Even though many politicians may be highly self-aware, or, as has happened in a few cases, speculative philosophers are able to write insightful books that could be considered philosophy, we must still unravel whether philosophy is more important than politics. Good mystery. Or in other words; the more philosophical the politics, the better?
Can politics be evaluated in terms of the philosophical values it adopts or proclaims? Or can politics be judged by the criteria of “irrelevance” or how much it modifies original ideas?
There is a real collaboration between politics and philosophy when there are political thinkers like Obafemi Awolowo, who straddled the Nigerian political landscape in the era of Nigerian political practice before and after independence; or , in the not too bleak past of the Renaissance, a flood of literary works enriched the rational symbiosis of politics and philosophy; or, later in Germany, Goethe was both an original philosopher and a political expert.
Whether philosophical standards should become rigid standards for political practice is a matter of debate. For example, within this faction there exists a strong opposition to “excessive intellectualism” or “dazzling heights” philosophical approaches to political practice.
Opponents vehemently argue that politics is not philosophical knowledge translated into theories or complex assumptions. Politics, they insist, by its very nature expresses only a generally appropriate way of functioning society. It has been strongly suggested that politicians may be asked to answer questions that may be philosophical topics, but this does not necessarily attribute their responses or emotions to the need for philosophy.
It is worth noting that philosophical issues or issues such as the concept of man, the place of fate in human affairs, questions of nature, the relationship between man and death, and the concept of love are all inextricably linked to the purpose of political practice. in society. The general attitude of politicians towards these issues can only be studied or understood in terms of their philosophical beliefs.
Changing attitudes towards love and marriage, the contrast between contemporary views of death and earlier thinking about it, and the curiosity often displayed today all tend to influence legislative attitudes or the making of laws in these areas. There is no doubt that emotions change over time. Routine or customary practice only slows down its pace or direction.
For example, attitudes toward love in this century are interestingly different from those of the past two centuries. Today, there are far fewer tears and sentimental emotions when a loved one dies than in the days of literary icons such as Dr. Johnson. Rationalist views in politics today tend to define attitudes, ideas, and policies in less explicit, overt ways.
This danger is evident, or manifests itself openly, in indigested policies or programs that, from time to time, are introduced that seem to originate from strictly philosophical or ideological positions. Even the most non-intellectual inquiry can infer this confusion of understanding. Society will not be suspicious of policy proponents who are ignorant of unfortunate causes or of the underlying assumptions behind the policy.
Free education at all levels, free medical care, basic human rights and the well-being of the people are philosophical ideals. For a leader to attempt to realize these ideals, he must combine a visible and credible political trajectory for addressing contemporary sociopolitical problems with an intellectual understanding of their foundations. It should be recognized that there are those in society who are stubbornly committed to maintaining or continuing the evil and destructive status quo: the rich get richer, while most get poorer. Happily, we have some sober dialecticians or serious statesmen who are necessarily well versed in understanding the unity of all human cultural and other activities.
They also had the objective spirit of their time. While political practices vary, from esoteric ideologues like Awor to sophistry, bombast, pseudo-mystical plutocrats, the differences are stark. The awor period in Nigerian politics has proven to be a veritable hunting ground for identifying the positive and negative influences of the time.
This is well or positively articulated in Awo’s magnum opus, The Strategy and Tactics of the People’s Republic of China, which not only defines the zeitgeist as the conflict between the opposing tendencies of society or the appropriate environment and the poor or disadvantaged, And relentlessly pursues his formula through all human activity or interaction.
By analogy, strict or unusual, Arvo draws a triumphant conclusion: his era wields apparent conflict, contradiction and tension gratuitously throughout its performance. From a zeitgeist perspective, however, the notion of change may not be understood as distinct or discontinuous, just as an era is not a continuation of its predecessors. Fundamental constants of human nature make such classifications futile, false, or untenable.
The typical philosophical attitude against unprincipled or immoral governance is a revolutionary change in attitudes to life and politics, ultimately making the hateful filth that abounds in society seen as abhorrent by all. Only the most politically, socially and financially fit (who steal most of their wealth from public coming), and their children and next of kin will survive.
The ship of the nation will continue to sail without a rudder and run aground as leadership continues to lack new or exciting ideas, an appreciation for effective solutions, and an inability to wisely apply them when they are selflessly offered. Many politicians in Nigeria clearly lack ownership, thought or appreciation of the proper idea of public service. Despite the lucrative pay and perks of their positions, many public officials still siphon huge sums of money from public funds. They divert billions of naira into private coffers at home and abroad.
Today, rising populist rage in the land is bound to polarize and reflect socioeconomic realities that contradict the polity’s continued raison d’être. Intergenerational social and economic mobility in Nigeria remains slow despite elites passing on their perverse advantages to their children through preferential access to state institutions. This points to an urgent but largely neglected area for Nigeria’s future.
Exercising genuine, sober, or knowledgeable political leadership is necessary to create social consensus on political goals and to avert impending or imminent disaster. The necessary connections between politics and philosophy need to be clearly understood and consciously cultivated. Politicians need to develop a philosophy-based plan and basic structure that fits the needs of the populace at the time. They need to seek and receive intellectual assistance from many sources. Their conduct, both in and out of government, must be characterized by nobility of spirit and grandeur.
Statesmen need to develop a sense of philosophical inquiry into the origins of lofty and practical ideas.
Rotimi-John, attorney and public affairs commentator, email firstname.lastname@example.org