The Nation Newspaper

Tag: self-interest?

  • A political class for enlightened self-interest 101

    Look at the orators in our republics; as long as they are poor, both state and people can only praise their uprightness; but once they are fattened on the public funds, they conceive a hatred for justice, plan intrigues against the people and attack the democracy—Aristophanes, Plutus
    Oh, tell me, who first declared, who first proclaimed that man only does nasty things because he does not know his own real interests; and that if he were enlightened, if his eyes were opened to his real normal interests, man would at once cease to do nasty things, would at once become good and noble because, being enlightened and understanding his real advantage, he would see his own advantage in the good and nothing else—Fyodor Dostoyevsky

    The ongoing migration from one party to the other between APC and PDP is troubling, not because it is unusual in Nigeria, but because it demonstrates that the country’s politics tilts more in the direction of selfishness and moves further away from enlightened self-interest expected from leaders. The absence of qualms for the leading political parties to accept members from the other party may not bother the characters moving between parties, but it cannot but bother ordinary citizens whose human fulfilment is left hanging. Especially, citizens who hold to their chests religiously our constitution’s Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy as evidence of a national ideology or aspiration that drives voting behaviour in many parts of the country. Lack of enlightened self-interest on the part of many politicians explains why many of them roam from one party to the other during election season.

    The first quote overleaf is from Poverty a stock character in a comedy written in 388 BCE by Ancient Greece’s master of comedy, Aristophanes. In this play, Plutus (god of wealth similar to Olokun A Soro Dayo in Yoruba) Chremylus, a poor Athenian and his slave Cario went to consult the Oracle at Delphi (equivalent of Babalowo in Yoruba) concerning the old man’s son. Chremylus wanted to know how to socialise his son: about injustice or the rightness of primitive acquisition.  Apollo tells Chremylus to persuade the first man he meets to follow him home. The first person the protagonist meets is a blind beggar. He finally talks the blind beggar into going home with him. Chremylus realizes that his guest is blind and has been made so by Zeus (similar to Olodumare). Lack of sight represents not being able to distinguish between justice and injustice or not being able to tell a just person from an unjust one.

    Chremylus decides to cure Plutus of his blindness, believing that with his sight fully restored, he will be in a better position to distribute wealth in a just way, giving more to the poor and virtuous rather than to the rich and vicious. Plutus’ sight is restored after which he continues to stay as a member of Chremylus’ household. After his cure, Plutus recognises the presence of Poverty (a goddess) who also lives with Chremylus. Poverty’s motto is that deprivation is the source of production and productivity and that without poverty there would be no slaves and luxury. Chremylus disagreed with the goddess. The new distribution system by Plutus changes the dynamics so much that Hermes (similar to Esu in Yoruba religion) came to Chremylus to join his world, which has destabilized the world under the directorship of Zeus. Sacrifices formerly due to the gods have been stopped as all attention in Chremylus’s micro-world has gone to Plutus. The play ends with a procession that takes Plutus to the temple to replace Zeus.

    Without turning our page into a literary analysis classroom, many things happen in this play that should bring Nigeria to mind. An unjust system of wealth distribution by a god without the ability to act fairly in the play is changed into one in which many people who otherwise would remain poor and hopeless become respectable members of their community. So impactful is the transformation brought by Plutus with eyes that can see to the world of Chremylus that Chremylus provides leadership for creating a new cosmos attempts to create a new cosmos not constrained by fear, unfairness, inequality, and inequity, that a god that is logical in his distribution of wealth is replaced by a capricious one.

    In relation to our politicians, our military politicians and their civilian successors pretended to act like Chremylus, by having an ideology of empowerment of citizens in its Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. This section of the constitution seeks to redistribute the wealth of the nation, just as Chremylus changes the god of unfair distribution to one of fairness. The irony is that the constitution’s citizen-centred section is frozen at the level of rhetoric. It has remained non-justiciable since it entered the country’s constitutional history in 1979.

    The practitioners of the constitution in the major political parties habitually look away from the most ideological section of the constitution and looks forward each election season to what to do to remain in power, regardless of what citizens desire. The chances of politicians remaining in power after each election overshadows the cries of citizens for justice and equity, a situation that can be achievable if this section of the constitution is given a chance by making it justiciable and accepting the challenges that may emerge from such decision for both politicians and citizens.

    Unlike political elites in the developed countries that Nigeria’s political leaders rush to for vacation and education of their children: USA, UK, UAE, Europe, and now China, ours in Nigeria refuse to include citizens in the political landscape except keeping and viewing them as voters. Many, if not most, politicians relish acting like what Poverty in Aristophanes’ Play calls upright orators who become fattened enough to feel at ease in conceiving a hatred for justice, planning intrigues against the people and attacking democracy. By running from APC to PDP and vice versa, politicians demonstrate that they are not interested in the fundamental objectives of government but principally in the lucre of office under any party that shows promise of winning election.

    Even pundits on both sides of the divide continue to shout about the rightness of what is now called Buharism and Sarakism or Tambuwalism, the surface of the problem facing Nigeria’s future, depending on whose sides such pundits are.  Is the country’s condition likely to be improved by deification of individuals: Buhari, Saraki, Tambuwal (by Buharists, Sarakists, Tmabuwalists? Undoubtedly, such deification strengthens those whose names have become synonymous with ideology and followers who expect some comfort from such association. But each such Isms further degrade the discourse on governance, as it closes citizens’ eyes and minds to government’s effort to freeze Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy into mere rhetoric, rather than turning them into engine for development.

    Chremylus formed the habit of thinking not only about himself but also about other people. In our country’s past, we have had people who made a habit of thinking of other people as politicians, to the extent that anyone competing with them or coming after them felt that it was compulsory to insert Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State even in a constitution that did not consult the people. Many, if not most, politicians since 1999 have formed the habit of looking away from this important part of the social contract between citizens and rulers. Such politicians have chosen an ideology that promotes just their own interests in the way they think about politics. That politicians of both major parties keep changing party affiliations is not a sign of honesty and political maturity. Our politicians in all parties need to learn from an Ondo proverb: people should not feel bad to name their children Akinduntire, but they should feel ashamed to name them Akinduntirenikan (self-promotion and promotion of self alone respectively). This is a folksy manner of drawing a line between self-interest and enlightened self-interest, the need to act to further the interests of others as a decent way of serving one’s own interest. The culture of joining, staying in, or decamping from a party can only add to the nation’s distractions, without allowing for consideration of its myriad problems.

  • ‘Greed, self-interest behind executive/legislature conflict’

    ‘Greed, self-interest behind executive/legislature conflict’

    Vice President Yemi Osinbajo yesterday attributed the disagreements between the executive and the legislature to greed, self-interest and hypocrisy.

    He said despite the principles of separation of powers, there were still tensions and conflicts among the arms of government, especially between the executive and the National Assembly.

    Osinbajo said: “Various factors can be identified as the causes of conflicts between organs of government, especially between the legislature and executive, who have to constantly interact in the course of discharging their respective constitutional duties.

    “Conflicts could arise from misunderstanding of constitutional responsibilities; inordinate foray or venture by one organ into the territory of another organ, inordinate ambition or domineering attitude by one over others, power struggle, greed or self-interest, hypocrisy, lack of patriotism and corruption.”

    Osinbajo spoke in Abuja at a “Dialogue of organs of government on reform of justice sector and campaign against corruption” involving the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

    It was organised by the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Justice and held at the State House Banquet Hall.

    The vice president, represented by the Deputy Chief of Staff to the President, Mr. Ade Ipaye, said while absolute separation of powers might be unattainable, the three arms of government must cooperate to maintain a workable government.

    “When this cooperation happens, it strengthens the democratic process, promotes good governance and responsible leadership, promotes transparency and accountability in governance, assists the executive to be focused and committed to delivering good governance to the citizens and helps the legislature to make efficient laws that will promote good governance and curb corruption,” he said.

    Osinbajo said for there to be harmony, each arm must carry out the functions assigned to it by the constitution effectively and within the limits of its power. Usurpation of the others’ power, he said, would lead to friction.

    According to him, unresolved conflicts slows down the pace of governance, creates suspicion and hostility, encourages bad governance, creates distraction and tension, and encourages the culture of impunity and disregard for the rule of law among the political class, with attendant political instability that divides the populace.

    “In order to avoid these consequences and for a government to deliver development to the people, it is imperative for the three arms of government to constantly bury the hatchet and focus on collaborative efforts within their constitutional responsibilities to formulate and implement effective governance laws and policies.

    “All three arms must be development focused in fulfillment of their roles and be ready to subsume personal interests to the overriding public good,” Osinbajo said.

    The vice president said despite the Transparency International report, suggesting that Nigeria declined in the corruption perception index, the government was focused on the war against corruption.

    “We are firmly of the view that real progress is being achieved in the fight against corruption, and perception may indeed lag behind reality.

