POLITICS AND RELIGION
By
Obafemi Awolowo
A lecture given Chief Obafemi
Awolowo to students at the
Adventist College of West
African, Ilishan-Remo, on 27th January, 1961
As a politician, the object of my daily
vocational pursuit is
politics. But the
forum on which I speak this afternoon is that of an Institution of Higher
Learning, sponsored by one of the famous Christian organisations in the world. I
thought, therefore, that it might be appropriate, from the points of view of
myself and yourselves, for me to address you on `Politics and Religion'.
There are many popular misconceptions about
politics. I will relate only some of those of them that have come to my
knowledge, and will also endeavour to show that they aremisconceptions.
We all have heard it said times without
number that `politics is a dirty game'. The description of politics as
a game is `a felicitous one, and it looks as
if it is a contradiction in terms to daub a game as dirty. Speaking
generally, any game at all, other than a
game of chance, is good.
But the manner of playing it may be clean or
dirty, all depending on whether or not the players observe the rules for playing
the game which mankind has laid down in conformity with universally accepted
standards of decency and ethics. In other words, whether the game of politics is
clean or dirty will depend wholly and solely on the manner in which a particular
set of politicians play it.
Those who hold that politics is a dirty game
have reasons for their contention. But we will presently see from these reasons
that it is the manner of playing it that they have in mind and not the game
itself.
First among the reasons is that politicians
are in the habit of criticising — indeed attacking, abusing and vilifying — one
another both in private and in public. A proper understanding of the nature of
politics will show that criticism is indispensable to the game of politics and
that abuse, attack and vilification are its inescapable incidentals.
Politics is the science or the art of the
management of public affairs. It is now a far cry from the primeval days when
the entire members of a society tried to take part in the management of their
affairs. In modern times a breed of people called politicians have emerged who
claim to have the necessary qualifications for the efficient management of
public affairs. Except in a totalitarian community where sectarian views and
ideas are regimented or forcibly suppressed, these politicians naturally form
themselves into groups called parties each with different ideas of its own an
divergent methods of realising those ideas. In a democratic
society, it is open to the people to entrust
the management of their affairs to one or more of the parties for a
stipulated period of time. The party or
parties thus chosen become the government, and more properly the trustees of the
people, enjoined for their term of office to administer the trust
with absolute prudence, probity and
public-spiritedness.
It will be seen from what I have said that
the final arbiters of
whether the ideas and methods or policy and
programme of a
political party are relatively superior to,
and
likely to be more
beneficial than, those of others are the
electorate, the
voters.
In order to enable them to reach a
verdict
which is fair to the
contenders and most likely to be in
the people's own
best interests, they
must have all the facts
placed before
them. The qualifications
of each political
party and
of the individual candidates canvassing for
votes
on the platform of
such a party must be established to the
satisfaction of the voters.
It is natural and legitimate for political
parties to say the best they ever can about themselves and about the candidates
they are sponsoring and to criticise one another most vehemently. The aim of
healthy criticism is to spotlight defects and to prescribe means for removing
them if that is possible. When the contending political parties do this honestly
and conscientiously, the electorate are best placed to
make a choice which will rebound to the
benefit of all.
In private life, before we entrust our
personal or business affairs to anyone, we take steps to inquire into his
qualifications both as to competence and
character. Such an inquiry as this is done in private, because what is at issue
is a private concern. But the competence and character of politicians must of a
necessity be examined in the full glare of public limelight Because what is at
issue is the welfare of the community or nation. In the management of private
affairs, a gross mistake would only affect the fortunes of one man or a family
or a small group of persons. A serious error of
judgement in the management of public affairs
might adversely affect the lives and fortunes of millions of people.
For this reason, there is need for the
competence and character of public men to be subjected to severer and stricter
scrutiny — and that mainly in public — than those of persons engaged in private
concerns.
Abuse or vilification in private or public
life is to be deplored, because it stems from a. mind which is depraved and
warped. But the community which a politician seeks to serve is an amalgam of
saints and sinners, with a sprinkling of the former as against an over-abundance
of the latter. The gentle rebuke and occasional eulogy of the one may be
fascinating, but the constant tauntings of the other must be accommodated.
Politicians are born not made; and anyone
who has not the stomach for the railings of the masses and is only interested in
their occasional hosannas, has no right to enter into public life.
Another reason given in support of the
charge that politics is a bad game is that good politicians are few and far
between.
