Ostrakon is the root word from which we have ostracize. It is a word derived from an ancient Greek democratic practice. It literally means to banish from society usually through popular vote.
Legend has it that a yearly ceremony was held to select one individual for banishment, for a period of five to ten years, who was either too powerful or too unpopular.
To make a choice for the year, every citizen of voting age was required to write the name of any citizen they consider either too powerful or too unpopular once on a potsherd, the Ostrakon. The citizen with the highest number of “votes” was ostrakizein for that year.
In the 1640s it came into wide usage beyond Greece, adopting its modern definition “to exclude from a society or group” and acquiring synonyms such as exclude, shun, repudiate, blacklist, avoid, ignore, ban, etc.
Before we go on to define the social contract theory, the following preamble will suffice:
According to Thomas Hobbes, in a purely hypothetical State of Nature, men are naturally and exclusively self-interested, they are more or less equal to one another, (even the strongest man can be killed in his sleep), there are limited resources, and yet there is no power able to force men to cooperate.
Given these conditions in the State of Nature, Hobbes concludes that the State of Nature would be unbearably brutal.
The situation is not, however, hopeless. Because men are reasonable, they can see their way out of such a state by recognizing the laws of nature, which show them the means by which to escape the State of Nature and create a civil society.
The first and most important law of nature commands that each man be willing to pursue peace when others are willing to do the same, all the while retaining the right to continue to pursue war when others do not pursue peace.
To John Locke, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful. To him, the State of Nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral.
Persons were assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature.
The Law of Nature here refers to that Law that is the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, which commands that we not harm others with regards to their "life, health, liberty, or possessions".
It also holds that since we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another.
However, considering the inevitability of perpetual war consequent upon the pursuit of self interest, the Law provides for self-defense.
This became the strongest reasons that men had when they abandoned the State of Nature by contracting together to form civil government, which the power of oversight and sanctions.
Of critical importance here is the fact the end of "men's uniting into common-wealths", is the preservation of their wealth, and preserving their lives, liberty, and well-being in general.
When Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote the Social Contract in 1762, two key phrases stood out, viz: “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains”, “Might never makes right”.
According to Rousseau, “all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants”.
This to me is the basis of elections; a ritual meant to provide majority of the people an opportunity to confer authority on a few persons to lead.
To summarise these scholars Wikipedia holds that the Social Contract posits that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.
Let us quickly add that what is true for individuals is also the basis on which communities surrendered their autonomy to provincial and federal governments.
Going through this article, one can see that there are so many matters arising vis-à-vis the Oro nation interests wthin the Akwa Ibom State project.
Analyzing these issues will also answer the question of which political party the Oro nation should surrender its political, religious and economic interests to, in furtherance of its overall existential interest.
These we will look into in the shortest possible time.
To be continued.
Uyeh Akadakhaene
Oduonim Isong Inyang.
No comments: