Between Communalism and Individualism: Which Way Africa?

RAIS Journal for Social Sciences | VOL. 2, No. 2, 2018 ISSN 2574-0245 (Print) | ISSN 2574-1179 (Online) Between Communalism and Individualism: Which Way Africa? Peter Bisong BISONG, Ph.D, MBA Department of Philosophy, University of Calabar, Nigeria pbbisong@yahoo.com ABSTRACT: Due to its encounter with the outside world, Africa has lost and is on the verge of losing most of its traditional values. One of such cherished values is communalism. Since communalism is variously considered to be the distinguishing mark of Africa, many scholars advocate the reinvigoration or strengthening of communalism in Africa. Using the philosophical methods of critical analysis and textual studies, this paper took a deep look at this quest and find out that communalism is the problem of Africa and thus, recommended that it should be allowed to die out. The paper concludes that until Africa, shakes off the yoke of communalism and wears the apron of individualism, it will perpetually find itself unable to overcome the challenges facing contemporary African societies. KEYWORDS: Africa, communalism, individualism, values, tribalism Introduction The search for identity is a natural quest of human beings. Identity gives existence to things. Anything without identity is simply nothing. It is on this ground that the search for a unique identity for Africa is understandable. However, I believe that caution must stealthily accompany the search for an identity for contemporary Africa. It is true that communalism was the hallmark of traditional African societies and fitted perfectly well then. It, however, cannot fit well in the present structure of African countries. Attempts to make it fit will produce negative effects. This is precisely what Nyerere’s Ujamaa faced. If Ujamaa could not fare well then, when the instinct of communalism was still strong amongst Africans, it means it would fare worst today, where communalism is becoming merely a byword. Even if it is possible to invoke communalism on contemporary Africans, it would fail to produce the desired results. A major part of this work will be devoted to proving this. Communalism is like a spoke in the wheel of progress. It is a drawback to national growth, national unity, peace, progress and other national goals. This means that though communalism is a cherished African past, it should be allowed to pass. Rather than strengthening it like Okojie and Joel, in their work titled “Communalism and the Exhumation of Authentic Africanism: A leap in the Right Direction” advocate, I believe conscientious efforts will need to be made to uproot what is left of it. Communalism was a seeming blessing for traditional African societies, it is a curse for contemporary societies. The earlier Africa realizes this truth, the better it will fare. It is individualism that I promote as a potential tool that would lead Africa to its desired end. Individualism will not only kill what is left of communalism, but it will also foster a greater sense of national unity, which is very important to the progress and development of any country. Most 1 RAIS Journal for Social Sciences | VOL. 2, No. 2, 2018 Western countries are individualistic and at the same time their citizens are patriots and nationalists. This is not a chance occurrence, it is a function of individualism. Individualism in a nutshell, is a social and political philosophy that emphasizes the individual over and above the community. It emphasizes the needs and interests of the individual over that of a group or community. The advantage of individualism over communalism will be clearly shown in this paper. However, before going full swing to the crux of the paper, it is germane we take a look at communalism as practiced in traditional Africa. Communalism in traditional Africa One point that has enjoyed unanimity amongst African scholars, is the idea that traditional African societies were largely communalistic. Mbiti (1970, 141) expresses the communalistic spirit of Africans with his epoch-making statement “I am because we are, and since we are, therefore, I am.” Asouzu (2007, 350) made Mbiti’s statement clearer, when he asserts: “generally in traditional African society, the community constitutes the point of orientation for almost all human activities and determines human life.” Alluding to the communal nature of traditional Africa, Nyerere (1964, 244) also remarks that in traditional Africa, “if a tribe prospered, all the members of the tribe shared its prosperity.” Kenyatta (2014) also stresses the communal nature of traditional Africans when he asserts that, “the uniqueness of an individual is a secondary fact about him or her. The primary fact is that he is first and foremost several people’s relative and several people’s contemporary.” The above testimonies by notable African scholars imply that in traditional Africa, the community is placed first before the individual. It is superior to the individual and in cases of conflict between the two, individual rights and interests simply give way for the community’s interest. In communalism, therefore, the individual is seen as subject to the community, for “the state of being of the community determines what becomes a lot of the individuals, irrespective of the values … cherished by the individual” (Olatunji 2006, 102). According to Menkiti (1984, 172) in traditional Africa, “it is the community that defines a person as a person, not the static quality of rationality, will and memory.” In communalism according to Asouzu (2007, 351), people took it for granted that the community has the right of appropriation over the rights or obligations of its members … it is the community that mostly determines who should live and who should not have life.” It is in the light of the above that Gyekye (1996, 36) defines communalism as “the doctrine or theory that the community (or group) is the focus of the activities of the individual members of the society.” Communalism is a way of life that places emphasis on the common good of a community rather than on individual goods. It is a way of life where members of a society are expected to possess “a common spirit to work together, live together, feel together, and in fact, arbitrate one another” (Ephraim 2003, 31). Each individual is expected to possess communal values such as: mutual sharing, solidarity, mutual help, mutual trust, interdependence, cooperation, etc. These values clearly show that traditional African societies abhorred individualism of all sorts. As stated by Nwoko (1985, 30), traditional African society, Is a society where individualism is considered as a taboo, where each member takes the interest of the community as his own. His pride is, community is power. The more united he is to the community, the more he sees the community as a mere extension of the family. The main reason for deemphasizing the self in favour of the community is for the purpose of preservation of the community. This sense of unity and bonding was indeed necessary 2 BISONG: Between Communalism and Individualism for the continual existence and sustenance of traditional societies, who were constantly threatened from all sides by neigbouring communities. But definitely they are no longer needed in contemporary societies, where the preservation of the societies are ensured by state machineries. Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to let go of this communal tendencies, even when it clearly has exhausted its usefulness. This inability to throw off communalism has been the bane of Africa’s development. Communalism and contemporary Africa As has been said already, communalism served a useful function for traditional African societies and was ideal for such societies, which lacked a central government. But a critical and objective assessment, would reveal that it will be dysfunctional or more properly has been dysfunctional for contemporary societies. The coming of the West to Africa, brought with it, the conglomeration of hitherto, autonomous communities into what is called ‘country’. The sorry fact is that this merger was done without consultations with the autonomous communities or nations. The bringing together of many autonomous nations to form one country, has been condemned by many as the worst that happened to Africa. This forceful marriage has seen to the emergence of a crisis ridden Africa – an Africa that crawls in spite of its rich potentials. While we bemoan this unfortunate situation, Africa has found itself, we should pause to ask one fundamental question: would Africa had fared better, if it were to maintain the autonomous communities as countries of their own? If it had been so, the entity now called ‘Nigeria’ for instance, will be occupied by as many as 250 countries or more. If the small autonomous nations were not merged, Africa would house thousands of small countries. Would Africa had fared better in this arrangement? My answer is a definite ‘No’. Such small countries will struggle to make impacts in the world. They would compete badly with other countries in other continents and thus will be a disadvantage for Africa. This implies that the merger is a better evil and thus Africans, should stop bemoaning its coming to existence and start looking for the balm that will soothe its effects. A lot of people have indeed attempted to locate the cause and solution to African problems. The most named causes include: colonialism, slavery, neocolonialism, imperialism, bad leadership, corruption, ethnocentrism, tribalism, nepotism etc. Colonialism, and slavery while undoubtedly had its negative effects on Africa, cannot justifiably be blamed for the state of Africa today. This is true, considering that most other countries which have advanced today, were also colonized and suffered the menace of slave trade too. The rest of the highlighted causes indeed, impinge on Africa’s development but are definitely not the root cause. These causes I chose to call ‘secondary causes’ merely stems from the root cause – communalism. Communalism with its tendencies to draw the attention, energies, intelligences and the wills of the individuals to the community, invariably draws the individuals away from other communities. To focus an individual to one community is to draw him/her away from other communities. A communally minded person necessarily turns his/her back on other communities, for one cannot belong to more than one community at the same time. Communalism makes one sees his/her community as supreme and thus worthy of receiving all necessary support from the self. Communalism closes the doors of individuals to communities that are not theirs. While this was good in traditional times, where each community was autonomous, it is bad in contemporary times, where we are expected to accommodate other communities. It is 3 RAIS Journal for Social Sciences | VOL. 2, No. 2, 2018 bad because, communalism has continued to close out, other communities, even when they are now expected to embrace others as one. It tends to make members of a community to raise their communities over and above