The general run of them are irredeemably
mundane: materialistic, atheistic, immoral, ruthless and unscrupulous.
All the great religions as well as the
lesser ones recognise
the absolute
need for a government among men. We all do. Furthermore, we realise that only a
small number of people should be entrusted at any given time with the apparatus
of such a government. If the persons thus chosen are bad, it is not because
politics is bad. The fault is in the politicians, in the members of government,
rather than in politics or government
per se.
The last of these popular misconceptions
which I consider it worth mentioning in this talk is that Politics and Religion
do not mix. Indeed, there are not a few who hold the view that Politics is so
essentially materialistic and Religion so fundamentally spiritual that it is
difficult for a man to be a successful politician and a good Christian at the
same time.
I want to admit, without the least
hesitation, that Politics is essentially materialistic and that Religion is
fundamentally spiritual. But it cannot be gainsaid that living man is a
combination of matter and spirit.
If a man is to live a full life and be the
real image of God which he is intended to be, his Body — that is his brain and
brawn — must not only be well-developed and healthy, but must also function in
harmony with and under the control of his spirit or Soul. The Soul is ageless
and pure, and does not need any development. But the Body must be trained,
developed and disciplined to acknowledge both the existence and the supremacy of
the indwelling Soul.
In the process of bringing out the best that
is in man, and of enabling him to live a healthy and happy life, the agencies of
Politics and Religion must work in close and harmonious co-operation. The
eradication of ignorance, disease and want is a matter of the utmost concern to
Politics as well as to Religion. As a matter of fact, in the early days the
education of the young and old, and their health and general well-being were
more or less the exclusive preserves of Religious Bodies and their offshoots and
allies — the Charitable Organisations. In those olden times, the primary
functions of Government (for the purpose of this talk I am equating Government
with Politics) are the preservation of peace among the subjects at home, and the
resistance of external foes. It is in modern times that Government has its
functions beyond the limits of bare security for individual citizens, to
include their education and health; and
their welfare and happiness.
In other words, Religion recognised from the
beginning of times that unless the brain of a man is developed by
education(secular and religious), and his body by physical exercise is well as
by the nurture of good and adequate food, and by the comfort and self-respect of
simple and neat clothing and shelter, man would be much more brutish and
degraded than the lower animals. For His great purpose on earth, however, God
needs the finest possible instrument, which is to be found in a healthy body and
an enlightened and sane mind. For this reason, Religious Bodies down the ages
have catered and still cater, in so far as their limited resources permit, for
the material as well as the spiritual well-being of man.
The purpose of Politics is first and last
the material well-being of man. The purpose of Religion, on the other hand, is
to do this or to ensure by persuasion that this is done, and to cater in
addition to the spiritual welfare of man. In many modern States, what we see is
not a separation of Politics from Religion but a division of labour between
them.
From what I have said, it will be seen that
in modern times and in a democratic society, the functions of Politics
are complementary to those of Religion. I
have used the phrase `in a democratic society' advisedly. For in its attempt to
evolve the best means of catering to the welfare of man, mankind has employed
various devices. Some have turned out to he good whilst others are simply
infernal. Examples of those that are in current use may be given: Democracy and
Dictatorship; Capitalism, Socialism and Communism.
The terrestrial part of maxi is inherently
selfish, tyrannical and corruptible. The ethereal part of man — that is the Soul
— is pure, just, incorruptible, uplifting and ennobling.
Consequently, man is constantly subjected to
internal conflict in which either the Body or the Soul must win. In the short
run victory may go to the former, but in the long run it is the latter that
tends to be on the ascendant.
It must be borne
in mind that Communism or Marxism-Leninism which, in regard to the methods by
which its declared
ideals are attained, is atheistic and evil,
has dominated the minds and lives of more people than believe in Christ, and in
the respect for human dignity which Christianity enjoins. This obvious
ascendancy of an evil political system over the moral and ethical tenets of
Religion is no evidence of antipathy between Politics and Religion. On the
contrary, it is proof positive of the utter lack of spiritual discipline and of
complete moral bankruptcy on the part of political leaders all the world over,
and of want of dynamism and afflatus, and of exemplary leadership, on the part
of Religious Bodies. Contemporary political circumstances demand that Religious
leaders must recapture and relive the great and noble ideals and the militancy
of those inspired and immortal Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists who had the
divine courage to proclaim the truth as God gives it to them to know the truth,
and to call cant, humbug, political murderers, and brutes and devils in human
flesh, by their
proper names.
