PHILOQUILOX: FETISHISM OF DEMOCRATIC CREDENTIALS AND THE RULE OF LAW.
Who/What is a democrat? This is a problematic philosophical question with a deeprooted epochal lineage in political philosophy dating back to the Athenian democracy.
Athenian democracy developed around the fifth century B.C. in the Greek city-state (known as a polis) of Athens, comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica and is the first known democracy in the world.-Thorley, J., Athenian Democracy, Routledge.
There is no concise definition of who/what a democrat is because there are as many meaning in the space of ontology as to who/what constitute a democrat or a democratic personality.
Scholarstically speaking, the purview of definition differs given the broad range of perspectives on the subject matter as there are professionals in the field of political science, political philosophy, sociology and political economy.
I am going to adopt a commonsensical definition as an instrumentarium for generic understanding of who/what a democrat is and not what he/she ought to be.
Note the distinction here between (what ought) vis a vis (what is) this approach is adopted just to avoid an absolutist idealistic meaning that we often heard from propagandist.
Democrat, in my view is a person or an individual who upholds, cherishes the idea of government by the people he/she espouses the rule by the majority and the fundamental human rights as stated in the united nations charter. These are prerequisites inherent in defining who/what a democrat is. But this is not absolute as we shall comprehend in our discourse, going by the actions and inactions of players in a democratic dispensation.
Exposition of the abovementioned values must work in concert with/taking into consideration the limitations placed on an individual within a given geopolitical settings and the counter conditionalities of political realism prevalent, coupled with institutional arrangement for the realization of set goals.
A democratic mindset might turned dictatorial, if limitations become counterproductive and the conditionalities of prevalent political realism/institutional mechanism are extremely corrupt. A commonality we found in most Southern democracies.
There are no perfect democracy or democrat anywhere; just as there are no geopolitical entities in our globalized world where the rule of law is absolute in terms of adherence. Political realism, counterproductive conditionalities, and institutional mechanism are key elements in determining how far the rule of law shall be adhere to at any given epoch.
If we are to democratize all government decision making processes then we will need to have referendum on all matters as they affect the citizenry, the implication of that is Anarchy. Sometimes government must make certian policy decision for the people which government as representative of the people find to be in the greatest interest, happiness, or good of the generality of the people i.e the utilitarian criteria.
This paradigm we witness often in the so called western democratic societies: it ranges from taxation policy to housing policy, health insurance policy, etc these are government decisions taken without any wide consultations with the populace you only get to know about it on the pages of newspapers.
So for those making soundbite critique of the democratic credentials of government decisions in respect of the CBN forex policy or rule of law merchant with regard to Dasukigate/Kanu Biafranism, must understand that there are multifarious and multifaceted methodology in democratization of government decisions either at the level of communication, governance, or legal matters.
Rule of law has become bastardised mantra in Nigeria. Used to protect the rich and politically exposed personalities, while the rule of the thugs is for the poor Nigeriana without influence or political connections.
We are in an extraordinary "state of emergency" in the fight against corruption and all kinds of societal economic vices. It is imperative that we marshall out equally extraordinary methodology of achieving result when it is obvious that the evils we are fighting against are hydra-headed coupled with the fact that institutional mechanisms for achieving result are polluted.
An illustration of counterproductive institutional mechanism is when you have a judiciary as is the case in Nigeria that is extremely corrupt and compromised, adjudicating on a corruption related cases involving politically exposed personalities and knowing fully well the predisposition and exposure of the adjudicators to the act itself.
The implication is grievous as we all know, that is one of the reasons why corruption cases were never resolved in our clime because the adjudicators have counterproductive legal mindset.
Let us come down from our philosophical rarefaction in terms of expanding our domesticated conceptualization of this subject matter onto the international arena as we shall see shortly from events that I am periscoping.
There are so many instances in our recent history wherein democratic credentials and the rule of law were subordinated to national interest/public interest and national security because of compelling governmental need or necessariness within the conception/purview of the notion of reasonableness of government actions in protecting the common good.
My attention was drawn to the immigration debacle both in Belgium and Austria about a legal tussle concerning deportation, while the appeal procedure was ongoing in the courts the government of both countries went ahead to deport two Nigerians respectively in violation of the rule of law on the argument that the deportees were present danger to national security. Again argument on the side of compelling governmental interest i.e public interest.
I am not in support of violation of the rule of law or any undemocratic methodology rather I am trying here to show that those concepts are not sacrosanct by pointing out example on the international arena.
