By
FELIX O.U. ORIAKHI, Ph.D
Department of Political Science, Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State.
Tel: 08033453004
Email: felixoriakhi@yahoo.com
AN INVITED PAPER DELIVERED TO THE INTERNATIONAL STUDIES STUDENTS ASSOCIATION (ISSA), DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF BENIN, IN A SEMINAR ORGANIZED BY BLUE BEACON INITIATIVE AFRICA, BENIN CITY ON SATURDAY, 18TH FEBRUARY, 2017
INTRODUCTION
I begin by thanking the officers and members of the International Studies Students Association (ISSA) of the University of Benin for the kind invitation to deliver this lecture, with the title: “Right-Left paradigm shift and the Burden of Nation-Building in the 21st Century”.
The topic of the lecture is so open-ended that it is difficult for me to guess what my hosts really want me to talk about. I say so with all sense of modesty, realizing that the dominant paradigm and ideology in our country’s universities, and indeed, the country today, is the so-called neoliberalism.
Neoliberation, as packegd and parroted by imperialism and its apologists has brought forth what Klein (2007) in her classic, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism branded as the “policy Trinity”- the elimination of the public sphere, total liberation for corporations and skeletal spending. Neoliberalism and its promoters on the global capitalist stage are integrating all corners of the globe into capitalist political economy orbit and preaching the “No alternative” mantra as the gospel truth which the world must accept if economic, social and political developments are to be attained. (Neoliberalism insists on market fundamentalism, liberal democracy (it doesn’t matter if elections are rigged by the stronger thugs and their masters) and talks about social justice, freedom and human rights, (even when citizens live on “one square” or “no meal” at all per day. The chief priests of neoliberalism – i.e, the so called institutions of global governance, namely: the international Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank [WB],World Trade Organization [WTO], United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD], North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO], and its opposing Parallel- The Shangai Collective Organization (SCO), the European Union and the so-called United Nations (UN) – all maintain that the only correct path to development is the path “ordained” by neoliberalism. And neoliberalism is the modern representation of the Political Right. Of course, there are (were) other earlier manifestations of the Political Right in the historical trajectory of mankind. Slavery, Feudalism and Feudo-capitalism are all variants of the Political Right. Yet, the irony is that liberalism in its inception at a point in the movement of history was leftist. We shall elaborate on this as the lecture progresses. This tells us something about the progressive movements in human history.
Today, the Political Right has witnessed a trajectory in the political spectrum to cautiously draw in conservatism, reaction, electoral selectoralism, despotism, autoritananism, and even militarianism (militarist) not only in Nigeria but in different parts of the world. On the other hand, the political left has come to symbolize genuine efforts by the radical progressive social forces, working, using various methodologies, strategies and tactics to change a decaying social, political, cultural and economic order for a more humane, socially-inclusive and just order that will cater for all humans on planet earth irrespective of creed, tribe, tongue, status or circumstances of birth. So, the political left is a broad spectrum of the political divide which crusades for social change from a dieing and decaying social order. History recorded the previous social arrangements of primitive communal, slave, feudal and now capitalist social order and even the botched socialist experiment in the defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and in other parts of Eastern Europe.
The collapse of the old USSR and the reversal of socialist experiment in the USSR, Poland, etc has not in any significant way affected the intellectual capital of left political orientation, neither has it stopped world citizens from denouncing the evils of capitalism and all its right-wing correlates and promoters. Rather, since the end of the cold war between 1989 and 1991, social movements have risen in Europe, USA, Japan – the so-called capitalist (economic) triumvirate to denounce the evils of capitalism with its inhuman Political Right rationalization and institutionalization of Right-wing political order.
To therefore contemplate a discourse on “Right-Left Paradigm shift and the burden of nation-building in the 21st century, is to stir the hornet’s nest. A professor of Political Science once saw a copy of The Communist Manifestoes on my table while I was still at the Benson Idahosa University and screamed “sacrilege”. Another friend of mine we use to be in the students’ movement together, in NANS, but now a big-time politician, having been in the National assembly and attempted to be governor of one of the states read one of my papers and called me to advise me to jettison “Marxism”. According to him, “e no go put food for your table”. One other big-man who use to be a leader in radical organizations in Nigeria and Africa advised his erstwhile comrades who remain committed to the leftist Marxist-Leninist ideology to “retool”. So, the story goes on of Marxist-leftist apostasy in Nigeria. For these apostates and their co-travellers, “Marxism” died with the old USSR. They say this, with some air of finality to mislead young ones like you because they know very well that socialism is the next historical stage after capitalism. Capitalism is yet to run its full course. As capitalism runs its course, it gives rise to its gravediggers - the social forces who are exploited and marginalized by the so called liberal capitalism. That historical trajectory is on. And the social forces which will take on liberal capitalism are building up. Just watch around the world and see the billions of socially and economically displaced persons. Take statistics of global poverty, even in the so-called developed triad-North America, Western Europe and Japan, you will find out that Political Right and its capitalist (economic) and social order promotes poverty, injustice, exploitation and imperialism.
For the purpose of pedagogy, we have articulated this discourse around the following sub-sections. Section two attempts to clarify the concepts employed, especially the concepts of paradigm shift, paradigm political right (right wing), political Left (Left wing) and nation building. Section three address the Left-Right paradigm and its functionalities in the Humanities and the social sciences, and how the left-right dichotomy has impacted on faith practices and cultural milieu in Nigeria.
