CASE FOR
IDEOLOGICAL ORIENTATION - BY CHIEF OBAFEMI AWOLOWO
Down the ages,
several political "isms" have vied with one another for popular acceptances:
feudalism, anarchism, capitalism, syndicalism, socialism, trotskyism, etc. Only
two of these "isms" have survived the age-long contest and are at all worth
considering in this lecture.
Capitalism is
an economic system, which is founded on the principle of free enterprise and
the private ownership of the means of production and distribution. The
protagonists of capitalism claim that its essential characteristic is economic
freedom. The producer is free to produce whatever goods he fancies; but the
consumer is equally free to buy what he wants. There is a market mechanism
under this system, which brings the producer and consumer together and tends to
equate the supplies of the one to the demands of the other, and harmonise the
whims and caprice of both. It is this same market mechanism, which determines
what prices the same market mechanism, which determines what prices the
consumers pay to the producers as well as what share of the total output, in
cash or in kind, goes to each of the four recognised factors of production -
e.g. Land, Labour, Capital and Organisation. It is further claimed for this
system that every person is capable of watching his or her own interest, and
that whatever injustice may appear in the short run to have been done by the
operations of the market mechanism, in the long run this mechanism tends to
bring about a state of equilibrium between the producers and consumers as well
as among the factors of production, and to give to each of them a just and
adequate treatment and reward.
I do not think
it is necessary, at this point of time, and especially to this scholarly
audience, to set out the theoretical arguments against these claims. It is
enough to asserts that economic history has shown that the market mechanism,
otherwise known as the mechanism of supply and demand, is a blind and utterly
impersonal social apparatus, within the framework of which the strong, clever,
and unethical few have, more often than not, taken undue advantage of the many
who are weak.
Capitalism is
at its best when it is planless. But in these modern times, the Laissez Faire
type of capitalism is now restricted mainly to most of the undeveloped
countries in Africa and Latin America. But in many parts of the so-called
Western Democracies, the state has been intervening to smooth some of the rough
and inhuman edges of capitalism. Anti-monopoly laws, which in practice, it must
be admitted, have proved ineffective, trade union law, minimum wage law,
factory legislation, tax laws, death duties, finance measures, social and
insurance laws - all these and more are some of the means by which many modern
states have stepped in to regulate and humanise capitalist activities.
By these means the state, in a capitalist society, has to some extent helped in
directing the operations of the market mechanism in all its ramifications, and
in particular in regulating the distribution of national income among the
factors of production in order to ensure a state of affairs, which is nearer to
equity and equilibrium than is the case under a laissez faire capitalist
system.
Negatively,
socialism is opposed to capitalism. But positively, it is firmly rooted in the
principles of public ownership of the means of production, distribution and
exchange and of economic planning. One of its cardinal aims is that every
labourer - be he a professor, lecturer, teacher, minister of religion, minister
of state, civil servant, lawyer, doctor, engineer, farmer, road worker, or
carrier - shall get his or her due hire, and that no one, however, powerful or
specially circumstanced, shall get any more than that. Socialism seeks to bring
the ennobling principles of ethics to bear upon the operation of economic
forces.
Consequently,
it may be said that the overriding aim of Socialism is to bring about an
economic commonwealth in which the needs of all, regardless of birth and
station in life, as opposed to and distinct from the profit-making desires of
some, will be satisfied. In other words, under Socialism, the aim is that
capacity shall have its adequate reward, but also that those who, for any
cause, are incapacitated from, or have not yet grown up enough to participate
in productive activities shall not, on that account, suffer misery.
I am not a Marxist myself. But what Marx says in this connection and which is
true, is well worth bearing in mind by those who plan for the welfare of the
people. 'Under the capitalist system,' says Marx, 'the economic nexus between
man and man is wholly dominated by naked self-interest.'
To even up, I
would like to refer to what Adam Smith says on the same point from an opposite
standpoint. Says he: 'Every individual is led by an invisible hand (that is
self-interest) to promote an end (that is the common good), which was not part
of his intention.
To sum up in well-known socialist slogans, the aims of Socialism include social
justice, equal opportunity for all, respect for human dignity, and the welfare
and happiness of all, regardless of creed, parentage, and station in life. In
other words, under socialism the nexus between man and man is wholly dominated
by equality and fraternity and by the needs of the under-privileged.
