TOLU' ELUSIYAN FRANCIS
4.0 INTRODUCTION
The African
continent, being a mixture of various micro-nations, has repeatedly suffered
from the plague of inefficient leadership. This is clearly evident in the out-right
relegation of morality in political parlance, that is, the mockery of justice
in judicial sphere, lack of honesty, integrity, transparency and
accountability, amongst others, on the path of incalculable political leaders.
Against the above, we can talk of the problematic nature of leadership in
Africa as a project actualization and expression of the thoughts of the fifteenth
(15th) century Italian scholar, Niccolo Machiavelli, who by means of The Prince advocated that a dictatorial
and immoral approach be employed by politicians, if they desire to record
success in their political pursuit; and this is quite evident in Africa. This
being the case, it becomes pertinent that we cogitate on the Machiavellian
dictatorship vis-à-vis the challenge
of leadership in Africa.
4.1
A CRITIQUE OF MACHIAVELLI’S
POLITICAL THOUGHT
As a matter of
fact, the major pre-occupation of Machiavelli is how states should be run and
not how morals are to be followed. Thus, Kant’s categorical imperative brands
Machiavelli’s political thoughts as unethical because, it relies on the need to
preserve political power at all means or cost. The Kantian principle plays role
on goodwill.[1] For him,
the idea that politics necessitates the consolidation and preservation of power
by all means is inhuman and unethical. Human beings are not to be used as means
to an end, but rather to be seen as ends in themselves. Using the golden rule,
treat others as you want others to treat you, Kant is in conflict with the
Machiavellian strategy of using human beings as an instrument to achieve
political power.[2] So
Machiavelli should not be taken seriously.
Martin Buber,
well known for his philosophy of dialogue, adds more power and analysis grease
to Kant’s position. He was of the position that human relationships should not
be based on the “I and It” concept but on the “I and It” entails the other
being used or related to as a mere thing instead of as a person to be met (“I
and Thou”). While the “I and It” is a subject-object relationship whereby one
uses others as means to an end, the “I and Thou” is characterized by mutuality,
real presence, respect, wholeness and humanness. The “I and It” is subjective
and lacks mutuality.[3]
Hence, Buber posited that the “I and Thou” relationship is supposed to be the
genuine relationship among human beings. Machiavelli’s ideas, he said, are
based on the “I and It” relationship which is alien to humanity and brings
about dehumanization. All the evils in the world results from this relationship.
For him, Machiavelli’s doctrines of dictatorship style of leadership, separates
morality from politics which will result to chaos, disaster and more than
anything else, the destruction of the universe;[4]and
as such must not be taken seriously.
Furthermore,
Machiavelli’s error is in his starting point, his premise. If the premise of an
argument is erroneous, the argument is bound to end up in an erroneous
conclusion. His fundamental error lies in his absolutazation of power, which he
erroneously considers as the ultimate goal of politics. The ultimate goal of
politics is not grabbing of power but the rendering of service to the people.
That is, leaders should see the acquisition of power as a platform and paradigm
to render service to the people and not for self-interesting or favouratism.
His other error
(a serious error) is his view that the end justifies the means that one can
justifiably use an immoral means to bring about a good end. This is morally
unacceptable; the end does not justify the means. A good end does not justify
an immoral means used in bringing it about.[5]
Pull out morality from democracy, then so end the mortal life of democracy,
because democracy presupposes morality, honesty, fairness, peaceful and decent
behaviour, openness of mind, and readiness to step down when one loses. And not
like Machiavelli’s idea of dictatorship, the gaining of power through every
possibility, foul or fair. To this effect, Machiavelli’s idea of dictatorship,
which is likening to his notorious position of the end justifies the means
should be committed to flame for it is an idea that has brought a lot of
predicaments to the political world.
4.2 LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE IN AFRICA
For many, especially
our literary giants, the problem of Africa is fundamentally a problem of bad
leadership. This problem is a thorn on the flesh of the continent, as it is
complex and delicate. But one wonders why a continent as endowed as Africa
should be going through such an invincible problem. It should be quickly stated
that the problem of leadership is not peculiarly African, it is a human problem
promoted by cultural worldviews.[6]The
histories of human societies have revealed that quality leadership is very
crucial in the task of nation building. Many thinkers, right from antiquity,
have argued in support of the notion that there exist a nexus between
leadership and the progress of any nation. While Plato maintained that “the wellbeing
of a state depends on the knowledge and character of its rulers”[7],
Aristotle, on the other hand, argued that “the ability of the state to produce
the good life for which it exists is made possible by the behaviours of its
rulers in terms of virtue.”[8]
Moreover, evidence
has shown that Major parts of Africa are buried in morass of predicaments
ranging from socio-political, economic and cultural to moral inadequacies, which
stultify its integral development. While morality and virtue are being exiled
from our political enclave; injustice, corruption, violence and all form of
maladies, on the other hand, have characterized our politics, where there seemsto
be an enthronement of Machiavelism (a political theory built and developed on
Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideology).