Section four discusses the continued relevance of the “left” paradigm, foregrounding it as a superior paradigm over the “right” paradigm in intellectual engagements, culural practices, mobilizational tool and pro-peoples’ liberational weapon from the clusters of economic exploitation by imperialism and its compradoral agents in Nigeria. Secion Five draws the curtains on the discourse. It admonishes educated people of your caliber on what is to be done in the efforts at national-building.
ALSO READ: As a leader Don't Expect Me To Be Nice, Blessed Jatt Tells Reporters
ALSO READ: As a leader Don't Expect Me To Be Nice, Blessed Jatt Tells Reporters
CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS
Paradigm
A paradigm is the theory dominant in a given historical period. It is a basic orientation to theory and research. In general, it is a whole system of thinking (Neuman, 2006). It is a system of interpretation of reality in the cognitive process of man. According to newuman (ibid) a paradigm contains basic assumptions, the important questions to be answered or puzzles to be resolved, the research techniques to be used and examples of what good scientific research looks like.
However, it is in the works of Thomas Kuhn (1922-?) and Karl popper (1902-1994) that the idea of paradigm comes into full blossoming and deeper intellectual introspection. Kuhn in his book, The structure of scientific revolutions published in 1962 which became one of the most influential works on the history and philosophy of science contended that the history of science is not a smooth progressive accumulation of data and successful theory, but the outcome of ruptures, false starts and imaginative constraints that themselves reflect many different variables. In his account, science during a normal period works within a framework of assumption called a “Paradigm”, but in exceptional and revolutionary periods an old paradigm breaks down and after a period of competition is replaced by a new one. (Blackburn, 1994;209).
Kuhn distinguished between normal science and revolutionary science. While normal science is the routine verification of the theory (or paradigm) in any historical period, revolutionary science, on the other hand, is the abrupt development of a rival paradigm. Paradigm change is revolution in science, and can be accepted only gradually by a scientific community. (Nachmias and Nachmias, 2009:18) In the words of Kuhn:
Thus, for Kuhn, a paradigm socializes students, scholars, practitioners into the scientific community. Paradigms help to identify the kinds of problems to be investigated the assumptions and concepts to be employed and the kinds of research methods to be used. (Ibid, 17).
According to Kuhn, scientific texts and researches which are able to socialize students and practitioners into the scientific community were able to do so because of two main characteristics. First, because their achievements was sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity and secondly, because it was sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve. (Kuhn, 1970:10)
Paradigms are closely related to the idea of normal science, which promotes the ideas of routine verification of the theory dominant in a given historical period, with validation and testing as concurrent. Good examples of paradigms include liberalism (neoliberalism) and dialectical and historical materialism. However, while for Thomas Kuhn, as we have noted earlier on, there can be no logic of discovery, but a socio-psychology of discovery with anomalies and inconsistencies always characterizing science as a dominant paradigm secures puzzles-solving activities until it is overthrown by a crisis; Kark Popper refutes the Kuhnian descriptive view of science. For popper, s scientific community ought to be, and to a considerable degree actually is, an “open society” in which no dominant paradigm is ever sacred. Popper argues that science has to be in permanent revolution, with criticism at the heart of scientific enterprise. (Nachmias and Nachmias, 2009:19). Popper succinctly made the point that reputation of claims for knowledge is the heart of the revolution in science:
From the Popperian thesis, which is prescriptive and normative, at every given moment, scientists (scholars and intellectuals) are “prisoners” taught in their paradigms, expectations, past experiences, and language (Nachmias and Nachmias, 2009). Popper made the point that we can break out of our framework at anytime and find ourselves in another framework which will be better and roomier, which we can yet break out of it again. (Popper, Ibid:56).
From the Kuhnian and popperian explanations, we can see that the concept of paradigm has a broad functionality and can be ideological, even in the family of so-called science.
Kuhn was honest enough to admit that there is no neutrality in the scientific endeavour (pursuit of knowledge). Instead of neutral scientists, Kuhn views normal scientific communities as groups of partisans advocating and defending the established Paradigm. Yet, adherence to a paradigm should not necessarily arrest scientific progress. Paradigms as organizing principles are necessary, without them, scientific research would not take place as a collective enterprise. However, normal science perpetuates itself and thereby constraints change and innovation (Nachmias and Nachmias, 2009:18). And Popper insists that a scientific community ought to be, and to a considerable degree actually is, an “open society”, in which no dominant paradigm is ever sacred. Science according to him, has to be in permanent revolution, with criticism at the heart of the scientific enterprise. These two eminent scholars have told us some truths but also left some truths untold. For example, are there material and historical forces which influence the adoption or popularity of a particular paradigm in human affairs at particular period? Or is it just our learning that influence the choice of paradigm? We may find some answers to these posers in Anthonio Gramsci’s Prison Notes or some other Marxian works that address the material conditions of man which influence his being and his preferred paradigm at every given historical mode of production.
PARADIGM SHIFT
From our discourse of the concept of paradise, you can easily deduce what paradise shift means. Both Kuhn and Popper in their works give us some mental picture of paradigm shift. According to Kuhn (1970), a dominant paradigm secures puzzle-solving activities until it is overthrown by a crisis. And thereafter, there is a new paradigm - a Paradigm Shift. In a similar vein, Popper (1970) averred that in an “open society”, no dominant paradigm is ever scared and that science (knowledge) has to be in permanent revolution, with criticism at the heart of the scientific enterprise. This, by implication, refers to paradigm shift in the process of time. Thus, a paradigm shift is a fundamental change, both in cognition and ontology. It throws up a new thinking process and of course, new ways of doing things.
