Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child. If no use is made of the labours of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of knowledge.– Marcus Tullius Cicero
One of the reasons history is indispensable to humanity is that it helps us to know the past, correct the present, and predict the future. Basically, human experiences are quite similar if not entirely the same. True, every age and civilization has its own challenges. But if these are realistically appraised, we come to certain awareness that there is nothing new. At best, what we have in form of civilization is old errors in new label.
This is why innovators hardly get caught up with the challenges of the present. They know that there is nothing new under the sun. With the experiences of the past, the present challenges are easily contained using improved methods. But for the laggards, history always repeats itself. For these, the Shavian conceit bears fullest manifestation that “the only thing we learn out of experience is that we learn nothing out of experience.”
To some extent, the Shavians may be right otherwise, how do we explain the fact that even with our claim to enhanced living, better knowledge, and advancements in virtually every field of human endeavor, the errors of the past are still ever present amongst us. Let’s take the political spectrum for illustration. As much as I love politics because it is indispensable for humanity, there’s one aspect of it that nauseates me.
What? It’s BETRAYAL! For the avoidance of doubt, betrayal is not limited to politics, in fact, it is present in almost, if not, every aspect of life. Be that as it may, rightly or wrongly, it seems to me that betrayal is more prevalent in the political arena. It’s as old as humanity itself but in politics as in any other field, it always come with awful taste. All those who have ever betrayed others or have been used and dumped, are here reckoned in this reflection as USEFUL IDIOTS.
Going through history, one of the most useful idiots that comes to mind easily is Brutus. In his epic novel Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare told part of his story. Marcus Junius Brutus, often referred to as Brutus was a Roman Senator, born 85 BC in Rome to Marcus Junius Brutus the Elder and Servilia. His father, at the orders of Pompey, was murdered in 77 BC by Geminius, Pompey the Great’s close ally in dubious circumstances after he had taken part in the rebellion of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and surrendered subsequently to Pompey.
The Roman historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus in his work, The Deified Julius, tells us that Brutus’ mother Servilia was the half-sister of Cato the Younger, and later Julius Caesar’s mistress. In reference to this affinity to Caesar, Plutarch in the Life of Brutus alleges the possibility of Caesar being Brutus’ real father, although, this is unlikely because Caesar was only 15 years old when Brutus was born. Nevertheless, Brutus was very close to Caesar.
Often, in politics, there are no permanent enemies but there are permanent interests. This is why politicians are prone to alignments and re-alignments in a bid to secure their interests. This is surely true in the life of Brutus as the unfolding narratives reveals. Despite his closeness to Caesar, Brutus would eventually come to oppose him and even fought on the side of the Optimate faction, led by his own father’s killer Pompey, against Caesar during the Civil War.
What happened? Between 59 and 53 BC, the Roman Republic experienced an informal political alliance of three prominent men – Gaius Julius Caesar, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Marcus Licinius Crassus. This alliance was dubbed The First Triumvirate by historians. Basically, they shared power over Rome, and pitched themselves against the Optimates, that is, the politically conservative and socially traditionalist faction of the Roman Senate.
Don’t forget that Caesar was a skillful soldier and a prominent politician renowned for his conquest of Gaul (58–50 BC). Pompey was considered the greatest military commander of his time. But, Crassus was a property speculator, the largest landlord, and the richest man in Rome. However, according to Andy Goldsworthy, the alliance was “not at heart a union of those with the same political ideals and ambitions,” but one where “all were seeking personal advantage.
Indeed, it was at best, a marriage of convenience. With their extensive networks of patronage, the three men formed an alliance with which they eventually gathered sufficient popular support to counter the stranglehold the Roman Senate had over Roman politics. The Senate had thwarted some bills these men had sponsored. With this alliance, they finally overcame the Senate’s resistance to these bills and had them passed.
Regrettably, barely five years after the formation of The First Triumvirate, tragedy struck in 53 BC. Crassus was defeated during his campaign against the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae leading to his death. This left behind an increased rift between the duo of Caesar and Pompey as each schemed to outsmart the other. To the discomfiture of Pompey, Caesar emerged as a champion of the common people, and advocated a variety of reforms.
The Senate, fearful of Caesar, demanded that he relinquish command of his army. Pompey and his legion supported the Senate against his ally Caesar. Naturally, Caesar refused, and instead marched his army on Rome, which no Roman general was permitted to do. Pompey fled Rome and organized an army in the south of Italy to meet Caesar culminating in Civil War.
Historians regard it as “The Great Roman Civil War,” also known as “Caesar’s Civil War” (10 January 49 – 17 March 45 BC). It was one of the last politico-military conflicts in the Roman Republic before the establishment of the Roman Empire. After initial triumph over Caesar in the Battle of Dyrrachium on 10 July 48 BC, Pompey, ill-advised by his ally, met his waterloo at the Battle of Pharsalus in central Greece on 9 August 48 BC.