From all
indications, politics in Africa has generally followed the line of Machiavelli’s
dictatorship of separating politics from morality and of grabbing political
power by all means. One is made to believe that politics and morality do not go
together; that once a person starts playing politics, he must embrace
dictatorial style and ignore morality. Thus, we often hear it said that
“politics is a dirty game”, meaning that by its very nature politics involves
the use of immoral means. Hence, African politicians have followed Machiavelli’s
dictatorship by removing morality from politics and in thinking that the best
way to be successful in politics is to use immoral means and be a dictator.
They have also believed erroneously with Machiavelli that the ultimate goal in
politics is to grab political power by all means. They have also subscribed to
his view that a good end justifies an evil means, that there is nothing wrong
in using immoral means to grab political power. Machiavelli never put all these
principles into practice because he was not a politician. Thus, it is not
surprising that African politicians both civilian and military have used such
immoral means like murder, assassination, fraudulence, rigging among others to
gain political power or to retain it. They have done these things without bad
feeling of conscience, believing that “politics is a dirty game” by its very
nature, and that such things have to be done in politics.
From the
foregoing, the question that comes to mind is: what has been the product of
Machiavelli’s dictatorship principles? As a matter of fact the answer is quiet
obvious, the product has been corruption, self-centeredness, favoritism,
tribalism, and the likes; which presupposes the loss of morality in African
politics.[9]
Morality, having been removed from politics, honesty and accountability were
thrown out with it. What has been the result? The result has been that, our
governments have been made up of national treasury looters; men who came to
politics primarily, or even solely, to enrich themselves by looting the national
treasury without qualm of conscience.[10]
When honesty and public accountability are removed along with morality from
politics, we then have gangs of thieves in government, each with the key to the
national treasury.
In addition, it
would be of interest to know that Africa is a continent that is richly endowed
with natural and human resources. Yet, the major parts of Africa are beggar-countries
today, with a huge and crushing debt while ironically African billionaires and
even multi-billionaires abound everywhere. As the continent of Africa acquires
more money through the sales of her resources, the money goes into private
accounts of the leaders and some sets of citizens who have link with them and
as such Africa gets poorer while her citizens get richer. So long as morality
continues to be removed from politics and politics continues to be seen as the
surest and quickest way to become a rich person, there is no hope, at least in
the foreseeable future, unless something
drastic happens, like faithfully adhering to the democratic style of leadership.
Moreover, “The step taken by some of the African leaders between (1985-1993) to
exclude old and corrupt politicians from politics was courageous and
commendable. But it was inadequate to ensure a corrupt-free politics because
there was no guarantee that the new-breed politicians who were coming to the
scene were not coming primarily to amass wealth for themselves as their fathers
did”[11].Hence,
the only solution is to neglect Machiavellian dictatorial style of leadership
by bringing morality back into politics and take very stringent measures to
check corruption by government officials.
4.5
CONCLUSION
From the
foregoing, it is quite obvious that the fundamental problem of Africa is the
problem of leadership. And looking into the history of politics in Africa,
particularly Nigeria, one would see that even though sometimes when we practice
democratic style of leadership, there seems to be some traces of dictatorial
style of leadership. In fact, in the political activities of African continent,
it has lost morality and virtue, and that is more reason it is not making
progress. We have replaced what is good with what our leaders think is good
(but bad), we have followed the political idea of Machiavelli and as such, our
leaders seek personal favour, luxury, security and comfort for themselves, which
is clearly evident, ranging from discrimination, partiality,
selfishness, misuse of public resources and the likes. However, for us to make
progress, we must be ready to hold on to morality and virtue in our political
activities as against dictatorial leadership style.
[1]Immanuel
Kant, The Categorical Imperative in
Warurton Nigel, Philosophy: The Class
(London: Routledge Publisher, 2005), p. 216
[3]Martin
Burber, Between Man and Man,
Translated by Ronald Gregory (London: FountaniaLiberary, 1947),p.246
[4]Martin Burber, Between Man and Man, Translated by
Ronald Gregory (London: FountaniaLiberary, 1947),p.247
[6]Patrick Onojake, “Rethinking
Religion And Leadership In Nigeria”, in Israel Inaede(ed), The Word of God AndSocial Justice In Africa: The Voice Magazine, (Ibadan:
A Publication of Saints.Peter And Paul Major Seminary,2012),p.37
[7]Plato, The Republic, Translated by Benjamin
Jowett, (New-York: William Benton Publisher, 1952),p.369
[8]Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Translated by Martin
Ostwald,(New York: Macmillian Publishing Company,1962),p.265
[11]Joseph Omoregbe, Social Political Philosophy and International
Relations: A systematic and Historical study,(Lagos: Joja’s Publication,
2007), p. 147
No comments:
Post a Comment