RIGHT (POLITICAL) AND LEFT (POLITICAL)
The concepts of “Right” and “Left” in political discourse have a very interesting origin, which has continued to influence their usage for well over two hundred years now. But before we briefly discuss the historical background of the concepts, let us attempt to explain them. As Leads (1981:109) observed, when political ideas form a coherent systematic pattern they are called an ideology. Ideologies are “action-related” sets of ideas, concerning the change or defence of existing political structure and relationships. Leaders may use an ideology to justify their own rule, and an ideology provides moral justification for a specific form of government. The concepts of political “Right” and “Left” are ideological labels which help great a deal to capture the political attitudes, behaviours and preferences of political actors- state and non state actors. These labels are also very dynamic, depending on the station of the paradigm and the movement of history, which some right-wing intellectuals (especially Francis Fukuyama) claimed has come to a halt. Although, it is said that he later reversed himself. Otherwise it is a great uncrowning of any intellectual glory for any scholar, anywhere in the world to claim that history has come to a halt simply because counter-revolution took place in the defunct USSR and the socialist Eastern Europe. Political “Right”, today, generally refer to the branch of political opinion that is for the freedom of the individual in economic matters, and therefore protects the distribution of property and divisions of class that such freedoms generate. The “right” may frequently be authoritarian, regarding strong law and order as necessary to protect the divisions it favours, or it may extend the protection of liberty to the point of anarchism. (Blackburn, 1994:331).
In contemporary political discourse, “Liberalism”, and indeed, “Neoliberalism” is the ideological representation of the “political right”. Liberalism, which originated in Europe between the 16th and 17th centuries could be said to be progressive at its birth as it heralded the new society of the liberal philosophers – i.e, John Locke, J.J. Rousseau, J.S. Mill, Adam Smith and several others. And as Omotoye Olorode (2016) noted, early in the 20th century, some thinkers like John Maynard Keynes were so upbeat about the achievement of modern societies that they thought humans would have solved much of the problems of human needs by the end of the century (2000) and that the problem would be how to manage leisure. Today, almost two decades into the 21st century, the contrary is the truth. True, humanity had built potentials and actual capacity to address the basic and other needs like food, clean water, clean air, decent shelter and security of life! However, there is worldwide poverty. This is because “neo-liberalism” with its capitalist globalization is built on exploitation. It generates poverty, violence and social crisis among nations and within nations. “Liberalism” and now, neoliberalism are the ideological potentates of the political “Right”. All subscribers and promoters of neoliberalism belong to the large family of the political “Right”. They are Right-wingers”. Of course, there are varients of the political “Rights” but what you will find common to all the varients is that they support the policy-trinity! the elimination of the public sphere, total liberation for corporations and skeletal (state) spending (Klein, 20007). Neoliberalism, is today, the dominant political and economic ideology, and of course, by extention, the dominant socio-political paradigm on the world stage.
In contradistinction to political “Right” is political “Left”. Again, let us return to Blackburn:
Political “Left”, most generally, is any political stance which is for the poor, the oppressed, and the underprivileged, and against the power, property, and privilege selectively conferred by class interests and established economic and
social institutions. (Blackburn, 1994:45)
Thus, political “Left” or “left-wing” refers to strong support for deep social change that is in favour of the mass of the people, especially the working people in a political system as against the political and social interest of the privileged, propertied class. Political “Left” strongly supports the ideas of socialism and its variants which canvass more egalitarian society. It supports much government in an economy and socialist arrangement that strieves at egalitarianism.
The origin of the concepts of “Right” and “Left” in realpolitik and political discourse can betraced to the French Revolution.
As C.A. Leeds in his political studies correctly stated, at the meeting of the Estates-General in 1789, the nobility took the place of honour, on the right hand of the king, and the Third Estate sat on the king’s left. Soon the deputies in the French Assemblies were seated in a continous semicircle from the most radical and egalitarian on the left to the most reactionary and aristocratic on the right (Leeds, 1981:109). And ever since the concepts of political “Right” and political “Left” gained ascendancy in politics and political discourse. In our country, where “ideology” in politics is centrally “rightist” – conservative and reactionary, historians and social scientists have not stopped critiquing the political process, especially, in the on-going Fourth Republic for lacking ideological bent. But, there is ideology in our politics. It is Right-wing ideology – which promotes the values of primitive accumulation, individualism, market forces, election rigging, fascism / rule of the strong man. These features clearly decipher Right-wing ideology which promotes the selfish instincts of man and not the welfare of the Nigerian peoples. So, Right-wing ideology is the dominant ideology in Nigeria’s socio-political economic and cultural system today. And this is why things are near-falling apart in the country today. Barbarism is being enthroned by the Nigerian ruling class. Of course, variants of the Right-wing ideology include reactionary, conservatism and liberal while those of the Left-wing include radical, Revolutionary and socialism. A linear spectrum of attitudes to politics is interpreted from the degree to which the people supported the status quo or a change in either a forward or backward (status quo aute) direction as displayed in figured 1. below:
Reactionary Conservative Liberal Radical Revolutionary
A linear spectrum of attitudes to politics
Source: C. A. Leeds (1981) Political studies
To sum up this effort at conceptualizing political “Right” and political “Left”, it suffices to point out that “right wing” applies to supporters of a particular system or regime in power while the term “left wing” describes those who challenge the existing system and want peaceful or violent change to something new. The term “radicalism” applies to advocates of rapid and sweeping (“root and branch”) state of affairs of a return to previous state of affairs such as Joseph de Maistre who during the French Revolution wanted to restore the ancient regime, are called “reactionaries”. In an ideological or economic sense, the term, “right wing” refers to those, usually the wealthiest members of society, who are supporters of private enterprise and minimum government controls while “left wing” refers to supporters of much government involvement in an economy and of socialism. (Leeds, 1981:110)
NATION-BUILDING
Nation-building is one of the most abused concepts in political discourse in Nigeria and in several parts of the developing World today. For Nigerian politicians, it is most fashionable to claim to be in politics for the purposed of nation-building. Commonplace phrases like “moving the nation forward’ “Nigeria is indivisible” and several other empty phrases or mantras are the past-time of Nigerian politicians –both the faction and fraction in power and the faction and fraction outside power. These mantras and empty because majority of Nigerian politicians do not commit to these claims. So, ordinarily instead of building the nation as they claim, their body-language, their public pronouncements and political actions signpost destroying the nation.