other communities. They tend to seek the interest of their communities, even if this means the denial of these interests to other communities. This tendency to cling to one’s community as engendered by communalism has tended to enthrone and fan up ethnocentrism/tribalism - all other problems of Africa, tap their roots from this. The sequence is therefore as follows: communalism engenders ethnocentrism and tribalism; ethnocentrism and tribalism breeds corruption, bad leadership, political instability etc; and these ultimately lead to a stultifying of Africa’s development. Communalism is therefore, at the base of Africa’s problems and any authentic solution to Africa’s problems must start from this communalistic spirit. Success at dispersing this spirit would tantamount to success at curing Africa’s ailments. Africa is known for bad leadership not because Africans are sub-humans. It is because, the communalistic spirit acts strongly on the leaders, tilting them towards their ethnic enclave. Every leader in Africa sees, his/her leadership position as a chance to elevate his/her community first and if possible her ethnic group and then what is left of the booty could be sparingly be given to others. The trend is the community first (as dictated by communalism), then their ethnic group and then the other alien ethnic groups. This seems to be a normal understanding of all Africans (especially Nigerians), such that when a leader emerges, it is the community that he/she emerges from that will jubilate the most, followed by the immediate communities. The emergence of the leader is a signal for such communities, that their turn to profit from the national cake is at hand. This understanding makes most Africans to rally round a political candidate, not because he/she is the best candidate for the position, but because he/she is a native of a particular location. In Africa therefore, it is not who is well suited for a position that matters, it is the place of origin of the person that is supreme. Meritocracy has no place in the continent but ethnicity. It is not what you have in your head that matters, it is where you are from and who you have that counts. This communalistic spirit has seen to the employment of less qualified teachers, inexperienced contractors, ill-qualified doctors, unqualified managers, etc leading to the slow growth of all the sectors of the society. This spirit is also what informs the electing to office, persons least qualified for leadership positions; it is also what informs appointments of misfits as commissioners, ministers, and others; it is also what informs the coronation of criminals instead of jailing them. A country structured this way cannot seriously be expected to grow. This is exactly why Africa has remained stunted. And it will remain stunted until it outgrows its strong communalistic spirit. Corruption is endemic in Africa because every community expects a political leader from its horizon to leave office a very rich man. Failure to achieve this is to risk being branded a fool and consequently being derided. Thus, every political leader struggles to amass wealth for himself and by extension to his community and immediate environment. Success at office is judged by the number of people of the community employed or established and the tangible things done for the community. A person who succeeds in doing these at a high degree is revered and given titles, irrespective of the fact that it is known that he looted the national treasury. It is not how corrupt a person is, that matters; it is his/her generosity to his/her people that counts. The community is ready to rally round such a person, to prevent him/her from being handed over for prosecution. This tendency to adhere strongly to the community as dictated by the communalistic spirit, and the penchant to pursue the interest and rights of one’s community and ethnic group, in negation of that of 4 BISONG: Between Communalism and Individualism others has been the root cause of corruption in Nigeria and other African countries similarly structured. It has also been the root cause of poor development in the continent. No policy or effort towards Africa’s development would succeed as long as this policy and effort are built on communalism. Until communalism and by that tribalism, is cleared off or greatly suppressed, the continent would go nowhere. It will forever continue to grope in darkness, like a blind giant. I think the starting point to the freeing of Africa, is to disentangle it from the once useful communalism that has become a curse. In praise of individualism Contemporary Africa needs nationalistic spirit and not community spirit (communalism). Unfortunately, the communal spirit has remained so strong that this much needed nationalistic spirit has failed to develop. As we have discussed already, community spirit leads to divisiveness, polarization, ethnocentrism, tribalism, nepotism and such other bifurcating tendencies, which have tended to be nose-diving Africa, instead of elevating it to the much needed development. What then is the way out of this corrosive communal tendency? Many people have proposed that this community spirit should not be dissolved but rather be expanded to include the whole country. That is, the idea of a community, should be expanded to include the whole country, such that individuals will begin to see the whole country as one community. Notable examples of such advocacy include; Julius Nyerere Ujamaa, Senghor Negritude and Pan-Africanism of the nationalists. Nyerere attempted through