Religion and Politics: Obafemi Awolowo 25 years on

As a politician, the object of my daily vocational pursuit is
politics. But the forum on which I speak this afternoon is
that of an Institution of Higher Learning, sponsored by
one of the famous Christian organisations in the world. I
thought, therefore, that it might be appropriate, from the
points of view of myself and yourselves, for me to address
you on “Politics and Religion.”
There are many popular misconceptions about politics. I
will relate only some of those of them that have come to
my knowledge, and will also endeavour to show that they
aremisconceptions. We all have heard it said times
without number that “politics is a dirty game”. The
description of politics as a game is `a felicitous one, and it
looks as if it is a contradiction in terms to daub a game as
dirty. Speaking generally, any game at all, other than a
game of chance, is good. But the manner of playing it
may be clean or dirty, all depending on whether or not
the players observe the rules for playing the game which
mankind has laid down in conformity with universally
accepted standards of decency and ethics. In other words,
whether the game of politics is clean or dirty will depend
wholly and solely on the manner in which a particular set
of politicians play it. Those who hold that politics is a dirty
game have reasons for their contention. But we will
presently see from these reasons that it is the manner of
playing it that they have in mind and not the game itself.
First among the reasons is that politicians are in the habit
of criticising – indeed attacking, abusing and vilifying – one
another both in private and in public. A proper
understanding of the nature of politics will show that
criticism is indispensable to the game of politics and that
abuse, attack and vilification are its inescapable
incidentals. Politics is the science or the art of the
management of public affairs. It is now a far cry from the
primeval days when the entire members of a society tried
to take part in the management of their affairs. In
modern times a breed of people called politicians have
emerged who claim to have the necessary qualifications
for the efficient management of public affairs. Except in a
totalitarian community where sectarian views and ideas
are regimented or forcibly suppressed, these politicians
naturally form themselves into groups called parties each
with different ideas of its own an divergent methods of
realising those ideas. In a democratic society, it is open to
the people to entrust the management of their affairs to
one or more of the parties for a stipulated period of time.
The party or parties thus chosen become the government,
and more properly the trustees of the people, enjoined
for their term of office to administer the trust with
absolute prudence, probity and public-spiritedness.
It will be seen from what I have said that the final
arbiters of whether the ideas and methods or policy and
programme of a political party are relatively superior to,
and likely to be more beneficial than, those of others are
the electorate, the voters. In order to enable them to
reach a verdict which is fair to the contenders and most
likely to be in the people’s own best interests, they must
have all the facts placed before them. The qualifications
of each political party and of the individual candidates
canvassing for votes on the platform of such a party must
be established to the satisfaction of the voters. It is
natural and legitimate for political parties to say the best
they ever can about themselves and about the candidates
they are sponsoring and to criticise one another most
vehemently. The aim of healthy criticism is to spotlight
defects and to prescribe means for removing them if that
is possible. When the contending political parties do this
honestly and conscientiously, the electorate are best
placed to make a choice which will rebound to the benefit
of all.
In private life, before we entrust our personal or business
affairs to anyone, we take steps to inquire into his
qualifications both as to competence and character. Such
an inquiry as this is done in private, because what is at
issue is a private concern. But the competence and
character of politicians must of a necessity be examined in
the full glare of public limelight Because what is at issue is
the welfare of the community or nation. In the
management of private affairs, a gross mistake would only
affect the fortunes of one man or a family or a small
group of persons. A serious error of judgement in the
management of public affairs might adversely affect the
lives and fortunes of millions of people. For this reason,
there is need for the competence and character of public
men to be subjected to severer and stricter scrutiny —
and that mainly in public — than those of persons
engaged in private concerns. Abuse or vilification in
private or public life is to be deplored, because it stems
from a. mind which is depraved and warped. But the
community which a politician seeks to serve is an
amalgam of saints and sinners, with a sprinkling of the
former as against an over-abundance of the latter. The
gentle rebuke and occasional eulogy of the one may be
fascinating, but the constant tauntings of the other must
be accommodated.
Politicians are born not made; and anyone who has not
the stomach for the railings of the masses and is only
interested in their occasional hosannas, has no right to
enter into public life. Another reason given in support of
the charge that politics is a bad game is that good
politicians are few and far between. The general run of
them are irredeemably mundane: materialistic, atheistic,
immoral, ruthless and unscrupulous. All the great religions
as well as the lesser ones recognise the absolute need for
a government among men. We all do. Furthermore, we
realise that only a small number of people should be
entrusted at any given time with the apparatus of such a
government. If the persons thus chosen are bad, it is not
because politics is bad. The fault is in the politicians, in
the members of government, rather than in politics or
government per se.
The last of these popular misconceptions which I consider
it worth mentioning in this talk is that Politics and Religion
do not mix. Indeed, there are not a few who hold the
view that Politics is so essentially materialistic and Religion
so fundamentally spiritual that it is difficult for a man to
be a successful politician and a good Christian at the same
time. I want to admit, without the least hesitation, that
Politics is essentially materialistic and that Religion is
fundamentally spiritual. But it cannot be gainsaid that
living man is a combination of matter and spirit. If a man
is to live a full life and be the real image of God which he
is intended to be, his Body – that is his brain and brawn –
must not only be well-developed and healthy, but must
also function in harmony with and under the control of his
spirit or Soul. The Soul is ageless and pure, and does not
need any development. But the Body must be trained,
developed and disciplined to acknowledge both the
existence and the supremacy of the indwelling Soul.
In the process of bringing out the best that is in man, and
of enabling him to live a healthy and happy life, the
agencies of Politics and Religion must work in close and
harmonious co-operation. The eradication of ignorance,
disease and want is a matter of the utmost concern to
Politics as well as to Religion. As a matter of fact, in the
early days the education of the young and old, and their
health and general well-being were more or less the
exclusive preserves of Religious Bodies and their offshoots
and allies – the Charitable Organisations. In those olden
times, the primary functions of Government (for the
purpose of this talk I am equating Government with
Politics) are the preservation of peace among the subjects
at home, and the resistance of external foes. It is in
modern times that Government has its functions beyond
the limits of bare security for individual citizens, to include
their education and health; and their welfare and
happiness. In other words, Religion recognised from the
beginning of times that unless the brain of a man is
developed by education (secular and religious), and his
body by physical exercise is well as by the nurture of good
and adequate food, and by the comfort and self-respect of
simple and neat clothing and shelter, man would be much
more brutish and degraded than the lower animals.
For His great purpose on earth, however, God needs the
finest possible instrument, which is to be found in a
healthy body and an enlightened and sane mind. For this
reason, Religious Bodies down the ages have catered and
still cater, in so far as their limited resources permit, for
the material as well as the spiritual well-being of man. The
purpose of Politics is first and last the material well-being
of man. The purpose of Religion, on the other hand, is to
do this or to ensure by persuasion that this is done, and
to cater in addition to the spiritual welfare of man. In
many modern States, what we see is not a separation of
Politics from Religion but a division of labour between
them.
From what I have said, it will be seen that in modern
times and in a democratic society, the functions of Politics
are complementary to those of Religion. I have used the
phrase “in a democratic society” advisedly. For in its
attempt to evolve the best means of catering to the
welfare of man, mankind has employed various devices.
Some have turned out to he good whilst others are simply
infernal. Examples of those that are in current use may be
given: Democracy and Dictatorship; Capitalism, Socialism
and Communism. The terrestrial part of maxi is inherently
selfish, tyrannical and corruptible. The ethereal part of
man – that is the Soul – is pure, just, incorruptible,
uplifting and ennobling. Consequently, man is constantly
subjected to internal conflict in which either the Body or
the Soul must win. In the short run victory may go to the
former, but in the long run it is the latter that tends to be
on the ascendant. It must be borne in mind that
Communism or Marxism-Leninism which, in regard to the
methods by which its declared ideals are attained, is
atheistic and evil, has dominated the minds and lives of
more people than believe in Christ, and in the respect for
human dignity which Christianity enjoins. This obvious
ascendancy of an evil political system over the moral and
ethical tenets of Religion is no evidence of antipathy
between Politics and Religion.
On the contrary, it is proof positive of the utter lack of
spiritual discipline and of complete moral bankruptcy on
the part of political leaders all the world over, and of want
of dynamism and afflatus, and of exemplary leadership,
on the part of Religious Bodies. Contemporary political
circumstances demand that Religious leaders must
recapture and relive the great and noble ideals and the
militancy of those inspired and immortal Prophets,
Apostles and Evangelists who had the divine courage to
proclaim the truth as God gives it to them to know the
truth, and to call cant, humbug, political murderers, and
brutes and devils in human flesh, by their proper names.
Apart from both being complementary, it will be seen
from what I will say presently that the best in politics
derives from and is firmly rooted in religious ideals. Four
examples are enough to establish this assertion.