He disguised as an ordinary citizen and fled to Ptolemaic Egypt where he was assassinated upon arrival. Although Brutus fought against Caesar alongside Pompey, but when Pompey was defeated, Caesar ordered his officers to take Brutus prisoner if he gave himself up voluntarily, but to leave him alone and do him no harm if he persisted in fighting against capture. It is this Caesar’s magnanimity which fuelled the speculation that Brutus was probably his biological son. Brutus surrendered to Caesar, who gladly granted him amnesty.
Still, the underlying political tensions that led to the war had not been resolved. Due to Caesar’s increasingly monarchical behaviour, several senators, calling themselves “Liberators,” plotted to assassinate Caesar. They recruited Brutus, who took a leading role in the assassination, which was carried out successfully on March 15, 44 BC. In the play, Caesar gallantly resisted his assailants but then, when the dagger thrust came from Brutus, he turned and allegedly uttered his last word “Et tu, Brute?” (Brutus, you too?) and he gave up.
The Senate, at the request of the Consul, Mark Antony, granted amnesty to the assassins. Nevertheless, Antony’s incendiary speech at Caesar’s funeral led to a populist uprising against Brutus and his brother-in-law and fellow assassin, Gaius Cassius Longinus. Eventually, both were forced to leave the City of Rome. In 43 BC, Caesar’s grandnephew and adoptive son, Consul Octavian formally known as Gaius Julius Caesar after assumption of office, passed a resolution declaring the conspirators, including Brutus, murderers.
This led to the Liberator’s Civil War, pitting the erstwhile supporters of Caesar, under the Second Triumvirate, against the conspirators. The Second Triumvirate is the name historians have given to the official political alliance of Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (later, Caesar Augustus when he successfully outmaneuvered his allies, and established the Roman Empire in 27 BC), Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony), and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, formed on 27 November 43 BC with the enactment of the Lex Titia.
At the battle of Philippi in Macedonia on 23 October 42 BC, the combined forces of Octavian and Antony decisively defeated the outnumbered armies of Brutus and Cassius. After the battle, Brutus committed suicide. In Dante’s Inferno, Brutus is one of the three people deemed sinful enough to be chewed in one of the three mouths of Satan, in the very centre of Hell, for all eternity. The other two are Cassius, who was Brutus’ fellow conspirator, and Judas Iscariot. Dante condemned these three in the afterlife for being treacherous against their masters.
As I reflect on the chaotic Nigerian politics, I couldn’t help but think that most Nigerian Politicians, especially those from the South, are USEFUL IDIOTS in the mold of Brutus. William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, depicts Brutus’ internal struggle, his assassination of Caesar with the other conspirators, and their subsequent downfall. In the final scene, Act 5, Scene 5, Mark Antony describes Brutus as “the noblest Roman of them all,” for he was the only conspirator who acted for the good of Rome.
Most Nigerian politicians who cross-carpet with reckless abandon will always want us to believe that “they are noble and acting for the good of Nigeria.” I don’t subscribe to this jinx mantra. It would be more bearable if they have the courage to tell the public that they are in love with power and wealth and would pursue it at all cost. I am not a political scientist, yet, it still baffles me why most of our politicians don’t value their integrity. They speak with both sides of their mouths to the extent that it is difficult if not impossible to believe politicians.
In his account of the Murder of Dele Giwa titled: “Honour For Sale”, Major Debo Basorun, may have unwittingly summed up what has become of most Nigerian Politicians. Indeed, their Honour is for sale, particularly to the highest bidder. How does one explain the fact that most of these politicians are like chameleon? Today, it’s this party. Tomorrow, it’s another. Next tomorrow, it’s coalition of parties. All this for what? The most annoying aspect of these useless gimmicks is that most of these shameless politicians are confirmed ingrates.
Yes, when the going is good, they espouse the virtues of one political party, when they perceive their ulterior motives are threatened, they jump boats and soon after, begin to bite the fingers that fed them. They behave as if their former party is so evil that it doesn’t worth dying or sacrificing for. They criticize it as if it’s the worst thing that ever happened to them not minding that they have benefited a lot. Then, when their boats are rocked in their new parties, they cling happily to the status of the prodigal sons who want to return home.
We have watched this drama unfold over and over again. Sad however, that we don’t learn anything. This is why the bad politicians can afford to toy with us. They understand that we are suffering from collective amnesia. We easily forget that all their dramas are just for what they stand to gain. They don’t have our well being at heart. Most of all, we easily forget that they betrayed us before and as a consequence mortgaged our futures. Foolishly, we still fight for them on top of our bleeding injuries deliberately caused by them.
ARE WE USEFUL IDIOTS?
50 total views, 50 views today
The post Are We Useful Idiots? appeared first on Nigerian Pilot News.
