By Douglas Anele

Last week, I received an arrogant SMS message from a certain Dr. Nelson in response to my essay entitled “The anti-intellectual character of Nigerians,” in which I lamented the overbearing anti-intellectualistic influence of religion in the consciousness of Nigerians. In the text, Dr. Nelson claimed that “Nigeria is in need of people who can give advice and solutions to its many problems.

I am tired of reading castigation and criticisms against the government.” After reading the text, I remembered the usual insincere and cynical demand by government spokespersons that Nigerians should provide constructive criticisms and desist from criticising government all the time. On several occasions, for instance, Drs. Reuben Abati and Doyin Okukpe, image-makers of President Goodluck Jonathan, excoriated his critics for engaging in “destructive” criticism devoid of constructive content.

In other words, they expect critics to point out the failures of Mr. President in tackling national problems, and then go the extra mile of suggesting measures for resolving them. The foregoing provides a convenient background for interrogating the popular but logically unsound demand or expectation that a critic must be “constructive,” in the sense of recommending better ways of dealing with whatever problem that generated the criticism in the first instance.

Now, logically speaking, criticism is always evaluative and destructive, because it involves finding fault with an existing situation, conduct, attitude, or, more importantly, with the performance of those in positions of power and authority. Hence, the most reasonable response to well-founded criticism, particularly if the person criticised wants to turn a new leaf or improve, is to change the conduct or attitude adjudged wrong, inappropriate or unsatisfactory.

Those who demand that critics of top government officials should criticise “constructively” or provide solutions to problems fail to recognise that a critic is not obliged to suggest solutions to whatever problems he or she has highlighted. In other words, it is not compulsory that one should tell Mr. President, governor, minister, and so on how to resolve issues that generated criticism in the first place, especially those manmade ones caused by incompetence, greed, indiscipline and lack of patriotism. It is at the discretion of critics to offer suggestions and recommendations in that regard; but from the logical perspective, criticism can stand on its own without the addenda of recommended solutions.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong in being consistently critical of mediocre governments that have ruled the country especially since the civil war ended forty-four years ago. The reason is that, despite incredible human and natural resources in Nigeria, especially the hundreds of billions of dollars earned from the sale of crude oil and its derivatives, Nigerians are still among the poorest people in the world, with the lowest per capita income for members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Again, there has always been a surfeit of servile flatterers and court jesters in all the administrations since 1970 to justify criticism as a desirable counterweight to sycophantic officialdom.

As a philosopher, I see myself primarily as an intellectual mirror that reflects the good and the bad in my life-world. That is in keeping with the traditional role of philosophers as intellectual gadflies to people in power primarily concerned with identification and analysis of misgovernance in all its ramifications. Of course, the philosopher, as a member of the society, can suggest ways of addressing societal problems satisfactorily, but is not mandatory that he or she must do so. In my opinion, it is legitimate and proper to expect or demand that criticism should be based on sound reasoning and relevant and correct information if it is to be taken seriously; the question whether it is supplemented with ideas about how to solve problems is secondary and subsidiary to the issue of logic and facts.

People like Dr. Nelson lack deep understanding and appreciation of the role of criticism in human affairs. Consistent well-informed criticism of a decadent society oftentimes provides the necessary intellectual and psychological stimulus for visionary men and women to engage in activities aimed at radical social transformation. To take a well-known example, relentless incisive criticism of capitalism by Karl Marx and his disciples prepared the ground for the revolutions that occurred in Europe and Russia between 1848 and 1917. Therefore, constant criticism of mediocre performance by government can motivate a group of creative and energetic young Nigerians to embark on programmes capable of replacing the old skewed order with a new and better one.

Sometimes people wonder why I keep complaining about misgovernance when it is obvious that the ruling cabal is not interested in meaningful change.  I must admit that it is frustrating that one’s modest effort in helping to correct the anomalies in our society has not yielded positive result yet. Still, I am optimistic that one day, things will change in ways no one can fathom now. More than two thousand years ago, Heraclitus of Ephesus declared that change is the very essence of the universe, an assertion consonant with the Igbo saying that “onwegi onye ma echi” (no one knows tomorrow).

Some readers who react to opinion articles in newspapers and magazines manifest an irritating bloated sense of self-importance, as if columnists must write according to their own preconceived ideas. If the so-called Dr. Nelson is tired of reading “castigations and criticisms of government” as he claims, he should stop reading my column because nothing can prevent me from responding critically to corruption, ineptitude, indiscipline, avarice, visionlessness and lack of patriotism in government.

Moreover, as I argued a moment ago, I am not under obligation to suggest ways of solving the hydra-headed problems created by littlie-minded public officials. If Mr. President or governor regularly ignores the voice of reason and, instead, prefers to fill his mind with the sugary banalities of sycophants, he has himself to blame if the harsh light of criticism is directed at him. Wise and effective political leaders appreciate those that tell them the truth, even if it is inconvenient or unpalatable, since they know that all human beings are imperfect and fallible. It is far better to rule based on truth than to depend on the temporary expediency of falsehood just because it is emotionally satisfying and convenient.

Dr. Nelson was wrong to insinuate that I merely criticised government without suggesting how to deal with the issues I raised. In the very essay he reacted to, for example, I recommended, inter alia, that the curricula in our primary and secondary schools should be redesigned to include courses in critical thinking and philosophy so that children can learn intellectual skills that promote healthy scepticism and the scientific attitude.

I also highlighted the need to expose the dangers of uncritical acceptance of religious dogmas as a way of reducing the anti-intellectual character of Nigerians. Hence, there is no justification in Dr. Nelson’s insinuation that the articles in question merely castigated government without proffering solution regarding how the expanding monster of overarching anti-intellectualism can be eliminated or reduced to the barest minimum at least.

Most times, it is futile to advise government on what to do. From experience, Nigerian leaders are pachydermatous to honest advice, too preoccupied with the quest for power and wealth to read and digest well-informed criticism. Our top public officers rely too much on praise-singers who tell them what they want to hear, not what is truthful no matter how disquieting. Indeed, our leaders seem to depend on sycophants the way fish depends on water for survival, which means that they are alienated from the truth, from the suffering masses. And even on the rare occasion when some of them peruse critical articles, they ignore recommendations contained therein, especially if the measures suggested conflict with their selfish interests.

TO BE CONTINUED.