In the first place, is there a nation? Nation refers to the population within, sharing a common culture, language and ethnicity with a strong historical continuity. This manifest itself in most members in a sentiment collective, communal identity. When the two concepts, “nation” and “states” are combined, this compelling mixture of legitimacy and efficiency for governing elites. (Ingram, 2009:360). Perhaps, there is supposedly an emerging nation-state, which, if the political class is committed to would by now be forging a sense of nationhood among Nigerians. The contradictions in Nigeria today are so enormous that it is difficult to talk or write about a Nigerian nation-state. Though, every fraction and faction of the ruling class in power and office delude itself to insist that Nigeria is indivisible and that it has a God-ordained manifest destiny of a great nation. A work in progress they claim. But as soon as these elements leave power or and outside the corridors of power they begin to speak about “true federalism”, “decentralization of powers”, “ethnic autonomy”, “regional or state autonomy”. When we consider such hypocritical posturing of members of the Nigerian ruling class, one then wonders if there is any agenda for nation-building or people just want power for the sake of oiling their skins. So, the idea of nation-building, which is a political phenomenon in developed polities appears to be an illusion in Nigeria.
Thus, we understand nation-building as the deliberate, articulate and rational efforts of the people of a given nation-state to move progressively from a state of underdevelopment and poverty to a state of development, wealth, industry, production social welfare, creativity abundance, happiness and stability for all the peoples who are members of the given polity. The idea of nation-building connotes a common strategy of elites, especially the ruling faction of the elites in building a sense of internal cohesion among the multi-ethnic groups, and instill in them a sense of belonging through social justice, economic development, good inter-group relations, social welfare and opportunities for all, acceptable democratic ways and means of political transition and ascendancy to political power, high social and economic status, and freedom from political and economic exploitation by the imperialist countries. Instead of these features dominating and shaping social life in Nigeria since independence in 1960, the contrary is the case. Nigeria is perpetually under neocolonial exploitation by the imperialist Triad of North America, Western Europe and Japan ; and now the latest addition – the so-called “Asian Tigers” – China, India South Korea, Singapore, etc. Nigeria remains a dependent nation, adopting the dependent capitalist socio-economic formation. Elections are rigged by politicians and the so-called “selectorate” while the peoples’ votes hardly count in deciding who gets to power. The economy has been in perpetual recession since the 1980s when the developmental state was attacked by imperialist forces and their domestic agents which masquerade as our “leaders”. Instead of diversifying the economy for greater opportunities for Nigerians, the visionless ruling class and their masters in Europe, America and Japan relied on a mono-product for their primitive accumulation. Now, we are all living witnesses to the consequences of the narrow vision, indolence, greed and irresponsibility of our ruling class who sees only from the “sunglasses” of neoliberalism and right—wing political orientation. Nationalities are in perpetual war. Ethnic militant and war lords, rule the country political landscape. Kidnapping, arm-robbery, prostitution, pen-robbery by state officials Boko Haram insurgency and near anarchy define Nigeria today. So, where is the nation-building?
ALSO READ: BENIN AND THE MIDWEST REFERENDUM OF 1963. By Nowamagbe A. Omoigui, Part 3
ALSO READ: BENIN AND THE MIDWEST REFERENDUM OF 1963. By Nowamagbe A. Omoigui, Part 3
LEFT-RIGHT PARADIGMS IN THE HUMANITIES, SOCIAL SCIENCES, CULTURE AND RELIGION
Students in Nigerian Universities today, especially, those of us in the Humanities and Social Sciences are often told by a good number of our teachers to be objective, scientific, and neutral in our researches. Infact, in the social sciences, you hear senior academics admonishing their students to conduct empirical, values-free researches. By “value-free researches, they mean that student should be ideologically neutral and most adopt the scientific methodology in their research. They claim that a body of knowledge not acquired through the methods of gathering knowledge in science is not objective, and cannot be accepted as true scientific knowledge.
Nachmias and Nachmias (2009:3) noted that three other general modes have served the purpose of acquiring knowledge; the authoritarian mode, the mystical mode and the rationalistic mode in the social sciences. The basic assumptions of science (i.e, (i) nature is orderly; (ii) we can know nature (iii) all natural phenomena have natural causes (iv) nothing is self-evident’ (v) knowledge is derived from the acquisition of experience; (vi) knowledge is superior to ignorance) and the methodology of science are seriously emphasized for and presented to the students as the students as the way to go if we must know, explain and influence the social world. Through this scientific method, students are told that they should be neutral non-ideological and produce objective knowledge independent of subjective world view. Empirical social scientists claim that their special tasks is to supply that body of information and evidence which can be ascertained independently of any political position or value judgment.
Radical social scientists (Sociologists, Political Scientists, Economists and Psychologist) have however made the point that ideology is by no means defined by the conscious choices made by the social theorist about how society works but rather precisely by those assumptions of which the theorist is least aware and about which he is at least explicit. The very notion that social research can be conducted other than on the basis of the prior development of concepts and theories is held to be ideological. The choice of a particular field of investigation, the role of a given range of concepts with which to investigate that field, all express assumptions about the nature of society and about what is theoretically significant and what is not. (Blackburn, 1972:11).
Nonetheless, what has happened so far in the effort to gain knowledge of the social world through the methodology of science is the identification and use of three major approaches to do social research by social scientists. While, in practice, few social researchers agree with all parts of an approach (often they mix elements from each approach), the reality in social research today is that three approaches are being adopted by social researchers. These approaches are the positivist social science approach’ the interpretive social science approach, and the critical social science approach. The approaches are different ways of looking at the World – ways to observe, measure, and understand social reality. Each approach is associated with different traditions in social theory and diverse research techniques. The linkage among the broad approaches to science, social theories, and research techniques is not strict. The approaches are similar to a research programme, research traditions, or scientific paradigm. (Neuman, 2006:80-81).
It is the question of approach to social studies and social research that has created division among Nigerian social scientists, and indeed, social scientists all over the world; and engendered so much bitter quarrels and hardening of positions, even when some so-called empiricists deny their ideological fixation, which is the final analysis defend the dominant right-wing paradigm of liberalism.
Professor Eme Nwachukwu Ekekwe, a distinguished political scientist, who makes no pretense of his Marxist-Leninist orientation, in an inaugural lecture delivered at the University of Port Harcourt, two years ago, unabashedly dismissed positivist social science (behaviouralism) thus:
The in-thing in those days was to be a behaviouralist, a “number cruncher” who mesmerized himself and others with surveys and statistics as so-called true scientist would. The only thing I recalled missing from the scientific armory of the behaviouralist scientist was some over-size white coat that could be worn over normal cloths. In place of the medical doctor’s stethoscope the behaviourioralist carried around his or her pack of cards, talking endlessly about using the Statistical
Packaged for the Social Sciences (SPSS). It is amazing how, as the French delicately put it, plus ca change, plus c’est la mene chose: Things which are supposed to have changed have remained the same: Today the same Marxism, with the political economy framework associated with it, is treated the same way many an English speaker of the 20th century, would treat Latin: as a historical relic. Suffice to say here, at least regarding those who would keep an objective mind that this posture is founded on a misunderstanding and a hasty reading of Marx and Engels. (Ekekwe, 2015:9-10)
In the social sciences in Nigeria today, the dominant approach to social research and even teaching is the positivist approach, especially the “number cruncher” approach (Ibid).
The interpretive social approach and the critical social science approach are discouraged. But, these two approaches have the capacity to prepare the grounds for paradigm shift in the Right-left struggle for intellectual ascendancy and supremacy.
In the Humanities, the scenario is not different. Majority of scholars are completely indifferent to the critical works of Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, V. I. Lenin, Georgi Plekhanow, Leon Trostky, Kwame Nkrumah, Amilar Cabral, Frantz Fanon, Idris Debray, Basil Davidson, Ngugi Wathingo, Festus Iyayi, Biodun Jeyefo, Tunde Fatunde, Ruth First Walter Rodney, Adam Hochscild, Reverend Father Uba John Ofei and several others.
The truth is that majority of Nigerian scholars are deep in the orientation of liberalism. Our colonial history and post-colonial experience, which is practically neo-colonial is not helping matter as more scholars embrace the right-wing paradigm without critical reflection. In any case, the political establishment encouraged scholars to think “Right” and use their intellectual capacity to defend the status quo, which is liberalism.
There is (was) an alliance between the ruling class and the Nigerian intellectuals. The alliance has grown deep. It is not about to end without a struggle led by social forces of the working people and the progressive wing of Nigerian intellectuals. However, emerging social conditions are already forcing a re-think among Nigerian intellectuals.
In culture and religion, the right-wing subsists deeply. Our pre-colonial culture which had a lot of communal spirit had since been destroyed and abandoned for the individualism of neoliberalism. We have lost our sense of “brotherhood” to market forces. And so, there is a total erosion of our cultural values to a scandalizing level where our women and men are now sex objects for capitalist profitization.
Christian and Islamic leaders and even the babalawos (traditional spiritualist) are now advocates and agents of capital. Accumulation now defines spiritual practices and worship to the extent that the spiritual aspect of life is being commercialized and monetized. So, spiritualizing capital accumulation by faith adherents across the faiths is endorsed by the Nigerian neo-colonial state. In the prevailing circumstances, the right-wing paradigm is endorsed by our spiritual leaders. Can there be paradigm in God’s houses on earth?
CONTINUED RELEVANCE OF LEFT PARADIGM IN NIGERIA’S SOCIO-ECONOMC AND POLITICAL ENGINEERING
Today, Nigeria is in crisis. Of course, the crisis did not start today. Since 1960, when the country was given “flag” independence by the imperialist Britain, the Nigerian life has not known peace. Perhaps, we may say that it is the crisis of nation-building. But, more correctly, is the fact that it is the crisis of neo-colonialism fostered by the dictates of the political “Right” which heralded the forces of capitalist globalization and neoliberalism.
