Dissent: The Highest Stage of Patriotism

By Wuteh Vakunta

Dissent: The Highest Stage of Patriotism is a treatise on dissent as the acme of love for one's fatherland. Arguing against the grain, the author avoids smug patriotism; that which manages to make everything about the homeland flawless and beautiful. It is the author's conviction that the greatness of a nation resides not in citizens' blind sycophancy, but rather in their willingness to call into question dereliction of duty by political leadership. The goal of this book is to educate global citizens on the quintessence of political vigilance.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Langaa RPCIG
• Release date: Nov 10, 2022
• ISBN: 9789956553624

Wuteh Vakunta

Peter Wuteh Vakunta holds a Ph.D. in French Literature and Francophone Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is author of several books in French, English, Pidgin English and Camfranglais. Dr. Vakunta has taught at universities in Africa and the United States of America. At present, he is Associate Professor of French Language and Cultural Studies at the University of Indianapolis. Vakunta is a globetrotter who speaks half a dozen languages.

Book preview

Foreword

The term ‘dissent’ may be used with equal validity in portraying the ideas, writings and the activities of individuals who refuse to jump unto the bandwagon of praise-singers of all stripes. Three fundamental assumptions underlie this book. Firstly, an understanding of the past is relevant to any nation’s search for self-identity. Secondly, in acquiring this understanding, minority viewpoints are as important as the ideas of members of the dominant social classes whose ideas resulted in the formulation of national policies. Thirdly, to criticize one’s country is to do it a service and pay it a compliment. Simply put, dissent means opposition to the status quo (Giffin and Smith, 1971). There is no gainsaying the fact that dissent raises questions of patriotism and loyalty to one’s people and nation. Be it as it may, as J.W. Fulbright (1966) points out, to criticize one’s country is to do it a service. It is a service because it may spur the country to do better than it is doing; it is a compliment because it evidences a belief that the country can do better than it is doing. In a similar vein, Edward Said (1994) notes that whereas we are right to bewail the disappearance of a consensus on what constitutes objectivity, we are not, by the same token, completely adrift in self-indulgent subjectivity. Given the limitations of the human brain, no one can speak up on all the issues that plague a given society at a given time. However, it is our conviction that each one of us has a special patriotic mandate to address the constituted powers of one’s own society, which are accountable to its citizenry, especially when powers vested in elected representatives are exercised in a manifestly disproportionate and immoral fashion, or in a deliberate program of discrimination, marginalization, repression and collective cruelty.

The raison d’être of speaking truth to power, therefore, is mainly to project a better state of affairs— one that espouses a set of sane moral values, namely peace, love, reconciliation, abatement, patriotism and accountability. The purpose of dissent, therefore, is not to show how right one is but rather to endeavor to induce a change in the moral climate in a society where aggression passes for the norm, the unjust punishment of members of a society is aided and abetted, and the usurpation of fundamental human rights is glossed over with impunity. To back away or simply to toe the line in the face of such injustices is to be unpatriotic to say the least. Said lends his voice to this assertion when he notes that Nothing is… more reprehensible than those habits of mind in the intellectual that induce avoidance, that characteristic turning away from a difficult and principled position which you know to be the one right one, but which you decide not to take(p.100).

The reason some intellectuals sink that low is because they do not want to appear too political. Some are afraid of being controversial. Others are galvanized by thirst for gratification—their hope is to be on a board or prestigious committee, and to remain in the good books of the powers-that-be; someday they hope to get an honorary degree, a big prize, perhaps even a ministerial position. As far as we are concerned, for a genuine intellectual, these habits of minds are corrupting par excellence because they are lethal to the intellectual’s raison d’être. To borrow words from Said again, If anything can denature, neutralize and finally kill a passionate intellectual life it is the internalization of such habits.(101) Personally, I have encountered such intellectuals in one of the toughest of all contemporary post-colonial imbroglios—Cameroon, where the Anglophone Question has hobbled, blinkered, muzzled many intellectuals (Anglophone and Francophone alike) who know the truth and are in a position to serve it. In our opinion, despite the abuse and vilification that any outspoken supporter of the Ambazonian Revolution earns for him or herself, the truth deserves to be spoken, represented by an unafraid and compassionate intellectual. Yes, the voice of the intellectual is lonely, but it has resonance only because it associates itself freely with the reality of a movement, the aspirations of a people and the common pursuit of a shared ideal.