George Bush Jr. in declaring war against terrorism after 9/11 declared "you are either for us or your are against us" he is a democrat leading a democratic country but he made what in most circle was refered to as a dictatorial statement and he followed suit with a dictatorial vengeance.
Please forget about the nomenclature of his political party because my definition of a democrat has nothing to do with political party affiliation.
George Bush's Jr. statement in justifying actions taken afterwards was that we have a common enemy and our national interest and survival was at stake, our civilization and democratic values must be protected with all means necessary.
This is a typical example of how a democratic personality/mindset might turned dictatorial and it would be perfectly ok given the circumstances prevalent at the time. Remember most NATO countries never blinked an eye given the pronouncemet at the time they all joined the war sheepishly because their survival and inherent self preservation was uppermost within that given epochal significance. Here again political realism was the determinant.
Note that fundamental rights of so many citizens were trampled upon then in the name of national security even new phrases like enemy combatant or Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo prisoners without trial, extrajudicial, extraterritorial incarceration, all were tolerated by the so called democratic states in the west, which the propagandist in Nigeria are using as their example.
Most state actors and including the United nation commission on human rights remained ambiguous and unashamedly silent in the face of tyranny during this period. Again compelling governmental interest, international solidarity was paramount, nothing about the rule of law at this junction.
I am making this illustration to let my fellow citizenry understand that the goal post in a democracy can be shifted in respect of the rule of law and democratic credentials at any time, when National security is at stake or when political realism and counterproductive conditionalities, or institutional mechanism are hinderances to the realization of government goals- PUBLIC INTEREST.
Most democracies in the world today do not reflect the idealism espoused by the propagandist of the so called true democracy and absolute rule of law. Democracies are extremely pragmatic about (what is), the position of the propagandist is not reflective of our reality when we juxtaposition it with actions and inactions of democracies globally.
Democratic credentials or rule of law are never sacrosanct rather they are malleable insrumentarium in the hands of governments worldwide to achieve set goals either for the general good, public interest, or for parochialism.
My take is that experience has shown vividly that there cannot be an absolute conception of who/what is it to be a democrat, because it is a fluid term constantly in a state of flux same goes for the application of the rule of law.
The actions and inactions of those individuals or nations mentioned in this piece do not make them undemocratic or anti rule of law rather they have adopted a pragmatic conceptualization of those terms in their polity.
OTUNBA ADE ILEMOBADE is a philosopher
Twitter: @pearl2prince
Athenian democracy developed around the fifth century B.C. in the Greek city-state (known as a polis) of Athens, comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica and is the first known democracy in the world.-Thorley, J., Athenian Democracy, Routledge.
There is no concise definition of who/what a democrat is because there are as many meaning in the space of ontology as to who/what constitute a democrat or a democratic personality.
Scholarstically speaking, the purview of definition differs given the broad range of perspectives on the subject matter as there are professionals in the field of political science, political philosophy, sociology and political economy.
I am going to adopt a commonsensical definition as an instrumentarium for generic understanding of who/what a democrat is and not what he/she ought to be.
Note the distinction here between (what ought) vis a vis (what is) this approach is adopted just to avoid an absolutist idealistic meaning that we often heard from propagandist.
Democrat, in my view is a person or an individual who upholds, cherishes the idea of government by the people he/she espouses the rule by the majority and the fundamental human rights as stated in the united nations charter. These are prerequisites inherent in defining who/what a democrat is. But this is not absolute as we shall comprehend in our discourse, going by the actions and inactions of players in a democratic dispensation.
Exposition of the abovementioned values must work in concert with/taking into consideration the limitations placed on an individual within a given geopolitical settings and the counter conditionalities of political realism prevalent, coupled with institutional arrangement for the realization of set goals.
A democratic mindset might turned dictatorial, if limitations become counterproductive and the conditionalities of prevalent political realism/institutional mechanism are extremely corrupt. A commonality we found in most Southern democracies.
There are no perfect democracy or democrat anywhere; just as there are no geopolitical entities in our globalized world where the rule of law is absolute in terms of adherence. Political realism, counterproductive conditionalities, and institutional mechanism are key elements in determining how far the rule of law shall be adhere to at any given epoch.
If we are to democratize all government decision making processes then we will need to have referendum on all matters as they affect the citizenry, the implication of that is Anarchy. Sometimes government must make certian policy decision for the people which government as representative of the people find to be in the greatest interest, happiness, or good of the generality of the people i.e the utilitarian criteria.
This paradigm we witness often in the so called western democratic societies: it ranges from taxation policy to housing policy, health insurance policy, etc these are government decisions taken without any wide consultations with the populace you only get to know about it on the pages of newspapers.
