By Douglas Anele

Notwithstanding overemphasis on publications by the system, I give priority to good performance in the classroom, lecture theatre, and laboratories where students are expected to learn from their teachers.

The ability to impart knowledge effectively and carry out sound research transcends highfalutin academic titles alone. Like every area of human endeavour, excellence in the academic profession depends a lot on individual ability, dedication, commitment and love for the job. Hence, promotion or no promotion, I will continue to state my candid opinions concerning any important matter related to university education. Ill-tempered, hasty, and unwarranted criticisms devoid of sound logic and evidence cannot stop me from criticising government officials responsible for education, lecturers, university management and so on whenever there is good reason to do so. My major concern, as a philosophy teacher, is to ensure that at any time my views have what John Dewey, one of America’s foremost philosophers, calls “warranted assertibility.”

In other words, I will always endeavour to support my views on any subject with valid arguments and relevant facts, not with emotionally charged and misleading expressions like the ones the Professor used in describing my essays.

Now, to the question of who an intellectual is, and the features that someone must possess to be appropriately described as such. An intellectual is a person who has an elevated power of understanding or is endowed with a superior intellect. This means that before someone can be called an intellectual, he or she must have an above average intellectual capacity, which should manifest in the daily activities of life no matter how mundane or sublime. A genuine intellectual, in my opinion, must be enlightened. The person must combine cognitive intelligence with emotional intelligence, that is, the capacity to blend the power of knowledge with practical sagacity and relevant social skills that promote successful life.

Thus, every intellectual must be knowledgeable, an unrelenting seeker of knowledge in its various ramifications. Very importantly, he or she must be willing to apply such knowledge in practical matters of vital concern. Therefore, a certain level of education, preferably to the tertiary level, is advantageous, though not sufficient, before one can claim to be an intellectual in the contemporary, knowledge-driven, globalising world.

Ordinarily, people with doctorate degrees and high academic designations should belong to the class of intellectuals. However, there are those with such academic qualifications, even with the title ‘Professor,’ yet when you interact with then or observe their behaviour you will wonder whether their academic titles are just for decoration; you will be reluctant to call them intellectuals. Similarly, because of the nature of their professions, lawyers, diplomats, medical doctors, pharmacists and psychiatrists, especially the experienced ones among them, should be intellectuals. But we know that many senior lawyers, diplomats, doctors and so on behave as if their intellects are on extended sabbatical leave.

To be an intellectual, you must be a firm believer in the powers of the intellect. You must accept that genuine human progress is a worthy pursuit achievable through appropriate deployment of reason, not by debasing worship of a supernatural being. An intellectual must be prepared to question tradition and authority, no matter its origin or duration. A real intellectual cannot say, “This statement uttered by so-and-so or written in a holy book must be true irrespective of what the facts might be.” For such a person, it is always wrong, everywhere and for everyone, to believe anything based on insufficient evidence. Consequently, a healthy dose of scepticism is fundamental in the attitude of anyone who truly deserves to be called an intellectual.

It must be pointed out that being an intellectual does not mean that one cannot make mistakes, or that the person concerned is immune to the vicissitudes of life. On the contrary, the intellectual, just like everyone else, is subject to the turbulence of life, to the existential dichotomies of human existence eloquently analysed by the psychoanalytic philosopher, Erich Fromm, in his books, especially Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics. Human beings are fallible. As a result, excellent intellectuals make mistakes like other less intellectually endowed people. The fundamental difference between the former and the latter is the thought process that goes into decision-making as well as the kind of responses in case a decision brings unintended negative consequences.

Depending on the circumstance, an intellectual would try to gather the necessary information relevant to a situation before taking a decision. Now, if the decision turns out to be mistaken, he or she would accept responsibility and learn appropriate lesson from it. On the other hand, ordinary people do not like to accept responsibility when they make mistakes. That is why scapegoatism is a hallmark of the anti-intellectual attitude to life.

Nigeria is an anti-intellectual haven, a country thick with the choking atmosphere of religious superstition. From holders of the highest political and religious offices in the country down to the so-called common man, irrational superstitious beliefs predominate. Now, although an anti-intellectual attitude to life is bad and deplorable, one can understand it in the case of the average person in the street. After all, as the Spanish philosopher, Ortega y’Gasset argued in his book, What is Philosophy?  If people are faced with challenging situations, the first thing they will drop is the intellect, which is relatively a recent phenomenon in evolution. That is why the intellectual life is rare in human communities.

When anti-intellectual attitude pervades the temperament of the ruling elite, there is good reason to be apprehensive. This is because if the people entrusted with political and economic power in a society for whatever reason consistently fail to apply the powers of reason in decision-making and policy implementation, the community retrogresses. Nigeria is a paradigm example of a rich country of poor people. She has been under the iron grip of self-replicating sets of vicious anti-intellectual cabals motivated solely by the desire for primitive accumulation. Nothing exemplifies this more than the heart-rending level of corruption, financial rascality and indiscipline by the rulers, particularly since 1985.

An intellectual in leadership position knows that governance is about people, about harnessing human and natural resources within the community to serve the interests of its members. Of course, he or she would avoid primitive accumulation, knowing that it is ultimately futile and detrimental to the collective wellbeing of the society. For a leader imbued with intellectual discernment, only the best is good enough for leadership positions. He will not compromise merit and excellence because of nepotism, godfatherism, political patronage, and other Machiavellian considerations. Corruption, indiscipline, and impunity in governance are the fruits of mediocre intellectual acumen of Nigerian leadership. The situation is worsening, to the extent that Nigeria is now rated one of the most corrupt as well as the poorest countries in the world. The increasing influence of religion in governance is clearly part of the problem: it is an index of the abdication of reason by the ruling class.

Since the country became independent in 1960, all constitutions operated thus far have always permitted religious freedom, while simultaneously insisting on the separation of state from religion. Excessive public display of attachment to their personal religion by our leaders is inimical to national unity, because it creates the impression of religious favouritism capable of exacerbating schisms among adherents of different faiths in the country.

I strongly believe that when the President, governors and other top public office holders kneel down before a pastor or imam publicly for prayers and regularly attend extracurricular religious programmes, superstitious emotionalism is being substituted for strategic critical thinking as the best approach to the challenges of leadership.

To be continued.