Neoliberalsim originated in western liberal philosophical and political traditions that sired Enlightenment political and social philosophies of the West in the 18th and 19th centuries. Liberalism itself, I had its origins in the Graeco-Roman philosophical tradition, especially Plato’s philosophical thoughts. This, basically, is the pedigree of the forces that conquered the world through colonial and related movements and truncated the development of rival social and political philosophies in Africa, Asia and the Americas. Until the intervention of Karl Marx (1818-1883), Political Philosophy and Economics were pursued in Europe largely as independent affairs: there were thus political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and John Stuart Mill and Economists like David Richardo and Adam Smith. The ideas of the economists, of course, reflected generally liberal philosophies. (Olorode, 2016) (Since the 18th century, even earlier in the 17th century during the “glorious” revolution in England and other parts of Europe which smashed feudalism the world had come under the influence of liberalism. England and the rest of Europe, and later the United State of America and her liberal capitalist allies used the liberal ideas to conquer territories and export capitalism abroad for the appropriation and expropriation of the resources of conquered Africa Asia and Latin America. Liberalism, then masquerading as a progressive paradigm became the intellectual tool for the exploitation of conquered territories in the what imperialism calls the “Third World”.
But Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Fredrick Engels (1820-1895) intervened forcefully and decisively in the history and political development of Europe. They introduced an alternative paradigm more progressive and human paradigm. And the narrative of social history changed. That paradigm is the theoretical postulation of Dialectical materialism and Historical materialism. This is the “Left” paradigm which maintains that nature is in motion and human society is in motion. As a general rule, the history of all human societies is the history of how human needs are produced and how human reproduce themselves. The stage of the development of production forces (human and instruments of labour: implements, machines, etc) also create production relationships (slaves, servants, employers employees, companies and trade unions) and social relations and classes. (Ibid)
This paradigm, adopting a critical social science (CSS) approach with “history” i.e, materialist history and the contradictions in nature and human society in the effort of man to produce for his or her survival and the relations between man, who produces (labour) and the man who own and control the means of production (capital) and how this has engendered class conflict in all previously existing societies with the exception of the first society, the primitive-communal society as the theoretical underpinnings of the left paradigm analysized capitalism and its liberal cover, pointing out their weakness, and normatively recommended the passage of capitalism in the process of time. Of course, the paradigm gave a guide of what must fall in line – objective conditions and subjective factors for capitalism to exit the historical stage for a more human and progressive social formation – socialism. By conservative estimate liberalism as a paradigm is over six hundred years old. It has equally transformed in several ways, impacting different cultures and civilizations in varied ways. However, the modern neoliberalism which is an off-shout of the mother liberalism paradigm may be delimited as the period between the early 1970s and the present time when capitalist globalization entrenched and propagandized neoliberalism which came into full bloom in the 1980s and 1990s. Its ideological elements were “less government”, “individualism”, “private enterprise” “privatization”, “deregulation” “trade liberalization”, “devaluation of national currencies”, “removal of subsidies” and “reduction of public-sector or spending on social services (housing, health provisioning, education, etc).
These elements of had since been enforced through all sorts of mechanisms such as conditionality for loans and economic aids (bilateral and multilateral and military violence to support compliant regimes and remove non-compliant ones. Needless to say, some of these policies (such as privatization of prisons services in the USA, power supply, banks, education in Nigeria to mention a few) have turned out to be monumental disasters. Others such as liberalization of trade have all turned out to be implemented in their breach as China has found in the resistance to Chinese investments in Western capitalist counties (Olorode, 2016). Commenting on the objectives of neoliberalism, Omotoye Olorode stated inter alia:
In a fundamental sense, the central purpose of neoliberalism from the beginning was to recolonize the world
and reverse the gains of welfare state and socialist ideology. Naomi Klein’s Excellent book (2007)on the rise of disaster capitalism based on the” shock
Doctrine”, did a comprehensive account
of how western corporations and
political hegemons carried out their
mission of recolonization of the world in Latin America, Africa and Asia. In doing so, the ideological, economic, political, cultural and military power of the corporations and the hegemonic states (USA especially) were deployed to install their agents around the world. (Olorode, 2016).
Several scholars have commented on the negative impact of capitalist neo-liberal globalization, condemning its tendencies to disempower the mass of the people, the poor working, and none-working people the vulnerable and underclass in society. Neoliberalism is causing anger, frustration and despair among the exploited, underprivileged people in society to the point that the most desperate ones live by their own laws. Anarchy and barbarism gradually are gradually setting in a scholar graphically captured the crushing impact of neoliberalism on the World economy and how it enriches the rich, the privileged and government officials thus:
Today, the combined wealth of
the World’s three richest people
is greater than the Gross
Domestic production of forty-eight
poorest countries. And inequality
has increased as globalization has
progressed--, inequality has also
risen within nations --. In South
Africa, former anti-apartheid African
National Congress activists
Cyril Ramaphosa and Tokyo
Sexwale use their party connections
to be reborn as private equaity
magnates. (Perry 2008:310-311)
In Nigeria, we are living witnesses to the looting of our collective heritage by both the domestic neoliberal agents (home-based ruling class members, especially the governing elites of the ruling class) and imperialism, represented by multinational corporations operating in the oil sector and in other sectors of the Nigerian economy. In Nigeria, we hear that over a hundred and ten million of the country’s citizens live in abject poverty in a county with abundant natural and human resources.
