NEOTERRORISM IN IMO STATE! By KEMKA S. IBEJI
 |
It is a truism that before government nay the state, the use of naked power and physical violence was in the hands of all who can and may. This is clearly witnessed in the theories of the social contractarians viz; Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
According to Hobbesian rendering in the state of nature, life was brutish nasty, solitary and short. It was war of all against all. This shows how liberalized the use of force or violence was. Mind you, this is in the state of nature. By this time there was no government and no state. Here in the state of nature, it was like wherever and whatever page you can find, you read along.
However, at the wake of human social organization, there was need for sanity, orderliness and leadership. At this point, all citizens submitted their whims and caprices, their wills and freewill to the leviathan or the sovereign. This is the advent of government.
At the above juncture, all use of violence were as well submitted to the government for proper administration. This made the government to be an administrator of the common will of the people. Part of this common will is the use of physical force or violence. This gave government the pure absolute stance on the use of violence and physical force. In this regard, any other use of violence which is not granted by the government is illegitimate and therefore outlawed.
It is therefore widely regarded as a defining characteristic of the modern state. No wonder in his lecture “Politics as a Vocation” (1918), the German sociologist Max Weber defined the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”
Wikipedia on its part wrote that "The monopoly on violence or the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force is a core concept of modern public law, which goes back to Jean Bodin's 1576 work Les Six livres de la République and Thomas Hobbes' 1651 book Leviathan.
One needs not lose the emphasis placed on the word in use "legitimate". By this it simply means that the only restriction on the use of violence or physical force as prescribed here is the law. Anybody else is unlawfully and illegitimately free to wield violence as a tool. Of course, that is to such one's detriment.
Another inference here is that individuals, bodies, groups and organizations can as well make legitimate use of physical force or violence in so far as the right to such use is approved or sanctioned by the government otherwise it runs against the monopoly and to such extent illegitimate.
Coming to the recent violent acts by the immediate past governor of Imo State Rochas Okorocha and his political family against the government of Imo State, one will clearly delineate that they are wielding illegitimacy in unholy celebration. Why should any citizen and especially the family of the past governor who enjoyed to the fullest the monopoly on violence and physical use of force stand against the enforcement of wishes of the government of the day? Why?
The ignominious command of the Lord and mater of that archaic fiefdom - Owelle Anayo Rochas Okorocha and a certain little Sam Onwuemedo who brandished as his media aide - to the Imo State governor (Chief Emeka Ihedioha) to render an apology to the family of Rochas Okorocha for slapping of the hand of the daughter who was standing against the enforcement of the orders of the institution with the legitimate monopoly on violence, is absolutely a crassly full dosage of insanity. This derives from the fact that the daughter of the former governor was exercising illegitimacy on the use of force. This simply amounts to violence against the institution of government and so not only criminal but terrorist.
Driving home this point of the Rochas Okorocha and family committing acts of terrorism in Imo State, it is important for us to consider some definitions of terrorism. Wikipedia in its meaning of terrorism states "In general, terrorism is classified as: the use of violence or of the threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, ideological or social objectives. Acts committed by non-state actors (or by undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments). It continues, "Common definitions of terrorism refer to violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror). They may be done for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and uses illegal violence."
It is now clear that Rochas Okorocha and his family are out on a mission to destroy Imo State. Their version of terrorism against Imo State is one tactical one sincerely and knowingly orchestrated. This wicked act of felony is not not only a sin and sacrilegious against the collective will of Imo State people and government but one such act deserving condemnation. In fact, in certain climes felony and terrorism against the state usually is a capital offense.
It is to this end a function of the the government of Imo State to take up on the letters of the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and press requisite charges on this disdainful gathering. In this role call of terrorists should therefore be; Owelle Ethelbert Anayo Rochas Okorocha, Mrs. Okorocha, Mrs. Nwosu (Nee Okorocha), Mr. Sam Onwuemedo, FCC Jones, one that goes on the pseudonym Rochas Pikin and many others. When the appropriate charges are leveled against them and their conviction secured, their commensurate responsibility in terms of their award of punishment - in this capital punishment as their offense is a capital one - will apply. Only when such punishment is pressed and served on them, would our government have placed a worthy precedence for such acts. In all honesty, only that will serve as considerate deterrence to would be offenders as such.
Comments
Post a Comment