final response to CA: the 'tediousness' of theory

Dear CA,

I must say that I was quite surprised by your last position and see it stemming from some misconceptions. Anyway, I now clarify the issues in it.

(1) On being tedious; you miss the whole point as I addressed the general - at two levels, really -( the first; your postings...particularly on the NBA issue) and you displaced it to the particular (our discourse on rule of law, etc). Incidentally and this I believe was clear enough in my posting, tediousness was not an issue directed against you (at least for me...and I would ally with "round worlders", being of a scientific bent). Besides, I don't think that tediousness is a crime I wouldn't be surprised if a few consider my summaries too extensive and (like you...?) theoretical and thus "boring" + "monotonous" = tedious. But a few positive one-on-one feedbacks I get make me conclude that well, whoever finds them tediuous has the freedom of which information to access or not on the 'serve and could just for all I or s/he cares skip it. (many "Marxists" for example -probably > 80% of those in Nigeria - have never read Capital because it is tedious, but that is akin to being an evangelical xtian without ever reading the bible!) This is at the heart of the second level at which I considered "tediousness" an unfortunate malaise is eating up the search for alternatives in our country is the substitution of sloganeering for thinking, two line curses and abuses for analysis, emptiness for theory, noise for critique, mundane expressions for sublime reflections and the simplistically demagogic for the "tedious". The logical resultant of this is the claim that the world is flat! IBB/Abacha/Obj/Yar'Adua, is stupid, corrupt, crazy, ole, doesn't respect rule of law (for the later two "civilian" dictatorships), etc and the solution simply becomes IBB/Abacha/Obj/Umaru, must go...! This hasn't and cannot get us anywher...not even where and when the conjucture of forces much mor than those abuses have seen any of these elements actually go.

(2) I do appreciate the respect which made you still take up what you had considered a "closed debate". I did apologise for the delay in response (last paragraph of my 11/12 posting; incidentally, the "opportunity cost" of the time I spend now is some delay in my 2nd film's production process which we started work on yesterday -why I couldn't respond immedaitely to this). You however miss the point again with regards to thinking that my last posting after your response was the continuation of a debate with you. On the contrary the form and direction of discourse had changed; the dialogue we had been involved in had been enriched and supplanted by a multilogue, with EE joining in the core of that discourse (other strands of that discourse can be found in other threads on the 'serve engaging other issues, e.g Kenobi's question on which rule of law, which I will engage separetley not to give you a wrong impression again, about the vector-dimensions of the discourse). This is why I;

- pointed out that the meat of that posting related to EE's ( 2, par. 4) not surprisngly there are double the number of paragraphs in my reference to you (to sum up mainly but with a par. responding to your noble call on me to enter the electoral field) in that to EE

- in sending the posting to the boxes of the three persons apart from me that had been part of the discourse on that thread (you, EE & IW; & this I did, because I receive daily digest late at night and don't know the format in which any of you receives FOIC postings), the main person sent was EE with you and IW forwarded, since I was engaging more with him therein

-quite importantly: cut off that posting from the earlier (closed dialogue) and submitted the posting to the list serve as a new topic.

3. On debates and discourse; I think a deeper understanding of debates as distinct from mere arguments is necessary as your take struck me as seeing the dialogue we had from the lens of an argument. Debate is a major instrument (if not the main..) of discourse (at least in its meaningful sense...and not where it becomes basically the tool of dominant forces ideological forging of "commonsensical" compliance). It is about broadening the collective knowledge base of humankind in either great or seemingly inconsequential manners, by throwing up views, perspectives, etc in the construct of something deeper, greater and more meaningful than what was before it commenced. Thus, at times one side "wins" but more often than not we have contrived stalemates and not checkmates, due to the fluidity of thought itself (the debate of which comes first matter or the spirit still rages after > 3,000 years!). The ruthless judgment of history does however validate or tears to shreds the views and perspectives of this or that side of a debate. A good example bearing on Thailand (again!) is that on the workability of the neo-liberal project. Barely two months to the Asian crisis which started in Thailand in 1997, the IMF had in a report utilised that country as an example of where the Washington consensus had been strictly upheld. A similar thing happened with Argentina which in 2001/2002 kicked out five presidents in two weeks as the WC argument faced its nemesis in praxis. It is noteworthy that that has not ended the argument (obvious enough as realities are!) it only propelled the conservative forces of global retrogression to move towards a post-Washington consensus!

