The Nation Newspaper

Tag: intellectuals

  • Leaders, intellectuals and underdevelopment in Nigeria (1)

    In 1976, a veritable bomb of a book, ‘Black Man’s Dilemma’ written by the journalist, columnist, administrator and one time editor of the then best selling Daily times, imploded on Nigeria’s literary and intellectual scene with dramatic and controversial impact. Frontally tackling leading authorities in African academia who had researched and written extensively on what they described as the glories and accomplishments of the great cultures, civilizations and empires of pre-colonial Africa, Oyebola described such submissions as wholly false, mythical and misleading. Relying on extensive library research as well as notes from his wide travels, interviews and careful observations throughout the black world, including the blacks in America, Oyebola contended that the black man had in fact not made any original or sufficiently impactful contribution to the attainments accomplishments and feats of human civilization.

    Oyebola’s polemical masterpiece generated furious and fiery debates both within academia and in the Nigerian media. He interrogated and seriously disputed, on the basis of historical and archaeological research, claims that the ancient empires of Egypt or Ethiopia, among others, were black civilizations as claimed by some authorities. The great educationist and social critic, Dr Tai Solarin, who was in prison under the Gowon military dictatorship, read the book in prison and promised that on his release, he would aggressively promote the work to be read in Nigeria’s higher institutions. Solarin kept his pledge distributing thousands of copies to students in the course of his frequent lecture tours across Nigerian universities.

    Exactly forty years after the publication of the first edition, Chief Areoye Oyebola, now an octogenarian and traditional title holder in Ibadan, published a revised and updated edition of his book, specifically in 2016. He provided evidence that four decades after the publication of his phenomenal study, nothing had happened in black Africa to necessitate any fundamental change in his original thesis. Despite not being genetically or mentally inferior to any other race, Oyebola lamented that the black man, after six decades of formal political independence, had still not bestirred himself to make any original contribution to knowledge, build any country into a global economic or military super power or make any path-breaking invention particularly in the spheres of science and technology.

    Oyebola’s revised and updated book was received with hardly a whimper in 2016. There were, of course, a few newspaper reviews but no healthy and vigorous intellectual disputations on the issues he raised as relevant as they continued to be. The country’s academia, literary and media elite had become distracted and laid prostrate by the country’s protracted crises of ever deepening poverty and underdevelopment.

    The same inexplicable silence, indifference and inertia has been the fate so far of an explosive new book, ‘The University-Media Complex As Nigeria’s Foremost Amusement Chain’ written by Jimanze Ego-Alowes and published by The Stone Press, Lagos, which was released into the market last year. By now, this book ought to have taken the nation’s literary scene by storm and its author, a polyvalent public intellectual, whose expositions reveal considerable multi-disciplinary grounding in areas as diverse as economics, literature and the arts, classical music, philosophy, mathematics and physics, rigorously engaged on his bold, robust, original but many times highly combustible and provocative submissions on Nigeria’s current socio-economic and condition.

    Running into 292 pages, sub-divided into three interwoven sub-sections or books comprising 31 chapters in all, the book frontally challenges long held conventional wisdoms on the fundamental cause(s) of Nigeria’s protracted socio-economic and political debilities with the author proffering alternative paths, mostly reflective of ‘out of the box’ thinking, to the actualization of the country’s trapped potentials. It says something about the author’s sharp witticism and irreverence that the first section of the book is sub-titled, ‘Eze Goes to School and Comes Home a Moron’! This offers us a glimpse into the author’s take on the content and structure of Nigeria’s educational system.

    Jimenze fiercely challenges the idea popularized by the great novelist, Chinua Achebe, in his slim 1983 classic, ‘The Trouble with Nigeria’, that th country’s socio-economic and political failures stem substantially from leadership deficiency and inadequacy. Nothing, Achebe averred, is wrong with the Nigerian water, or climate or character while everything is wrong with the leadership. Jimanze Ago-Alowes demurs and vigorously too. He contends that Homo sapiens as specie, including the leadership class, only have a superficial, shallow and insufficient insight into the fundamental nature of the material reality, the physical realm that can be cognized by the senses.

    In the author’s view, the leader lacks the capacity and cognitive gifts to “diligently utilize his intellect to fill in the gaps left by our senses” in the attempt to perceive and apprehend reality and so this cannot be his duty. Rather, he explains, it is the men of the mind, the intellectuals and poets, who have the mental endowment and philosophical depth to use their intellects diligently to create “deep awareness and true understanding” of society’s reality and such insight is a fundamental condition for the production of leaders that can, in turn, nurture flourishing societies.

    Thus, as the author avers, ‘In other words, the failure of Nigeria as a “work in progress”is squarely a failure of her intellectualisms, and not leaderships, but that is not all the story. The fuller story is that Nigerian intellectuals are having fun failing and being paid for it. How? They have cleverly turned intellectualisms to circuses, and the nation is entertained to her ruins, even if absentmindedly. Alas”! Expounding further on this argument,with brutal bluntness, Jimanze explains that “this book is about the failures of the Nigerian intellectuals especially in their self-a-musement roles and overriding aim. This what earns the Nigerian University-Media Complex, the entire network of Nigeria’s intellectuals, the vulture’s feather as the Nation’s Foremost Amusement Chain. They have amused the nation to her dearth and runny disasters”.

    The bulk of those who canvass the mantra of leadership failure in Nigeria most, Jimanaze contends, are the scholars and the educated classes in general, which he defines broadly as “just about any Nigerian with a B.Sc/BA diploma degree. Emphasizing that it is the Nigerian scholar who has failed the country the most, Jimanze wonders if the Nigerian educated class by its own standards and accomplishments is not itself a dismal failure when assessed in global comparative terms. For the author, the parameter for accurately evaluating the quality of a country’s educated elite is the capacity of its scholars “to produce new culture and new knowledge; it is not to consume extant knowledge, no matter how brilliantly”.

  • Alaafin challenges intellectuals on restructuring

    Alaafin challenges intellectuals on restructuring

    The Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III, has urged intellectuals to be pro-active in finding solutions to the‘ socio-economic and political problems in the country .

    Oba Adeyemi said that scholars should not concede leadership to indolent politicians and self-appointed opinion leaders who have nothing to offer.

    His words: “Scholars should lead other stakeholders and segment of society to provide intellectual response to restructuring the Nigerian Federation. The African academia and intelligentsia should not conceded leadership in this enterprise to indolent politicians and self- appointed opinion leaders whose stock in trade is soapbox grandstanding and parliamentary rhetoric.

    The Alaafin spoke at a conference on “African Knowledge and Alternative Futures” held in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital,  in honour of Professor Toyin Falola of the University of Texas, Austin,  United States of America. Falola, a professor of African History, clocked 65 on January 1.

    He emphasised the importance of education for Nigeria and other African countries to overcome myriad of socio-economic and political challenges retarding their progress. He said: “Our claim to bring back education will be meaningful if we acquire knowledge, internalise its values and appropriate wisdom therefrom for finding solutions to the twin problems of under-development and state collapse.”

    The permanent Chairman of Oyo State Council of Obas stressed that the Nigerian case calls for the intellectual input of the Yoruba to redefine the nature and pattern of relationship among the diverse and seemingly disparate ethnic groups or nations in Nigeria.

    The monarch paid tribute to the first Premier of the old Western Nigeria, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who transformed the region. He mentioned that Awo built the first television station in Nigeria and the first dualised road from Mokola to the Secretariat, Ibadan.

    Osun State Governor, Rauf Aregbesola regrets that Nigeria depends solely on rent. “We are rent seekers; we are joking on development; people must work to produce surplus for government and government must provide enabling environment for the people through infrastructural development. It is a self-sustaining circle that must not be broken.

    He attributed the economic recession in the country to a drop in oil price in the world. According to him when the rent goes up (oil price) our GDP rises, when it goes down the GDP also come down. Government capacity to sustain itself is in jeopardy if people fail in their own responsibility by contributing to the economy.

    The governor said: “Nigeria must not only exist but it must be strong and must be able to lead the continent to achieve its manifest, and historic destiny.”

    Oba Adeyemi decried the killing by herdsmen in various parts of the country and urged security agencies to end the menace. He said: “The taking of human lives, especially of unarmed innocent people, who are not in state of war, is unjustifiable, cruel and should not be tolerated in any civilised society.

    “As a people, we need to tread carefully on the killings by the herdsmen across the country. As bad and reprehensible they as they are, they are not as deadly as the Nigerian Civil War we fought between 1967 and 1970.

    “The cardinal duty of the government is the protection of lives and properties. Every life is sacred and government should keep it so. Those who engaged in the barbarous act should be apprehended and face the full wrath of the law.

    “If there is no peace, the country cannot make progress, peace must be protected throughout the country.

    “All of us must reflect on this issue and not just pretend as if it doesn’t matter.”

  • Intellectuals and social awakening (II)

    The intelligentsia of any society or age plays a very crucial role in combating old and outdated ideologies that hold people back and replacing them with new rules and norms that conform to the age and times. As a result of the leadership challenge Nigeria has faced over the years, it is not surprising that the call for restructuring is louder now than at any period in time. It keeps coming into the front burner of discussions when you think the embers have died down. Thus, it is up to the intellectuals to work with other organised groups to entrench systems that favour all groups within nations.

    Intellectuals should be willing to aid in peaceful social awakening activities that advocates the transformation of the current social, economic, and political structures. I believe this is what the “Red Card Movement” set up by former education minister; Dr. (Mrs.) Oby Ezekwesili and the Nigeria Intervention Movement, (NIM) with names like Prof Wole Soyinka, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, Prof Pat Utomi, Barr Olisa Agbakoba SAN, Dr. Oby Ezekwesili and others have set out to achieve. Prof Kingsley Moghalu is equally intervening by raising citizens’ consciousness in the area of exercising their voting rights.

    No doubt, the intellectual class has the responsibility to stand up for the people against the systems of oppression for in doing this not only do they free others, but they also free themselves and allow the creation of a new order in which all peoples can truly belong. It is either that or aiding in the continuation of systems that oppresses, exploits, and controls the very many for the benefit of the very few.

    In the 1980s and 90s, names like Eskor Toyo, Yusuf Bala Usman, Abdullahi Smith, Sam Egwu, Obaro Ikime, Monday Mangvwat, Ode Ojowu, Tam Davis West, Wole Soyinka, J.P Clarke, Chinua Achebe and a host of others were well known because they often speak out against unpopular government policies and actions. Those of us who grew up in an age where intellectuals were bold and never shy away from saying things the way they were often look back with nostalgia.

    It was Hussein al-Attas, the Malaysian philosopher, who categorised intellectuals into two: the functioning and non-functioning. For him, functioning intellectuals are repository of the hopes and potentials of their nation. They are constantly burdened by the malaise, the disjuncture and fissures in their society.

    I will focus on one of Nigeria’s intellectuals, the late Dr. Yusuf Bala Usman. With him, you cannot fail to notice a blend of historical and radical interpretation of the trouble with Nigeria and how to get out of our national problems. Like most scholars of his time, Usman came to scholarship from a Marxian perspective. He strongly held on to Marx’s retort that philosophers have hitherto interpreted the world whereas the point is to change it. Transforming the world ranges from aligning scholarship to the amelioration of the human condition, subordinating knowledge to human progress and making theories socially responsible to human needs.

    The dynamics of Marxism was, in his case, confronted with the rampant injustice of his society. He stood against this till death. For those who were opportune to interact with Usman physically or through his writings, it was clear that he does not see Nigeria through the lens of “north” and “south.” To him, justice does not have an ethnic colouration. However, it is part of the genius of this historian to forge a unique political and scholarly identity that defines his progressive orientation in terms of a broad national ideology that holds both the northern and southern political elite responsible for the degeneration of the polity.

    He was motivated by the vision that Nigeria could be rescued from the mercantilist political class which constantly sought to benchmark its material prosperity against the existential austerity of the ordinary masses. What is needed, he often stated, is an alternative governance space that affords intellectuals the possibility of exposing not only enormity of elite crimes but also the recipe that could bring about national transformation.

    Usman was not only functional as an intellectual who speaks truth to power, but also one who insinuates himself into social and national responsibilities. He didn’t see himself as a radical progressive who only criticises; but was always at the forefront of providing recommendations that could point at the right direction in resolving identified problems.

    This was the main reason he accepted to participate in the national Constitution Drafting Committee which was set up by the federal military government in 1975 to draft a new constitution in the march toward civil rule. However, his radical thought on the preconditions for national unity could only be aired through a minority report he wrote with other progressives like Dr. Segun Osoba.

    As a radical historian of repute, he critiqued mal-development in Nigeria from a radical understanding of the methodology and role of historiography in national development. Understanding the nature of the national question requires a deep understanding of history and how it ought to be done. Together with his teacher, Prof Abdullahi Smith, they pioneered a rethinking of postcolonial historiography and the teaching of history in Nigeria. This effort followed in the step of the Ibadan School of History masterminded by late Prof Kenneth Onwuka Dike, former Vice Chancellor of the University of Ibadan in the 60s and 70s.

    After the decline of the Ibadan School of History, the Ahmadu Bello University School of History took up the challenge of rethinking African history that had hitherto been circumscribed by colonial methodology and its emphasis on written sources as the only objective means for writing history. This methodology automatically led to the disparagement of oral tradition and other sources as a veritable tool useful for historical reconstruction.

    The implication of this historical methodology for the reconstruction of African and Nigerian history becomes immediately obvious: the largely oral basis of African history would ensure that we would never be liberated from the “victor’s history” written by the West. The colonial historical methodology essentially distils a conqueror’s worldview that is inimical to a true understanding of the achievements, values and possibilities inherent in a people’s history. Thus, as a contrary perspective, Usman and others fabricated a radical historical template that ensures not only that historical reconstruction must involve a vast array of sources – written, oral, linguistic, ethnographic and archaeological – but these sources must equally be subjected to strict critical and evaluative standards to authenticate their provenance and reliability.

    The radical nature of Usman’s historiography manifests in his insistence that history must be consulted to answer the question of the formation and possibilities of nation states. The lessons of history, in other words, points at the capacities of nationalities and nations to emerge out of the multiplicities of cultural and ethnic energies available to it. Thus, the critical assessment of history from its many sources confirms that nation-building, or what Dike called “an experiment in polytechnic state formation,” is a fact of history.

    If the late Dr. Yusuf Bala Usman were to be alive what would he have written or said about Nigeria today? I find a great deal of truth in Einstein’s words: “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” A person with capabilities and knowledge – like the late Usman – bears this kind of responsibility and owes his or her world the benefits of his profound wisdom. He never disappointed the nation in this regard.

    As people of knowledge, ability and willingness to awaken society, intellectuals need to use their capacity to contribute to steering society away from the negatively-impacting results that they foresee, not just for past misdirected efforts, but also for current and future inappropriate endeavors. Good communication is vital if the intellectual is to succeed in effectively and convincingly conveying his or her vision for a better society. Building on universal and timeless values, intellectuals also apply their knowledge to shape, and protect, social standards and values.

    Let’s hope the movements we see emerging fulfil these hope and aspirations of Nigerians.

     

     

  • Intellectuals and social awakening (I)

    In 1947, Dwight Macdonald, a social critic and philosopher, published a series of articles on the responsibility of peoples and, specifically, the responsibility of intellectuals. Macdonald was concerned with the question of war guilt after the end of WW2. He asks the question: To what extent were the German or Japanese people responsible for the atrocities committed by their governments? On the flip side: To what extent are the British or American people responsible for the vicious terror bombings of civilians, perfected as a technique of warfare by the Western democracies?

    Raising such questions is often the turf if intellectuals. They are those who have diverse wisdom and foresight, who apply their intellect and forward-looking visions for the purpose of awakening society. They help to divert the masses from what is unwise and wrong toward what is ethical and good.

    While discussing with a friend last week, he said: “I don’t seem to hear anything these days about robust arguments bordering on ideology, good governance, and the economy like I used to during my university days, what’s going on?” That was how a lengthy discussion started. We discussed everything from the pathetic state of governance in the country, our toxic politics, farmers/herdsmen crises down to the dearth of intellectuals as we knew them in the past. The discussion later “adjourned” with the question: Where are the intellectuals? This was what triggered this piece.

    But before that; who is an intellectual? Intellectuals have always played major roles in society, from the philosophers of old such Plato and Aristotle who articulated thoughts about government, science, and biology to modern intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, late Bala Usman and others who go about speaking truth to power and working toward informing and empowering average people.

    Currently, intellectuals are split into three camps: public, private, and dual intellectuals. The public intellectual is usually a university professor who researches, writes, and shares his ideas in the public sphere via books, conferences, and being guests on radio and television shows. While this may seem to be a positive occurrence, much of this information remains in the realm of academia or academia-related areas with little of it becoming truly disseminated to the mainstream public. The danger in this is that the books may be published and the conferences occur, but the only people who know about them are mainly people who are either in that field professionally or already have an interest in that area of study.

    The private intellectual is one who uses his intellect for the benefit of private groups, corporations, or individuals. This intellectual is mainly concerned with passing his knowledge to a select few, mainly big time corporations and businesses who are established for profit purposes. He earns hefty fees in return.

    Dual intellectuals are members of the intelligentsia that have one foot in both worlds, occupying the space of a public intellectual and also being, or having been, a private intellectual. Intellectuals within this fold are arguably the most powerful as not only do they have the connections and power that comes from being in the private sector, but they also have major sway over the collective consciousness of a society. Dual intellectuals can make their ideas public, put them out into the mainstream society, and because they also have a background as a public intellectual, the public is much more willing to trust them as they see such people as experts.

    Within these major intellectual frames, there are equally three sub types: loyalist, reformist, and radical. Loyalist intellectuals are those who uphold and are in favour of perpetuating current structures or status quo. These intellectuals are often deeply embedded within the system and hold government posts or are in think tanks that are quite instrumental in forming policies.

    Reformist intellectuals support the overall system but would prefer to see certain reforms to the current system as to promote certain values of equality, justice, and human rights. University professors appear to make up a large percentage of reformist intellectuals. Reformist intellectuals are used by the elites to produce new generations of intellectuals that support the status quo and can be co-opted by elites to promote policies that are favourable to them.

    On the other hand, radical intellectuals find fault with the system and criticise it, often offering alternatives that would break down the current structure. Intellectuals of this mold tend to be the most useful in terms of going beyond what is spoon-fed to the public by elite-owned media that ignore, distort, and in many cases outright lie about ongoing situations. They are mainly concerned with getting to the heart of the matter by telling what the true reasons policies are chosen and exactly whose interests are served. Radical intellectuals are often among those few intellectuals that have a moral conscience and believe in wholly changing the system if not uprooting and replacing it entirely. Most radical intellectuals are however in the fringes.

    While these three main sets of ideological stances in relation to the current societal structure exist, there is equally a subset of intellectuals in the radical circle: underground radicals. These are intellectuals that are radicals (sometimes even more so than the mainstream radicals), but have had little mainstream notoriety. Underground radicals often harbour views that are outside the mainstream political system and have no trust whatsoever within the political elite to change society for the better. Such intellectuals are greatly needed as they are often independent voices, not tied to any organisation or entity that would censor them and thus they are more likely to be committed to the truth.

    The intellectual first and foremost has a duty to themselves to be honest in their research and work, honesty being objectivity and avoiding distortion of facts. Objectivity here plays a major role. This is however not to say that intellectuals cannot have any political or ideological leanings, but rather when conducting research or proposing policy, they are expected to keep such things separate.

    Empowering ordinary people should be the overall goal of the intellectual. On the local level, serious intellectuals work with community organisations with the goal of addressing the problems of the community in constructive manner. Working with local populace and local organisations often has the advantage of helping to quell problems within a community. On the national level, the intellectual class can be of benefit by placing its research and findings in the public sphere as this increase in information access may allow the general public to become aware of political theories and policies which will allow them to make more informed political and economic decisions.

    However, the empowerment of people has a different role in the economic and sociological spheres. The economist should aid in the creation of policies that create economic wealth for the nation, but not at the expense of the many to the benefit of the few. Depending on the situation as well, the economist should also push for policies that would free the nation from dependence on external sources of income such as the IMF or the World Bank and rather support policies of internal economic development which will enrich the nation in the long-term.

    The sociologist should work to dispel myths and stereotypes of minority races/ethnicities and work to understand different cultures. This is much needed in Nigeria today where ethnic trust and harmony has practically collapsed. A new set of intellectuals need to seize the moment and come out with theories and modalities that will assist policy formulators create trust and renewed belief in the system.

    The intellectual also has a duty to the youth, specifically to the students in the classroom. Professors must go beyond the dull repetitiveness of the classroom, from having students memorise facts and figures, to doing serious critical analysis and having them apply the skills they are learning to current, real-world problems.

     

     

  • IPOB: What role for intellectuals?

    IPOB: What role for intellectuals?

    GREAT revolutions or historical changes are usually heralded by intellectual ferment. The basics of such are usually founded on well thought out actions and ideas. Think of the great movements that have changed the course of history and led mankind in directions that have today remained enduring.

    The South African fight against the obnoxious Apartheid regime had intellectuals such as Albert Luthuli, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Kathdra, Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki and a host of others. These were the intellectual house of the fight against a regime that oppressed the people. They were men of standing and reputation who were able to hold their own in any discussion and were respected by world leaders because of their intellect and ideas. They gave the anti-apartheid fight a fillip that could not be shunned anywhere in the world, even some foreign governments who found themselves giving tacit support to the apartheid regime were not able to fault the stance of such men.

    In other parts of the world, there was Mahatma Ghandi of India who was conscience of the fight for his country’s independence. He was the icon of the fight for liberation and his idea of non violence turned the tide against the British colonial overlord.

    His exploits inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world and was widely regarded as the father of India nation. He was a trained lawyer and was not a rabble rouser.

    Ernesto “Che” Guevara, an Argentine was trained as a medical doctor. He later became an author, guerrilla leader, diplomat and military theorist. He was a great contributor and comrade to the late Fidel Castro the former President of Cuba and his brother Raul. His wide experience as a medical student travelling throughout South America opened his eyes to the great injustice that was common in his country.

    He therefore decided to turn the tide and thus became an author and traveller around the world spreading the idea of revolution. He was in Guatemala, Mexico City, Bolivia and his journey even spread to Africa as he was in what is today known as the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    Back home, during the Nigerian civil war of 1967-70, the Biafran leader Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, had on his side the intellectual vanguard of the Igbo race, at least at the initial stage. On his side to prosecute the war, even if their ideas were a little different from his, were such intellectuals like the late Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, he was Nigeria’s first president, trained in America and had the gravitas that commanded international respect and his voice in any issue was sought after.

    There was also the late author, Prof. Chinua Achebe, he had at the outset of the war won international repute as an author, academic and voice of reason. He had also held the influential position of director of the powerful federal radio. There was also the late writer Cyprian Ekwensi. Christopher Okigbo, one of Africa’s finest poets left the comfort of his home writing lyrical verses and went into the war field which consumed him. There were a host of other intellectuals and thinkers who threw their weight behind Ojukwu and helped to crystallise the idea of Biafra.  Perhaps this was possible because the late Biafran leader was himself a man of ideas. He was an Oxford trained History graduate and one of the first set of graduates to join the military in Nigeria.

    His foray into the military and the idea of the war was perhaps influenced by his training and the people who initially supported him took a look at his education and upbringing.

    However, the case of Nnamdi Kanu has been radically different and right from the beginning of his campaign, he has not been able to attract any Igbo intelligentsia to his cause. Could this be due to his not trying enough or that the intellectual are giving him a wide berth because of his perceived shallowness and poverty of ideas?

    Those who have watched him speak or listen to his talks on his Radio Biafra have concluded that the man who is widely said to be a dropout of University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN) has not been able to proffer a coordinated argument as to what he wants to achieve with his self- styled Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

    In his agitation he has not appealed to the Igbo intelligentsia in any way, why? Imagine the attention his agitation would command to see either open or tacit support for his agitation from the Igbo intellectuals like Chief Emeka Anyaoku, Oby Ezekwesili, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Olisa Agbakoba and a host of others?

    For a man who has no definite academic qualification, whose immediate family are abroad and holds a dual citizenship where does he think he would go with his agitation without the support of the intelligentsia of which his people have a surfeit of?

  • Where are the intellectuals?

    The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” – Albert Einstein.

    I was on my way to Akure, the Ondo State capital last week with some colleagues when one of them popped up a question about our intellectuals. He made the point when we passed the signpost of a University. “I don’t seem to hear anything these days about robust argument that bothers on ideology, radicalism and the economy like I used to during my university days,” he said setting the ball rolling.

    That was how a discussion that started from Ile-Ife to Akure did not end for some- time. We discussed everything from the sorry state of our varsities, composition of private varsities; the restriction they place on students’ movement that most of us feel negates the notion of universities to the churning out of first class graduates at a time the standard of education is on a free fall, down to the dearth of intellectuals as we knew them in the past. The discussion later “adjourned” with the question: Where are the intellectuals?

    During our discussions names, such as Eskor Toyo, Yusuf Bala Usman, Abdullahi Smith, Sam Egwu, Peter Ozoesan, Monday Mangvwat, Ode Ojowu, Tam Davis West, Wole Soyinka, J.P Clarke, Chinua Achebe and a host of others kept popping up. Whenever a name pops up, the discussion will shift to that individual and what he stands or stood for. Those of us who grew up in an age where intellectuals were bold and never shy away from saying things the way they were certainly know that a void now exists. It is therefore not surprising that solutions to present day complex issues are not often deeply rooted.

    It was Hussein al-Attas, the Malaysian philosopher, who categorised intellectuals into two: the functioning and non-functioning. For him, functioning intellectuals are repository of the hopes and potentials of their nation. They are constantly burdened by the malaise, the disjuncture and fissures in their society. The irony, however, is that such an intellectual, according to Chinua Achebe, “lives on the fringe of society – wearing a beard and a peculiar dress and generally behaving in strange way. He is in revolt against society which in turn looks on him with suspicion if not hostility. The last thing the society would do is to put him charge of anything.”

    The discussion drew me back to one of Nigeria’s intellectual, the late Dr. Yusuf Bala Usman. With him, you cannot fail to notice a blend of historical and radical interpretation of the trouble with Nigeria and how to get out of our national problems. Like most scholars of his time, Usman came to scholarship from a Marxian perspective. He strongly held on to Marx’s retort that philosophers have hitherto interpreted the world whereas the point is to change it. Transforming the world ranges from aligning scholarship to the amelioration of the human condition, subordinating knowledge to human progress and making theories socially responsible to human needs.

    The dynamics of Marxism was, in his case, confronted with the rampant injustice of his society. He stood against this till death. For those who were opportune to interact with him physically or through his writings, it was clear that he does not see Nigeria through the lens of “north” and “south.” To him, justice does not have an ethnic colouration. However, it is part of the genius of this historian to forge a unique political and scholarly identity that defines his progressive orientation in terms of a broad national ideology that holds both the northern and southern political elite responsible for the degeneration of the polity.

    He was motivated by the vision that Nigeria could be rescued from the mercantilist political class which constantly sought to benchmark its material prosperity against the existential austerity of the ordinary masses. What is needed, he often stated, is an alternative governance space that affords intellectuals the possibility of exposing not only enormity of elite crimes but also the recipe that could bring about national transformation.

    Usman was not only functional as an intellectual who speaks truth to power, but also one who insinuates himself into social and national responsibilities. He didn’t see himself as a radical progressive who only criticises; but was always at the forefront of providing recommendations that could point at the right direction in resolving identified problems.

    This was the main reason he accepted to participate in the national Constitution Drafting Committee which was set up by the federal government in 1975 to draft a new constitution in the march toward civil rule. However, his radical thought on the preconditions for national unity could only be aired through a minority report he wrote with other progressives like Dr. Segun Osoba.

    As a radical historian of repute, he critiqued mal-development in Nigeria from a radical understanding of the methodology and role of historiography in national development. Understanding the nature of the national question requires a deep understanding of history and how it ought to be done. Together with his teacher, Professor Abdullahi Smith, they pioneered a rethinking of postcolonial historiography and the teaching of history in Nigeria. This effort followed in the step of the Ibadan School of History masterminded by the late Prof. Kenneth Onwuka Dike, former Vice Chancellor of the University of Ibadan in the 60s and 70s.

    After the decline of the Ibadan School of History, the Ahmadu Bello University School of History took up the challenge of rethinking African history that had hitherto been circumscribed by colonial methodology and its emphasis on written sources as the only objective means for writing history. This methodology automatically leads to the disparagement of oral tradition and other sources as a veritable tool useful for historical reconstruction.

    The implication of this historical methodology for the reconstruction of African and Nigerian history becomes immediately obvious: the largely oral basis of African history would ensure that we would never be liberated from the “victor’s history” written by the West. The colonial historical methodology essentially distils a conqueror’s worldview that is inimical to a true understanding of the achievements, values and possibilities inherent in a people’s history. Thus, as a contrary perspective, Usman and others fabricated a radical historical template that ensures not only that historical reconstruction must involve a vast array of sources – written, oral, linguistic, ethnographic and archaeological – but these sources must equally be subjected to strict critical and evaluative standards to authenticate their provenance and reliability.

    The radical nature of Usman’s historiography manifests in his insistence that history must be consulted to answer the question of the formation and possibilities of nation states. The lessons of history, in other words, points at the capacities of nationalities and nations to emerge out of the multiplicities of cultural and ethnic energies available to it. Thus, the critical assessment of history from its many sources confirms that nation-building, or what Dike called “an experiment in polytechnic state formation”, is a fact of history.

    In a lecture dedicated to the memory of Dike and the Ibadan School of History, Usman insisted that contrary to the European myth of a primordial and indissoluble racial and ethnic groupings that make up the state, “not only nations, nationalities and ethnic groups, but even racial groups, are products of the historical process and are formed, unformed and transformed in the course of historical development.” History therefore undermines our pessimism about the national project by confirming the possibility of mosaic of ethnic and cultural synergy that would make Nigeria an enduring dream.

    The legacy of this great historian is therefore that we can learn and unlearn our own histories as a nation, and from its insights take up arms against the centrifugal forces of disintegration and injustices. This legacy alone is enough to transform him into a world-historical intellectual.

    But sadly, most of what he and similar colleagues fought for went down the drain when the teaching of history was expunged from school curriculum at the secondary school level. Even in the varsities, history, in its core sense has also been considerably watered down. It is not surprising that most youth today live in a country they know so little about. This is the tragedy of the nation and why we need the intellectuals.

     

     

  • Why African politicians, intellectuals must engage in teamwork, by Fayemi

    Why African politicians, intellectuals must engage in teamwork, by Fayemi

    •’How late Atta Mills predicted Buhari’s victory’

    African intellectuals and politicians must work together to revive public service and bring about transformative governance for the continent’s socio-political and economic growth, former Ekiti State Governor Dr. Kayode Fayemi said yesterday.

    He said it was only when intellectuals and politicians abandon their differences to complement themselves that “the public good, which is the essence of democratic governance, can be fully realised”.

    He spoke in a keynote speech at the Third Edition of the President Atta Mills Memorial Lecture at the John Evans Atta Mills Centre for Law and Governance, Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), Achimota, Accra, Ghana.

    Speaking on the topic: “Intellectuals in Politics and Governance in Africa: The lessons and legacies of John Evans Atta Mills”, the ex-governor noted the contributions of notable public intellectuals, like Nnamdi Azikwe, Kwame Nkruma; Julius Nyerere, Obafemi Awolowo and Leopold Senghor in the liberation struggle and early democratic governments in Africa.

    He said the idea of philosopher-king in the contemporary African politics was to “advocate the marriage of politics and principle, and to yoke public policy to public intellection”.

    “The good politicians may not need to be brilliant intellectuals, but they also should not have contemptuous disdain for the life of the mind”, said Fayemi, who advocated a hybrid of the two.

    He added: “This is why perhaps the issue for us should not be one of transition from intellection to politics, but the extent to which we are able to achieve fundamental synergy between the two in the quest to add value to our society and our democracy”.

    He explained that the solution to the democratic deficit that the African continent was experiencing could not be by posing intellect as “a counterpunch to politics”.

    For autonomous institutions to play a positive role in mediating citizens’ choices, Fayemi noted that their organic development must be combined in a more nuanced manner and a more systematic way with the use of public and state power.

    “Am I then suggesting that an intellectual necessarily belongs in politics? Put that way, an impression is created that I consider it the duty of every intellectual to engage in politics at all cost. That is not my view. However, it is my profound conviction that Africa requires – today more than ever before – enlightened, thoughtful politicians with character and integrity who are bold and broad-minded enough to consider things which lie beyond the scope of their immediate influence and benefit.

    “We need politicians willing and able to rise above their own power interests, or the particular interests of their political parties or states, and act in accord with the fundamental interests of today’s humanity – that is, to behave the way everyone should behave, even though most may fail to do so,” he said.

    The former governor added: “In the realm of such politics, intellectuals should make their presence felt in many ways. They could – without finding it shameful or demeaning – accept political office and use that position to do what they deem right, not just to hold on to power.

    “Or they could be the ones who hold up a mirror to those in authority, making sure that the latter serve a good thing and that they do not begin to use fine words as a cloak for evil deeds, as happened to so many intellectuals in politics in our continent and elsewhere.”

    Fayemi told the audience how the late Atta Mills predicted President Muhammadu Buhari’s election victory when the two leaders met in Ghana shortly after the 2011 general elections in Nigeria.

    Fayemi, who shared President Buhari’s account of his meeting with President Mills, said: “When I informed President Buhari of this speaking engagement last week in the middle of a conversation about his on-going trip to the United States of America, I was curious when he became very quiet. A man of not too many words, when he eventually spoke, he said: “Governor, President Atta Mills was a good man; a very good man; one of the very best from our continent.”

    “Not aware that he had had any close interaction with the late President, I concurred that yes, indeed, President Mills was a good man but went on to ask, ‘Were you close to him, sir?’ He replied warmly: ‘Not really, but I met him in 2011 when I came to rest in Ghana after the 2011 general election debacle in Nigeria, and he was gracious enough to allow me stay at the Peduase Lodge, the Presidential retreat at Aburi in the Eastern Region.

    “‘We spoke extensively during my stay in Ghana but two things he said to me during those conversations stuck in my memory. First, he was among the few, probably even the first to predict at a time that I had given up on contesting for the presidency, that I will win the next election in Nigeria, if I persevered. He admonished me to take a cue from his example and remain calm but resolute. Second, he said to me at one point, ‘I came into this world with nothing. I shall leave it with nothing’.”

    Fayemi added that aside the late President Mills’ intellectual ability, his high level of discipline, integrity, humility and maturity as a leader, distinguished his administration.

  • Ekweremadu: Of intellectuals in politics

    Ekweremadu: Of intellectuals in politics

    Senator Ike Ekweremadu, Deputy President of the Senate and Speaker ECOWAS Parliament, reminds one of Rt. Honourable Dr. Newt Gingrich, a former college professor, former Speaker of the US Congress and one time Republican Presidential aspirant in the United States. One essential thing these two men have in common is the intellectual content they have brought to their countries’ politics.  Gingrich, the enunciator of the Social Contract with Americans along with Richard Armey is a consummate intellectual in American Politics, as Ekweremadu is in Nigeria.

    Following in their footsteps, Ekweremadu recently, successfully defended his doctoral thesis for a PhD in Law.  The Thesis by Ekweremadu, who once taught both Constitutional Law and Labour Law at the University of Nigeria Nsukka where he earlier obtained Bachelors and Masters Degrees in Law is titled “A Critical Appraisal of the Legal Framework, Theory and Practice of Fiscal Federalism in Nigeria”.

    This is good news. Ekweremadu is bringing back that essential ingredient of politics, which appears to be in short supply in today’s democracy, and that is intellectual content. On both the floors of the Nigerian Senate and ECOWAS parliament, Ekweremadu makes his contributions by taking bearing from a well-researched and knowledgeable perspective, which greatly enriches debates and legislative functions of both bodies.

    Statesmen and great leaders are merchants of hope as intellectual politicians are merchants of workable ideas. As genuine men of the future, they do not only understand the past but they are also fully in touch with the dynamics that forge the present. They also foresee the future. While the ordinary politicians worry about the next election, the fundamental preoccupation of intellectual politicians, generally statesmen, is the welfare of state and the welfare of the current and future generations.

    The Ekweremadu example is clearly seen in his statecraft in the Nigerian Senate and the ECOWAS Parliament – the apex legislative arms of the Government of Nigeria and the ECOWAS Commission. Lawmaking requires well-reasoned deliberations for the laws so made to stand the test of time and serve the intended purpose. Though senators are allowed to hire consultants and have aides working with them, whose duty it is to help them perform effectively, there is no doubt that where the Senator is himself grounded, input, output and outcomes are better guaranteed.

    Ekweremadu’s feat is not surprising. He has delivered over 21 public lectures/papers both nationally and internationally on the themes of democracy, good governance, regional integration, security, economy, security, etc. From his works, we can see that intellectual politicians tell us things we need to know: how politics and society work, what happened in our past, how to analyse issues, how to appreciate the task of building a just society, as he (Ekweremadu) has effectively done. He and some other intellectual senators have kept us in conversation with the great minds of our past like Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo and Tafawa Balewa and the rest.  Intellectual capacities of such rare politicians help to bring forth robust conversations and lend a hand to tap into the enduring wisdom of the past and provide a critical standpoint for assessing the limits of our current political assumptions.

    In his “Republic,” Plato put forward the ideal of a state ruled by intellectuals who combined comprehensive theoretical knowledge with the practical capacity for applying it to concrete problems.  Although some other thinkers prefer to distrust the value of intellectuals in politics, Ekweremadu has proved their assumptions wrong. He has shown that although all good politicians need not be intellectuals, they should live an intellectual life. He has become what intellectuals would wish for in a politician and what intellectual politician ought to be. He has shown what meaningful and crucial impact intellectuals can make, particularly in today’s rapidly changing times.

    As one sees it through him, intellectuals are those who have diverse wisdom and foresight, who apply their intellect and forward-looking visions for the purpose of awakening society. They help to divert the masses from what is unwise and wrong toward what is righteous and the good. No wonder, then, that Vietnamese word for intellectual, “trí théc”, is a combination of “mind” and “awaken”.

    There are three key factors in nurturing intellectuals: knowledge; ability and willingness to awaken society; and doing so for a noble cause or purpose. The lack of any one of these elements is inconsistent with the definition of an intellectual. From this perspective, it is evident that discussing the role of intellectuals is a discussion about the social responsibility of knowledgeable people.

    Ekweremadu has shown that he finds a great deal of truth in Einstein’s words: “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” He has equally proved that a person with capabilities and knowledge bears this kind of responsibility and owes his or her world the benefits of their profound wisdom. He has further shown that intellectual politicians use their capacity to contribute to steering politics and society away from the negatively-impacting results that they foresee, not just for past misdirected efforts, but also for current and future inappropriate endeavours.

    The preoccupation of Ekweremadu in Nigerian politics has been essentially this. He has equally amply demonstrated that good communication is vital if the intellectual politician is to succeed in effectively and convincingly conveying his or her vision for a better society. Building on universal and timeless values, intellectuals generally, not just the intellectual politician, also apply their knowledge to shape, and protect, social standards and values.

    Generally too, he is aware that, like everyone else, he has his own limitations and therefore ever willing to remain open-minded. Therefore, together with the responsibility to awaken society, he also constantly aware of his own limitations, which may limit his understanding and cause harm to society. This explains why the distinguished Senator is constantly searching for knowledge and made out time to pursue a PhD in Law at the University of Abuja despite his tight schedule. This is now in addition to leadership certificates from Harvard and Oxford universities.

    It is particularly interesting that while the individual who is leaving no stone unturned in the bid to replace Ekweremadu at the Senate is engrossed in chicken impeachment and petty politics, Ekweremadu remains deep and focused in his approach to politics. He is now more than a consummate lawmaker- he studied law, he taught law, he has been making law, and he has bagged the highest educational degree in law. What else? Perhaps, history will best remember him for the breaking of the jinx of constitution amendment in Nigeria, pulling through three historic constitutional amendments and on the verge of adding another.

    I do not see how Enugu people, South-east, the PDP and the Jonathan presidency would sacrifice such an experienced and competent intellectual lawmaker for a greenhorn come 2015.

     

    • Mefor, is Director, Centre for Applied Psychological Research, Abuja

  • ‘How intellectuals failed Nigeria’

    A professor of Political Science Adele Jinadu has attributed the failure of partisan politics partly to the inability of some professionals and intellectuals who refused to practise what they learnt.

    Jinadu spoke at this year’s lecture of The City Club, Lagos, where he was the guest lecturer.

    Miffed by the inability of some of his colleagues to impact the political class for the benefit of the larger society, Jinadu, whose lecture was entitled: Governance and development: Whither Nigeria?, said being more knowledgeable because of their education and training, the former were in a vintage position to help build a greater Nigeria, where the people’s welfare would be provided.

    He said: “The intellectual vocation and professionalism seem to have been sacrificed on the altar of crass materialism, collectively shying away from their social responsibility and more regrettably, collaborating, in many instances and unconscionably so, with the public authorities in the rape of democratic policies in the country”.

    He noted that intellectuals should become a force to boost the little dividends of democracy and development.

    He recalled that in saner societies, professionals and intellectuals played a major role in checkmating politicians to do the rights by ‘becoming politically active’ in the broadest senses of the term through organised public engagement on public issues.

    He said since 1999, when Nigeria returned to democratic rule, it has been at a crossroads, which was why it embarked on endless debates on its future.

    He praised the country’s founding fathers for adopting federalism.

    He said: “The foresightedness remains the strength of the country’s constitutional political architecture, in spite of several years of authoritarian rule. The foresightedness is underscored by the rising popularity of federalism and its hybrid forms, such as political devolution to address governance and development issues thrown up by resurgent ethnicity worldwide.”

    He canvassed a people-oriented democracy, reformation of Nigeria‘s legal system, legal education, and party system and of agencies, such as the Code of Conduct Bureau; ICPC and EFCC.