Apart from both being complementary, it will
be seen from what I will say presently that the best in politics derives from
and is firmly rooted in religious ideals. Four examples are enough to establish
this assertion.
First, one of the aims of Religion is to
teach a man to love his neighbour as himself and to do unto others as he would
like them to do unto him. We are also taught that God is no respecter of man.
All are equal before Him. It is a fundamental principle and an accepted practice
under a good government that all citizens are equal in the eye of the law,
enjoying and rendering reciprocal rights and duties. Negatively, every citizen
is forbidden, under pain of legal sanctions, from so conducting his affairs that
he becomes a nuisance or a menace to his neighbours. Positively, under law he
must so live his life that he is at peace at all times with his fellow men.
Second, in all great religions, women are
treated on the basis of equality with men. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the
most outstanding exemplar in this respect.
Today, politicians all over the civilised world are eloquent in their advocacy
for equal treatment for all persons irrespective of sex.
In doing so, they are merely reflecting in
public life the unparalleled example of our Lord.
Third, many of the Fundamental Human Rights,
particularly the three Freedoms of Conscience, of Association and
of Speech, have their origin in the great
Religions. Many Prophets, Saints and Evangelists have suffered pain or death
because they have dared to exercise their freedom of Conscience and of
expression. It was for this noble and imperishable cause that John the Baptist
was executed, that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, and Mohammed for a while
fled his home in Mecca.
Many great names in Politics drawing
their inspiration
from Religion also suffered or died for the same cause. It was for this cause
that Socrates was
sentenced to drink the hemlock and to death.
Fourth, in my considered and settled
opinion, the best, political ideal for mankind is Democratic Socialism which is
founded, among others, on the principles of the well-being of the individual,
and brotherhood among all men irrespective of creed, colour and race. The
fundamental concept of socialism is: `From each according to his ability and to
each according to his need.' This concept has its root in the teachings and
practices of great Religions through the ages.
Thus far I have endeavoured to show that
Politics is not only complementary to Religion but also that the most
beneficial political system derives its
strength from the tenets and practices of the great Religions.
Except under Communism where Religion or
Belief in God is suppressed, and unless we wished to revert to Theocracy
which has long been out of fashion,
Government (and hence Politics) and Religion must exist side by side working
hand in hand for the good of man. The
tragedy of these modern times is that in some cases there is so much lack of
understanding among some religious leaders
that they are intolerant of some of the manoeuvres of politicians. In other
cases, religious leaders have allowed themselves to be completely subordinated
to governmental institution to the extent that some Religious Organisations are
mere arms or projections of the Government.
Religious leaders need not be intolerant of
politicians or of their manoeuvres for vantage position. Our Lord lived in an
age of political intrigues and tyranny of the worst kind. Yet He did not
hesitate to say in reply to his tempters, `Render unto Caesar the things which
are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.' There is more meaning to
this famous saying of our Lord's than a brilliant display of wit or a shattering
out-manoeuvring of His adversaries. He does mean that His bearers should obey
God as well as Government which is the constituted authority for the management
of material human affairs. But since the earthly authority is ordained by God,
it is easy to infer that where Caesar's behests are manifestly repugnant to the
injunctions of God, the latter must be made to prevail whatever the
consequences. A Christian must, however, seek by Christian methods to make the
Will of God sovereign and supreme m the society where he lives. The aim of
Religion is the dissemination of truth — truth about the Will of God for the
guidance of man. To know the truth and to uphold it is the only sure avenue to
freedom and happiness.
It follows that in order that it may
discharge its functions, a Religious Organisation must be independent of
Government and its patronage and must never be subordinated to its dictates or
whims. Otherwise, the sole compass by means of which the masses of believers
must be guided in their Spiritual pursuits on the confused and stormy ocean of
life becomes thwarted and unreliable. A Religious Organisation should never
allow itself to be regarded as the mouthpiece arid instrument of the
powers-that-be. If it did it would sink or swim with the Government concerned;
and in any case it would no longer be well-placed to tell the truth as it knows
it. It is incumbent upon Government and politicians to conduct their affairs in
strict accordance with religious teachings and ethical standards. `Nothing is
politically right which is morally wrong,' says Daniel O'Connell. Therefore,
when politicians do the right they can rest assured that they will be covered in
a favourable manner by the non-partisan detached and fearless pronouncement of
religious leaders of undoubted uprightness and godliness.
