2027: POLITICS, ETHNICITY AND MORALITY NEED NOT COLLIDE

The challenge is not to eliminate politics or ethnicity, but to ensure that neither overrides moral responsibility, contends GODWIN SOGOLO Politics, ethnicity and morality are three distinct yet interrelated dimensions of human existence. Their interaction often complicates practical judgement and responsible citizenship. Politics concerns the acquisition, exercise and distribution of power; ethnicity refers to a collective identity rooted in shared ancestry, history and culture; while morality provides the principles by which conduct is judged as right or wrong, just or unjust, and responsible or irresponsible. =Of course, there are other dimensions of human existence – such as religion, etiquette and customs – all of which, like politics, are subject to moral evaluation. Through praise or blame, reward or punishment, society encourages responsible behaviour and discourages actions harmful to the common good. This reflects the recognition that laws and institutions alone cannot guarantee social order; mutual trust, shared values and a sense of obligation towards others are also indispensable. =There is, however, a school of thought which holds that politics should be exempt from moral scrutiny on account of its practical realities and peculiar demands. This position is commonly associated with the political philosopher, Niccolò Machiavelli, whose analysis of political power emphasises the realities of governance rather than idealised expectations of how rulers ought to conduct themselves. The underlying argument is that political leaders must contend with competing interests, uncertainty, opposition and the imperatives of national security: circumstances that may sometimes require decisions that depart from conventional moral expectations. ==However, the distinctive pressures of politics do not make political conduct immune to moral judgement. They merely require that such judgement take account of circumstances, consequences and competing obligations. Political expediency may sometimes justify difficult choices, but it cannot serve as a blanket excuse for corruption, deception, oppression or the abuse of power. Since political decisions affect people’s lives, liberties, property and welfare, citizens must retain the right to evaluate their leaders by standards of justice, integrity and accountability. Otherwise, political necessity becomes a convenient justification for virtually any wrongdoing. =The same distinction applies to ethnicity. Ethnic identity is neither inherently virtuous nor morally objectionable. It can provide a sense of belonging, preserve cultural heritage and foster solidarity. The problem arises when ethnic loyalty is treated as an unquestionable obligation, requiring people to defend wrongdoing by members of their group or to distrust others simply because they belong to a different community. Ethnic solidarity need not entail moral blindness, just as national unity need not require the abandonment of cultural identity. =As we approach the 2027 elections, the challenge is not to eliminate politics or ethnicity, but to ensure that neither overrides moral responsibility. Nigerians are perfectly entitled to support candidates from their own ethnic communities, but ethnic affinity should not become the overriding criterion for political choice. There is, therefore, nothing inherently wrong with a Yoruba person supporting Bola Tinubu or an Igbo person supporting Peter Obi, provided such support is informed by genuine political convictions, considered judgement and legitimate interests, without compromising the fundamental values of honesty, justice, competence and the common good. Ethnic identity may influence political preferences, but it should never be allowed to substitute for independent judgement. =Similarly, opposition to a candidate from one’s own ethnic group should not be construed as an act of betrayal or disloyalty. Neither Charles Soludo nor David Umahi should be regarded as an Igbo traitor simply because their political positions or choices differ from those of other members of their ethnic community. In a democracy, political allegiance is a matter of individual conviction, not an obligation imposed by ethnic belonging. Indeed, the freedom to disagree with one’s kinsmen, without being subjected to accusations of disloyalty, is an essential expression of democratic maturity. Ethnic identity does not, in itself, establish merit, just as belonging to another ethnic group does not imply unworthiness. =The relevant questions should be what candidates stand for, the values they uphold, how they have conducted themselves in public office, what they have achieved and what they are likely to contribute to the country. These, rather than the accidents of ethnic ancestry, should provide the basis for political evaluation and choice. =In judging one another, our guiding principles must be consistency, objectivity and an unwavering commitment to the common good. We must be prepared to apply the same standards of judgement to ourselves, our political allies and our opponents, without allowing ethnic sentiment, personal interests or political affiliations to compromise our sense of fairness. =Ultimately, whatever our differences in ethnicity, political persuasion or personal convictions, we share a common aspiration: to see Nigeria prosper, become a more just and inclusive society, and fulfil its enormous potential. Our collective responsibility is not merely to secure a better country for ourselves, but also to ensure that we bequeath to generations yet unborn a nation that is more united, stable, prosperous and worthy of their hopes and aspirations. =The distinction between politics, ethnicity and morality is therefore essential to responsible citizenship. It does not mean that the three domains must operate in isolation. Rather, it means recognising their distinct purposes and refusing to confuse political advantage or ethnic solidarity with moral rightness. The conceptual challenge is to preserve these distinctions, while the practical challenge is to uphold them when political competition, communal loyalty, historical grievances and personal interests exert pressure on judgement. The ultimate test of moral independence is not whether citizens have political loyalties or ethnic attachments, but whether they can subject both to critical moral scrutiny. A society demonstrates greater moral maturity when people can celebrate their ethnic identities without using them to justify injustice; participate in politics without surrendering their conscience; and condemn wrongdoing without allowing the identity of the offender to determine their judgement. Clearly, therefore, politics, ethnicity and morality need not collide. Their interaction becomes conflictual – and even destructive – only when either political ambition or ethnic allegiance is allowed to override moral responsibility. As Nigeria approaches 2027, we have an opportunity to demonstrate that ethnic pride can coexist with national solidarity; political pragmatism with moral integrity, and democratic competition with mutual respect. The overall test is whether we can make political choices that recognise both the diversity of our identities and the moral obligations we share as citizens of one nation. Sogolo is an Emeritus Professor who has taught and conducted research in Philosophy for over five decades – at the University of Ibadan, Cardiff University of Wales and currently at the National Open University of Nigeria. He also served as a member of the Editorial Board of The Guardian Newspapers in the 1980s and 1990s.