his Ujamaa to develop the African idea of extended family to include the whole of Tanzania. Tanzania was to be a community, where every member live like brothers. Beautiful as this attempt was, it failed woefully, because of its impracticability in the modern society. The failure of Ujamaa is a warning that attempts at expanding communalism is vain. Indeed, Africa will fare better if communalism could be made a national phenomenon, as this will root out tribalism and other vices that accompany this ethnic based communalism. But obviously this is going to be an impossibility. Communalism succeeded in traditional African societies, mostly, because it was based on the sense of community that was divine in lineage. The founding fathers of the community, were believed to oversee the community (Nwala 1967, 167), such that actions that endangers the survival of the community will be punished. Moreover the gods, were believed to be capable of punishing any human and sometimes many other people, if taboos are committed. These believes kept the people bound to the community. It kept members entirely submissive to the dictates of the community. African traditional communities had moral foundations, which communalism rides on. To expand communalism to include the whole country, will only be possible if this mystical moral foundation could be framed for the country and the individuals made to believe it. But as it stands, this is near impossible. A modern, enlightened African with historical facts at his disposal would find it hard to accept that a country like Nigeria, for instance, is ruled by the gods and as such, actions that do not enhance the survival of Nigeria, will be punished by the gods themselves. Japan before the World Wars successfully used a similar method (State Shintoism) to garner the solidarity and patriotism of its citizen. The Hiroshima bomb shattered this myth and with it the national communalism. National communalism because it lacks a mystical moral foundation to thrive on, will not succeed amidst these sophisticated minds of today. This is why, attempts at bringing forth national communalism is bound to fail. But, even if it is possible to create a national communalism, I will advise against it, because of the numerous 5 RAIS Journal for Social Sciences | VOL. 2, No. 2, 2018 disadvantages of communalism, as shall be shown shortly. What Africa needs most now, is individualism, as this holds the potentiality of speeding up its growth and development. Individualism will destroy the lingering community spirit, which tends to withdraw people into closed and impenetrable clusters, such that each individual seeks the interest of his/her community, even if this entails thwarting the interest of other communities. It breeds the spirit I tend to describe as ‘to your communities oh Africans’. In individualism, the community no longer takes the centre stage; it is no longer the focal point of an individual’s action. Rather, personal happiness becomes the motivation for actions. A right action is no longer decided by the community but by individual’s rationality. Rationality is objective and thus any decision arrived at, rationally is bound to go above communal and ethnic boundaries to also affect the ‘outside other’ positively. Individualism liberates the individual; it helps him/her throw away the ‘ghost of the community’ and with it, tribalism, ethnocentrism, nepotism and other such vices. Where the community is the centre of activities of individuals, tribalism is inescapable but where the individual reigns, who and what will give him/her more happiness will be favoured. When an individual is liberated from the community, he/she will not need to marry, employ, socialize, help, educate or protect the other, based on communal affiliations but rather on utility of the person to the individual. When an individual is liberated from the community, it is no longer what the community wants that matters, but what the individual wants. It is no longer, how do I please my community, but how do I please myself? Individualism breeds creativity. The desire to please oneself, could spur much creativity in individuals. Communalism I dare say stifles creativity. If the community determines and measures right actions, then it checkmates the extent of growth of individuals. When one is inhibited from doing many things, he/she will be made unable to produce and explore new ideas. One can go to any extent both in thought and actions to please himself/herself, but can hardly do this for the community. Human beings are inherently selfish. They tend to think of themselves before others. By making people to go against their nature to think first of others (community) before themselves, communalism reduces the natures of humans, and one of this is creativity. The idea of other people sharing equally in the glory and booty that comes from an individual action is enough to reduce motivation for that action. What fans creativity and industry more is the sense of glory, honour, prestige, and riches that comes to the individual through it. Chimakonam (2015, 68) seems to share this view, when he asserts: “the communitarian Africa does not encourage heroic endeavors in individuals … this phenomenon, I think, is responsible for Africa’s stunted growth before colonialism … all great inventors are vain individuals who cherish glory above everything else.” In communalism, no man, takes all the glory and riches for his individual efforts. It is in this wise, that it is said, that in traditional Africa, the riches of an