Perhaps we gave our rights to Animal-Kings: The social contract analysis

'There goes another of our Animal-kings again'. That was what i

thought to myself when i heard the news that Angola's president of

over 3 decades was contesting the next presidential elections. Yes,

Animal-kings. That's the nomenclature i assigned African leaders in my

little psychotic fantasy. After all, aren't they? They  see their

countries as territories which they guard with iron fists, crushing

oppositions with brutal force while assigning to themselves the

largest share of the spoils. Their subjects only have crumbs to get

by. I call them Animal-Kings because they habour no plans for peaceful

succession. Political authority nearly always has to be wrestled form

their clutches, most times by another set of aggrieved animals. They

should be called Animal-Kings because of their psychological fixation

and stagnation at the Freudian oral/anal stage of psycho-sexual

development, where primeval selfishness is all that matters to the

child. They exhibit the characteristics of those at the lowest rungs of

personality development. The ID stage, where bodily and vain physical

desires are prioritized over mental, physical and scientific

development. If not, how can a country like Nigeria that has earned

over $400bn from oil resources alone since its discovery, squander this

wealth and blame it on Neo-colonization? How can King Mutzi of

Swaziland, a country with over 70% of its population living under a

Dollar, have the audacity to ask the Swaziland parliament for $15m to

construct new palaces for his wives? Why should Africa to have an

Eyadema dynasty in Togo, Obiang monarchy in Equtorial Guinea and Biya

oligarchy in Cameroun? Why should pensioners well over 80 years like

Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Wade of Senegal continuously cling unto power

despite growing agitations from their people? Why should Mobutu

Seseseko use aid money to purchase a private jet for his daughter's

wedding when his people were dying like flies? Well you thought as

much, because they are Animal-Kings.

The absence of good leadership is litany in honour of anarchy. A good

leadership is like the band that binds society together. Absence of

such would give rise to anomie. Aristotle in his ethics, postulated

that the reason for the politiea (politics) is eudaimonia (well-being

of the citizens). The aim of the state is the fulfillment in all

respects, the fundamental social functions that are required for the

integration of humans namely (1) self defense of the community, (2)

safe guarding of its legal order, (3) promotion of general economy and

cultural welfare. In Aristotelian framework, the common good

(eudaimonia) does not consist of a piecemeat to be shared by members

nor the sharing of goods from a government store. Rather it is a

horizon of co-operative search for authentic values. It is a task to

be achieved, not a piece of cake to be devoured.

To emphasize the importance of effective leadership, Plato in his

Republic went as far as enunciating those who should be leaders. Plato

Divided the soul into 3 parts each attributed to a specific cadre of

Human. The sensations (soma) is guided by desire and represents the

Appetitive part. This according to Plato corresponds with the workers,

artisans, craftsmen etc. They form the general body of the state, the

masses driven by bodily and carnal desires. Next in hierarchy is the

spirit (thumos), which is guided by opinion. Humans in this

stratosphere have a spontaneous love for good and honour, and an

aversion for evil. This corresponds with the soldiers and guardians,

and are subject to rulers. The highest in the hierarchy is the reason

(nous). This is the seat of wisdom, guided by will and tends towards

what is good. It corresponds with the rulers.

The social thinkers, best elements in society and lovers of wisdom,

not those driven by fleshy desires such as greed, should be in power

and rule the state.

Using the foregone thesis, can we categorically state that African

leaders are the beat elements in society? Could we say that they are

lovers of wisdom guided by will and tend towards what is good? Could

we say that african leaders exist for the common good of the society?

Certainly not. Rather they have become the proboscis that drain the

blood of their people. It is true that the colonialists pillaged (and

are still pillaging) most of African resources, but African leaders

have done little with what they inherited. Even though the African

predicament has attended so many philosophical and inter-disciplinary

debates, even giving rise to ideologies such as Afrocentrism,

Negritude and Ubuntu, the situation is still deplorable with no end in

sight. Africa's Animal-Kings are mere puppets, recycling

underdevelopment and Africanizing global poverty.

Such anathema could only have been made possible through a dubious

social contract. Social contract theorists such as Hobbes and Rousseau

in their varied analogies have explained the existence of the state.

Thomas Hobbes depicted life as "short, nasty and brutish" in the

absence of political order. A state of nature where each person has

unlimited freedom. To avoid this, free men established a political

community through social contract, in which each gains security in

return for subjecting himself to a sovereign authority. Jean -Jacques

Rousseau agreed that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the

obligation to respect and defend the rights of others. In the same

vein, African citizens should expect security in return for subjecting

themselves to a sovereign authority. By subscribing to a higher

authority which would exist for the common good, Africans relinquished

their individual rights and liberties for civil rights, good roads,

education, electoral representation, a fair and just society and other

attributes of a civilized society. But if such rights and liberties

are given to animals in suits, as the late Fela Kuti described them,

should we expect the fruits of a civilized society? A jungle reception

is what we would get. A jungle reception is what Africans have gotten.

The continent is an exemplification of a jungle reception under the

guise of democracy. Africans in formulating their states entered into

a contract with animals, so much that these animals have become kings.

The absence of core concepts and statutes of governance on the

continent has created a vacuum hijacked by a pack of animals who have

now occupied the epicenters of power in Africa. An uninformed society,

ineffective public machinery and  submissive and dependent populace

has made these Animal-Kings demi-gods.

For Africa to break the social contract and expel the Animal-Kings,

there is the urgent need to revisit its institutions. What values do

African social institutions portray? What social parameters determine

those who should be leaders? What values, norms and mores are

cherished among Africans? What is the basis of succession and

socialization? Social institutions are the pillars and foundation of

society. They provide the templates on how society should be governed.

Hence the focus should be on the weak institutions that have thrown up

the emergence of animals as kings and not on the animals themselves.

After all, you invite lizards when you bring home an ant infested log.

You do not rid the lizards unless you rid the log of the ants. To rid

the animals, let Africa re-order its social institutions and

value-system