17th April, 2023
By Simbo Olorunfemi
“The refusal to entertain corrective criticism, even differing perspectives of the same position has become a badge of honour and certificate of commitment.” – Wole Soyinka
One of the most amusing twists off the Wole Soyinka critique of “incipient fascism” was that which queried the Soyinka use of fascism in describing what could have only been described as fascism anyway. Farcical as that was, folks went into the voyage of digging up the dictionary to remind us of the meaning of fascism. Some took to Encyclopaedia Britannica to let us know that fascism “is a way of organising a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.” Another person’s dictionary has fascism as “any right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterised by centralised, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and of society, and repression of criticism or opposition.”
On account of these definitions, some obviously concluded that Wole Soyinka was lost on the meaning of the word. Interesting conclusion to make. But it is what it is. This is the age in which someone whose only qualification is a page on Facebook, will confidently insist on teaching a pilot, with decades of flying experience, how to fly a plane. It is what it is. Unable to make a distinction between the Writer and Activist, as if one must be the other once he is one, some took their displeasure with Wole Soyinka as an opportunity to resurrect the irrational Soyinka-Achebe debate, betray their anger over the 1986 award of the prestigious Nobel Prize to a well-deserving Writer. Well, they should find comfort in the fact that they are relatively new to the game that had been in play since the 1970s. They should take time to read up on Chinweizu, Onwuchekwa Jemie and Ihechukwu Madubuike, or the “troika”, as Wole Soyinka dubbed them, bearing in mind that he is a man who is not only renowned as a conversationalist, but one who thrives in/on controversy.
As we didn’t do at the time the ‘debates’ resurrected, we won’t be doing so now. We will neither be making reference to Wole Soyinka’s globally acknowledged prowess in the creative use of the language by those sufficiently equipped to be authorities on such matter. As he had famously said, “a tiger does not proclaim his tigritude, it pounces.”
But then, what makes the mischaracterisation of his use of fascism shocking is not only that the context of the usage speaks for itself, but the fact that it is not such an out-of-the-world usage that should ring so unfamiliarly that people will have to reach out to the dictionary for meaning. As far back as 2016, some were already putting fascism and Trumpism in the same bracket, seeking out like terms.
But, of course, Wole Soyinka wasn’t necessarily speaking in the context of ideology, but that of a tendency. Even though some might look at the overwhelming embrace of ‘wokeness’ and ‘cancel culture’ as evidence of a bourgeoning ideology, I do not think that there is enough in what is going on so far to wear it with the toga of ideology. In any case, Wole Soyinka’s caution is directed at the “slithering backwards and down the fascistic slope.” He speaks to the culture of intolerance, a pushback against opinions that differ from ours and the tendency to go after whoever expresses such, as we have come to see with some members of this group.
Indeed, this was not a concern he was only just expressing, it is one he had shared in private with the leader of the movement. “My rejection of fascism is nothing new. On three occasions, I was able to send a message to Peter Obi that if he lost the election, it would be his followers who lost it for him.” So, if there was any doubt that he was speaking in the same context as that in which one will refer to someone accommodating of other opinions as a ‘democrat’ and one intolerant of such as ‘fascist’, the response from the camp of the so-called, taking immediate ownership of the title and wearing it as a cue to launch a salvo of unsavoury missiles in the direction of Professor Wole Soyinka, only further confirmed the genuineness of the concern.
One thing with us students of the science of politics is that we never waste any opportunity offered us to learn, unlearn and relearn, especially from the streets, knowing that meanings broaden, and concepts evolve over time. Digging into more recent writings on fascism, I found that by Roger Griffin, which I would suggest, speaks, in some way, to the current phenomenon in the political space, beyond the tendency to shut down opposition voices. He says that “the hallmark of the fascist mentality is the sense of living at the watershed between two ages and of being engaged in the front-line of the battle to overcome degeneration through the creation of a rejuvenated national community, an event presaged by the appearance of a new ‘man’ embodying the qualities of the redeemed nation.
…Because of its charismatic and hierarchical nature, a fascist regime naturally tends towards the introduction of the leader principle and the glorification of youth as the raw material of a heroic new generation.
…the mythical horizons of the fascist mentality do not extend beyond this first stage. It promises to replace gerontocracy, mediocrity and national weakness with youth, heroism and national greatness, to banish anarchy and decadence and bring order and health, to inaugurate an exciting new world in place of the played-out one that existed before, to put government in the hands of outstanding personalities instead of non-entities.”
In a way, what played out in the build-up to the last election was a genuine yearning on the part of many “to replace gerontocracy, mediocrity and national weakness with youth, heroism and national greatness, to banish anarchy and decadence and bring order and health…” But the vehicle in which that desire found expression and the way it was pushed might not exactly be in alignment with the initial objectives that propelled many to be a part of the movement. In the desire by some to carve for themselves a god who must be accepted as above reproach in whom there is no blemish, some supporters have been carrying on like fundamentalists, insisting that their god must not be queried, but that their own way must not be questioned, otherwise there would be fire. Some supporters have themselves now become gods, before whom even the leadership must kowtow lest they become disobedient.
Increasingly, Dattism is becoming the face of the movement. There are several people in the public space playing from a handbook which suggests that any outcome other than the one they prefer should not stand. There is a particular TV presenter who has carried on off- and on-air as if this is a personal crusade of his. Having already publicly canvassed a position on the election, his repeated demand for justice, projected as altruistic, is rather hollow, as it hardly sounds differently from one seeking for a rubber-stamp of one position. The aggression in his tone in demanding for the profile of the judges to be made public is as worrisome as the other Dattist insistence that only his interpretation of a constitutional provision is right.
The context in which Professor Wole Soyinka speaks is quite evident. It speaks for itself. Reacting to the backlash that came the way of Soyinka for his position, Patrick Doyle maintains: “If a few misguided persons can’t or won’t appreciate frank talk, the rest of us can. Indeed, Soyinka’s words were timely and an accurate assessment of the situation. Anger that is not properly harnessed and directed will always be the entry point of fascism. There is a need to be more strategic in the deployment of resentment for a positive outcome. Burning heroes on the altar of intolerance doesn’t emit the sweet-smelling savour that is necessary for the gods to bless any enterprise…Truth doesn’t depend on the consistency of any person to comment on all issues, neither does it depend on the perception or biases of the hearers”.
The argument has never been that Wole Soyinka is infallible or above criticism, it has simply been that the public space shouldn’t be privately conscripted such that any opinion that does not sit well with the owners of the social media space should fetch such a person bullying or cancellation. A waste of time though, if those now on rampage have it at the back of their minds that they can drown Wole Soyinka’s voice or cancel him.
Whatever it is they think they are doing, they should be mindful of the advice by the Senior Advocate, Professor Mike Ozekhome. Here is his story: “Once upon a time, an exuberant youth beat his drum so loudly, proudly, ceaselessly and fascinatingly with such reverberating noise that an elderly man sitting nearby told him to reduce the noise. The youth told him pointedly that he bought the drum with a huge sum of money. He ‘exhibitionistly’ announced the name of the rare drum. The elderly man smiled, shook his greying head slowly, and calmly told the young man the name of the very animal whose skin was used to make the drum. Let us watch our words and actions, no matter how trying and tormenting the times are.”
Simbo Olorunfemi works for Hoofbeatdotcom, a Nigerian communications consultancy and publisher of Africa Enterprise. Twitter: @simboolorunfemi