THE INTELLECTUAL IN AND ON PUBLIC LIFE

Preamble

In September 2006, I picked up Prof. Pat Utomi from Dulles International Airport, and we commenced a two-week trip across the United States. On that trip, we met hundreds of Nigerians in hotels, rented venues, and private homes. We used the trip to drum up support and raise funds for his decision to leave his intellectual perch to murk around Nigeria’s political swamp. It was on that trip that I met Professor Ebere Onwudiwe. I was immediately drawn in by his intellect and, more importantly, his boundless optimism about Africa. Despite the result of that electoral campaign, Ebere and I stayed in touch. A year later, I returned to Nigeria, and when Ebere joined us a few years afterwards, we found ways to collaborate on various governance initiatives. Our last project ended in October 2020. When the client, an international development programme, re-engaged us in December of that year, Ebere called me to suggest we start the project on January 11, 2021. But that was not to be. He died two days before that date.

Many speakers at this colloquium will share anecdotes about Ebere’s accomplishments as a scholar and public intellectual. My presentation will not rehash those points. Instead, I will dwell on the place of intellectuals in public life and their impact on the evolution of societies.

So, who is an intellectual?

According to Jennings and Kemp-Welch (2013),[1]?the intellectual engages in critical thinking and presents solutions to society’s challenges. Sowell (2013)[2]?posits that the end-product of such thinking must be ideas that are validated through peer consensus. Sowell (2012)[3]?differentiated “idea workers” into those who ply their trade in academia and think tanks and those who, though not academics, still think and share ideas in the hope of moving society to a better place. He included journalists and public commentators in the latter group.

These intellectuals need platforms to share their ideas. Craveri (2006)[4]?showed how, in 17th?century France, the salons became places for men and women to debate and propound philosophical and scientific ideas. However, these places could be accessed only by people of a certain societal standing. With the advent of the printing press, pamphlets, newspapers, and public lecture podiums became the main arena for intellectual exchange. Access to those platforms also required some academic qualification or intellectual heft. However, the advent of the internet, smartphones, and social media has democratised voice. Anyone can postulate on an idea and immediately access hundreds of eyes. Many commentators who are more prolific in writing than profound in thought have also assumed the brand of public intellectuals.

Thomas Sowell may not have a problem with this latter development. In “Intellectuals and Society (2012),” he argued that no group of individuals should purport to have more insight into society’s needs (or clairvoyance for the appropriate solutions) than the collective views of the society. Moreover, he cautioned that intellectuals, who consider themselves “anointed,” constitute undue influence in society. While his argument – at the first view – may appear to diminish the importance of the intellect (or the value of knowledge), its primary purpose is to caution against bequeathing much influence on a small group of “experts.”

Does intellectualism matter?

The role or importance of the intellectual in society is a complicated subject. Sowell acknowledges as much when he concluded that intellectuals have both a good and bad influence on society.[5]??The ability to apply diverse knowledge, insight and thought to society’s fundamental challenges can’t be minimised nor overemphasised. Einstein acknowledged that “we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when creating them.”??Therefore, society needs a new level of thinking to pull itself away from the bog.

Common sense has value, but it usually pales compared to the ability to arrive at ideas shaped by years of education and rigorous search. Intellectuals transformed Europe from the Dark Ages to the Modern Age. Wang (1961)[6]?credits China's rise to Western thought's influence. China’s 1860 defeat by France and Britain set the grounds for reforms. The further defeat in 1895 demonstrated the supremacy of thought and the efficacy of westernisation conclusively. The death of Mao Zedong in 1977 enabled Deng Xiaoping (or, more accurately, Zhao Ziyang, the Premier) to turn to Western thought more freely. With that move, the more conservative elements of the Chinese Communist Party lost the debate, and the country is better off for it.

Intellectuals are significant contributors to societal change. However, their role is not static but evolves. In different societies, intellectuals evolved from a knowledge elite (Aristotle, Plato, Kant) to become part of the governing elite (India’s Brahmins or Africa’s independence leaders: Kenyatta, Nyerere, Senghor, Azikiwe and many others). In addition, intellectuals play the role of social critics (Gani, Tai Solarin, Agbakoba, Soyinka, Ayo Obe, Odinkalu, and many others). Intellectuals are also vanguards of social revolutions (Vaclav Havel, Mandela, Tambo, Tutu, and many others). A common thread connecting these roles is that the intellectual is expected to apply his cranial muscles to better society.