How do these relate to our discourse you might ask? Simple refer to 2, par 2...

4. on "success Nigeria" and my alleged "distortions"; no where in my posting did I assert or imply that you had declared the existence of "success Nigeria" and I do take offense at being accused of distortions...why for goodness sake should I distort when our realities as a nation confirms the validity of the theoretical heritage I uphold?!! My take was that "..for now", i.e. with our hitherto debate closed, we could not be in agreement not only on the character of Yar's govt. but as well on what constitutes (in terms of our mental constructs in the here and now) or could constitute (in terms of the possibilities of the future-to-be-concretised) success Nigeria. This is because, far from the ends merely justifying the means, the means relates with the ends, thus playing a role in defining and shaping the ends itself. Thus even assuming that we have the same mental idea of what "success Nigeria" could be, or be like, your faith in the pattern of mantra + correct policies/advisers pathway to that hypothetical "Success Nigeria" we share which is in contradistinction to my view rooted in social change as the way forward cannot but result in differences in "the end product".

5. Your dislike for theorists can hardly be as severe as mine for lawyers in general, yet some of my closest, indeed bossom friends and comrades are lawyers. But that is neither here nor there. To the issue;

- I do proudly (yet without the slightest trace of arrogance) accept the title of "theorist" which you have so magnanimously conferred on me.

- On the artificial attempts at separating the "theoretical" from the "practical", particularly, though not limited to the realms of the political, it is instructive that Keynes (definitely the most influential bourgeois (economic) theorist of the 20th Century had a word to say. He scorned policy makers who declared themselves "practicalists" of different hues, disdainfully pointing out that such were at best acting out the scripts of some derelict and forgotten (as well as ideologically discredited, one could add) theorists even though they be unconscious of this!

-Even religionists accept the fundamental role of theory. For Christians; "in the beginning was the word and the word was with God...and the word was God", for Islamists, the Koran is Allah's "message" and Mohammed (saw, they would say after that...) is his "messenger" and in Yoruba cosmology the (16) Odu of Ifa and indeed the Odu in Ol'-odu-m'are represent the theoretical essence of the wealth of our traditional religion, norms and culture as (suppossed) descendants of Lamurudun's son

- to sum up on theory vs. practice, for those seeking alternatives for humankind's emancipation; (a) while theory without practice might be lame, practice without theory is very much blind with the possible terminal consequences (validated time and time again, historically) of degeneration into oportunism, adventurism, frustration and similarly fatal ideological diseases in practice, (b) I am not just a "theorist", I am actually disdainful of arm chair theorists myself. Quite a number on this list serve have known me at different times and in diverse trenches of struggles in the past 23 ruggedly-activist years of my barely 40 on earth...I do humbly believe that my past and present in practice speaks for itself. Standing on the shoulders of great ones before me, theory and practice are two sides of a singular coin of a struggle I have lived for, still live for and if need be, that I am prepared to lay down my life for; this is the struggle for the transformation of Nigeria, the liberation of Africa and the emancipation of the working people of the world!

6. Finally, on "a worthy dame". Yeah, I did say and do stand by the fact that in my view you are such. You are not the oly woman on this serve, but one could arguably say that you and you alone of the lot has consistently engaged issues and jumped into the fray of debates, many a time with incisive views...I do respect that and (even if many a time still my views do not tally with yours) consider this worthy. Another note on the "worthiness" stemmed as I pointed out in the email from the spirit and practicality you brought to bear on the would-have-been FOIC Conference in June. That joint work also brought me close to Oluseyi Babatunde, whom while we have not met physically, I do hold in high esteem and we still communicate. With the two of us so far from home, our hearts still beat with questions on how to refound our country (two days back, I put my studies aside for a chat with him between 03h30 & 04h30; discussing on "the way forward").

So my dear CA, the barbs of debate do not in anyway bind our eyes from appreciating the worthiness of persons...on the contrary; an adversary worth engaging or an engagement that is deemed worthwhile is with an adversary that is considered worthy in the first place (nb; adversary here in a "theoretical" sense!)

The foregoing might have been "tedious" to any one on the 'serve that did take the time to read it. But if u did come this far to read this last line...I do not apologise, but appreciate your finding a speck or two of sense or interest, in this laying to rest of my discourse on mantras, rule of law, economic team/advisers, "success Nigeria" and sundry matters with my very good friend CA....at least for now; I believe.

With a theoretician's regards,

BA