There are two
kinds of socialism: revolutionary socialism and democratic socialism.
Revolutionary Socialism is what is generally known as Communism. Its aims are
the same as those of democratic socialism. But the orientation of the communist
is different from that of the democratic socialist. This difference in
orientation consists in the divergent method of approach to the realisation of
socialist ideals. The communist believes that the political power of the state
as well as the economic power of the capitalists should be seized by
revolutionary actions, and that in their places 'dictatorship of the
proletariat' should be established.
It is common
knowledge that the capitalists, who are invariably in control of a capitalist
state, will not yield ground to the communists without the stiffest possible
resistance. The communists, on the other hand, are inflexibly determined to
break any such resistance at all costs. Result: the prelude to the advent of
communism in the countries where this system is practised has always been a
bloody revolution.
On the other hand, the democratic socialist believes, and sincerely so, that
the ends of socialism can be attained by democratic means. The essence of
democracy, however, is the consent of the majority, which shall be expressed
freely, and without any form of coercion. Since the cornerstone of socialism is
the conversion of private ownership of the means of production, distribution
and exchange, to public ownership, it follows that under democratic socialism
such conversion cannot be done wholesale in one fell swoop. It also follows
that every conversion, when made, shall be accompanied by the payment of fair
compensation.
There are
those who believe that revolutionary socialism is preferable to democratic
socialism. In the one case, the action is said to be quick, and the new era is
ushered in, in all the sectors of the economy without much delay. In the other,
processes of debate, persuasion and negotiation are considered cumbersome and
slow, and easily liable to sabotage by the capitalists, who are very agile and
ruthless in bargaining, and who will have no qualm of conscience whatsoever in
perverting the electorate, if need be, against the latter's own best judgement
and interests.
All those who
have read their history aright will agree that the bringing about of
revolutionary socialism can also be protracted as well as a bloody business.
What is more, the inevitable consequences of the venomous hate, violence and
carnage which, preceded the advent of revolutionary socialism are, in my humble
opinion, so horrible and sickening that they should never be generated by mere
doctrinaire imitations or propensities. The point must never be overlooked by
the protagonists of revolutionary socialism, that it was the appalling
conditions of the masses, in the face of a fabulously rich and tyrannical few,
which existed in the countries of Russia (not any more) and China where
communism now flourishes, that provoked a violent rebellion. This should not at
all be surprising. For as Bacon says, 'rebellions are caused by two things:
much-poverty much-discontent; rebellion of the belly is the worst.' It must be
frankly admitted, therefore, that the communist revolution in Russia and in
China is historically justified. It must be plainly 'the rebellion of the
belly.'
Speaking for
my party and myself, I hold the view that the conditions of masses in Nigeria,
though very bad in some parts of the federation, are not yet so degrading as to
provoke a rebellion or violent revolution. In the circumstances, it is the
considered view of my party that the ideals of socialism can be realised in
Nigeria by waging a battle of words and wits, rather than by engaging in a
clash of steel and an exchange of bullets. By adopting these democratic means,
the struggle against the evil forces of capitalism might be protracted, and
victory might be somewhat long delayed. But, in Nigerian circumstances, I think
it is better so.
It is for all the reasons, which I have given, that my party has opted for
democratic socialism. In the words of our Manifesto it is our resolve to:
"Build a
democratic socialist society founded on the three principles of national
greatness, the well-being of the individual, and international brotherhood. To
achieve this socialist society,' the manifesto continues, 'we must realise the
latent energy of our entire people, we must get rid of the dead-weight of
feudalism, aristocracy and privilege. We must overcome the wastefulness and
distraction of tribalism and social injustice. We must remove the crippling
effect of a backward and over dependent economy. We must go forward into the
mainstream of modern civilisation and world knowledge."
In concrete
terms of the socialist ends, which my party sets out to achieve may be spelt
out in detail as follows:
* The State
will enter many sectors of the national economy now held by foreign investors.
* In the
public sector of our national economy foreign aid will generally take the form
of foreign loans to the state, in place of foreign private investments.