However, there is no shared consensus on how the intellectual should posture for these roles. Vaclav Havel[7]expects that the intellectual should:

“…constantly disturb, should bear witness to the misery of the world, should be provocative by being independent, should rebel against all hidden and open pressures and manipulations, should be the chief doubter of systems, of power and its incantation, should be a witness to their mendacity. For this very reason, an intellectual cannot fit into any role assigned to him, nor can he be made to fit into any of the histories written by the victors. An intellectual essentially doesn’t belong anywhere: he stands out as an irritant wherever he is; he does not fit into any pigeonhole completely.”

Havel’s menu aligns with Ralph Waldo Emerson’s description of the intellectual. Emerson sees the intellectual as one imbued with knowledge created from vast reserves of great ideas of the past, the ability to communicate them, evolve new ideas, and move the world to higher heights. Emerson’s intellectual, like Havel’s, can’t seek refuge behind ideas; instead, she must be a person of action. Inaction, for Emerson, is cowardice.

But there are other views as well. Edward Said sees human freedom and knowledge advancement as the core reasons for intellectual life. According to him, thinking is the difficult work, so the intellectual shouldn’t get involved in “doing.” Instead, he advocates that the intellectual can actively disrupt the status quo even while standing?outside of society and its institutions. Said's intellectual is a part of society and constantly seeks avenues to share his thoughts but must balance their commitments with an ideal relevant to society.

In describing Daniel Patrick Moynihan as an intellectual in public life, Katzmann (2004)[8]?acknowledged the difficulty most intellectuals face. While they may have the fervour advocated by Havel and Emerson, they must walk the “slippery tightrope” of scholarly detachment while remaining committed to the hands-on engagement of the political arena where survival depends on the ability to conform and compromise.

Professor Ebere Onwudiwe, though sufficiently vexed by the rot in our society, aligned more with walking Katzmann’s “slippery tightrope.”??He wrote profusely about the ills in society and proffered intellectually rigorous yet pragmatic solutions. He sought avenues to put his ideas to work, either while supporting a former Senate President to advance governance ideals, in his role as an Advisor to the Presidency, or as the founder of a think tank. He remained committed to scholarly purity but was comfortable rolling up his sleeves to get work done.

How does one work in an age of anti-intellectualism?

However, these are not great days for intellectual pursuits in Africa. The continent enjoyed its burst of intellectualism around the period of Africa’s political independence. It was the age when intellectuals rose to political leadership across the continent. The vibrancy from the academic institutions and an active media buoyed the intellectual to political leadership across the continent.

But those days didn’t last long. Anti-intellectualism rose and took root. Mboukou (1982)[9]?traces the trend to colonial times. He probably skirted the polemic about how Africa possessed an advanced intellectual class before the arrival of the colonialists. Instead, he suggested that anti-intellectualism arose in Africa following the introduction of formal education by the colonialists. This development created a rift between the traditional elite and the newly educated ones, who began to usurp the powers and positions of the former ones.

Various factors influenced the rise of anti-intellectualism in post-colonial Africa. Mazrui (2003)[10]?ascribed the problem to the rise in authoritarianism in government and the decline in academic freedom on campuses. The clamp down on opposition voices shrunk the civic space and created room for military incursion into power.??The boys in jackboots reshaped society in their own, essentially anti-intellectual, image. The failure of economic policies seen as driven by western thought (such as the Structural Adjustment Programme) moved the people against the intellectuals. These policies and programmes didn’t pay enough attention to the plight of the commoners, so the latter pushed back against the shapers of such thought.

On a more general note, the academic curricula in primary and secondary schools across the continent do not encourage curiosity nor create students who are fascinated by ideas. According to Mazrui, universities should be “politically distant from the state … culturally close to society, and … intellectually linked to wider scholarly and scientific values of the world of learning.” Unfortunately, most of our universities and tertiary institutions have failed in this regard. With corruption impacting almost all aspects of society, recruitment of academics is no longer based on merit. As such, non-intellectuals fill the ranks of many universities resulting in professors who are more earthy than intellectual. Consequently, Africa diverges from the rest of the world even as the disdain for intellectualism grows.

But intellectualism has its limits

There are enough critiques of the intellectual. Sowell was unsparing in his assessment of intellectuals who typically dwell on ideas, not their practicability to the real world. He railed about intellectuals who are never held accountable for their ideas. For instance, an intellectual that conceives an economic policy that falls and pushes millions into poverty is never held to account. Yet, an engineer that constructs a bridge that collapses will, at the minimum, suffer the loss of his license. In addition, many intellectuals lack the narrow and specialised knowledge required to speak on many societal issues. The fact that one is a good economist does not qualify one to speak on all social problems.

