AUTHORITY, POWER AND DIALOGUE
Cornelius Afebu Omonokhua
Some social sciences take the
human person and the human society as a serious focus of study because humanity
is like a “complex machine”. Political historians have proposed different
theories of the origin and evolution of human societies and the formation of
nations. Our focus in this essay however is the question of harmony that should
exist in each and individual community and organization.
A community, or society or an
organization has a vision of order to protect life and property. The mission
sometimes is human and economic development while the objective is to create an
environment where every individual will be happy and fulfilled. To direct the
human affairs therefore, it has become imperative that out of the many in a
given community, somebody or a group of persons are either elected or appointed
to take charge of the leadership and governance of the people and their
concerns. This in normal situations is done in trust and hope that the person
chosen is credible with a divine mandate since the voice of the people is the
voice of God. This trust is often tested through dialogue ad intra.
Consequently, we can ask: “to
what extent do the concepts, command, respect and obedience affect a peaceful
coexistence in a community? How relevant are these concepts in dialogue? Do
“obedience” and “command” enhance respect or simply induce a fearful
response? Very often, obedience is mistaken to mean command instead of the
capacity to listen. The effect is that respect and freedom are rendered victims
and casualty in governance.
It appears that the philosophy of
Machiavelli has greatly influenced politics, leadership and administration in
our world today. The thrust of Chapter 15 -17 of Niccolo Machiavelli: “The
Prince” is how the prince should retain and sustain power in the Republic. He
says that the “prince” should not concern himself with living virtuously, but
rather with acting so as to achieve the most practical benefit”. Machiavelli’s
political philosophy that “a prince must not be influenced by condemnation from
other men” when he employed vices in the administration of the state completely
rules out dialogue. He compounded this by saying that “the harm one does to a
man must be such as to obviate any fear of revenge”. When people no longer
believe in you, “they can be forced to believe”. He believes that it is better
to be feared than to be loved because “if a prince is too compassionate, and
does not adequately punish disloyal subjects, he creates an atmosphere of
disorder, since his subjects take the liberty to do what they please”. “Some
measure of cruelty is necessary to maintain order but a prince should be
careful in his exercise of cruelty; tempering it with humanity and prudence.”
Machiavelli in Chapter 15 of the
prince attacks the classical philosophy of virtue and criticised the concept of
“a good life” that demands virtuous actions in all types of behaviour in
Aristotle’s metaphysics. For Machiavelli, virtue can “never serve as an
effective guide for political action”. He understands virtue only as that
“which receives the praise of others thus, generosity is a virtue only because
other people praise it”. In place of virtue, Machiavelli proposed stubbornness,
cowardice over courage (when it comes to “fleeing a palace under siege instead
of remaining and rallying the people”) and avoiding hatred from the subjects.
That some leaders operate he
political philosophy of Machiavelli calls for some questions: Is management
more effective in the atmosphere of fear or in an environment that is permeated
with love and mutual respect? Is it not human desire to freely and
joyfully work because of the love the workers have for a particular person in
authority who demonstrate knowledge and self respect to lead and direct others
as subjects rather than as slaves? We must remember that slavery is alien to
human nature, hence people with courage will adopt the Negro Spiritual, “And
before I be a slave, I will be buried in my grave and go home to my Lord and be
free.”
Some people in authority wear the
face of a lion making those who work with them in the office so fearful that
they do not freely approach them. Fear can either provoke in people reverence
or revolt for an authority can either become a leader or a tyrant. You can know
them by their modus operandi. The sole use of memos, canonical warnings,
petitions and commands are key indicators that dialogue has broken down in a
particular community or organisation. A leader who has knowledge and wisdom
should be firm and demonstrate a human and true conscience, recognizing the
companionship of his followers. Most leaders actually realize the
intensity of their loneliness either when they leave power or when they are old
for “no condition and position” is permanent. This is very obvious in
communities where leadership is rotational or only within a certain period.
Take for example a religious community where a novice of yesteryears becomes
the superior of a congregation to take care of a superior emeritus who was a
tyrant when he or she was living under his / her fearful authority.
Animal Farm is an allegorical
novella by George Orwell published in England on 17 August 1945. The setting of
the book reflects the events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917, and
then on into the Stalin era of the Soviet Union. Orwell was a democratic
socialist and a critic of Joseph Stalin’s influence on Moscow after the Spanish
Civil War. Orwell reflected this in his review of Franz Borkenau’s: “The Spanish Cockpit in Time and Tide, 31 July 1937, and
Spilling the Spanish Beans, New English
weekly on 29 July 1937. He believed that the Soviet Union had become a
brutal dictatorship, “built upon a cult of personality and enforced by a reign
of terror”.
In Animal Farm, Orwell attempted
“to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole”. Malcolm
Bradbury, in his introduction of the Animal Farm (Page VI), Penguin edition,
1989 reveals that the novel was written “at a time (November 1943-February
1944) when the war time alliance with the Soviet Union was at its height and
Stalin was held in highest esteem in Britain both among the people and
intelligentsia, a fact that Orwell hated”. [1]
The novel is a clear exposition of the evil of corruption, wickedness,
indifference, ignorance, greed and myopia of leaders and subjects in a society.
The novel also shows how potential ignorance and indifference to problems could
give way to horror if a smooth transition is not achieved in governance. The
“golden rule: do unto others as you would like others to do unto you,” (Matthew
7, 12) remains the best model of authority, power and dialogue in all human
communities. If every community is peaceful, then the whole nation and the
world will be an eternal bliss.
No comments:
Post a Comment