When to be loyal and when to jump ship
One of the most celebrated cases of betrayal is that of the biblical Judas. It was Judas that sold out his master for 30 pieces of silver and sealed the whole transaction with a kiss. It would be interesting to ponder on what would have been transpiring in the mind of the betraying Judas. At that point of betraying Jesus, did he have a philosophical basis or was it all about the quid? Did he view betraying Jesus as an altruistic act, something the Jews would one day thank him for?
Shakespeare in the character of Iago in Othello painted in despicable hues the betrayal of a friend by a friend.
Iago was wily, imaginative, sly and brilliant in an evil way. He was the antithesis of the trusting Othello. Betrayers are not always wily and brilliant like Iago. Take the biblical Judas for instance; we are not given the impression of his discreetness, his cleverness in getting the best price for his master or an ethical reason for the betrayal.
Many world dictators have also grappled with the incidence of betrayal, even those who have shocked the world with their inhumanity. The Italian Journalist Ricardo Orizio conducted a series of interviews with some of the world's most famous despots living in exile. These interviews crystallized into an interesting book titled,
Talk of the Devil, Encounters with Seven Dictators. The journalist found two strong traits among the former despots interviewed, firstly, they felt no remorse and secondly, they felt they had been betrayed. Idi Amin swore that he was betrayed by the British,
Central African Republic's Jean-Bedel(Bokasa) was betrayed by the French, Noriega was betrayed by the Americans, Duvalier alleged that he was betrayed by the mulatto elite of Haiti and Mengistu(Haile-Mariam of Ethiopia) made a lengthy case of being betrayed by the soviets, Gorbachev especially.
Betrayal can arise from a difference in principle or in ethics between the
betrayer and the
betrayed. The main question we can try to answer within the confines of this discourse is when it is ethical to 'jump ship' or to betray. And whether it is ever ethical or moral to betray? Ricardo Orizio, in my opinion, stumbles across a rare historical truth – history never favours the betrayer. A good example is the fact that Muammar Gaddafi is fast becoming a victim in popular culture. So when will it be moral for one to betray his master? We will not consider this question in vacuum but in the context of a dilemma of a particular political figure in Nigeria.
If there was a political left wing in the vocation of journalism, Reuben Abati will be considered as its master and demigod. If there was a Nigerian journalist who could be accused of being too brilliant, too outspoken, too incisive, too eclectic, Reuben Abati would be the one. With a First Class honours in Theatre Arts, Reuben has won countless awards for his opinions and the way he writes them. Ruben to many is an intellectual colossus and a sort of fresh liberal Marxist.
Reuben Abati has also been the scourge of successive Nigerian dictators. As columnist in the Guardian, Reuben became a thorn in the flesh to any Government that assumed power. He probed military dictators, taunted the minions of the military government, placed the
nascent democracy under his visceral search light and goaded its heartless players till their consciences bled. Reuben was champion of the media both traditional and virtual.
In 2011, Reuben Abati was appointed as the Special Assistant on Media and Publicity to Goodluck Jonathan, a post he has held till date. A little digression, before the appointment of Reuben, this coveted position was held by Olusegun Adeniyi, another outstanding journalist during the sickly Yar'Adua administration. Olusegun was berated by a cross section of Nigerians for the role he played in misinforming Nigerians during the sickness of Yar'Adua. In a hasty apologetic written by Olusegun before his equally hasty departure to Harvard, he explains the internal struggle of not betraying his master. Stephen Gbadamosi writing for the Nigerian tribune also refers to a book written by Olusegun in which he fingered Aondakaa and the
enshackled Governor Ibori as the real culprits in the saga.
Betrayal has to do with the decimation of trust. The killing and brutal murder of trust. In the case of Ruben Abati as well as Olusegun Adeniyi, these noble spirits have not betrayed the Presidents who appointed them. Ruben for example seems to have put his ideals on hold in support of the weak Goodluck Jonathan and his controversial wife. Dele Momodu affirms this notion of the new Ruben during a faceoff between him and Ruben in the following words: "
Reuben remains for me one of the finest products of journalism, a man I foolishly thought would add some finesse to the lacklustre occupiers of Aso Rock Presidential Villa. But the Reuben I see today is a shadow, a pitiable sight, of the old Reuben, who has confirmed the adage that a goat that keeps the company of dogs would eventually become a dog. How else can I describe Reuben's crass crudity in his response to my last article, In Search of A Radical President? While I grant him the right of reply, it was cruel to have brought my dear and innocent wife, Mobolaji, into the whitewash of his boss." In other words, for not betraying his boss, Ruben has become alienated from the company he used to keep.
The trait of being loyal should be commendable. But why did a man like Ruben with such a daunting pedigree remain in a government that has clearly taken him down on paths he would never have trod? Perhaps the answer could be found in the work of Dante where the poet reserves the worst part of the inferno for the betrayer. We can also look for answers in the mundane local wisdom which forbids one from talking while eating. In the first instance, Ruben may have acted naturally in rationalizing the societal imagery of betrayal. Roger L. Jackson explains that while it may be that a particular case of betrayal is justified, the burden of offering that justification clearly belongs to the betrayer, not to the betrayed. If Ruben had resigned because the government he served was corrupt and his president weak and inefficient, would it not have been construed by society as evil on his part?
On the other hand, one may argue that Ruben did not betray his president because he (Reuben) was in a position authority and it is considered in the local parlance as bad manners to talk while eating. Had he sold his conscience for the largesse of Aso Rock? Another notable Nigerian, Wole Soyinka found himself in that same position during the reign of the
maradonic Babangida. He was asked to found the Federal Road Safety Commission. In various interviews, Soyinka had tried to explain that he took up the position for two reasons. First, he had thought that Babangida was sincere in bringing back democracy and secondly because he felt a need to do his bit to end the carnage on Nigerian roads.
Being the Senior Special Assistant on Media to Goodluck Jonathan, Reuben may have felt in all sincerity that Goodluck Jonathan meant well. But remaining part of that government even after his ideals had been negated is inexcusable. But Reuben is just like the rest of us. Nigerians find it increasingly difficult to even stage a walk out when our ideals are violated. We find it difficult to relinquish power even when we are operating in negation to our principles. Unlike Wole Soyinka who publicly, rejected the Nigerian award given to him by the Babangida government, we are willing to keep our mouths shut when we are masticating. Rueben therefore has done nothing out of the ordinary in the Nigerian parlance.
In revisiting the question about when it is ethical or moral to betray; I would have to say that it depends on the context. In my arguments, Rueben has not betrayed his president, but his gift has given him more responsibility than just "white washing" Jonathan. It happens that in not betraying his president, Rueben Abati has betrayed us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment