Home Editorials Justice and a nation in troubled times

Justice and a nation in troubled times

by Bioreports
19 views
justice-and-a-nation-in-troubled-times

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.”—John Rawls, A Theory of Justice

THE quotation above is from the first chapter of the most influential work of, arguably, the most prominent political philosopher of the 20th century. Rawls also observes that no matter how elegant a theory is, it must be rejected if it is untrue. By the same token, he argues, “no matter how efficient and well-arranged laws and social institutions” are, they must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.

It is not just philosophers and political theorists that worry about justice. Indeed, the significance that theorists attach to the primacy of justice in society is derived from the common intuitions that they share with members of their societies. “No justice, no peace” is the rallying cry of the masses in every society from time immemorial. Injustice has been an unstoppable catalyst for revolutions worldwide.

There is hardly a doubt that we all share common intuitions about many social issues, including especially the matter of justice, even if we are not all able to explain why our intuitions our true or reasonable. We just know that they are. We know, for instance, that it is unjust or unfair to rob others of their hard-earned goods. We believe that it is unfair to treat equals unequally. We feel confident that rigging an election is grossly unjust. We believe that power should not be concentrated in the hands of an individual or a group, no matter how good or efficient he, she, or they are. These are some of the intuitions behind the argument for the primacy of justice.

We also know, however, that while we share these intuitions, we don’t always all conduct ourselves as if we believe them. We don’t always act upon the intuitions that we share. This may be due to what the Greek philosophers refer to as akrasia or weakness of the will. Having the strength of will to act on our conviction is itself a virtue which, unfortunately, not many have. And it is one of the challenges of our social and political life.

A reason for this national challenge may not be unconnected with the mindset of a self-regarding understanding of power and its use. If you have power and you believe that no one can challenge your use of it, you are more likely to want to use it for your benefit or the benefit of your group, even if doing so is unjust and unfair to others. This mindset has been monumentally consequential for our social and political institutions since the beginning of the republic.

Let me illustrate this challenge from a contemporaneous situation in the home of the brave, thousands of miles away. Four years ago, eight months to a presidential election, a new standard for nominating and consenting to the appointment of a new Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States was laid down by Senate Republicans: No nomination to fill a vacancy will be considered in an election year. Therefore, Senate Republicans refused to consider the nominee of President Obama to fill a vacant seat that year until after the inauguration of a new Republican President in 2017. And they asked to be held to that standard going forward.

Fast forward four years. A vacancy was recently created just six weeks to a Presidential election. The same Senate Republican majority has now vowed to fill the vacancy as soon as the Republican president nominates a replacement. Is this not a double standard? Is this not thumping the opposition in the nose? How is this not just a naked use of raw power without moral compunction? How does this square with fairness?

Back to the homeland, and there are uncountable replicas of the illustration above, from penal justice to distributive justice and to the abuse of power in the electoral system. By the way, we shouldn’t ever have the feeling that these are new developments in our system. We shouldn’t begrudge our colonial experience for the importation of unjust systems of governance. We deceive ourselves if we are ever nostalgic about a better tradition of justice. I will explain.

The original Opalaba was a social critic in the old Oyo kingdom. He had accomplices in his friends Arohanran and Koru Oja. They poked fun at institutions they found unworthy. One day, Opalaba and his friends passed by the execution arena in town. Koru Oja observed that many innocent people had been executed at the arena: Ori yeye ni Mogun, alaise lo po ninu won. Arohanran agreed. Opalaba strongly objected, defending the fairness of the system.

Later at night, Arohanran sneaked into the king’s palace where the king’s horses were kept. He took the king’s favorite horse, killed it, and grabbed the head as he trekked to Opalaba’s front-yard with blood spilling along the way. Morning dawned and pandemonium broke lose. Who dared perform this heinous act of killing the king’s favorite horse? And the culprit was so careless or carefree he left a trail of blood! Opalaba was arrested and taken to the king’s courtyard for judgment. Of course, death was certain.

But the king did not act on the emotion of loss. He didn’t base his judgment on the lone side of his toadies. He asked for Opalaba’s story. As expected, Opalaba denied killing the royal horse. Fortunately for him, Arohanran came out, confessed and explained his motive, which was to confirm his belief that, as Koru Oja had told them, innocent people had been unjustly convicted and executed in the town. If he, Arohanran, didn’t confess, Opalaba would have been killed too. This meant that Arohanran would have to die. But the king exercised his prerogative of mercy, and ordered a reform of the system to ensure that innocent people were not unjustly convicted or killed in the course of justice.

While Oyo was the better for the reform orchestrated by Opalaba and his friends, Nigeria, like many other post-colonial states, has remained a bedrock of a system of criminal justice that remains unfair and unjust.  Many innocents are languishing in our rotten jails, framed for offences they didn’t commit. And many have probably been killed. As Hubert Ogunde eloquently reminded us, “won gbebi falare, won gbare felebi.”  Many have suffered damage to their reputation because of unfair judgment based on false accusations. The Holy Book instructs us to let justice flow like water, and righteousness, like an unfailing stream.” We have failed terribly in this regard.

In the matter of distributive justice, the nation has even been more cursed than blessed. We have a constitution, flawed as it is, which provides, among other things, that “the economic system is not operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or the means of production and exchange in the hands of a few individuals or of a group;” and that “suitable and adequate shelter, suitable and adequate food, reasonable minimum wage, old age care and pensions, and unemployment, sick benefits and welfare of the disabled are provided for all citizens.”

These provisions have been observed only in the breach. No one grudges the concentration of wealth in a few hands if it is a result of the hard-work of the individuals or groups. But we know that it is as a result of the rape of our common patrimony and an undue and unfair access through the abuse of political power. It is, therefore, impossible for the masses to reconcile themselves to this odious situation. They labor day and night to make ends meet only to discover that a few are making it unfairly through their exploitation of the system. What is more, they turn a blind eye on the constitutional requirement to provide for the helpless through the social distribution of the benefits of social life.

With penal and distributive injustice at the core of our social life, ours has been a most vicious society crying for reform. If justice is a condition for peace, our national work is cut out for us.

  • For comments, send SMS to 08111813080

You may also like

Leave a Comment