*Nigerian
businessmen will be encouraged and assisted by the State to take over some
fields of economic activity now monopolised by foreign investors.
*Nigerian
private or State agencies will gradually have greater control over joint
enterprises with combined foreign and Nigerian private capital.
*The growth of
the private sector will be channelled within certain limits so that it does not
lead to huge concentrations of capital in a few hands.
*As economic
agents, the Nigerian farmers will be allowed to grow, but with limits similar
to those within which Nigerian businessmen operate.
*Workers of
all grades will enjoy the full fruits of their labour, and legislation for a
fair national minimum wage will be enacted.
*The interests
of self-employed persons will be protected and the greatest possible returns
will be obtained for their labour.
*Education
will be free from kindergarten to University.
*The
productivity of the peasant classes will be increased so that their standard of
living may be raised.
*Unemployed will
be abolished, that is to say, it will be possible for every able-bodied person
to be gainfully employed.
*There will be
reorganisation of landholding, where necessary.
*There will be
increase in housing facilities, and simultaneously legislation will be
introduced for he control of rents where and when desirable.
*There will be
expansion in health services to enable all persons, whatever their age, to have
free medical treatment.
*A scheme for
social insurance will be introduced, and specifically old age pension will be
paid to persons above certain age, who are willing to accept the benefit.
It must be
emphasised that none of these ends can be attained without planing, without
selfless devotion and severe discipline on the part of those who are elected to
formulate and execute policies and programmes and without sacrifice of time,
energy and money on the part of the Nigerian citizens. I do not need to
expatiate on the last two factors. They are obvious and speak for themselves. I
only wish to stress to the student members of this audience a point, which they
already know, that a beggar nation can only invite contempt to itself. If we
are intent on building a strong and self-respecting Nigeria, sacrifice of life
may sometimes be required from us in addition to that of time, energy and
money.
Under
communism, planning is totalitarian; the individual counts for little if at
all; it is the state that matters; whilst the motive for profit-making is
completely disregarded and stifled. On the other hand, under democratic
socialism, planning is done by a popularly elected government, which attaches
the greatest possible importance to the welfare of the individual citizen. The
profit motive is not fully suppressed but where it is given scope it is
controlled and harnessed for the common good.
Since the
public and the private sectors of the economy exist side by side in a
democratic socialist state, any planning must of necessity have three prongs.
Firstly, the private sector must be controlled, directed and challenged by the
Government by means of appropriate laws and regulations. Secondly, in the
public sector, the government must so organised and manage its own business
enterprises as to ensure, with maximum efficiency and efficacy, the attainment
of its objectives. In addition to existing public-owned undertakings,
government must by legislation, coupled with negotiation where necessary,
acquire new businesses for which fair compensation need not, however, be paid
down in cash as is erroneously believed in some quarters.
The shares held by
the owners of the nationalised enterprises may be exchanged for government
bonds, which yield fixed interests to the private owners. If this is done, it
will not be necessary, as has been argued, to divert monies, which could have been
used for other development purposes to paying compensation for the nationalised
undertakings.
Thirdly, the government must deliberately employ the budget for the purpose of
influencing the direction of the country's economy for the benefit of the masses.
Budgetary measures can be used to stimulate productive activities in times of
depression, to promote the production of certain classes of goods, which would
not otherwise have been produced, to encourage the siting of industries in
areas where they are socially (though not necessarily economically) desirable.
Paradoxically
enough, it has been most strenuously urged, in quarters where democratic
socialism is also professed, that the idea, which I have before stated are too
lofty, and that since most of them are unattainable in the immediate present,
they should be consigned to the limbo of Utopian dreams.
It is the
habit of my party not to talk about anything unless it is practicable. We think
that all the ideals, which I have previously mentioned, are practicable. But
even if they are not immediately attainable, it appears to me unimaginative and
unpatriotic to discard them on that account. No individual or nation can make
any progress worthy of note and good report, unless there is a lofty height, a
noble objective, which the man or the nation constantly and perseveringly
strives after.
It has also
been seriously suggested that the best way to advance the interest of our
country is to tackle one problem at a time and as it arises, and that we would
only be perplexing ourselves by formulating a series of objectives and of
methods of achieving them, all of which are bound to raise knotty problems of
their own. I must say that it is only the mediocre and the fool that can afford
to live but one day at a time, without taking as much as a peep into the
future. The wise and the prudent, too, cannot live more than one day or even
more than one minute at a time. But whilst he is busy coping with the problem
of the day, he also aspires to see beyond the curtain that divides today from
the morrow, projects his legitimate and conscientious desires into it, and
makes concrete plans for the realisation of these desires.
I have said on
previous occasions, that granting an enlightened and dynamic leadership, the
wealth of a nation is the fountain of its strength. The bigger the wealth, and
the more equitable its distribution among the factors and agencies, which have
helped to produce it, the greater the outflow of the nation's influence and
power. I think I have said enough to demonstrate that it is under a democratic
socialist system that our national resources can be exploited to produce
sufficiently large wealth for the well-being of our people, and for the
promotion of our national greatness and international brotherhood. On this
score, it now remains for me to say that the outflow of our nation's influence
can only be advantageously canalised by the kind of attitude we adopt towards
the other nations of the world in general and of Africa in particular.
After a very
careful consideration, my party is of the opinion that the foreign policy of
Nigeria should, in the main, be independent and should be guided by the
following principles:
*The promotion
of economic relations with all nations of the world.
*Co-operation
with all nations of the world in so far as they respect the ideals for which we
stand.
*Respect for
the sovereignty of other nations and non-interference in their domestic
affairs.
*The
settlement of international disputes by peaceful negotiations directly or through
the agency of the U.N.O.
*Lasting world
peace through non-involvement in military pacts, discontinuance of the armament
race, and the evaluation of military bases on foreign soil.
*The immediate
and complete freedom and sovereignty of all those African States, which are at
present only nominally independent (a) by the abrogation of any military or
defence pacts or ties as well as of all rights and privileges appurtenant to
such pacts or ties and (b) by the elimination of undue economic or technical dependence
on any alien country.
*The setting
of target date or dates in the very near future for the complete liberation of
all colonial territories wherever they may be on the Continent of Africa.
*The immediate
termination of the existence of any military base in any part of Africa and the
evacuation of all occupation troops on the Continent whether they are attached
to specific military bases or not.
*The
mobilisation of all the forces at our command to assist in the immediate
extermination of apartheid in South Africa and the restoration to the African
of his natural birth-rights.
*The outlawry
of any form of discrimination or segregation against the black peoples in
particular and Africans in general, in Africa and in other parts of the world.
*The maintenance
and defence of the dignity of the African (particularly black African), and of
the sovereignty of any independent African State against derogation or violence
from any quarter whatsoever.
*The promotion
of a community of interests among all the peoples of Africa and the eventual
establishment of a political union or confederacy (whichever is practicable in
the prevailing circumstances) among African States.
*Non-involvement
of all African countries in the present East-West power politics and struggle as
well as non-partisanship in the Arab-Israeli dispute and conflict.
Within the
compass of a lecture such as this, I think I have sufficiently set out the
ideals of my party, and its orientation towards these ideals.
But the
position in Nigeria today as to the ideal of the ruling parties at the Centre
and hence of the country, and their orientation towards such ideals, if any,
appears to me to be thoroughly confused. The cause of this confusion is not far
to seek. The Federal Government lacks definite ideals or objectives and is
devoid of ascertainable orientation. From the jumble of Government's words and
actions, however, two things stand out unmistakably; at home its ideological
orientation is laissez faire capitalism, and in the external sphere it is subservience
to the Western Bloc.
After
Independence, Nigerian's ship of State has, so to say, been launched on an
uncharted sea. The imperialist's beaten tracks are no longer good for us,
because we had fought for Independence in order that we may be free to cut our
own path to greatness and success. I owe it a duty to the more than 40 (160)
million citizens of this country, to make the following concluding
declarations. The Federal Government is, in my candid opinion, unpardonably
woolly about the destination towards which it is steering our ship of State; it
is far from being certain, much less precise, about our position on the high
seas, at any given time in relation to the ship's compass; and it has, by words
and actions cast grave doubts on its professed skill in the twentieth - century
art of politico-economic navigation and seamanship.