We see the continuous attacks on education, health, pensions, social welfare of the mass of the people by the Nigerian state. We are living witnesses to the infrastructural deficit in the country despite the huge budgets on infrastructures over the years. We see the open and celebrated stealing of national wealth by politicians and their appointed agents. We see a national assembly that “super-pay” itself, claiming deaf over national out-cry on its members’ incomparable emoluments. And then the victims of neoliberal fallouts are reacting. In the words of Oloride:
In Nigeria, we see, everyday,
the fore-going reflections of
the global responses of the
victims of neo-liberal globalization
and capitalism in armed
insurgencies (ethno-nationalsists,
religio/confessional, etc) strikes,
students’ protests, cultism, and
armed robberies and generalized
violence. (Ibid).
In the light of the glaring fact that neo-liberalism promotes dangerous policies emasculate the mass of the common people, promoting neocolonialism and Euro-American-Japanese recolonization of Nigeria and other underdeveloped states in the global South, and promoting the forces of crime, individualism, ethnic-clashes, religious clashes and destroying whatever efforts at nation-building - it is imperative that we seek and fight for alternative economic, social and political order. That alternative must come from the progressive left paradigm. Therefore, we should return to the masterpieces of Marx: dialectical materialism and historical materialism as the alternative paradigms to the liberal (neo-literal) paradigm. Scholars should begin to move away from organic intellectualism to their traditional role as intellectuals. They should question received opinions of the priests of neo-liberalism and seek alternatives. To mainly receive economic and political packages from, the capitalist global North, and treated those packages as the know-it-all ideas for socio-economic and political development of the country is tantamount to abdicating their roles as intellectuals.
As Eskor Toyo of blessed memory reflected:
I have met people who are not
inquisitive at all! They just
accept whatever they are told
and ask no question! But
I have the tendency to query
everything until I have satisfied
myself. I won’t accept anything
at face value! Thank God we
have the inquisitive ones: but I’ve
found that it is dangerous in society
to be inquisitive, whichever society it
is, either the traditional one, or the so-called
modern one. If they don’t
kill you, they leave you alone to
die poor. I have survived by avoiding
them and doing my thing. I’m not
ambitious to be anything in their
society. So they leave me alone! (Toyo,
cited in Ekundayo).
The task of the intellectuals is to continue the business of reflection with a view to finding solutions to the problems of society. Courage is important. But, also very important is the tool of critical inquiry. Critical inquiry will force us to ask questions and not take anything at face value. The Left paradigm exposes the evils of the neoliberal paradigm which impoverished the majority of the world population, and create a world economy in which the combined wealth of the world’s three richest people is greater than GDP of forty-eight countries in the world. This is not the world that God Almighty intended for man. God created a world full of milk and honey for his children to enjoy but the evil, called capitalism with its greedy purveyors would not let that be. And so, the oppressed and marginalized people have no choice but to fight their way out of poverty and emasculation. To do this, the left paradigm, ever progressive, humane and collectivist remains the weapon for the liberation that is to come. We must return to Marx, but not merely to parrot him and get fixated with his postulations. What is expected of us is to take Marx’s dialectical Materialism and Historical materialism, study them, understand and digest the theories, and be guided by the principles therein while taking into consideration the character and dynamics of our environment.
If you are grounded in dialectics combined with a materialist understanding of the history of your society, the movement and dynamics of productive forces in your society, you may be able to understand the social forces, material conditions that shape your society today. If you expand your readings of Marxist literature, and study Lenin, Mao, Rosa Luxumbug, Amilcal Cabral, Kwamah Nkrumah, Frantz Farmn, Fidel Castrol, Tito and several other Marxist intellectuals and political activists you may begin to appreciates the supremacy of the Left paradigm over the Right paradigm.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Right-Left Paradigm shift is a tall order. Wishes are not horses, otherwise beggars would ride. Paradigm shift in any historical period is never a cup of tea. It is often revolutionary, and in most cases be a bloody affair. The transition from feudalism to liberalism and its correlates in Europe was a bloody affair. It was a class struggle between the forces of feudalism and the new social forces of liberalism – the evangelical clergy, the merchants and the Enlightenment Scholars (the liberal philosophers: Thomas Hobbas, John Locke, J.J. Rousseau , J.S. Mill and others).
The transition from liberalism to socialism which started in the 19th century following the ills of capitalism in Europe is not about to stop. No doubt that the transition, as it is with some other transitions in human history experienced hiccus and therefore suffered some reversals. But socialism is the next destiny of man as history unfolds, and capitalism exhausts its potentials. It does not matter what anybody or so-called apologists of the political “Right” and defenders of capitalism think. The billions of people all over the world are labouring under social exclusion as neo liberal capitalist globalization continue to bare its fangs, as Marx rightly predicted in the 19th century are the gravediggers of capitalism. Capitalism is running its course. The dialectics inherent in materialist interpretation of history insists that history is conflict-laden, and that its conflictual elements yield their meanings only when we understand them as “contradictions” within a dialectical framework.
The idea of contradiction is that social systems may display tendencies that are both necessary for their existence, and get incompatible with it. This conception, thus provide a unifying overview with respect to many eras of historic change that otherwise appear chaotic or patternless. Very good examples of these are the dually destructive and constructive roles of the merchant class during the evolution of feudalism, or the similar roles played by capitalist class in the process of capitalist development itself. A dialectical approach is always self-consciously interpretational, because its concern for “essence” rather than “facts” forces it to confront the ambiguous, many-layered context of events. Contradictions, it should be noted, do not present themselves in any pure form, they must be discovered within the flux of many conflicting events. (Oriakhi, 1989:32).
