PHILOSOPHY FOR INDEPENDENT NIGERIA

CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK

A lecture delivered to Nigerian

Students at Conway Hall, London,

on 3rd September, 1961

Politically, the independence of a country can be viewed from two angles: the corporate and the individual angle. A country is said to be free only when it has unqualified control Over its internal affairs. On the other hand, a citizen of an independent country enjoys individual freedom when he is free to say and do what he likes, subject only to laws enacted by the freely elected parliament or the popular legislative assembly of the land.

The dependency of a country and the subjection of its citizens to alien rule are conterminous. But the independence of a country does not necessarily mean the freedom of its individual citizens. It all depends on the form of government. If, for instance, the form of government is oligarchical, authoritarian, or totalitarian, individual freedom will almost invariably be denied to the masses of the people. The point must be made, however, that in time of national crisis or emergency, it is legitimate for the Government to call upon the citizens to surrender, for the duration, some measure of their individual freedom, in order that the freedom of the country and its citizens may be preserved from violation.

In a democracy, therefore, and in normal circumstances, the freedom of a country connotes the freedom of its individual citizens. Furthermore, when the freedom of a country is looked at in its complete functional embodiment, it exhibits two conspicuous and inseparable facets. They are the political and economic facets. A country can only be said to be truly free and independent which has these two functional facets co-existing and cohering in their inseparable absoluteness.

I have emphasized the inseparable nature of these two facets in order to focus attention to the point that, for a subject people, political freedom is not the end of the journey or struggle: it is nothing more than a most potent means to the acquisition and consolidation of the economic and other facets of the country’s freedom.

It is, I believe, generally agreed that political freedom is meaningless unless it goes hand in hand with economic freedom. Anyone who cares to read his history aright will readily concur that the prime and sole motivation for imperialist predations, conquests, and rule is economic in character. If the imperialist powers can accomplish their economic exploitation of the weaker nations without political control they will much prefer to do it that way. As a matter of historical fact, colonial expansion began with the division of the territories of the weaker peoples into economic spheres of influence. It was when it became clear to the imperialists that economic control would become precarious unless there was political control as well, that the latter was imposed. In other words, it is erroneous and dangerous to assume that the subjection of a country is at an end, simply because it is politically free. In these modern times, the economic subjugation of a country does take several, but not easily perceptible, forms, with the result that many free nations are only ostensibly so. The economic shackles they wear are heavy and extremely depressing, but are visible only to the discerning eye.

The influence which a nation exerts, the respect which it enjoys, and the prestige accorded to it on the world scene, depend on two important factors: the size of its wealth and the calibre of its leadership. Granting an incorruptible, courageous, public-spirited, enlightened and dynamic leadership, the wealth of a nation is the fountain of its strength. The bigger the wealth, and the more equitable its distribution among the factors and agencies which have helped to produce it, the greater the out-flow of the nation’s influence and power.

There are two intangible essentials for the attainment as well as the preservation of freedom (whether national or individual) which must be mentioned. They are the will on the part of a people to be and remain free, and a recognition that the subjection or suppression of other peoples is a standing peril to freedom wherever it may exist. Again, in these modern days the functions of a Government, are multifarious. But the primal ones can conveniently be classified under two headings:

i)its duty to the State to preserve its corporate existence against internal disorder and external aggression, and

ii)its duty to the citizens to cater for their welfare and promote their happiness.

Tile general well-being of the citizen depends on objective and subjective factors. He needs a healthy body which can be reared only on good food, adequate shelter, decent clothing, a reasonable measure of comfort and luxury, and a wholesome environment. He needs a sound and cultivated mind which is free to know and meditate upon the things of its choice. He has natural, conventional, and legal rights which must be protected and upheld, with impartiality and inflexible justice, mainly by the appropriate organs of Government, and partly by the society in which he lives. But, of course, the citizen owes enormous duties to the State and to his fellow-citizens, which are regulated and enjoined by customary usages and the laws of the land.

No Government, however, can hope to discharge its duties to the State and to the citizens satisfactorily or effectively, unless it is, or at the very least strives continually to be, on good terms with its immediate neighbours and the rest of the world. At the same time, it must ensure at home as near a state of equilibrium as possible among all the citizens, in their legitimate demand for equitable shares of the national products.

In other words, the internal affairs of a State must be ordered by the Government in such a manner as to guarantee social justice and personal security to all, and the external affairs conducted ill such a manner as to promote world peace, and undiscriminating respects for human dignity in all parts of the world. I have made these fundamental and, I dare say, self-evident propositions, because I consider them essential (1) to a proper understanding of the doings and happenings in Nigeria since October 1, 1960, and (2) to a critical assessment of any proposals which I may make in the course of this lecture.

CONTINUES NEXT WEEK

READ ALSO FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE