Concepts and reality

The release by the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) of former governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El’ Rufai, to go and bury his deceased mother will definitely confuse the more, a student who had been made to believe that all are equal before the law and law is no respecter of persons. This is especially so in view of the circumstance in which the former govern had been detained; and denied bail applications for seemingly inexplicable reasons. He has since been taken back to detention after burying his mother.

His temporary freedom was rationalized on an administrative bail said to have been granted him. That would seem a compassionate bail or law with a human face. If he could be granted administrative bail to bury his mother, is there still any basis for his continued detention? The essence of detention is to ensure that the detainee neither jumps bail nor interferes with investigations on the case. If El’ Rufai did not jump bail nor interfere with investigations during the days of his administrative bail, does that not qualify him for bail?

 But that is beside the point. The issue is whether the man on the street will have such courtesies extended to him if he faces similar situation? Your guess is as good as mine. Does that say anything about equality before the law? And will the fresh high school student of government not get confused the more?

 In international relations, that principle is denoted by the concept of-sovereignty of states. Sovereignty of states is the supreme, absolute authority a state holds over its own territory and population, encompassing independence from external control.

How far can we go with the concept of inviolability of the sovereignty of states? And does that play out in the current war being waged by the United States of America (USA) and Israel against Iran? Similar questions were raised some years back when the same US invaded Iraq and dismantled the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The violation of the sovereignty of that country followed claims by the US that Iraq was pursuing nuclear enrichment program. But years after Saddam was killed and Iraq thrown into a seeming anarchy, findings showed that Iraq was not pursuing any nuclear enrichment program. But its sovereignty had been seriously assailed and violated without consequences. The world just looked the other way.

Just recently, the same US abducted Nicholas Maduro, the president of Venezuela under sundry allegations bordering on illicit drugs exportation. He is currently under detention inside the US cell together with his wife. They are facing illegal drug charges in a US court.

And one begins to wonder what has become of the sovereignty of states? It is hard to comprehend the aspect of international law that empowers a foreign country to invade another sovereign state under trumped up charges; depose its leadership no matter how altruistic the reasons adduced for the action may appear?

That raises serious questions on our understanding of what sovereignty of states really entails. The concept of justice provided by Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic may help out here. For him, justice is nothing but the interest of the stronger.

This shares common traits with the Marxian notion of law, the judicial and legislative arms of the government. Karl Max views these as part of the superstructure that serves the interest of the ruling class. We may deride the postulations of Karl Max especially given the collapse of communism. But the reality is that they continue to serve as benchmark for understanding the pitfalls; limitations of capitalism and western democracy.

 Even then, western democracy as a governance construct is not left out of this mismatch between its ennobling principles and the way it is given practical expression. Democracy is predicated on free, fair and credible elections.  Sovereignty of the electorate is the pivot on which its wheels revolve.

But what you find during elections in Nigeria is all manner of subterfuge by those who enjoy the advantage of power to subvert the collective will of the people. In many situations, free and fair elections are brazenly assailed with the complainant challenged to go to court.

Go to court has become euphemism for all that is wrong with our electoral process. It has come to be associated with impunity during elections in the hope that the judiciary will do the bidding of the stronger and the most powerful.

Not surprisingly, these unsavoury tendencies have found favour in questionable judicial rulings on election petitions. There is increasing public apprehension on the speed with which judicial rulings subvert the collective will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

This no doubt, is a potent danger to democracy. Does that say something about George Orwell’s paradoxical quote in Animal Farm? What of the concept of justice as captured by Thrasymacus and Marxian notion of the purpose served by the organs of government in a capitalist society?

These are raised because of the increasing mismatch between the concepts that guide political action and the objective realities we find in actual practice. Concepts as mental constructs or ideas are relevant to the extent they are able to approximate reality. A construct or governance framework that constantly fails to approximate reality stands the risks of Kuhnian revolution.

They risk being supplanted by new paradigms. That is the lurking danger thrown up by the aberrant application of such notions as justice, the rule of law and democracy. Their continued relevance depends on their ability to create ‘conceptual reality’. But recurring crisis caused by accumulated malfunctions may force a new, often incomparable framework to emerge. That should be instructive enough in the increasing dissonance we find between democracy as a governance construct and the aberrant form it manifests in our situation.