As
I sit back to reflect over the last few months, it occurred to me that from
January to May of 2015 the frequent word spoken that have captured my ear-time
and my reading time through discussions and interactions with friends,
colleagues, commentators and other wish wishers
have been the word “sentiments”. From the sunrise of the political struggle
on the journey to Asso rock characterized by campaign, accusations and counter
accusations from different factions to the mid-day of queuing at the polling
units and resting with the sunset of the inauguration of Nigeria’s current
president, most discussions have the statement “let us keep sentiments aside”
when an individual is about to drum support for his candidate. This prompted me
to ask when an individual is objective in a political analysis.
An
attribute common among some Nigerians that constitute the “so-called minorities”
in northern Nigeria moments preceding the presidential election based on my
observation was that when an individual drums support for President Buhari, he
is termed objective, patriotic and has the love of country at heart while if
another does same for former President Goodluck Jonathan he is term as
sentimental, biased and subjective. Despite being among the Nigerian population
that contributed to the present government coming into power with a mindset
that as it was in 2011 so shall it not be in 2015, I do not consider myself
more objective, more patriotic and less subjective than other Nigerians that
wanted continuity with the government of former President Goodluck Jonathan. I
feel Nigerians were protecting their interest and they all have right to do so
as my preference for “pate” over rice does not necessarily means the later is
better than the former but has more to do with personal choice.
As a social scientist I was taught
that objectivity indicates the attempt to observe things as they are, without
falsifying observations to accord with some preconceived world view. It is the
ability to perceive or describe something without being influenced by personal
emotions or prejudices and the fact or quality of being accurate, unbiased, and
independent of individual perceptions. However, Karl Gunnar Myrdal a Swedish
Nobel Laureate economist, sociologist and politician opined that total
objectivity is an illusion which can never be achieved because view points are
guided by subjectivity. The Spanish painter and sculptor Pablo Picasso using
his profession to define objectivity said “Painting is a blind man's
profession; He paints not what he sees, but what he feels, what he tells
himself about what he has seen”
In
the natural science where inanimate objects are primary targets, objectivity
can be achieved while in the social science where animate objects are used
complete objectivity is not guaranteed. We may align ourselves with any of the
above school of thoughts but in my opinion, telling an individual not to use
sentiments is a calculated attempt to guide that individual towards an expected
pattern of analysis or response. Hence as the saying goes that refusing to take
a decision among a range of options available to an individual is a decision
itself, I would say telling an individual not to involve sentiments is
sentiments itself.
Bijimi
Daniel Meindous
@Dmeindous
