STUDY SESSION 10

SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

10.1 Introduction

In some of the previous study session you were taught what philosophy is. Also, you now

have the knowledge of how philosophy relates to various other disciplines and spheres of life.

You can now clearly establish a link between philosophers and the world they live in which

they aspire to unravel and change. In this session, our concern would be to learn about the

link between philosophy and socio-political philosophy. As such, our concern here would be

to understand the nature and meaning of socio-political philosophy as well as to have in-

depth understanding of the individual and the society. In this session, you will be able to have

a basic understanding of what African Political Philosophy is, as well as weigh arguments for

the need of a new political order in Africa.

10.1.1 Learning Outcomes for Study Session 10

When you have studied this session, you should be able to

1. State what socio-political philosophy is:

2. List and explain the central issues in socio-political philosophy:

3. Give a historical account of the development of socio-political philosophy:

4. State what African Philosophy is: and

5. Give your account of the need for a new political order in Africa.

1
10.2 The Meaning and Nature of Socio-Political Philosophy

Socio-political philosophy is an important branch of philosophy. Oftentimes, students assume

that political philosophy, political science and political theory address the same theme and

employ identical methodology. The truth, however, is that the socio-political philosopher is

concerned with more fundamental issues other related disciplines take for granted.

The political philosopher employs the tools of epistemology, ethics, ontology and logic in his

attempt to understand the nature of society and how an ideal state ought to be organized. In

some ways, political philosophy “describes past and existing social organizations, in which

respect, it appears to encroach on the domain of economics, political science, anthropology

and sociology”.

While it is true that socio-political philosophy has close connections with social sciences and

with ethics, it would be erroneous to conclude that it does not have distinctive problems of its

own. It deals, for example, with such issues as: “What are (or ought to be) the proper limits of

governmental power over members of society?” “How should an ideal state be organized?”

“Is it possible to have rigid control over the economic affairs of people without curtailing

their political freedom?” “Should elected representatives to a legislature be allowed to vote as

they see fit, or should they merely reflect the majority opinion of their constituency?” etc.

The central task of socio-political philosophy, therefore, is to prescribe how an ideal state

ought to be organized.

The basic point to note is that socio-political philosophy, in spite of its seeming autonomy, is

a branch of philosophy. Employing the standard methods of philosophy, it investigates the

principles of a proper social system. In general, it studies the nature of human communities,

in order to evaluate their aims and modes of cooperation. In particular, it is concerned with

2
government or the state, i.e., the institution that possesses the exclusive power to enforce

rules of conduct in a particular geographical area.

The central issues of socio-political philosophy may be divided into the following areas:

(i) What is the relationship between the individual and the society?

(ii) Can the existence of government or state be justified?

(iii) What abstract principles should guide the operation of government, regarding its

aims and limits of its authority?

(iv) What sort of constitution, political institutions and legal system should a given

government have?

(v) What practical public policies should apply to specialized areas such as the police,

defence and international relations, economics, public finance and welfare?

In order to proffer answers to these questions, socio-political philosophy derives its strength

from three other more fundamental philosophical disciplines. They are metaphysics (the study

of existence and man‟s relation to reality), epistemology (the study of knowledge), and ethics

(the study of the code of values of guide man‟s choices and actions). It is important to note

that the three fundamental philosophical disciplines mentioned above require stable polities

for effective philosophizing. This can only be provided by the ideas of a “socio-political

philosopher”. To further understand and appreciate the importance of socio-political

philosophy, one must have some knowledge of the history of political theory.

Socio-Political Philosophy: A Historical Perspective

Socio-political philosophy, like its mother-discipline, philosophy, has its origin in ancient

Greece. In fact, the word “political” is derived from the Greek „polis‟ or city-state. The

Sophists in the 5th Century B.C. challenged the legitimacy of the polis with its laws and

3
institutions. To this, Socrates (470 – 399 B.C.), Plato (427 – 347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384 –

322 B.C.) responded with philosophical arguments. The political theories of Plato and

Aristotle were inextricably connected with their philosophical systems; Plato, by appealing to

his doctrine of forms and Aristotle by appealing to a theory of biological naturalism. The

Stoics and St. Augustine (A.D. 354 – 430) in later antiquity, as well as the scholastics – most

notably Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) – in the Middle Ages, sought to justify political

authority by basing it on belief in God and divinely instituted natural laws.