    “But, as the saying goes, perception is sometimes stronger than reality, so we have to keep up the fight, until the full effect of our efforts can be clearly seen and perceived,” he said.

    According to him, Nigeria’s ranking should not be seen as a setback, “but rather as an opportunity to continue building on the many successes that have already been recorded by this government in all key sectors.”

    Senate President Bukola Saraki, represented by Senator David Omoru, said TI’s report was an opportunity to redouble efforts in fighting corruption.

    According to him, there was need to further strengthen anti-corruption institutions and processes, adding that graft must be fought without bias.

    Saraki highlighted the Senate’s efforts to complement the fight against corruption, such as passage of the Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters Bill, the Secured Transactions in Movable Asset Bill and the Whistle-blowers Bill.

    “Let me reiterate that we are committed to the fight against corruption, and we welcome opportunities for greater collaboration between the arms of government,” Saraki added.

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen, represented by the Court of Appeal President Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, said corruption and other forms of injustice thrive in a culture of impunity.

    According to him, the culture of impunity, which he said was an “attitudinal phenomenon”, must be fought if there is to be a successful campaign against corruption.

    “If we allow the rule of law to reign, then there will be a dramatic reduction in corruption and injustice,” the CJN said.

    PACAC Chairman Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN) said corruption can be successfully tackled if no arm of government condones it, adding that no arm can indict others for corruption, when it does not tackle it from within.

    “If you do not remove the log in your eye, you cannot remove the spec in another person’s eye. Specifically, anyone guilty of corruption in any arm of government should be dealt with harshly by colleagues in that arm; otherwise that sector will lose credibility,” he said.

  • ‘Greed, self-interest behind executive/legislature conflict’

    ‘Greed, self-interest behind executive/legislature conflict’

    •Osinbajo, Saraki, CJN, Sagay, others seek justice sector reforms •’TI’s report not a setback’

    Vice President Yemi Osinbajo yesterday attributed the disagreements between the executive and the legislature to greed, self-interest and hypocrisy.

    He said despite the principles of separation of powers, there were still tensions and conflicts among the arms of government, especially between the executive and the National Assembly.

    Osinbajo said: “Various factors can be identified as the causes of conflicts between organs of government, especially between the legislature and executive, who have to constantly interact in the course of discharging their respective constitutional duties.

    “Conflicts could arise from misunderstanding of constitutional responsibilities; inordinate foray or venture by one organ into the territory of another organ, inordinate ambition or domineering attitude by one over others, power struggle, greed or self-interest, hypocrisy, lack of patriotism and corruption.”

    Osinbajo spoke in Abuja at a “Dialogue of organs of government on reform of justice sector and campaign against corruption” involving the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

    It was organised by the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Justice and held at the State House Banquet Hall.

    The vice president, represented by the Deputy Chief of Staff to the President, Mr. Ade Ipaye, said while absolute separation of powers might be unattainable, the three arms of government must cooperate to maintain a workable government.

    “When this cooperation happens, it strengthens the democratic process, promotes good governance and responsible leadership, promotes transparency and accountability in governance, assists the executive to be focused and committed to delivering good governance to the citizens and helps the legislature to make efficient laws that will promote good governance and curb corruption,” he said.

    Osinbajo said for there to be harmony, each arm must carry out the functions assigned to it by the constitution effectively and within the limits of its power. Usurpation of the others’ power, he said, would lead to friction.

    According to him, unresolved conflicts slows down the pace of governance, creates suspicion and hostility, encourages bad governance, creates distraction and tension, and encourages the culture of impunity and disregard for the rule of law among the political class, with attendant political instability that divides the populace.

    “In order to avoid these consequences and for a government to deliver development to the people, it is imperative for the three arms of government to constantly bury the hatchet and focus on collaborative efforts within their constitutional responsibilities to formulate and implement effective governance laws and policies.

    “All three arms must be development focused in fulfillment of their roles and be ready to subsume personal interests to the overriding public good,” Osinbajo said.

    The vice president said despite the Transparency International report, suggesting that Nigeria declined in the corruption perception index, the government was focused on the war against corruption.

    “We are firmly of the view that real progress is being achieved in the fight against corruption, and perception may indeed lag behind reality.

    “But, as the saying goes, perception is sometimes stronger than reality, so we have to keep up the fight, until the full effect of our efforts can be clearly seen and perceived,” he said.

    According to him, Nigeria’s ranking should not be seen as a setback, “but rather as an opportunity to continue building on the many successes that have already been recorded by this government in all key sectors.”

    Senate President Bukola Saraki, represented by Senator David Omoru, said TI’s report was an opportunity to redouble efforts in fighting corruption.

    According to him, there was need to further strengthen anti-corruption institutions and processes, adding that graft must be fought without bias.

    Saraki highlighted the Senate’s efforts to complement the fight against corruption, such as passage of the Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters Bill, the Secured Transactions in Movable Asset Bill and the Whistle-blowers Bill.

    “Let me reiterate that we are committed to the fight against corruption, and we welcome opportunities for greater collaboration between the arms of government,” Saraki added.

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen, represented by the Court of Appeal President Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, said corruption and other forms of injustice thrive in a culture of impunity.

    According to him, the culture of impunity, which he said was an “attitudinal phenomenon”, must be fought if there is to be a successful campaign against corruption.

    “If we allow the rule of law to reign, then there will be a dramatic reduction in corruption and injustice,” the CJN said.

    PACAC Chairman Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN) said corruption can be successfully tackled if no arm of government condones it, adding that no arm can indict others for corruption, when it does not tackle it from within.

    “If you do not remove the log in your eye, you cannot remove the spec in another person’s eye. Specifically, anyone guilty of corruption in any arm of government should be dealt with harshly by colleagues in that arm; otherwise that sector will lose credibility,” he said.

    “It takes only one apple to contaminate and make all the other apples in the barrel rotten also. So, self-criticism and firm punishment for culprits within a sector by colleagues is mandatory in order to establish zero-tolerance for corruption in that sector,” Sagay said.

    According to him, there must be no espiri de corp between a clean member and a corrupt member in any arm.

    Sagay said those who were known to be corrupt have no moral right to pontificate on the fight.

    “There is a lot of lip service by various high profile public servants in the anti-corruption war. When a person who is known by the Nigerian public as an irredeemably corrupt person begins to wax lyrical about the devastating effects of corruption, it sounds very ill in his mouth and it ridicules and belittles the fight against corruption.

    “Public figures who are already notorious for their penchant for corruption do a disservice to the anti-corruption struggle by pretending to hate corruption. Let such people remain silent rather than ridiculing the war against corruption,” he said.

    The PACAC chairman urged lawmakers to fight budget padding and unjust remuneration and to pass pending anti-corruption bills.

    Sagay said judges must not only have zero-tolerance for lawyers who try to compromise them, but should expose such lawyers and have them struck off the rolls.

    He urged agencies, such as Customs, not to demand bribes to do their jobs.

  • Is politics all about self-interest?

    Is politics all about self-interest?

    Everyone looks after his or her own interest. There’s no other way to correctly explain human behaviour. Even the so-called altruists are interest seekers. They look after others as a way of satisfying their own self-interest. They simply derive satisfaction from helping others. You don’t do something that hurts you simply because it hurts you. It’s unnatural.”

    The sentiment captured above is a typical introduction to psychological egoism, a theory that denies human capacity for altruistic behaviour whether in politics, business, or the professions. For this theory, there is always an element of self-interest lurking beneath the surface of every other-regarding action.

    In a textbook illustration, Abraham Lincoln is credited with providing an interesting defence of the theory. Travelling in a stage coach with a friend and arguing for his belief that all human action is motivated by self-interest; Lincoln suddenly came upon a scene. Some piglets were trapped in a thicket with their mother in visible anguish and distress. Lincoln stopped the coach, stepped out and released the piglets. His interlocutor seized upon what he thought was Lincoln’s altruism and asked: “What possibly can be in that action for you, Mr. President?” Lincoln answered calmly. “That was an act of self-interest. If I didn’t release those piglets, I would never have any peace of mind thereafter.”

    Ethics students characteristically agree with Lincoln. But there are problems with psychological egoism as a sound theory. Granted, it is a very simple theory; its simplicity also makes it inadequate for understanding every human action. Jagun jumped to the back of a reversing car to save a young infant from being crushed. It was on the spur of the moment. There can be no thinking about possible success. He has no time to think about the possibility of dying himself. What can be his egoistic motivation? And how do you know my motive better than I, such that even when I tell you I have a different motive than you attribute to me, you can still suggest that I am wrong?

    In politics, however, the theory appears to have had explanatory success. Surely, not every political behaviour is reducible to self-interest. However, a significant part can be so understood. Consider voting behaviour. Voters have multiple interests and the choice they make of candidates or issues will ultimately reflect the most valued of such interests.

    The recent presidential election in the United States has been a puzzle to many analysts. How can the most educated and affluent nation on earth elect someone who exudes so much that is repugnant to the civilised world? Where are the family values once cherished by the Republican Party? Where is the transparency that has been the hallmark of the Conservative Movement?

    Based on his positions and temperament which would, they thought, give the Democratic Party nominee an easy ride in the general election, many had silently hoped and prayed that Donald Trump was the Republican Party nominee. They got their wish. But the voters in battleground states decided that their interests were better served by Trump despite his demonstrated flaws. It boils down to self-interest.

    You cannot fault a person for voting his or her own interest. It is the foundation of liberal democracy. Rousseau would have thought otherwise. For in making decisions on important matters of the state, such as the question of who should lead the most powerful nation on earth, Rousseau would have voters suppress their self-interest in favour of the general interest. They should not ask “what is in it for me?” Voters should ask “what is the good of the nation?”

    Rejecting Rousseau’s general interest as a fiction, John Locke, the father of modern liberalism, prescribed a “realistic” approach. Voting is a means of adjudicating group and individual interests. There is no general interest beyond the interest of every member of the nation. Therefore, voting is not a means of truth seeking; it is a means of aggregating and reconciling interests. Therefore, voters must approach every question from the perspective of their self-interest.

    American democracy is Lockean. Of course, individuals know that they need to associate with others with whom their self-interests are aligned. Therefore, political parties are formed. But within each political party, there are also interest-groups: conservatives, liberals, evangelicals, labour unions, moderates, etc. And each of these has specific agenda positions, which they struggle to realise within the party and ultimately in national elections.

    There is no doubt, however, that even within these interest groups, individuals have their own important ideas concerning their interests in election cycles and which candidate they can trust with realising those interests. This last election presents a good illustration.

    Considering the rhetoric of Trump on immigration, the Democratic Party and its presidential campaign were reasonably confident about massive Latino turnout for Hillary Clinton. The campaign focused on the Latino vote in key battleground states. Although Clinton received more Latino votes than Trump, Trump out-performed Mitt Romney 2012 Latino vote. This means that many Latinos saw Trump as a better candidate for the interest they considered more important for them, including abortion policy, Cuba policy and gun rights. Trump won Florida, home to the most Latino population in battleground states.

    African-Americans are another indispensable voting bloc in Democratic Party politics and the most consistent in terms of its support for the party and its presidential candidates. Again, while Hillary won much more African-American votes than Trump, she could have performed better if many of them had not stayed home on Election Day. It has also been affirmed that Trump out-performed Mitt Romney 2012 African-Americans votes. This is despite Trump’s association with the alt-right movement and Steve Bannon, who was his campaign CEO.

    Those African-Americans who stayed home, probably had their reasons. They were not as excited by Clinton as they were by Obama in 2008 and 2012. But what about those African-Americans who gave Trump their votes? Many working-class Blacks probably believed that they could trust him with pocket-book issues than Clinton. Trump spoke to the angst of many working-class Americans regarding the alleged rigging of the economic system against them. He inveighed against trade deals which he claimed subjugated the interests of workers to big business. Many Blacks agreed.

    Much has been made of the Trump appeal to the White working-class and the rural voters in mid-America, and the Rust Belt. While many of the latter have usually leaned Republican, the working-class electorate have generally been identified with the Democratic Party. Some have argued that the Obama presidency has alienated this group. Yet Obama has been great for them, especially with his economic policy, which has created millions of jobs after the 2008 recession, and Obamacare which has reduced the number of uninsured by millions. Just like African-American working-class, this group probably concluded that it can trust Trump more with pocket-book issues.

    White evangelicals, as value voters, are most likely not about pocket book. Do they see their value interests represented by Trump? Not Liberty University students who, based on moral and religious values, dissociated themselves from their President’s endorsement of Trump. Evangelicals most likely brushed aside Trump’s publicised moral flaws because they perceived a coalescence of interests on his promise to nominate conservative Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

    Is it also self-interest that drew educated White men and women to Trump despite their aversion to his ethics? Clinton won only 39 per cent of educated White men and 51 per cent of educated White women. With this group doing well in an Obama economy, what could be its reason for favouring Trump and defying the polls?  Some honestly believed that Trump’s economic and trade policies would open more opportunities for their children.

    There is a final point. Voting is a gamble. No one is sure what a candidate would turn out to be. This is especially true in the case of an unconventional candidate and president like Trump. But Trump also has self-interest in fulfilling his campaign promises. His body language, including appointing his Campaign CEO as Chief White House Strategist, against bipartisan moral counsel, provides a good evidence for the potency of self-interest in politics.