When Ignorance Is Bliss

By Bola BOLAWOLE
[email protected] 0807 552 5533, 0803 251 0193

As Christians we are taught that if all else fails, we should try praise and worship! When prayer fails, try praise and worship! When fasting fails, try praise and worship! When vigil fails, try praise and worship! When giving, offering, first fruit, tithe and seed offering fail, try praise and worship! In other words, praise and worship appear as the master key that opens all doors. When we get desperate, and exasperated, get hold of the master key of praise and worship! There are occasions, circumstances and situations that try the soul of men. There are times when we feel giving up is the only option left – when we throw our arms up in the air in utter resignation.

German theatre practitioner and playwright, Bertolt Brecht, found himself in that situation. At a time in his career, he got shaken to his very foundations in his lifelong commitment to the ideals of social justice and belief in the power of the written word to critique the status quo and bring about social change. Whereas Brecht was known for his communist leaning and political writing, a time came when disillusionment with German communism set in. Brecht’s “The Solution” mocked the very organization that he had devoted his entire adult life promoting.

ALSO READ: Thisday Awards: Like Father, Like Son, The Inspiring Story Of The Ekehs And The Digital Sector

Listen to him: “After the uprising of the 17th June/The Secretary of the Writers Union/Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee/Stating that the people/Had forfeited the confidence of the government/And could win it back only/By redoubled efforts/Would it not be easier/In that case for the government/To dissolve the people/And elect another?”

Tell me, who should forfeit the confidence of the other? It is the people that can pass a vote of no confidence in their government and not the other way round. When the pyramid is inverted, then, the tail begins to wag the dog! It is the government that forfeits the people’s confidence and not the other way round. So, it is the government that should strive to win back the confidence of the people. Governments are those that must redouble their efforts to regain the people’s confidence.

Can the government dissolve the people who are the locale of sovereignty, according to political theorists like Jean Bodin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, among others? It is the people that can dissolve the government or parliament and not the other way round. In fact, the people cannot be dissolved for, as posited by Bodin, sovereignty must be “absolute, perpetual, and undivided”. Only the people possess such attributes; governments do not!

What, then, was Brecht driving at? The writer in him was artistically exposing how ridiculous the government of the day had become; how preposterous its demands were; and how untenable its position vis-a-vis the stance of the people. Sarcasm is defined as “the use of irony to mock or convey contempt” while satire is “the use of humour, irony, exaggeration or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues” Brecht’s “The Solution” drips with both!

Another “Bertolt Brecht” that I came across last week on social media was a short but concise convocation lecture at Rusangu University, Zambia. The lecturer’s name was not mentioned but his lecture should win him a Nobel prize for brevity as well as impactful message and original thought. He was as forthright as Prof. P. L. O. Lumumba and Catholic priest, Rev. Father Chinenye John Oluoma.

Hear him: “I was having a meeting with some people in town in Lusaka. I said, ‘You know, when I look around the cases in town of people that have been charged with corruption, it is not people from the village… It is us with (university) degrees. The high profile cases that are in contention in the court of law, it is not about a villager … It is us that have… known the figures. It is us that have read Aristotle. It is us that have studied Psychology. It is us that have studied the Principles of Accounts. It is us! And I ask myself a question: If education is producing thieves, why, then, should we continue to educate them? If the country today is wrestling with the issue of corruption because of people that went to school, the question that begs an answer is, why should we continue to educate? Because it means the more we educate, the more thieves we produce’”.

Isn’t that sad but isn’t it the truth? The lecturer’s audience were graduating students from a university in Zambia but here in Nigeria we can also very well see ourselves in the picture. The locale of humongous corruption is among us the educated elites – those of us who have gone to school and have acquired chains of degrees. It is like we go to school to acquire the art and skill of stealing. But is education the problem or the use to which we have put it? If the reality of our situation is that the education we acquire or dish out produces thieves, should we abolish education altogether and return to the age of ignorance?

Says Thomas Gray in his poem ODE ON A DISTANT PROSPECT AT ETON COLLEGE. “Where ignorance is bliss/Ti’s folly to be wise”. Should we, then, know nothing and be happy? I once listened to an iconic advert on the radio that said: “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance!” If education keeps producing thieves and ignorance is not an option, how do we resolve this jig-saw puzzle?

North is the winner; South, the loser!

The fight over President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s proposed tax reforms has been won and lost. The Northerners have won the contest, confirming their long-held status as the decision-makers – to put it mildly, in all matters affecting the fate of Nigerians. The Southerners emerged as the losers, as had always been the case, confirming their status as the underdog – again, to put it mildly – in North/South relations since the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates by Lord Lugard in 1914. The so-called compromise formula eventually adopted by the governors favours the North but leaves the South holding the short end of the stick.

Titled “COMMUNIQUE ISSUED AT THE END OF THE SUBNATIONAL CONSULTATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL TAX REFORM COMMITTEE”, the resolution “resolved” the knotty issue of the VAT sharing formula thus:

o 50% based on equality,

o 30% based on derivation, and

o 20% based on population.

The bone of contention, over which the North had threatened, insulted and blackmailed everyone, including the President, they have now won handsomely, if not hands-down. If VAT is to be shared 50% on an equality basis – what kind of equality is that between states that are making the VAT available and those that are not? This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Funds that such states should utilise to provide and regenerate public utilities and other facilities to further enhance VAT generation is lost to laissez-faire states. That is unjust! And of what benefit is (a liability) population (20%) that produces nothing vis-a-vis another that toils day and night? The North gets 70%, so to say, while the South gets only 30%. Derivation ought to have been accorded the lion’s share. If not 100% (which is the most rational thing to do), then, the 60% originally proposed by the presidency should not be lowered. What’s fair in someone working for another to just sit idly by and eat?

Let the Presidency take a cue from us in the Redeemed Christian Church of God; I mean our sharing formula – at least, that is the formula we have adopted in the Province to which I belong. When parish/area/zonal headquarters have levies to share; remittance (that is, financial strength or capability takes 60 percent while equality accounts for 40%. I recommend that we adopt the same system in the present circumstance: 60% derivation and 40% equality. That is fairer and more equitable than the sharing formula forced down the throat of the governors by the North.

Until we practice the “work-and-eat” system, neither hard-working Peter (that is being robbed) nor lazy Paul (that is the recipient of what is stolen from Peter) is going anywhere! Everyone is the loser in the final analysis – both the cheated and the pampered!

FEEDBACK

Are the Ikwerre Igbo?

I worked in Rivers state for six years (and) I got to know that Ikwerre is not Igbo. What politics will do in Nigeria! – Pastor Seun Sogunro.

Azuka as surname, not even as first name, is it Ikwerre or Igbo? Wike as surname, not even as first name, is it Ikwerre or Igbo? Mbata: Is it Ikwerre or Igbo? – Kindnessjonah.

I had my NYSC in Rivers state (1980/81) – in Ikwerre land to be precise – and they told me they were not Igbo. In fact, they narrated the role they played during the civil war. The Igbo wanted to coarse them but they refused to belong. So I will agree with Wike who said he is not Igbo. – Pa Kola Oloye.