First, one of the aims of Religion is to teach a man to love
his neighbour as himself and to do unto others as he
would like them to do unto him. We are also taught that
God is no respecter of man. All are equal before Him. It is
a fundamental principle and an accepted practice under a
good government that all citizens are equal in the eye of
the law, enjoying and rendering reciprocal rights and
duties. Negatively, every citizen is forbidden, under pain
of legal sanctions, from so conducting his affairs that he
becomes a nuisance or a menace to his neighbours.
Positively, under law he must so live his life that he is at
peace at all times with his fellow men.
Second, in all great religions, women are treated on the
basis of equality with men. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the
most outstanding exemplar in this respect. Today,
politicians all over the civilised world are eloquent in their
advocacy for equal treatment for all persons irrespective
of sex. In doing so, they are merely reflecting in public life
the unparalleled example of our Lord.
Third, many of the Fundamental Human Rights,
particularly the three Freedoms of Conscience, of
Association and of Speech, have their origin in the great
Religions. Many Prophets, Saints and Evangelists have
suffered pain or death because they have dared to
exercise their freedom of Conscience and of expression. It
was for this noble and imperishable cause that John the
Baptist was executed, that our Lord Jesus Christ was
crucified, and Mohammed for a while fled his home in
Mecca. Many great names in Politics drawing their
inspiration from Religion also suffered or died for the
same cause. It was for this cause that Socrates was
sentenced to drink the hemlock and to death.
Fourth, in my considered and settled opinion, the best,
political ideal for mankind is Democratic Socialism which is
founded, among others, on the principles of the well-being
of the individual, and brotherhood among all men
irrespective of creed, colour and race. The fundamental
concept of socialism is: `From each according to his
ability and to each according to his need.’ This concept
has its root in the teachings and practices of great
Religions through the ages.
Thus far I have endeavoured to show that Politics is not
only complementary to Religion but also that the most
beneficial political system derives its strength from the
tenets and practices of the great Religions. Except under
Communism where Religion or Belief in God is
suppressed, and unless we wished to revert to Theocracy
which has long been out of fashion, Government (and
hence Politics) and Religion must exist side by side
working hand in hand for the good of man. The tragedy of
these modern times is that in some cases there is so
much lack of understanding among some religious leaders
that they are intolerant of some of the manoeuvres of
politicians. In other cases, religious leaders have allowed
themselves to be completely subordinated to
governmental institution to the extent that some Religious
Organisations are mere arms or projections of the
Government. Religious leaders need not be intolerant of
politicians or of their manoeuvres for vantage position.
Our Lord lived in an age of political intrigues and tyranny
of the worst kind. Yet He did not hesitate to say in reply
to his tempters, “Render unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” There
is more meaning to this famous saying of our Lord’s than
a brilliant display of wit or a shattering out-manoeuvring
of His adversaries. He does mean that His bearers should
obey God as well as Government which is the constituted
authority for the management of material human affairs.
But since the earthly authority is ordained by God, it is
easy to infer that where Caesar’s behests are manifestly
repugnant to the injunctions of God, the latter must be
made to prevail whatever the consequences.
A Christian must, however, seek by Christian methods to
make the Will of God sovereign and supreme in the
society where he lives. The aim of Religion is the
dissemination of truth – truth about the Will of God for
the guidance of man. To know the truth and to uphold it
is the only sure avenue to freedom and happiness. It
follows that in order that it may discharge its functions, a
Religious Organisation must be independent of
Government and its patronage and must never be
subordinated to its dictates or whims. Otherwise, the sole
compass by means of which the masses of believers must
be guided in their Spiritual pursuits on the confused and
stormy ocean of life becomes thwarted and unreliable.
A Religious Organisation should never allow itself to be
regarded as the mouthpiece and instrument of the
powers-that- be. If it did it would sink or swim with the
Government concerned; and in any case it would no
longer be well-placed to tell the truth as it knows it. It is
incumbent upon Government and politicians to conduct
their affairs in strict accordance with religious teachings
and ethical standards. “Nothing is politically right which is
morally wrong,” says Daniel O’Connell. Therefore, when
politicians do the right they can rest assured that they will
be covered in a favourable manner by the non-partisan
detached and fearless pronouncement of religious leaders
of undoubted uprightness and godliness.
“POLITICS AND RELIGION” IS A LECTURE GIVEN BY CHIEF
OBAFEMI AWOLOWO TO STUDENTS AT THE ADVENTIST
COLLEGE OF WEST AFRICAN, ILISHAN-REMO ON 27TH
JANUARY 1961. CHIEF OBAFEMI AWOLOWO DIED (25
YEARS AGO) ON 9TH MAY 1987

#CONSENSUS 2015