With the rise of modern science and the secular state, following the decline of medieval

social and religious institutions, the traditional arguments for political authority were called

into question. In the Renaissance, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) eschewed religion and

classical philosophy. Instead, Machiavelli drew on historical examples to offer practical

advice to rulers. The Modern era from the 17th to 19th centuries witnessed a series of

attempts to provide a defensible moral account of the State and its purpose.

In England, Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) and John Locke (1632 – 1704) sought the basis

for the State in a “social contract” among individuals who possessed “natural rights” in a

prior “state of nature”. Hobbes argued that men must enter into a social contract and

surrender their natural liberties to an absolute sovereign. Locke concluded that the political

State must have limited powers and the citizens retain the right to revolution. Sceptical

conservatives like David Hume (1711 – 1776) and Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797), who saw

tradition as the only basis for government and law, criticized both Hobbes and Locke. Later

British thinkers like Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873)

invoked the utilitarian principle of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. They

advocated political reforms that tended to be increasingly democratic, egalitarian and

welfarist.

4
Meanwhile, in continental Europe, there was a steady drift towards altruism and statism in

the theories of Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778), Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804), G.W.F.

Hegel (1770 – 1831), and Karl Marx as the inevitable result of historical processes. They

regarded collectives as of greater reality and value than their individual members. Resisting

the generally collectivist trend, Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903) defended capitalism against

socialism by appealling to the evolutionary theory of history. In addition, various anarchists

criticized the State as an inherently oppressive institution and advocated its abolition. These

included libertarians such as William Godwin (1756 – 1836) and Lysander Spooner (1808 –

1886), and the leftists like Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809 – 1865), Michail Bakunin (1814 –

1876) and Peter Kropotkin (1842 – 1921).

Throughout most of the 20th century, political philosophy was neglected because of the rise

of logical positivism and linguistic analysis, which were sceptical about the capacity of

reason to apprehend objective moral truths of any sort. However, in the early 1970s, two

philosophers employing the techniques of analytical philosophy to defend opposing political

theories inaugurated a revival of political theorizing. John Rawls, a neo-Kantian form of

liberalism and Robert Nozick a neo-Lockean version of libertarianism.

The literature of socio-political philosophy is vast. The following are some of the most

influential works: Plato (Crito, Republic, Statesman and Laws); Aristotle (Politics); St.

Augustine (The City of God); Thomas Aquinas - (Summa Theologiae I-II, Questions 90-97);

Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince); Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan); John Locke (Two Treaties of

Government); John Stuart Mill (On Liberty and Utilitarianism); Jean-Jacques Rousseau (First

and Second Discourses and The Social Contract); G.W.F. Hegel (The Philosophy of Right);

Karl Marx (with Friedrich Engels) (The Manifesto of the Communist Party); Herbert Spencer

5
(The Man Versus the State); Lysander Spooner (No Treason); John Rawls (A Theory of

State); Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia); etc.

10.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Employing the standard methods of philosophy, what does socio-political studies

investigates?

10.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

It investigates the principles of a proper social system. It studies human communities, in

order to evaluate their aims and modes of cooperation.

10.3 The Individual and Society

The fundamental issue in political philosophy concerns the relationship between the

individual to society. Most political theorists hold that the individual is prior to society,

because the mind belongs to the individual as such, and individuals must perform acts of

thought. Although men learn from their predecessors and are interdependent in various ways,

they still have to exercise their rational capacities as individuals. This position, known as

individualism, is opposed to collectivism, which treats society as if it were a super organism

existing over and above its individual members, and which takes the collective in some form

(e.g. tribe, race or state) to be the primary unit of reality and standard of value. We are

therefore led to the questions: “What is the purpose of the state?‟ “Is the state an end-in itself

or a means to an end?”

6
10.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Why do most political theorists hold that the individual is prior to society?

10.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

The mind belongs to the individual as such, and individuals must perform acts of thought.

10.4 What Is African Political Philosophy?

African political philosophy is a sub-set of political philosophy. It shares a lot with what we

have ascribed to political philosophy except its African-ness. But are the problems of political

philosophy not of universal character? If they are, why then an African political philosophy?

All races have not been created into the same environment. Some races are so suited that their

struggle for survival is relatively easier than those of others. Each race has had to respond

differently to the circumstances and conditions of its own environment. The problems

encountered in the African environment for example, are different from those experienced,

say, in the Asian, European or the American environment. Therefore, it will be absurd to

expect all races and cultures to pose the same questions or offer similar solutions to the

problems encountered in their different environments. The answers offered to problems

encountered in race “A” might be totally different from those offered in race “B”. Even when

such problems are similar, solutions are known to vary, if not different outright. African

political philosophy is a response to the different experiences of the African, and his

interpretation of such experiences. The peculiar experience of slavery, colonialism, racialism

and neo-colonialism has made the African ready and capable of evolving a peculiar political

philosophy. Such a political philosophy is intended to capture the African-ness of his thought

system and experience. African socialism is one of the earliest political theories proffered by

7
thinkers at the outset of independence. Various grounds were adduced for this. Let us

consider a few political theories by African thinkers.

10.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What is African political philosophy a subset of?

10.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

African political philosophy is a sub-set of political philosophy

10.5 Socialism

„Ujamaa,‟ which literally means familyhood, was first articulated by the Nwalimu, Julius

Nyerere (1922-1999) at Arusha on the 5th of February 1967. Ujamaa as Nyerere perceives it

is to be the basis of socialism in Tanzania. Nyerere came to the conclusion that socialism was

the solution to the socio-political problems Tanzania faced shortly after independence.

Having been convinced that traditional African society was harmonious and communal he

agrees that the new States of Africa are at one and the same time faced with the task of rapid

economic development and the creation of new values. How to achieve these objectives is, to

Nyerere, the greatest challenge confronting contemporary African leaders – a challenge

perhaps greater that the struggle for independence itself.

Nyerere concludes that because conditions in each society differ, there can be no „sacred

book‟ from which all can draw inspiration. Still, whatever the objective conditions of a given

society may be, an ideal society must always be based on three essentials that he identifies as,

freedom, equality and unity. These three essentials are not new in Africa. They have always

been a part of African traditional life. What is new to Africa and which most certainly came

8
with colonial contact is the phenomenon of classes. Nyerere says that African languages do

not have the vocabulary to embrace the concept of class. According to Nyerere, the African

society was a poor one before colonialism. As such, there were no rich people. Wealth in

possession or non-possession of wealth has nothing to do with socialism. The millionaire and

the beggar are both capable of being socialist or capitalist. Mere physical possession of

wealth is therefore not the deciding factor. What is important is the use to which the wealth is

put.

Nyerere goes on to assert that no country can afford to be anything else but socialist.

Socialism, he claims, is the road to happiness. The African needs neither education in

socialism nor in democracy, as both are familiar ways of life. The socialization in the family

has helped the African acquire the attitude of mind that pre-disposes him towards socialism.

In Nyerere‟s ideal state, ownership of land and other means of production are communal.

They are not subject to private ownership. The only forms of private ownership allowed did

for example, the farmer own his hoe, the carpenter, his saw, a family, their house.

Nyerere sees man as essentially equal. Socialism is built on such equality. He says, „without

the acceptance of equality of all men, there can be no socialism‟. The purpose of socialism is

service to mankind regardless of colour, size, shape, skill, ability and everything else. An

important basis of Nyerere‟s socialism therefore, is equality of all people. This also extends

to their participation in government. Everyone must be an equal participant in government.

He opposes vehemently the capitalist form of government that seeks to build happiness on a

philosophy of inevitable conflict between man and man. Exploitation, as Nyerere sees it, is a

man with money making profit from a man without money. The source of this kind of

exploitation is private ownership of the means of production.

9
Leopold Senghor (1906-2001) is very popular for his Negritude. With Leon Demas and

Aimie Cessaire, he formulated the term Negritude to describe the cultural and political

movement of French speaking Africans in Africa and the French speaking Negroes of West

Indies against the colonial policy of assimilation. Senghor sees Negritude as the total cultural,

social and political values of African civilization, and of the black race as a whole. One

cannot therefore deny that Senghor‟s Negritude was purely an ideology for decolonization.

After independence, Senghor knew Negritude had run its course. He thereafter developed his

idea of African socialism.

To show the difference in African traditional experience, Senghor, like Nyerere rejects

western capitalism and orthodox socialism. He pitched with an adaptation he calls African

socialism. He considers his African socialism, a true reflection of African experience. He also

agrees that in the working out of his African mode of socialism, the problem is not how to put

an end to the‟ exploitation of man by man, but how to prevent it ever happening by bringing

political and economic democracy back to life.

Generally, the difference in attitude towards socialism between Nyerere and Senghor is not of

kind but of degree. While Nyerere talks about a total breakaway from Euro-philosophical

tradition, Senghor advocates the adoption of some essential things that are useful to African

development. Nevertheless, they both see African socialism as having its roots largely in the

traditional past. They see traditional African societies as classless. They both reject capitalism

and orthodox socialism.

Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972) is one of the first recent African political thinkers to

emphasize the need to adopt an innovative approach in the European philosophical heritage

for a better understanding of it, so it can aid development needs of the continent. He is of the

10
view that the formulation of an ideology would speed up the rate of progress amongst

emergent African states.

According to Nkrumah, capitalism, being an offshoot of colonialism and an identified culprit

of exploitation and oppression, cannot be used as a platform or basis for freeing the African

people from bondage. Consequently, he rejected capitalism and any other philosophical

system that may tend to support it. In its place, he advocates for socialism. The crux of

Nkrumah‟s argument is that African needs a better understanding of the Euro-philosophical

tradition as an intellectual basis for the struggle against poverty and the general backwardness

of the continent.

With his background experience in America and Britain, coupled with his experience of

colonialism at home, he sought for a solution to the problems he identified not in the

capitalism of the west, but in the socialism of the east. He is convinced that in order to

achieve the goal or a better life within the shortest possible time, socialism would be the key.

Nkrumah‟s socialism takes due cognizance of the production of goods and services to lay a

proper foundation for socialism. Nkrumah believes that complete industrialization is the key.

It is in pursuance of this that Nkrumah explains that all talks of economic and social

reconstruction are just empty words if they are not accompanied by industrial and agrarian

revolution.

Nkrumah therefore sees sound economic planning as the basis of development and progress.

To redress the dislocation caused by colonialism, he argues that Africa has to meet up the

challenges of the new era by being self-sufficient and egalitarian. Nkrumah‟s socialism has

therefore been shown to be different in kind and degree from those of Nyerere and Senghor.

Nkrumah appears to continue in the tradition of Karl Marx and Lenin. His socialism shows,

like all modern Marxists, that socialism and industrialization go together. Again, unlike

11
Senghor‟ and Nyerere, Nkrumah is of the view that socialism cannot be built in a single

country in Africa. For him, the building of socialism in Ghana must be accompanied by the

building of socialism throughout the continent. As a matter of fact, he once stated that

Ghana‟s independence was meaningless if vast territories in Africa remained under colonial

rule. The Africa of his dream would be happy only if it adopts a socialist system. We should

note that Nkrumah does not agree with Nyerere that socialism can only be built by returning

to „our glorious past.‟ He opines that the traditional Africa no longer exists. In his view, this

has been corrupted by Afro-Islamic and Euro-Christian traditions.

Sokou Toure’s (1922-1984) view on socialism, which he calls communaucratique, takes

virtually the same line as Senghor‟s. Like Senghor, Toure wants to adopt Marxism to African

conditions while at the same time denying some of the key elements of Marxism. The

intention of both Toure and Senghor is to blend the socialist value of traditional Africa with

more recent and modern Marxist ideas. Toure advocates a rejection of both capitalism and

communism. In its place, he advocates the adaptation of their economies to concrete African

realities. Toure explains:

Thus, when people ask us if we are for capitalism or for;

socialism, for the East or for the West, we invariably answer

that what we consider first and above all are the Africa we

intend to liberate from foreign domination, sickness, misery

and ignorance.1

Toure rejects capitalism because it imposes the value of individualism and egotism that in his

view are alien to Africa. He also rejects communism that he equates with collective or state

capitalism. He therefore concluded that neither communism nor capitalism is applicable to

12
Africa because as he puts it, „the Soviet Union, as well as Europe and America, are far more

highly developed than Africa.‟2 In Africa, Toure explains, the struggle is not between classes

but between the colonized people and the colonizing powers. Toure calls his socialism in

Africa „communaucratique‟ because he feels adopting the term „socialism‟ would portray his

country (Guinea) as importing a foreign ideology. On this issue, he says, “We use the

expression „communauucratique” precisely in order to avoid all equivocation and all false

analogies.”3 The reality of Toure‟s socialism shows a strong attachment to Lenin, rather than

to Marx. It also shows his strong commitment to liberating himself from colonial legacy.

Obafemi Awolowo (1909-1986) calls his brand of socialism „Democratic‟. He disagrees with

classical socialists and some of his contemporaries. First he rejects the orthodox idea of

African Socialism. In his view, there is no justification for such a label because he sees

socialism as a normative science that should not bear the mark of any region of the globe.

Awolowo therefore does not concern himself with a supposedly peculiar African socialism,

but with attaining socialism not by any revolutionary process, but by a democratic

reformation of the existing order, in his Voice of Reason, Awolowo presents his thesis on

democratic socialism. He declares:

…In my considered and settled opinion, the best political ideal

for mankind is democratic socialism which is founded among

others on the principles of wellbeing of individual and

brotherhood and among all men, irrespective of creed, colour,

and race.4

2
Ibid., p. ix
3
O. Awolowo, Voice of Reason, (Akure: Fagbamigbe Press, 1981), p. 182.
4
O. Awolowo, The Path to Nigerian Greatness, (Enugu: Fourth Dimension Pub. 1981), p. 54

13
His kind of socialism is reformative for it admits the existence of private and public

ownership of properties side by side. It takes individual welfare as it focus of attention and

guarantees the fundamental rights of individuals including the right to religion and worship.

Citizens are also to be seen as equal before the law, irrespective of their status in the society.

The installation and change of government under this system is only through the electoral

process. In the same vein, in changing from any existing political ideology to democratic

socialism, only the democratic process is permissible. It is therefore immoral for any

powerful radicals to impose or force their rule on the people of a state without the latter‟s

consent under the guise of socialist revolution.

Awolowo says that the socialists of the Marxist persuasion have instilled fear in the minds of

the people by creating the impression that the word „socialism‟ is synonymous with violence.

This, he observes, has contributed to the people‟s negative attitude to socialism as a political

ideology. But as a Christina, who is very much conscious of the Biblical injunction against

killing, Awolowo could not hide his disagreement with Chairman Mao of China who once

said that power flows from the barrel of the gun. Awolowo argues, “I do not share this great

man‟s view. In my own opinion, power flows form a leadership that is sustained by the will

and approval of the people freely articulated and given.”5 The choice of socialism should

therefore be a way of life expressed through electoral process for the political party that

champions the socialist objectives. Awolowo speaks extensively of the role of the universal

mind or God as a mind is capable of bringing about his ideal state. In doing this, “...the

universal mind may or may not necessarily bring about the use of force or

violence.”6Awolowo says, “The universal mind can be absolutely trusted to play its part. It

5
O. Awolowo, The People’s Republic, (Ibadan: Oxford University Press), p. 199
6
Ibid,

14
will be by a process that no human mind can possibly conceive, fruitify all good plans and

actualize evil ones for the discomfiture or ruin of their actors.”7

Unlike many other African socialists, Awolowo argues in the People‟s Republic that

socialism is not culture bound. He claims it is a normative science and therefore of universal

application to all nations of the world. Therefore, the question of African socialism does not

arise.

10.7.2 References / Suggestions for Further Reading

Awolowo, O. (1981). Voice of reason. Akure, Nigeria: Fagbamigbe Press.

Awolowo, O. (1981). The path to Nigerian greatness. Enugu, Nigeria: Fourth Dimension.

Machiavelli, N. (1956). The prince. Translated by G. Bull. Hamondsworth, England:

Penguin.

Maritain, J. (1965). An introduction to philosophy. New York, NY: Sheed and Ward Inc.

Marshall, G. (1996). The concise Oxford dictionary of sociology. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

McAuley, J.W. (2003). An introduction to politics, state and society. London, England: Sage.

Toure, S. (1960). La panificaiion economiqite. Conakry, Guinea : Impprimerie National.

7
Ibid,

15