Creating A New Nigeria Through The ‘Veil Of Ignorance’

 By Olu Fasan

The theory of political justice is based on two conceptions. The first is the ‘might-is-right’ school, which describes the illegitimate or amoral exercise of power over individuals or communities. The second is the contractarian perspective, based on the notion that a political community should be founded on consensus among its people, and serve their best interests. Nigeria is a product of the former, the might-is-right school. This country was created, built and continues to exist on the whim and self-interest of the powerful, not on high ideals or virtues. 

And because of this birth-defect, Nigeria is not a just society. What’s more, it has failed to transform itself from a perversely unfair society into one that the philosopher John Rawls describes as “a cooperative venture for mutual advantage”.

But how might Nigeria be a truly just society, one that maximises the mutual benefit of individual citizens? Well, Professor Rawls provides an analytical anchor, with his concept of the “veil of ignorance”. We will use this tool to construct how a new Nigeria might emerge. But, first, we must address the question of why, as I said, Nigeria is a product of the might-is-right conception of political justice.  

Truth is, Nigeria was conceived as a selfish project and continues to operate as such. This country emerged from the trading monopoly of a British businessman. In the late 1880s, George Goldie conquered the entities that later made up Nigeria. But for what purpose? Well, to serve his commercial interests; his company, Royal Niger Company, turned the entities into a trading monopoly. Then, in 1900, Goldie handed the entities over to the British government, which cobbled them together to create Nigeria as a colony. It’s a classic case of might is right!

But even after Nigeria became independent in 1960, the elite capture did not end; one set of self-interested political masters was simply replaced by another, albeit an indigenous one. The departure of the British was an opportunity to recreate Nigeria, to fashion Nigeria as a fair, just, inclusive and united nation-state. But, alas, it was not so. The struggle for independence was itself a function of power politics, based on a zero-sum game played by the dominant tribes – Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba and Igbo. And nothing in post-independence, self-governing Nigeria has created such a just and united society; rather, post-independence Nigeria has been an “extractive” state, where a small group of elite dominates and exploits the people, where there is no sense of nationhood in which each ethnic group feels a sense of belonging and thus a stake in the country called ‘Nigeria’.  

Yet, it is instructive that in the United States, on which Nigeria purports to model its political system and constitutional structure, public life is guided and shaped by people-centric, contractarian principles. The US constitution limits the power of the state while guaranteeing the rights of the citizens, including to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, as the Declaration of Independence puts it. 

Although the US president is often described as “the most powerful man in the world”, he is so constitutionally constrained that the projection of his power is only in relation to foreign affairs. That’s not the case in Nigeria, where the president’s power is absolutely unconstrained, where a president with even a minority share of the popular vote rules so magisterially like an absolute ruler.

But why is the exercise of political power in Nigeria based on might-is-right, while in America it is largely based on protecting the inalienable rights and general welfare of the citizens? Well, this is because, unlike in Nigeria, the US founding fathers, and subsequent American leaders, did not create the institutions of society and government based on prior knowledge of how they would benefit them individually but, rather, on the principles that should underpin a fair society. They were so concerned about putting constraints on the exercise of political power by future leaders.

Which takes us back to John Rawls. In his book, A Theory of Justice, Professor Rawls develops the conceptual tools for creating a just society. He calls the first the “original position”. And the basic question is: if a rational person has a blank canvas to create a new society, what kind would he create? Professor Rawls answers this question with his second concept, the “veil of ignorance”. People would create a fair society from a position of ignorance about their role in that society. 

The logic goes thus: By imagining they might be at the bottom of a given society, people will try to create a society that is fair to all its members. If, for instance, you are creating a new constitution, knowing that future leaders might be corrupt or autocratic but without imagining yourself being a future leader, you would create a constitution that robustly limits the exercise of powers by future leaders. That was the motivation of the framers of the US constitution. As George Mason asked at the Constitutional Convention, “Shall any man be above justice?” The answer was no, and as several recent rulings have shown, the US Supreme court has held that the president is not above justice or the law by, for instance, ordering President Trump during his first term to publish his tax returns!  

Of course, the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” are imaginary. It’s hard to ignore one’s original position or assume that one would be at the bottom of the social ladder. But Rawls argues that these philosophical exercises can help people to create a just society.

So, what does this mean for Nigeria? Well, truth is, this country needs leaders who, shun of self-centeredness, can imagine a just, well-ordered, peaceful and prosperous country and create the institutions and practices to achieve it. Indeed, Nigeria needs selfless leaders like the US founding fathers who through the process of Socratic dialogue or what Rawls calls “reflective equilibrium”, created a constitutional document that puts the people at the heart of public governance. 

But sadly, each time a Nigerian leader thinks about the Nigerian project, about his role in shaping that project, he thinks about how it would benefit himself and his cronies. For instance, most appointments to public offices are intended to reward cronies and political loyalists even when such appointees are morally and intellectually unfit to hold such offices. It is thus probably futile to expect Nigerian leaders, given their self-interested proclivities, to act selflessly to transform the country. 

Yet, as I argue in my new book, In The National Interest, Nigeria needs leaders who can put the best interests of the country above their self-interests and those of their cronies. Nigeria needs leaders who can create a new nation under the “veil of ignorance”, that is, leaders who can act in the national interest, by taking actions and decisions that would benefit Nigeria and its people and not serve their own narrow selfish interests. Only then would Nigeria fulfil its great potential. 

*Dr Fasan’s new book, In The National Interest, is available at RovingHeights Bookstore: 08078972157