In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

2 The Bounds of Security Theorising: Envisioning Discursive Inputs for the Rectification of a Post-colonial Situation Philip Ogo Ujomu In Place of an Introduction: Of Epigraphs and Transitions to Discourse There can be no security in traditions that failed us, there is no black market in truth. (Nelson Goodman 1972) The United States spends $30 billion a year gathering intelligence. But the inability of the government to even guess that nineteen suicidal terrorists might turn four jetliners into guided missiles aimed at national icons was more than a failure of intelligence. It was a failure of imagination. (Newsweek International Magazine,1 October 2001) Yield to Nothing. (Motto of the School of Infantry, Jaji, Nigeria) This is a critical moment in the history of African peoples. If I had to suggest one word to characterize their current status, it would be ‘insecurity’. (Richard Joseph 2002) I cannot but use this occasion to draw upon some lessons from the epigraphs and the fact that there is a need to rethink some of them. This is significant insofar as we must struggle to understand the fundamental nature of security and the need to exploit all resources for its comprehension and application in the personal and social realms of life. The philosopher Anthony Quinton (1993: 102) has put it that ‘security is the fundamental consideration without which the other things that it provides are barely worth having’ (Quinton 1993: 102). Still on epigraphs: in my opinion, one of the most fascinating epigraphs (not included above) configured in the form of a motto has always been that of the Boy Scouts; it states categorically ‘Be Prepared’. It has such a demanding perhaps 6 Rethinking Security in Nigeria ominous tone of appeal, warning or finality, depending on the circumstance or condition in which you find yourself. But how or in what way can we be prepared in order to be secure? How many means of preparation are imaginable and how many are realisable within the limits of human history, knowledge, culture and biology? Another question is: what should one be prepared for? With respect to security we must be prepared to see things in a new light and to work assiduously towards change in human, personal and social life. This change is now needed more than at any other time with reference to the issue of security. To start with, the first epitaph, ‘there can be no security in traditions that have failed us, there is no black market in truth’, is an important assertion suggesting that we are in need of a courageous and concerted attitude towards changing those very ways and ideas that have guided us wrongly. Yet we have the mission to move humanity forward. It is a statement encouraging self-criticism and systematic interrogation of our principles and visions as created or inherited by us. It is a call to transit from old to newer or better values. It is a call for humanity to take fuller control of its own situation and to come to a realisation of the dialectics of auto-interrogation and auto-rectification. The second epigraph, ‘The United States spends $30 billion a year gathering intelligence. But the inability of the government even to guess ... was a failure of imagination’, is indeed the clearest possible testimony to the fact that it is ideas and imagination that rule the world. It is ideas and imagination that give security. This failure of imagination is further underscored by Zehfuss (2003: 513, 516) who says that ‘September 11 has been etched on our memories, the superpower caught off-guard, humiliated, devastated; people’s basic trust in security within the state is severely threatened’. The philosopher, as one of the professionals better placed to generate and appropriate ideas, must work in combination with other professionals desiring the same mission and the means of attaining it. Such cooperation will ensure that the opportunities for the expansion of the horizons of theory and practice become brighter. The last one, ‘Yield to nothing’, compels us to raise some issues: is this a statement of rigid deterministic doggedness that smacks of militaristic demagogy , nationalistic isolationism or febrile fanatical fervour? Or is the statement merely an attempt to bring to light the imperative of a requisite moral and physical courage considered as a necessary and sufficient condition for the vocation in question? Does ‘yield to nothing’ mean that one should not yield to superior ideas, arguments, strategy, tactics or fighting capability? Does the statement represent the termination...

Share