So for those making soundbite critique of the democratic credentials of government decisions in respect of the CBN forex policy or rule of law merchant with regard to Dasukigate/Kanu Biafranism, must understand that there are multifarious and multifaceted methodology in democratization of government decisions either at the level of communication, governance, or legal matters.
Rule of law has become bastardised mantra in Nigeria. Used to protect the rich and politically exposed personalities, while the rule of the thugs is for the poor Nigeriana without influence or political connections.
We are in an extraordinary "state of emergency" in the fight against corruption and all kinds of societal economic vices. It is imperative that we marshall out equally extraordinary methodology of achieving result when it is obvious that the evils we are fighting against are hydra-headed coupled with the fact that institutional mechanisms for achieving result are polluted.
An illustration of counterproductive institutional mechanism is when you have a judiciary as is the case in Nigeria that is extremely corrupt and compromised, adjudicating on a corruption related cases involving politically exposed personalities and knowing fully well the predisposition and exposure of the adjudicators to the act itself.
The implication is grievous as we all know, that is one of the reasons why corruption cases were never resolved in our clime because the adjudicators have counterproductive legal mindset.
Let us come down from our philosophical rarefaction in terms of expanding our domesticated conceptualization of this subject matter onto the international arena as we shall see shortly from events that I am periscoping.
There are so many instances in our recent history wherein democratic credentials and the rule of law were subordinated to national interest/public interest and national security because of compelling governmental need or necessariness within the conception/purview of the notion of reasonableness of government actions in protecting the common good.
My attention was drawn to the immigration debacle both in Belgium and Austria about a legal tussle concerning deportation, while the appeal procedure was ongoing in the courts the government of both countries went ahead to deport two Nigerians respectively in violation of the rule of law on the argument that the deportees were present danger to national security. Again argument on the side of compelling governmental interest i.e public interest.
I am not in support of violation of the rule of law or any undemocratic methodology rather I am trying here to show that those concepts are not sacrosanct by pointing out example on the international arena.
George Bush Jr. in declaring war against terrorism after 9/11 declared "you are either for us or your are against us" he is a democrat leading a democratic country but he made what in most circle was refered to as a dictatorial statement and he followed suit with a dictatorial vengeance.
Please forget about the nomenclature of his political party because my definition of a democrat has nothing to do with political party affiliation.
George Bush's Jr. statement in justifying actions taken afterwards was that we have a common enemy and our national interest and survival was at stake, our civilization and democratic values must be protected with all means necessary.
This is a typical example of how a democratic personality/mindset might turned dictatorial and it would be perfectly ok given the circumstances prevalent at the time. Remember most NATO countries never blinked an eye given the pronouncemet at the time they all joined the war sheepishly because their survival and inherent self preservation was uppermost within that given epochal significance. Here again political realism was the determinant.
Note that fundamental rights of so many citizens were trampled upon then in the name of national security even new phrases like enemy combatant or Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo prisoners without trial, extrajudicial, extraterritorial incarceration, all were tolerated by the so called democratic states in the west, which the propagandist in Nigeria are using as their example.
Most state actors and including the United nation commission on human rights remained ambiguous and unashamedly silent in the face of tyranny during this period. Again compelling governmental interest, international solidarity was paramount, nothing about the rule of law at this junction.
I am making this illustration to let my fellow citizenry understand that the goal post in a democracy can be shifted in respect of the rule of law and democratic credentials at any time, when National security is at stake or when political realism and counterproductive conditionalities, or institutional mechanism are hinderances to the realization of government goals- PUBLIC INTEREST.
Most democracies in the world today do not reflect the idealism espoused by the propagandist of the so called true democracy and absolute rule of law. Democracies are extremely pragmatic about (what is), the position of the propagandist is not reflective of our reality when we juxtaposition it with actions and inactions of democracies globally.
Democratic credentials or rule of law are never sacrosanct rather they are malleable insrumentarium in the hands of governments worldwide to achieve set goals either for the general good, public interest, or for parochialism.
My take is that experience has shown vividly that there cannot be an absolute conception of who/what is it to be a democrat, because it is a fluid term constantly in a state of flux same goes for the application of the rule of law.
The actions and inactions of those individuals or nations mentioned in this piece do not make them undemocratic or anti rule of law rather they have adopted a pragmatic conceptualization of those terms in their polity.
OTUNBA ADE ILEMOBADE is a philosopher
Twitter: @pearl2prince
Comments
Post a Comment