of remuneration and emoluments attached to their offices, many public officers still loot humongous sums from the public till. They haul billions of naira into their private vaults at home and abroad.

Today, there is a rising level of populist anger in the land that necessarily contributes to polarisation and reflects a socio-economic reality that is at odds with the raison d’etre for the continuation of the polity. The rate of inter-generational social and economic mobility in Nigeria is slow even as the elite transmit their undue advantages to their children through favoured access to institutions of state. This point suggests an urgent but largely ignored area of concern about the future of Nigeria.

The exercise of sincere clear-headed or knowledgeable political leadership is a sine qua non for the forging of a social consensus on political ends and for avoiding an impending or looming catastrophe. The necessary connection between politics and philosophy needs to be clearly understood and consciously fostered. There is a requirement for politicians to work with a plan and a fundamental structure so firmly and solidly founded in philosophy for adaptation to the demands of the populace of their time. They need to seek and obtain intellectual aid from many sources. Their actions in and out of government need be characterised by nobility of spirit and grandeur.

Politicians need to develop a sense of a philosophical inquiry into the origin of ideas of the sublime and the practical.
Rotimi-John, a lawyer and a commentator on public affairs wrote vide [email protected]