individual reflects the riches of the community (Nyerere 1964, 244). No one can be richer than his/her community, because the wealth is expected to be shared. In communalism, that ‘necessity’ that triggers creativity and invention is lacking. Everybody lives in a state of relative contentment, for the wealth of one is expected to go around and as such they can be no one so poor that he/she cannot cater for his/her immediate needs. The wealth of individual members are so distributed that according to Ehusani (1956, 108), “when the wealth is distributed and reaches everyone, leaving him no penny, all that he has left is collective poverty.” There is therefore that ‘relative security’ in communalism, which appears good but act negatively on creativity. The sense of insecurity or possible future lack, could act as a stimulus to increase inventions that will insulate oneself against this possibility. The fear that I may lack financially tomorrow (especially at 6 BISONG: Between Communalism and Individualism old age) could make me think faster and harder today, so as to produce what will keep me in existence as long as possible. Traditional African societies by putting up such an environment of accommodation and mutual dependence, which ensures that individual needs are ensured, even at old age, dulled the creativity of Africans and by that making Africa to lark behind in terms of economic development. This is the main reason I oppose national communalism – the relative security it gives, stalls creativity and intellectual adventures. It breeds lukewarm attitudes to life and laziness. This is possibly why Africa lacks behind in science, technology and other fields of knowledge and has remained a consumer and dependent continent. Communalism does not spur one to think deep into life. It rather trains individuals who mimic communal way of life, always looking to the community for direction and legitimization of actions. Africa at the point of colonialism was found to be backward especially in science and technology, thanks to communalism. Africa today, is still larking behind in terms of development, thanks to the continual lingering of the communal spirit. Until Africa shakes off this communalism and takes up individualism, it would not know progress. Communalism is not only the source of disunity in a country (which tends to breed tribalism, nepotism, corruption as well as bad leadership and political instability), it is also the source of the slow growth of science and technology as well as other forms of knowledge in Africa. It is the source of the many crimes in Africa. Crimes like armrobbery, kidnapping, assassination etc that are now the mark of Africa could be traced to communalism. The lingering communalistic spirit is a big contributor to the incessant crimes that have bedeviled Africa. Most Africans have failed to come to terms with the rising individualism, that has overtaken Africa and thus are unable to bear the facts that wealth now resides in individuals and no longer circulates like it was in communal past. Most arm-robbery and kidnapping are merely motivated by that communal feeling that everybody ought to share in the wealth of others. That some people have refused to let their wealth go round, is enough justification for some of these miscreants to perpetrate their evil acts of taking it by force. Arm-robbery, kidnapping and such evils are signs of frustration over the tension between the receding communalism and the emergent individualism. Individualism exposes the lazy and consequently frustrates them into taking arms against their fellow men, who are no longer in terms with that communal distribution of wealth. When individualism completely sets into Africa, that is the moment, Africans will begin to realize, that individual achievements, in all its forms, belongs to the individual and not the community, and thereby will be less angry, if the individual does not circulate the wealth. They will realize that sharing of wealth and other possession is not the right of the community, but a privilege that the individual may choose to grant or not. It is at that moment that crimes like kidnapping, arm robbery etc will begin to prick the conscience of the perpetrators. Individualism also imbues a sense of competition in individuals – competition for glory and power. This engendered competition could lead to amazing discoveries and productions that would catapult Africa from its present crawling state to the taking of gigantic steps towards development. Unlike communalism which breeds the sense of contentment, individualism creates a hunger for more glories, powers, wealth, fame etc. Also, unlike communalism which places a lot of drawbacks at the waist of the individuals, individualism liberates the individual to explore, exploit, aspire and adventure. Communalism draws the individual towards the community and prevent him/her from encountering the other in other communities, individualism looks not at the community but to any possible source of help towards self-realization. Communalism sets 7 RAIS Journal for Social Sciences | VOL. 2, No. 2, 2018 the individual looking backward, individualism sets the individual in a forward move. The craving for more glories, fame, wealth, and powers engendered by individualism, makes the individual forward looking. This more, he/she is in search of, the self knows is beyond the bounds of a community. It is in this wise that I think, that individualism will bring forth more patriotic citizens than communalism. This hunger and cravings for more, will