In sum, dissent is no Panglossian idealism. It is carefully weighing the alternatives, picking the right one, and then intelligently representing it where it can do the most good and occasion the right change. To attain this objective, the intellectual need not climb a mountain or mount a pulpit in a bid to declaim from the heights. The sensible thing to do is represent human justice in such a way as to influence persuasively. To abandon the defense of truth or to tolerate any tampering with any of its foundations is in effect to betray one’s intellectual calling. Lending his voice to our stance throughout this book is Saif (1994) who contends: One of the shabbiest of all intellectual gambits is to pontificate about abuses in someone else’s society and to excuse exactly the same practices in one’s own.(92) In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith. Like medication, the test of its efficacy lies not in its taste but in its effects. Ultimately, what matters is not how it makes people feel at the moment, but how it inspires them to act together for the betterment of the status quo. The genuine intellectual ought to be too confident to conform; too strong to be silent in the face of injustice and too decent to be cowed into submission. Dissent, in short, is more than a right. It is an act of patriotism, a higher form of patriotism than the familiar rituals of national adulation. Slowly but surely, our leaders are succumbing to the arrogance of power. In so doing, our nations have failed to live up to their capacities and promises. The measure of these failures is the measure of the patriot’s duty of dissent. The essays that constitute the kernel of this book lend credence to these assertions.

Chapter 1

Dissent as the Highest Stage of Patriotism

Quite a few people who pontificate on the dissonance between dissent and patriotism remain oblivious to the fact that these terms are actually complementary. It is a delusionary route to walk when people obstinately cling to the idea that any intellectual or scholar who takes his or her country to task is ipso facto placing him or herself in the camp of renegades. One of the most celebrated intellectuals of our time, Edward Said, argues in his seminal book titled Representations of the Intellectual (1994) that One of the shabbiest of all intellectual gambits is to pontificate about abuses in someone else’s society and to excuse exactly the same practices in one’s own (p.92). Cameroonian scholar Bernard Nsokika Fonlon in his seminal work, Genuine Intellectuals: Academic and Social Responsibilities of Universities (2009) subscribes to Said’s worldview. Arguing along the same lines, celebrated Nigerian novelist, Chinua Achebe(1983) contends that one common feature of underdeveloped nations is the tendency among the ruling elite to live in a world of make-believe with regard to matters pertaining to patriotism. In his well-known work titled An Image of Africa and the Trouble with Nigeria (1983), Achebe maintains that spurious patriotism is one of the hallmarks of Nigeria’s privileged classes whose generally unearned positions of sudden power and wealth must seem unreal even to themselves(35). Achebe’s definition of a true ‘patriot’ is one who will always demand the highest standards of his country or continent and accept nothing but the best from his people. He will be outspoken in condemnation of their shortcomings without giving way to superiority, despair or cynicism. (35)

In the second quarter of the nineteenth century, a Russian aristocrat named Peter Chaadayev was described as insane by Czar Nicholas I for publicly describing his country as a backward nation caught up in a narrow and boastful nationalism. Subsequently, Chaadayev defended his patriotism and the viewpoints that had stirred up the Czar’s wrath in an essay entitled Apology of a Madman (1837). Believe me, he wrote in the concluding paragraph of the essay, I cherish my country more than any of you…But it is also true that the patriotic feeling which animates me is not exactly the same as the one whose shouts have upset my quiet existence… I have not learned to love my country with my eyes closed, my head bowed, and my mouth shut. I think that one can be useful to one’s country only if one sees it clearly; I believe that the age of blind love has passed, and that nowadays one owes one’s country the truth. I confess that I do not feel that smug patriotism, that lazy patriotism, which manages to make everything beautiful, which falls asleep on its illusions and with which unfortunately many of our good souls are afflicted today (cited in Giffin and Smith, 1971, p.316).

In this chapter, we have deplored what we perceive to be smug patriotism; the irksome tendency to equate any expression of dissent with absence of patriotism. It is our contention that to criticize one’s country or continent is, in and of itself, an act of patriotism. The French often say Qui aime bien châtie bien [He that loves well chastises well]¹. To criticize one’s country is, indeed, to do it great service. Criticism of one’s fatherland is supreme service in the sense that there is the expectation that criticism serves as a catalyst that spurs a country and its leadership out of mediocrity. Criticism serves as a clarion call to better performance; it is a wake-up call because it evidences the critique’s belief that the country is capable of better performance. In a genuine democracy, dissent is tantamount to exercising one’s constitutional right to freedom of speech; it creates room for checks and balances. Like medication, the test of its efficacy does not reside in its taste but in its effects. The test of its value lies not in how it makes people feel uncomfortable the immediacy, but rather how criticism galvanizes people of all strides to act together for the betterment of the nation in the long term. Criticism may embarrass or even shock some individuals in the short run but in the long term, it strengthens nationalism.

Therein lies the ambivalence of the term ‘patriotism.’ Woodrow Wilson (1923) once said that there was such a thing as being too proud to fight; there is also, or ought to be, such a thing as being too confident to conform, too strong to be silent in the face of palpable arrogance of power. A bona fide intellectual should have the gall to speak truth to power regardless of whose ox is gored. In sum, criticism has nothing to do with doublespeak. Dissent is an act of patriotism; indeed, a higher form of patriotism that may elude the feeble-minded and the nationalistic zealot. Dissent connotes a higher degree of commitment to excellence and a revolting disdain for mediocrity.

It may sound bewildering for some to hear that dissident is not a pejorative term but rather a tribute. In this vein, to say that Africa is worthy of criticism is laudatory. Should I be charged with being unpatriotic on account of my dissident spirit, I would respond with words culled from Albert Camus who said: No, I didn’t love my country, if pointing out what is unjust in what we love amounts to not loving, if insisting that what we love should measure up to the finest image we have of her amounts to not loving…(1974).

The root causes of Africa’s pitiful performance on the international scene are not a mystery to any keen observer of the geopolitical political status quo. The continent is governed by a cohort of parasitic comprador bourgeois who thrive on tribalism, bigotry, gerrymandering, corruption, impunity, myopia, mutual distrust, constitutional rape, and blind allegiance to ex-colonial masters. My question is not whether or not Africa has what it takes to overcome all the challenges associated with arrogance of incumbency. My concern revolves around the need for a modus operandi that would enable the African continent to get out of contemporaneous political and economic doldrums. I believe that Africa has all it takes to be the light of the world; I also believe that it is falling apart due to its compromised ideals—good governance, accountability to citizens, strategic thinking, fair play and sustainable development.

Gradually but unmistakably, we are succumbing to the epidemic of power abuse perpetrated by ethnic oligarchies in Africa. In so doing, Africa has failed to live up to her expectations and pledges to its citizenry. The measure of the shortcomings of Africa’s leadership is the measure of the African patriot’s duty of dissent. The intellectual has a critical role to play in blowing the whistle on the failings of leaders. The role of the intellectual in enlightening the masses and setting records straight for posterity is crucial. In doing so, genuine intellectuals must strive to distinguish themselves from okrika or kokobioko² intellectuals. In the work referenced above, Said examines the ever-changing role of the bona fide intellectual in the task of nation building. He suggests a recasting of the intellectual’s vision to resist the lures of power and money. Said concludes by underscoring the fact that it behooves the genuine intellectual to be the voice of voiceless, to be a paragon of virtue and courage, to speak out against abuses of those in power and demand accountability. The discharge of this vital and yet daunting task could be gravely handicapped by a despicable tendency to categorize serious criticism as patriotic dissidence. It resides with our universities and personnel that govern them to step up and perform this salutary task because their grooming affords