IN the previous editions, I have highlighted the nexus between politics, morality and the law, particularly as it relates to governance; and the impact of cultural differences in the concept of what is morally acceptable. Specifically, last week, I discussed morality in relation to the social contract theory which, typically, Nigerian politics is yet to embrace.
Morality and politics: The age-long debate
One of the oldest debates known to mankind is the connection or, indeed, the disconnect between morality and politics. As I referenced in the first edition of this series, a former governor of Niger State reportedly said that: “If you cannot lie, get out of politics. Anything you are involved in has its own rules. You are in politics to win, win first and let other things follow. Don’t be the one crying louder, lest you will be the one they will take to court. If you are talking of honesty or morals, go and become an imam or pastor.” Machiavelli is noted to have advocated a position similar to that expressed by this former governor. In his book, The Prince, Machiavelli stated the case for political expediency in its starkest, most electrifying form. He is associated with the divorce of politics from conventional morality and the justification of all means, even the most unscrupulous, in the quest for political power. As a result, he has been denounced as a man inspired by the devil, as an immoral writer, an anti-Christian, an advocate of cruelty and tyranny and a deliberate teacher of evil. But some see Machiavelli as amoral, a pragmatist who recognised the harsh realities of political life. Much later in time, others came along who appeared to share the philosophy of Machiavelli. Rather, unfortunately, most of these beliefs account for some of the devastating conflicts experienced during the twentieth century including two-world wars.
Politically expedient actions devoid of morality
Hitler and his Nazi Party saw nothing wrong in the murder of millions of Jews in their quest to dominate Europe and ensure the survival of what they termed a master race. Prior to the second world war, Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, set in motion events designed to cause a famine in the Ukraine to destroy the people there seeking independence from his rule. As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished in this famine era, known as the Breadbasket of Europe, with the people deprived of the food they had grown with their own hands. In four years of his rule, Pol Pot brought hardship, pain and sorrow to Cambodia the type of which had never been witnessed before. He presided over a totalitarian dictatorship that imposed a radical form of agrarian socialism on the country. His government forced urban dwellers to move to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects. The combined effects of executions, forced labour, malnutrition and poor medical care caused the deaths of approximately 25 percent of the Cambodian population. In all, an estimated 1 to 3 million people (out of a population of slightly over 8 million) died due to the policies of his four-year premiership.
All the incidents stated above occurred due to a lack of morality in governance and politics and also a belief that political exigencies of the time dictated that they occur. As a matter of fact, Hitler rode to power on strong national sentiments and enjoyed a huge following and popularity.Hitler became extremely hateful to the Jewish people which prompted him to create anti-Jewish laws which eventually led to the Holocaust that eradicated over 6 million Jews before and during World War II. As rightly argued by a German historian, Klaus Hildebrand, Hitler’s moral responsibility for the Holocaust was the culmination of his pathological hatred of the Jews and his ideology of “racial dogma”. Religions preach one form of moral code or the other; it is generally considered a sin to steal, to kill, or to destroy others’ property. Yet our politicians have over time consistently acted in ways indicative of the fact that they have completely removed considerations of morality from the everyday exercise of their duties. This is why most will upon assumption of office set about corruptly enriching themselves to the detriment of the populace they were elected to serve.
Years back, a British Tabloid reportedly described Nigeria as so corrupt that it would be better for Britain to simply set fire to its intended aid money rather than release it to corrupt government officials in Nigeria. Several months back a former public officer was convicted in the United Kingdom of corrupt practices. During the prehearing phase he was said to have been astonished at the order of the Judge that he be remanded at a place normally reserved for persons of unsound mind. However, it was remarked in some quarters that the judge must have come to the conclusion that only someone of unsound mind would even contemplate stealing the amount of money attributed to him alone.
Morality and political ideology
Morality has always found expression in political ideology, particularly in developed climes. In the United States, two political parties are predominant – the Democrats and the Republicans. The platform of the Democratic Party is generally based on American liberalism, contrasting with the conservatism of the Republican Party. Democrats have been known to be staunch advocates of consumer protection rights, workplace safety regulation, equal opportunity, disability rights, racial equality regulations against environmental pollution, criminal justice reform, abortion rights and the LGBT community, as well as a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Democrats typically agree with the scientific consensus on climate change and favour a multilateral approach in foreign policy. On the other hand, Republican ideology is based on American conservatism, which incorporates both economic policies and social values. The Republicans are known to support lower taxes, free market capitalism, stiff restrictions on immigration, increased military spending, gun rights, restrictions on abortion, deregulation and restrictions on labour unions.
In the United Kingdom, there are equally two predominant political parties – i.e., the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. The Conservatives generally adopted liberal economic policies—favouring free market economics, limiting state regulation, and pursuing privatisation. The party is British unionist, opposing both Irish reunification and Welsh and Scottish independence, and historically supported the continuance and maintenance of the British Empire. On the other hand, the Liberals have an ideology that draws on both the liberal and social democratic traditions. The party is primarily social liberal, supporting redistribution but sceptical of increasing the power of the state, emphasising the link between equality and liberty. The party supports investment and progressive taxation, but also promotes civil liberties and a less centralised economy. They equally support a range of constitutional reforms, including advocating for a decentralised federal structure for the United Kingdom, including devolving power to the regions of England. The political ideologies of these developed countries have been in force for centuries, and therefore, it is highly unlikely to witness any substantial modifications. A corollary to this is that it is uncommon for members of political parties to switch political allegiance – this is the place of morality in partisan party membership. But as I had earlier noted, party politics in Nigeria is riddled with unbridled political defections without any recourse to the place of morality.
Conclusion
Government anywhere in the world is supposed to be about the people. The Nigerian National Anthem is one that calls on all Nigerians to rise to the call of the Nation and act only in its best interests. By the words of the anthem, patriotism is demanded of every Nigerian. However, a country that demands patriotism from its citizens must continually be seen to be working in their best interests. The government of the country must always be seen to seek ways of making the lives of the citizens better and not otherwise. One can hardly expect patriotic ideals and conduct from a citizen who feels abandoned by his country and his leaders and who perceives that every governmental policy is designed to further compound rather than ameliorate his difficulties.
This is where morality must come in and politicians made to realise the sacredness of electoral promises they make prior to election and the oath they take upon assumption of office. Vigilance must be the eternal watch word of not only Nigerians but indeed all those who are governed all around the world. Leaders must be held to the highest standard of morals just as obtains in other parts of the world. It is only by so doing that one can hope that politics without morality, the type of which was described by the former governor of Niger will, in time, become history in Nigeria.
AARE AFE BABALOLA SAN, CON
YOU SHOULD NOT MISS THESE HEADLINES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
We Have Not Had Water Supply In Months ― Abeokuta Residents
In spite of the huge investment in the water sector by the government and international organisations, water scarcity has grown to become a perennial nightmare for residents of Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital. This report x-rays the lives and experiences of residents in getting clean, potable and affordable water amidst the surge of COVID-19 cases in the state.
and then