There exists some understanding that definitional issues in social analysis are rather inconclusive. That is why you find varying definitions of a given concept or phenomenon by scholars. But in this seeming divergence, there still exists a convergence of views on the confines of the subject matter.
Though perceptions may slightly differ, there is always a common strand of exactitude running through all these definitions. At the end, you can easily isolate features common to the concept that differentiates it from what it is not. That way, you can assign practical expression and meaning to abstractions and constructs.
Even then, it is not uncommon to see political leaders and sundry personages misconstrue and exploit some of these concepts to serve ends that detract substantially from their real essence. The above scenario played out last week when President Buhari accused unnamed Nigerians of unpatriotic acts for seemingly criticizing his current handling of the worsening insecurity in the country.
Apparently reacting to mounting criticisms on his handling of the degenerating security situation, the president had said “those who politicize the isolated incidents of insecurity are not patriotic Nigerians. I am confident that this administration will use all resources at its disposal to protect the lives of all Nigerians and not just prominent Nigerians, but all”.
There are inherent flaws in the above assertions. The first is the difficulty in understanding what the president actually meant by politicization of insecurity. And what the dividing line is between informed criticisms and politicization of the subject matter. The second relates to his notion of what constitutes isolated incidents of insecurity while the other hinges on his promise to protect all and not just prominent Nigerians. We shall return to these later.
With the killing last week of Funke Olakunri, daughter of leader of the Yoruba socio-political organization, Afenifere by suspected herdsmen, key Nigerians came down heavily against the rising insecurity in the country. Among the most vocal were former presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan. Nobel laureate, Wole Soyinka also lent his voice to the issue even as there were other voices from concerned groups across the country. If the concerns expressed by these groups and individuals amounted to the politicization of insecurity in the thinking of the president, then he got it all wrong. There is always a dividing line between informed criticisms and politics.
There is also a big flaw in what the president called isolated incidents of insecurity in the country. Isolated? For a country that is buffeted in all fronts by all manner of security challenges that have stretched the security agencies to elastic limits, it is amazing that any person could describe the mortal danger posed by insecurity in such patronizing manner. Not with the festering Boko Haram insurgency, armed banditry, kidnapping, armed robbery and the insurgency of the herdsmen that have left the country a verity of the Hobbesian state of nature.
Holes can also be picked in his promise to protect all Nigerians and not just the prominent ones. Coming on the heels of heightened emotions on the callous and senseless killing of Funke Olakunri by suspected herdsmen, such a statement would appear insensitive to the mood of the times. It would have made more sense to rehearse such trite statements and platitudes without bringing in the distinction between prominent and non prominent Nigerians. The import of that curious distinction is not lost on very discerning minds. And it says a lot about the mind frame of the president in the instant case.
Beyond these, there is a fundamental conceptual mix-up in the assertion that those who politicize incidents of isolated insecurity in the country are not patriotic Nigerians. Our reading of this is that those who criticize government’s handling of the escalating security situation in the country are not patriotic Nigerians. In this wise, the alarm on the degenerating insecurity raised by Obasanjo, Jonathan and Soyinka among others with recommendations on ways out, would fit into unpatriotic acts. It is difficult to fathom how that claim could possibly stand.
And that raises definitional and conceptual issues as to the precise meaning of the word patriotism. It is apposite to define that word for us to contextualize Buhari’s statement. Stephen Nathanson categorized patriotism in Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy in the following terms: ‘Special affection for one’s own country; a sense of personal identification with the country, special concern for the wellbeing of the country and willingness to sacrifice to promote the country’s good’.
And what did Obasanjo and others say? They draw attention to the inherent dangers in allowing pervading insecurity to get out of hands; they also proffered suggestions on how to stem the tide and ward off the drift to anarchy. Obasanjo made copious recommendations on ways out including an urgent summit of all nationalities and prominent Nigerians where observed grievances will be tabled and trashed out. Jonathan drew attention to the recommendations of the 2014 national conference report which he said contains vital recommendations on how to resolve the nagging insecurity in the country.
Other suggestions include the convocation of a national conference, security summit and restructuring. What is expected of a sensitive and caring government is to take advantage of these suggestions and tackle the scourge of insecurity headlong. Taking refuge on banal allegations and name calling offers no remedy on the debilitating situation. Even if these personages were seemingly hard on the government for not living up to its statutory duties, they had genuine intentions and suggestions on ways out. Their aim is to get the government arrest the degenerating security situation and retrieve the country from impending catastrophe.
Can we possibly tag such dispositions as unpatriotic acts? And which of these two dispositions serves our national interest better: to keep quiet and allow the situation get out of hands or draw government’s attention to the drift with a view to finding lasting solutions to it? It is obvious that the later is in conformity with acts of patriotism and love for one’s own country.
Undoubtedly, the interventions by Obasanjo, Jonathan and Soyinka amply stand them out as those who care for the collective wellbeing of their country. They share common concerns for their country and would not want acts of omission or commission on the part of the government to railroad it to avoidable danger. They are concerned about the survival of the country and would want quick therapeutic responses to retrieve it from the impending doom. Their actions therefore qualify them as patriots. If Buhari had them in mind when he made the accusation, he got it all wrong. He may well have been afflicted by a wrong notion of what constitutes patriotism.
This view is given succinct credence by Igor Primoratz when he wrote on patriotism as follows: “such identification is expressed in vicarious feelings: in pride of one’s country’s merits and achievements and in shame for its lapses or crimes (when these are acknowledged rather than denied)”. He has said it all.
Those who criticize the tepid handling of the insecurity that is tearing the country apart are only expressing frustrations and discomfort with the situation. They are ashamed of the lapses arising from the inability or reluctance of the government to decisively stem the tide. They are the real patriots and not those who pretend all is well in the face of potent danger. It would appear Buhari saw patriotism from the prism of its inverted variant. It is a convoluted perception of the subject matter; one that satisfies the whims and caprices of the leader.
But we must be careful of the mortal danger in equating patriotism with blind trust on anything a leader says. For, history is replete with accounts of leaders who displaced national goals with their self-serving interests. Such goal displacement leads to dissonance between what that leader considers to represent the national interest of a country and the collective interests of the constituents. It is a frightening prospect that must be watched carefully.
Leave a Reply