The Patriot: A slave or a free spirit?

| Friday June 5, 2009 00:00

Is patriotism the slavish devotion to thy motherland? Is it cautious devotion? Is it blind intercourse and defence of the status quo? Do the conservatives own it? The question surrounding what constitutes a true patriot is perhaps at its peak in Botswana politics and society today.

The media and politicians (with different clusters of politicians claiming to be greater than the others) are each contesting over space for the patriotism prize. The conservatives and the liberals are at loggerheads.

The government argues the media and those who appear to oppose the current way of doing things are unpatriotic and risk muddying the name of the country abroad. President Ian Khama, with good measure at times, posits that those who simply oppose what a leader does may at times serve to break the spirit of the nation. Vice President Mompati Merafhe feels the local media is overtly critical, painting an even more negative picture of the country than the foreign media actually. A tone of critics and the media being unpatriotic is not hard to meet in the speeches of Education Minister and BDP Secretary General Jacob Nkate as well as Justice, Defence and Security Minister Ramadeluka Seretse.

Meanwhile, former Special Advisor to President Festus Mogae, Sydney Pilane, in a bold and shocking article (at least for those who have always viewed him as less of a radical), in the Sunday Standard went for broke in his criticism of the current political climate in the country and within the BDP. Pilane even pledged his support for seemingly sidelined BDP veteran Daniel Kwelagobe, also assuring the reader that he shall always be there to be called upon if the party and the country should need him. Undertones of a man positioning himself for a future role within the BDP seem implied, but that is a subject for another day.

'Patriot' made its way into English in 1596 after a journey through Greek, Latin and French languages, most linguists posit. The first meaning was simply 'countryman' and referred to those who shared the same fatherland. But, in 1605, Ben Jonson is said to have used the word to refer to those who loved and supported their country. To that definition, we might add that a patriot loyally serves and devotedly protects his country's freedom. To add to the patriotism debate, William Inge said 'Patriotism varies from a noble devotion to a moral lunacy.' Patriotism, therefore, flows in a continuum with extreme ends.

Patriotism is quite subjective, but I will narrow it down to two categories that I brand 'Conservative Patriotism'- a form with strong undertones of unquestioning and unwavering loyalty to the ideals set forth. This form of patriotism requires that we put absolute or near absolute trust in the wisdom, integrity, courage, goodwill and actions of the leadership. A slavish devotion to the leadership becomes the glue that binds together such a society, thus helping unify it towards common goals. Well marshalled, and with the leadership pulling in tandem with the led, leading for the vision of the society and not their own view of what society ought to be like, it produces a cohesive and more likely to prosper society. Conservative Patriotism is what the current leaders of the country, though not explicitly said, expect from civil society and the media.

The other category I name 'Liberal Patriotism'. This form requires of citizens and the media to keep a jaundiced eye on the daily manoeuvres of government. Patriotism here is constantly questioning and probing the courage, integrity and actions of leaders. It is infact a duty of the liberal patriot to maintain invariable oversight on the actions and motives of leaders. Here, citizens have not only privilege but a duty to doubt and question their leaders and are not bound by the ideals of collectivism unless leaders indeed portray a collective view and pursuit of goals. To them, a devotion to the constitution is not only desirable but a duty of every responsible citizen.

But as David Rolland remarked, 'That's the thing with patriotism - it's all mucked up and messy with politics. The word is wielded by unscrupulous politicians and their surrogates in cynical ploys to get you to go along with unsavoury things such as elective, unnecessary, illegal wars or to dissuade you from voting for a certain politician.'

Politicians, the world over, are battling the patriotic citizen in wars over who is more patriotic. Barack Obama's patriotism was questioned again a few weeks ago. The Associated Press ran a story on his patriotism and in an unscientific poll conducted by CNN - months after previous questions had been put to rest about why he doesn't wear a flag pin on his lapel and didn't put his hand on his heart during the National Anthem.
Patriotism, therefore, is hard to pin down. But the conservative patriot allows himself/herself to become a slave of the rule, thus risking the deterioration of the status of the Republic if the rulers are not themselves bastions of Solomonic wisdom. And very few rulers are of such wisdom. Where the ruler is pursuing the national course as the ruled so wish, nothing is wrong with this form of patriotism. It heralds great rewards and a nation stands in enviable unity.

A good number of conservative patriots have written on their unconditional devotion and love of their countries. Adrienne Rich wrote: 'A patriot is one who wrestles for the soul of her country as she wrestles for her own being.' Robert Ingersoll wrote: 'He loves his country best who strives to make it best.' Neil Kinnock said: 'I would die for my country, but I would not let my country die for me.' The patriotic heart of Nathan Hale led him to face the gallows with these last words: 'I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.' Is this the road to great republicanism?

On the one hand, the radical/liberal patriots argue for a cautious devotion; one based on rational reflections on the achievements, failures and motives of leaders. Malcolm X, with revolutionary chic as always, forms part of that class of radicals. He argued: 'You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it.' Angry radicals such as playwright George Bernard Shaw have also expressed their view, with Shaw famously noting: 'Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy.' Yet another playwright, Oscar Wilde, lamented: 'Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.' Yet 18th-century British essayist, Samuel Johnson, argued: 'Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.' Is this the road to great republics either?

At this point, the kind of patriotism that will work for this country is neither the overtly critical liberal patriotism kind or the sickening slave-master devotion of the conservative patriot. A Vote them Gone Blogger argues more insightfully and with less emotion: 'If paying one's taxes is an act of patriotism, then proper stewardship of said revenues becomes a sacred trust, and it then follows that gross mismanagement of the peoples' money borders on treason.' He further posits what patriotism is not: 'It is not accepting the partisan bickering that we, the people, have had to put up with for so long. It is not hollow claims that it's our 'patriotic duty' to pay our taxes, and be happy about it while we're at it. And Most Esteemed and Honourable Senators and Congressmen, most of all, it is not advocating increased taxes to fund your pet projects when you have the spending discipline of a five-year old. Do not, I repeat, do NOT ask me to pay more taxes until you people learn how to use what you already have, responsibly and with regard to the (fiscal) welfare of the national interest.'

To this calm version of patriotism, Senator Carl Schurz added: 'Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.' Hubert Humphrey said of his own people and nation: 'What we need are critical lovers of America - patriots who express their faith in their country by working to improve it.'

To the more rational middle grounders, ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, seems the pioneer of a guiding framework. While not quite writing on patriotism and its ideals, he gave an insightful guideline to virtue and goodness. The Greek philosopher argued that justice, temperance, goodness and virtue lie not at either extreme end but somewhere in the middle. Thus he formulated the doctrine of the golden mean. He argued that too much of anything is never good, yes, including too much of a good thing.

It is time perhaps for both the ultra-liberals and conservatives to consider that true patriotism lies in conciliation and acceptance of constructive criticism. The leaders must by now have learnt that they are not invincible, neither are they the monopolistic holders of wisdom and patriotism. The leaders love this country, but there is such a thing as misguided love on the other hand; thus, at times it helps to ask those you love whether they like it if you do this and that. The critics who oppose for the sake of opposing even when initiatives are genuine and able to help the ordinary folk need realise that breaking the spirit of a nation is not a very difficult task; it is easy to do, so is breaking down a government. Older democracies such as the United Kingdom have seen it happen. Such will not help us much as a country.