However, events in the last few days have shown that the president’s men are more creative now. Their reasoning could be this: With the opposition controlling much of the traditional media, we need to use alternatives to wage our political war without shedding blood; and open media confrontation and argument with the opposition may be a waste of time.
Like it or not, one of these strategies, impeachment, is working very well; and let no self-acclaimed and partisan elder statesman see it as a declaration of war. If the opposition see it as a war, then, it is a war being waged without shedding blood, and it is good for Jonathan. As students of politics, we understand clearly the way the opposition think and reason – and their tactics: they are perpetually at “war” with the ruling party and its values. They use politics as the means for their objectives. And, within this context, it is not expected that Jonathan’s men will continue to talk solely about the transformation agenda of the president – they must also be at war. So, let the war continue!
I am one of those who have severally criticised Jonathan for not firing his political foot soldiers and replacing them with fresh troops that are well-trained and ready to face the opposition or political enemies frontally with the right intensity and tactics to win a political war. My reason has been that, in the face of political terrorism by some voracious members of the opposition, Machiavelli’s debate on the place of morality in politics is justifiable. In The Prince, Machiavelli puts the case for political practicality in its starkest, most thrilling form. For those who do not know, the great political philosopher is associated with the separation of politics from conformist morality – the explanation of all means even the most unprincipled in the quest for political power. Forget the fact that Machiavelli has been denounced as a man enthused by the devil, as a morally wrong writer, an anti-Christian, a supporter of unkindness and dictatorship and a “deliberate teacher of evil”. I share the view of many political thinkers who see Machiavelli as a practical person who recognises the unsympathetic realities of political life. In spite of criticisms of his academic works, he is praised as the first person to recognise the true nature of “reasons of state” and the place of “necessity” in political conduct. As documented by experts in political theories, in the doctrine of “reasons of state” what is essential to safeguard are the interests and security of the state, which take priority over all other considerations. “Necessity” knows no laws and morality has no place when the interests of the state are a stake.
Within the context of the ongoing propaganda by the opposition and their allies in the media, it is not democracy that is at stake. What is at stake is political terrorism that is being championed by some political extremists. And no weapon is too big to crush them. (Leadership)[eap_ad_3]
