Occasionally tempting a caged and starved prince with tasty food to get his signature is beneficial to wicked guards. Since the prince is already caged, the guards can use starvation to control and exploit the caged prince. Though they can forge the prince’s signature, they want him to sign in order to justify themselves against the prince’s future denial. By accepting the politically-poisoned gifts of tasty food for his signature, the prince loses the moral authority to fight for his right. And unless he stops giving his signature in exchange for politically-poisoned gifts, the prince may never regain his freedom. Thus, considering the strings of exploitation attached to election gifts, it becomes necessary to reject the politically-poisoned gifts.
Some people have argued that they are justified to collect bribes and gifts, which Nigerian politicians share during election campaigns. They claim that those gifts are their own share of the national cake. Though the gift they call their share of national cake may not last a week, they desperately cling to it. The politicians are happy to hear the people struggle and claim those peanuts as their rightful share of “national cake”. And without rejecting this politically-poisoned gifts, the people will lack the will to resist exploitation. Then politicians will continue using the politically-poisoned gifts as justification-trap to exploit the people.
Hunger-strike is one of the psychological tools prisoners use to protest against injustice or inhuman treatment. It is a situation where prisoners reject the food presented by their captors for some moral reasons. Such strikes become effective by hitting the moral foundation or justification for which they have been imprisoned or treated unjustly. Hunger strike does not involve violence that gives the captors an excuse to respond with higher violence. Instead, it weakens the collaborators’ consciences and destroys the moral justification for every unjust treatment meted to the prisoners.
Progressive societies are formed from people’s agreement to utilize their resources to produce wealth to satisfy their subsistent and commercial needs.[1] They train and organize their society for people to develop and use their potentials to satisfy some social needs.[2] Due to their social contributions, each member of the society is seen as an integral part.[3] In democratic societies, people get privileges and recognition by their productivity or contribution to the society. Thus, people struggle to be productive in order to get princely rewards and privileges that come with social productivity.
Unfortunately, Nigerians and other Africans cannot measure princely rights by productivity since the mineral resources for productivity are militarily seized for exportation.[4] Colonialists formed Nigeria by merging various unconsented kingdoms and communities under a militarized government structure[5] for exploiting resources.[6][7][8] While leaving at independence, they installed a constitution to guide their appointed indigenous replacements in seizing and supplying people’s mineral resources. Presently, indigenes of former independent and productive kingdoms and communities are caged in an imposed system,[9] while the politicians that replaced the colonial exploiters share few imported products as salary, infrastructure, donations and other quick-depreciating goods.
By sharing election-gifts, politicians seek justification for exploiting people’s mineral resources that could have been used for industrial production. Each kingdom and community in Nigeria has human and natural resources for princely rights through industrial production. But by accepting politically-poisoned gifts of imported products (vehicles, food, money) they lose the moral authority to demand their liberty. By accepting the politically-poisoned gifts, they submit to the colonially-imposed system that exploits the resources they could have used for industrial production.
To overcome the neo-colonial exploitation by the militarized government, the different kingdoms and ethnic communities will reject the politically-poisoned gifts. The ethnic communities will no longer approve the neo-colonial robbery by accepting crumbs for mortgaging their people’s future. Instead, the different communities can discuss and agree to privately own and use their resources for industrial productivity, intercommunal trade and percentile government tax. They will thus design a new form of government for each people to use their resources for productivity and trade.
In the face of exploitation,
“They do not pay you to walk away,
They pay you so they can walk away.”[10]
Neo-colonial exploiters do not pay you to walk away
They pay you crumbs so they can walk away with your main treasure.
[1] Cf. Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, part 1
[2] Cf. Plato, in Derek Johnston, A brief history of philosophy (London: MPG Books Ltd, 2006) p.22
[3] Cf. Joseph Omoregbe, Social-Political philosophy and international relations (Lagos: Joja press, 2007) p.vi
[4] Walter Rodney, How Europe underdeveloped Africa, 2009 edition (Abuja: Panaf press, 2009) p.319
[5] Cf. Ogban Ogban-Iyan, Re-inventing Nigeria through Pre-colonial traditions, in Issues in contemporary political economy of Nigeria, (ed.) Hassan A. Saliu. (Ilorin, Sally & Associates, 1999). P77
[6] Nigerian minerals and mining act 2007 act no. 20, chapter 1, Part 1, Section 1, paragraph 2 “… all lands in which minerals have been found in Nigeria and any area covered by its territorial waters or constituency and the Exclusive Economic Zone shall, from the commencement of this Act be acquired by the Government of the Federation…” “No person shall search for or exploit mineral resources in Nigeria or divert or impound any water for the purpose of mining except as provided in this Act.” “The property in mineral resources shall pass from the Government to the person by whom the mineral resources are lawfully won, upon their recovery in accordance with this Act.”
[7] Nigerian minerals and mining act 2007 act no. 20, chapter 1, Part 1, Section 2, paragraph 1
[8] Nigerian minerals and mining act 2007 act no. 20, chapter 1, Part 1, Section 1, paragraph 3
[9] Cf. Ogban Ogban-Iyan, op. cit., p.77
[10] Dan Evans to his son about criminal Ben Wade, in the movie 3:10 to Yuma