naturally leads the individual to encounter, appreciate and accommodate the others, as a condition for achieving the ‘more’. If I seek more fame for instance, I will definitely want to ingratiate myself to a larger society to get a wider fame. The same is true of wealth and power, the wider the reach, the greater the power. Individualism therefore moves the individual to encounter the other, while communalism pulls one back towards the community. For the various ethnic communities and groups to get united to form united African nations, communalism must give way for liberated individuals, who will be more forward looking and going. Individualism when it rules, will ensure the appointments of people into positions not based on ethnic sentiments but on merit. This is why I praise Muhammadu Buhari (president of Nigeria) statement at his inauguration: I belong to nobody and I belong to everybody. An individual who is not community centred actually belongs to nobody and at the same time belongs to everybody. Individualism therefore, would produce individuals who belong to no community but to all communities. It will produce emancipated individuals, who could be rightly called ‘world citizens’. It would produce individuals, who by reason of pursuance of personal interests and aspirations, would come up with differing solutions to the myriad problems of the continent. In lieu of Conclusion: Steps towards the suppression of communalism and by extension tribalism I conclude this paper by strongly rebutting the claims by Chinua Achebe and others of his ild that the problem with Nigeria, nay Africa, is the problem of leadership. The problem with Africa is rather communalism. The leadership problem is only a function of communalistic leanings. Where communalism not to be so strong in Africa, leadership will be forward looking, rather community looking. Individualism is gradually creeping into Africa. This paper argues that rather than attempting to stall it, it should be fanned to flame, for in it lies the hope of African unity and development. I strongly oppose those who advocate the revival of communalism. In agreement with Peter Bondurin, I believe “a way of life which made it possible for our ancestors to be subjugated by a handful of Europeans cannot be described as totally glorious” and thus, should not be coveted. Communalism is gradually dying and should be allowed to die. In fact, deliberate policies and actions should be made towards killing it. The government should move towards eradicating the idea of the superiority of the community that has tended to rule the minds of Africa, and make them look backward, instead of forward. Governmental steps that could decrease or eliminate this excessive attachment and commitment to communal and ethnic groupings could include the following: 1. The possession of state and local government of origin certificates, should be deemphasized and employment forms should not require these to be provided. This will ensure that a Nigerian, would be able to get employment in any state or local government of the country, notwithstanding whether he/she is from that state or local 8 BISONG: Between Communalism and Individualism government. It is the qualifications one has that should qualify one for a job and not the state or local government of origin. 2. The federal character system especially as practiced in Nigeria, whereby quotas are given to different regions, for federal employment and appointments, should be stopped. Employments and appointments should not be based on quota system but on merit. Who is best fitted for a position should be fixed there, irrespective of the place of origin of the person. It is the person that should be looked at, not his community. Every country needs the very best to fill sensitive positions. In a situation where the very best is not chosen because he/she is not from a certain location, where a quota need to be filled, is condemnable. It hinders progress, as the ill-suited would be chosen, because he/she needs to fill the quota for that region, when they are better and ready hands in other regions. 3. Qualification for election into political offices should not be restricted to indigenes but be open to include those who have stayed at least a minimum of ten years in that locality. Anyone who has stayed in a place for at least ten years should be qualified to run for any elective position in the place. Emphasis should be on the quality of the candidate and not his origin as is presently the case. It is only in detribalized countries like U.S.A. that Obama, a Kenyan could become a president. Opening up the electoral process is a veritable way of detribalizing the nations of Africa. Detribalization process must begin with the laws, and electoral laws occupy a unique position in these schemes, and thus must be detribalized. 4. Zoning system should be discouraged. In Nigeria, especially among in states and local governments, the zoning system holds sway in the political arena. Each zone takes turn in producing candidates for electoral offices. This will mean the best and most qualified candidates will not qualify to contest election, if he/she is not from a zone that is to produce the governor, chairman, councilor etc. This arrangement may seem right for it ensures equitable distribution of power, but when looked objectively, it fosters and enthrones tribalism and ethnocentrism. The zone in power, will see it as its turn to loot the treasury as well as to employ its people, and the zones yet to get power, will wait patiently for it turn, to do same. This arrangement increases corruption. It also weakens the resolve to fight corrupt officers. The public treasury is looted recklessly as the onlookers leak their tongue in eager anticipation of their own turn to take the looting positions. When this zoning arrangement is put off, the best candidates will emerge for elective positions and the onlookers will be less likely to tolerate corruption. 5. Political education. Since political participation is the best way to elect best rulers and to curb tribalism, which has tended to eat at the bone marrow of development, it means political participation is to be encouraged and strengthened. One best way to do this, is through political education. Most Africans are politically ignorant and illiterate and thus are not able to participate actively in political affairs. They are not able to vote rightly but are moved by sentiments. Political education is aimed at improving the knowledge and skills of the masses in politics, so as they would be enabled to make wise choices as per electoral matters. With political education the masses would be able to discern the best candidates for particular positions and would understand the importance of getting these right candidates to such positions. This knowledge will help to get the masses interested in politics and in the choices of leaders and will spur them to fight for their political rights. Such political education, will put to end, the nonchalant attitudes that accompany electoral fraud and injustices, whereby few people gather to select leaders and the masses accept them in upmost silence. 9 RAIS Journal for Social Sciences | VOL. 2, No. 2, 2018 When these points are clearly put into practice by the government, the masses will freely and somewhat unconsciously move away from communal cleavages towards individualism. It has to be noted, that the individualism I crave for is not that extreme individualism that think of nobody but of the self. It is not the sort that Veehoven (1999, 2) describes that “goes with amoral selfishness.” It is rather a sort of individualism that thinks of individuals (of one’s community and other communities) more than the community. It is a sort of individualism that seeks, to garner the greatest happiness possible for the self, through other persons of whatever origin. It is an individualism, which allows the individuals to dictate the path, pace and nature of their lives, rather than the community doing so. It is the sort of individualism that agrees with Attoe (2016, 124) conception of it as that which “recognizes the unique nature of each individual as distinct from others, placing the individual as the ultimate standard of value ahead of the society, which is nothing other than a creation of the human mind.” This sort of individualism recognizes only the relation between individuals and not that between individuals and communities. It seeks the best for the self, by allowing him/her to marry/relate with the persons perceived by the self to be the best irrespective of whether or not they are from a given community. It allows one to borrow or imbibe only ideas the self, perceived to be the best, irrespective of whether or not there are indigenous. Such a person is not barricaded by communal demands, aspirations, beliefs, expectations etc. It is what the self, dictates, desires and aspires for that matters. References Asouzu, I. Ibuanyidanda. 2007. New Complementary Ontology beyond World-Immanetism, Ethnocentric Reduction and Impositions. Zweigniederlassung Zurich: LIT VERLAG GmbH & Co. KGWien. Attoe, Arabiah. 2016. “De-Ethnicizing the Nigerian Mind: A Quest for Liberal Individualism.” Biennial International Conference and Meeting of Nigeria Philosophical Association (NPA). Eds. M. Asiegbu & J. Chukwuokolo. Enugu: Jones Communications Publishers. Bondurin, Peter. 1981. “The Question of African Philosophy.” Philosophy 56:161-179. Chimakonam, Jonathan. 2015. “The Knowledge Question in African Philosophy: A Case for CognoNormative (Complementary) Epistemology.” In Atuolu Omalu: Some unanswered Questions in Contemporary African Philosophy. Ed. J. Chimakonam. Lanham: University Press of America. Ehusani, George. 1956. An Afro-Christian Vision, ‘Ozovehe’, Towards a Humanized World. London: Liberty Arts Press. Ephraim, I. 2003. ”African Communalism.” A Colloquium of African Philosophy. Ed. G.O. Ozumba. Calabar: Pyramid Publishers. Gyekye, K. 1996. African Cultural Values: An Introduction. Accra: Sanklfa Publishing Company. Kenyatta, Jomo. 2014. African Consciousness. http://africanconsciousnessdotorg.wordpress.com/ …s/jomo... Retrieved January 9, 2014. Mbiti, John. 1970. Africa Religion and Philosophies. New York: Achor Books. Menkiti, I. 1984. “Person and Community in African Traditional Thought. African Philosophy: An Introduction.” (3rd edition). Ed. R.A. Wright. Lanham: University Press of America. Nwala, T. U. 1967. Igbo Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Nwoko, M.I. 1985. The Rationality of Africa Socialism. Roma: University Press. Nyerere, J. Ujammaa. 1964. “The Basis of African Socialism”. African Socialism. Eds W.H. Friedland & C.G. Resberg. California: Standard University Press. Olatunji, O. 2006. “The individual-Community Relationship as an issue on Social and Political Philosophy.” Issues in African philosophy. Ed. O. Oladipo. Ibadan: Hope Publications Ltd. Veenhoven, Ruut. 1999. “Quality-of-life in Individualistic Society: A comparison of 43 Nations in the early 1990’s”. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 48: 157-186. 10