Moreover, many public intellectuals find it hard to resist postulating once a microphone is stuck in their faces. Hence Sowell accuses intellectuals of “verbal virtuosity” and the usual neglect of evidence or logic in postulating their ideas. Finally, many intellectuals are ready to fight when confronted with arguments that counter their established views. They see the counterview as an affront that may chip away at their acquired public persona of intelligence or wisdom.

On the other hand, real intellectuals are aware – or are at least mindful – of their shortcomings. They know that most people have blind spots and biases. As such, they are careful with sweeping conclusions or doctrinal beliefs. They keep an open mind and incorporate new ideas or data points into their analysis. They understand the power of ideas and are cautious not to move society in the wrong direction. They try not to be like the hammer to whom everything seems like a nail.

Professor Onwudiwe was cut from this cloth. He held strong views on many issues of democracy and governance, but he also explored counternarratives that could send him back to the thinker’s corner or help validate his thesis. I was lucky to have shared many such conversations with him.

Ever the optimist

At his core, Ebere was an optimist. The glass was always half full for him, or at least he felt he could get it to that mark. While he acknowledged the many challenges facing the continent, he believed Africa was progressing. His position was not of the “Africa Rising” genre; instead, it was steeped in a clear-eyed assessment of the continent's critical challenges and the evidence that the continent has enough actors pushing to address them.

Ebere was excited by the prospect of intellectuals getting more involved in the affairs of society and shaping its evolution. While his temperament made him more suited for engaging as a teacher and an adviser, he was motivated by intellectuals (like Professor Pat Utomi) who ran for political office. As an eternal optimist, he saw possibilities of the stars aligning even against many formidable odds. The twinkle in his eyes when, in 2006, we strategised for Prof. Utomi’s political race remained in his eyes even when, in 2020, we strategised on how to get the National Assembly to pass the Petroleum Industry Bill and, afterwards, how to get President Buhari to assent to the bill. He had an infectious optimism.

Waiting for the Philosopher Kings

Paraphrasing Einstein, the challenges we face as a country, indeed, as a continent, cannot be solved at the same level we were operating at when we created them. Yet, while mindful that intellectuals do not have perfect clairvoyance, we acknowledge that they have tools and models that should aid their thinking to bring society closer to solving its problems. The possibility of striking that balance and what it promises to yield is intoxicating. Therein lies our salvation.

However, these intellectuals, who have found ways to impact public life through their thoughts, must also seek ways to engage more actively with the system. The scholarly hands-off, detached approach may not suffice at this time. Nigeria and the continent need intellectuals who understand that public policy is a contact sport. Intellectuals must get entrepreneurial in their approach. They must get actively involved in the game.

This position is the tonic that kept Prof. Ebere Onwudiwe optimistic. He was willing to work to realise that day. That is why he left his established position as a tenured professor and an accomplished scholar in the United States to return to Nigeria to join in the rough and tumble of policy work. He made his mark within his sphere of influence. The challenge for the rest of us still on this side of the mortality divide is to continue actively engaging in creating a much better world. This point should be the fundamental role and impact of the intellectual in and on society.

Thank you for your attention.

Patrick O. Okigbo III (Founding Partner, Nextier)

The Nextier Group Patrick Utomi Harvard University Kennedy School of Government

References

[1]?Jennings, J. and Kemp-Welch, T., 2013. The century of the intellectual: from the Dreyfus Affair to Salman Rushdie. In?Intellectuals in politics?(pp. 9-30). Routledge.

[2]?Sowell, T., 2013.?Intellectuals and race. Basic Books (AZ).

[3]?Sowell, T., 2012.?Intellectuals and society. Hachette UK.

[4]?Craveri, B., 2006.?The age of conversation. New York Review of Books.

[5]?Sowell, T., 2012.?Intellectuals and society. Hachette UK.

[6]?Wang, Y.C., 1961. Intellectuals and society in China 1860–1949.?Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3(4), pp.395-426.

[7]?1 Vaclav Havel, Disturbing the Peace: A Conversation with Karel Hvizdala (New York: Vintage Books, 1991), 167.

[8]?Katzmann, R.A. ed., 2004.?Daniel Patrick Moynihan: The intellectual in public life. Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

[9]?Mboukou, A., 1982. The rise of anti-intellectualism among the modern African elite. Journal of African Studies, 9(4), 180.

[10]?Mazrui, A.A., 2003. Towards re-Africanizing African universities: Who killed intellectualism in the post-colonial era??Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, 2(3&4).