Today, 2016 Kaduna State is simply synonymous to the Hobbesian State of Nature. In this State of Nature, it has been said that life is solitary, nasty, brutish and short. This was the era of survival of the fittest where there were no laws. The world had since left this sorry state and have embraced civilization – where societal happenings are now directed and controlled by laid down laws and rules. While Hobbes was analyzing his State of Nature, he pointed out that for humans to live in this state, all the citizens must, as a matter of fact submit all their powers to the sovereign and the sovereign in turn owes a duty to protect and advance the cause of the people.
In Kaduna State today, the citizens have submitted their powers to the sovereign – government. This was done through elections that brought the present government into power. Now, for the government of Kaduna State to fulfill her share of the social contract, she owes a duty to protect the lives and properties of the citizens and to see to the citizens’ welfare. Interestingly, section 14(2)b of the 1999 Constitution provides that the security and welfare of the citizens shall be the primary purpose of government.
However, the situation in Kaduna State is a different ball game entirely. Inspite the fact that the citizens have submitted their powers to the sovereign, the government has woefully failed to keep good her share of the social contract. Even with all the provisions of the constitution stated above, the government has largely discarded this provision and the lives of the citizens are left in jeopardy. Since the classical reason for governmental establishment has been trampled with, it will suffice to submit that this government is as good as a paper tiger or toothless bulldog.
The question that bothers my mind everyday then is that: how can we attest to the fact that this government of ours is ‘useful’ if all these are happening in a presumed ‘civilized’ society? Put in another way, what is the essence of government if all these still happen? Is it not that the government is no different from that original State of Nature?
Sadly, many even from the Southern Kaduna extraction are still singing songs of praises to these men in government. Instead of motivating them by ‘words of constructive criticism’, they have only succeeded in exalting them so as to get a slim wad of kolanut. This act is shameful, unpatriotic, sorrowful and embarrassing. The hard truth is not always told to the government, rather words of deception have been used to radiate governmental atmosphere.
At this juncture, government must realize, in case they are not aware, that the government owes a primary duty to protect the lives and property of the citizens. Wait a minute; did I just say they are unaware of their roles? They are!
At a time like this, When property and lives protection – is not handled properly by the government, what do we do?
THINKING ALOUD (strictly personal but incase...)
Theologians such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) asserted that self defense was justifiable. The Spanish theologian, Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), stated that private wars of self-defense could, under certain conditions, be justifiable. To lend credence to this, bishop Joseph Bagobiri opined that, " Self defense despite its permissibility remains an option for believers. We can choose to use or ignore it. But it cannot be denied to those who feel obliged to use it on grounds of puerile/ simplistic/reductionistic interpretation of isolated texts of scripture. The teaching on self defense apart from being based on natural law, is theologically grounded not on one text of the bible, but the entire corpus, and the living experience of the magisterium".
Furthermore, Protestant Reformers such as Stephen Junius Brutus (1689), Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) and John Calvin (1509-1564) asserted that tyrannical kings can be deposed by the governed. Rutherford, for example, stated that, "We hold, tha t the king using, contrary to the oath of God and his royal office, violence in killing . . . his subjects, by bloody emissaries, may be resisted by defensive wars, at the commandment of the estates of the kingdom. . . . Now, that they [the estates] may take away this power, is clear in Athaliah’s case (II Kings 11:1-21).
Brutus and Rutherford also spoke of an individual right of self-defense. With this theological background, it is not surprising that eighteenth century pastors had much to say on the subject of self-defense. Many of th e preachers in the 1700’s believed that self-defense was a right given by God. A Biblical example is found in the life of David, who took Goliath’s sword to protect himself from King Saul who was seeking to kill him. David’s actions show that fleeing can often be better than fighting -and this he did frequently. But the mere fact that he armed himself with both men and weapons shows that he was prepared to fight if he was forced to defend himself. As Rutherford states, "If Saul had actually invaded David for his life, David might, in that case, make use of Goliath’s sword, (for he took not that weapon with him as a cypher to boast Saul it is not less unlawful to threaten a king than to put hands on him.)" (Emphasis added.)
Also, David’s actions reveal the boundaries of self-defense. One can only defend oneself against an attack; if one is not in danger of any harm, then there is nothing to resist. That is why David did not attack Saul in his sleep. A sleeping enemy could hardly be considered a deadly threat, and thus, for David to kill in that situation would have been an assault, not self-defense.
Rutherford states that, "For David to kill Saul sleeping . . . had not been wisdom nor justice; because to kill the enemy in a just self-defence, must be, when the enemy actually doth invade, and the life of defendant cannot be otherwise saved. A sleeping enemy is not in the act of unjust pursuit of the innocent". Thus, David could only use the sword of self-defense.
Rutherford states that, "For David to kill Saul sleeping . . . had not been wisdom nor justice; because to kill the enemy in a just self-defence, must be, when the enemy actually doth invade, and the life of defendant cannot be otherwise saved. A sleeping enemy is not in the act of unjust pursuit of the innocent". Thus, David could only use the sword of self-defense.
In short, many eighteenth century preachers viewed Abraham, Joshua and David as examples of men who had exercised the duty of self-defense. Not only did these preachers assume that self-defense was a God-given right, but they also believed that self-defense was consistent with being a Christian. Rai daya ne. Let’s defend it legitimately!
May God continue to bless and protect His people!
No comments:
Post a Comment