A dialectical approach to history tends to make its practitioners conscious of their philosophical premises. Conventional history just like conventional social sciences do not, as a rule declare their philosophic bias. They claim to be neutral. Since one hardly writes history without ideas as to what is true or false, believable and not believable, that history tends to accept the contemporary, established philosophic tanets of positivism, with their stress on empirical findings and testable propositions (Heilbroner, 1980;77). The consequent interpretation of a Marxist historian may be deficient and inadequate or simply wrong, but at last the crucial task which historical materialism assigns to itself is directly stated. And that task is to change the world as Marx told us - the need for a paradigm shift from Political and Economic Right wing to Political and Economic Left wing. The task is paradigm shift to build socialism and create another world were social and economic rights will precede bourgeois political rights, where social justice, equality and progress shall be for all mankind and not the three persons whose wealth is greater than of 48 countries put together.
Also, we must note that the fusion of theory and practice is a great strength of the Marxist paradigm. The fusion of contemplation and intervention is perhaps, the strongest point of Marxist paradigm as a whole, as well as of Marxist historiography (historical materialism) in particular. Marxist historiography, which is another name for historical materialism is intended to provide more than an understanding of history. It is intended to serve as a guide for making history. The unity of theory and practice – of knowledge and action – recognizes that thought and action are inseparably linked in the experience of life itself. Thought provides the understanding of the past by which we guide our actions, action expresses the translation of thought into our engagement with the future. Perhaps, one can safely say that the idea of a unity of theory and practice is a laudable one, however, much that idea may have been abused in actuality. (Oriakhi, 1989:33).
Finally, the view that the meaning to be ascribed to history is its moral unfolding, or more precisely, its orientation to human freedom further strengthens the materialist understanding of history as a tool of social analysis. We must not forget that the passionate and unrestrained commitments of Kerl Marx and Frederick Engels to the idea of human emancipation from the oppressive hands of capitalism, and not mere inquiry for inquiry sake led to the development of historical materialism in particular and the Marxist paradigm in general.
RECOMMENDATIONS
My very distinguished students I cannot conclude this lecture without leaving you with what is to be done to build a nation, a nation-state called Nigeria. From the lecture you can see that the Left paradigm is not only superior to the Right paradigm, it provides the roadmap to the new-society that humanity is waiting for. No matter what Marxist apostates, reactionaries, conservatives/neoconservatives and neoliberal supporters say about Maxism and the entire Left paradigm, the fact of history is that Marxism and the Left paradigm I provide original, true intellectual framework for mankind to advance to the next phase of civilization.
It is a true original science which provides room for self-criticism based on dialectics and the material conditions of man. I therefore admonish you to return to the basic texts of Marx, Engels and other great works in Marxist literature. After all you will not be reading for exams but for self-development.
To advance your theoretical grasps of Marxism you should identify with progressive organizations, progressive intellectuals and activists and join political parties with socialist orientation. You should join social movements and human rights organizations that are truly committed to the liberation of the people.
Also, student in the universities and other higher institutions in the country must begin the urgent task of rebuilding the students’ movement. We developed in the student movement. This task is immediate if we are to build a nation. Nation-building is a continous process, and the youths are the pillars for this task. But the youths must have scientific understanding of the movement of history, and the imperatives of a truly progressive paradigm that will guide the social change that we all crave for. That paradigm is the Marxist paradigm – The Left paradigm.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you!
Felix O.U.Oriakhi; Ph.D.
18th February, 2017.
REFERENCES
1. Blackburn, Robin (1972) “Introduction” in Robin Blackburn (ed) Ideology in Social Science; Reading in Critical Social theory, London, Fontana Published.
2. Blackburn, Simon (1994) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
3. Ekekwe, Eme Nwachukwu (2015) Between power, parties and principalities: where are the people? Inaugural Lecture Series, No.118, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, March 26, 2015.
Ekundayo, S. Bode (1995-1997) Interview with Eskor Toyo.
Heilbroner, Robert (1980) Marxism: For and Against, Toronto, George J. Mcleod. Publisher.
Ingram, Paul (2003) “Nation-state” in Lain Mclean and Alistair Mcmillan (eds) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Klein, Naomi (2007) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, New York, Picador, a Metropolitan Book, Henry Holt and Company.
Kuhn, S. Thomas (1970). The structure of scientific Revolution, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Leeds, C.A (1981) Political Studies, 3rth Edition, Estover, Plymouth, Mcdonald and Evans.
Nachmias, Chava Frankfort and David Nachmias (2009). 5th Edition, Research methods in the Social Sciences, London, Hodder Education.
Neuman, W. Lawrence (2006) 6th Edtion, Social Research Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, New York, Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Olorode, Omotoye (2016) “Thirty years of Neo-liberalism in Nigeria: Reform or Revolution, invited paper presented as a public lecture to the Academic Staff Union in the Universities (ASUU) University of Lagos (UNILAG) Chapter on Tuesday, 6th September 2016.
Oriakhi, Felix (1989) The Analytical Significance of Historical Materialism in Social Theory, unpublished Essay submitted in partial fulfillment for the award of the B.A. degree in Philosophy to the Department of Philosophy, University of Ibadan.
Perry, Alex (2008) Falling off the Edge: Travels through the Dark Heart of Globalization, Bloomsbury Press, New York.
Popper, Karl (1970) “Normal Science and its Dangers” in Irme Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, New York, Cambridge University Press.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
please leave us a comment to this post