Are states of hope and hopelessness interconnected and interrelated in ways that would be difficult to discern or deconstruct by social scientists? Hope and hopelessness could logically be termed distinct ‘variables’ and it would be preposterous to get them straitjacketed in one airless compartment without critically interrogating the unique attributes of the individual ‘terms.’ However, it could be reasonable to suppose that they are somewhat interrelated since they play key roles in the mental states of humanity. It is trite that the mental well-being of the populace is fundamental to advancing the cause of civilizations.
The contradictions inherent in the society, and the power struggle among various interest groups, propelled great philosophers, theorists, and academics to churn out well-reasoned theories, concepts, models, and ideologies, which they believe would make nation-states better places for the wellbeing of humanity. A healthy and economically stable entity would not only better the lots of the masses but engender their psychological stability in their immediate environment. Thus, over the centuries, monarchy, oligarchy, gerontocracy, democracy, and theocracy had been tried by various clans, nation-states, countries, unions, republics, kingdoms, and fiefdoms, as means of governance. It was an endless and arduous search for a perfect system that would suit multifaceted civilizations over the ages to avoid creating societies where ‘life’ according to the 17th century English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, was ‘nasty, brutish and short.’
The unadulterated fact is that no system is perfect, but there is a consensus among civilized nations that the inalienable rights of citizens to freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of association, the right to elect and be elected, etc, are the springboards of modern nation-states.
Ideally, a free-market economy that engendered competitions among owners of the means of production would have passed through the time-tested crucibles of the civilized society, as being a healthy template of a capitalist ideology. But relentless profiteering, brazen exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production, and the institutionalization of a class-based society prompted materialist thinkers like Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx to propound an alternative ideology based on the ‘law of historical and dialectical materialism which took cognizance of the fact that the means of production must be controlled by the proletariat in a classless society which would be anchored on equity, justice, and fair play. They reasoned that an equitable and just society would, spontaneously connect to the aspirations of the masses, and ultimately lead to the fulfilment of their hopes, aspirations, and dreams.
The above-mentioned ideology, commonly referred to as Socialism or Marxism, was so infectious that it led to revolutions in many parts of the globe. There was no doubt that the Marxist/Socialist ideology was compelling, intellectually stimulating, and ‘scientific.’ Despite its claim to being ‘dialectical and scientific,’ not a few scholars queried its viability, even as some, contemptuously, dismissed it as a Utopia. Truly, idealism was one thing; and putting it into practice was another issue. Of course, there was the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917, as spearheaded by Vladimir Lenin and a Communist revolution in China as championed by Chairman Mao in 1949. But the implementers of these ‘lofty’ ideologies derailed and created a ruling class in the so-called ‘classless society’ where fear, anxiety and obsequiousness turned the populace into unquestioning robots.
The sheer brutality in countries that adopted these ideologies like Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Eastern Europe, ie, the defunct Warsaw Pacts member states, compelled analysts to question the sanity of the leaderships that had no respect for the fundamental human rights of their citizenry. The so-called masses had no voting rights and could not exercise their rights to free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. The opposition elements were stifled, and in most cases, eliminated in those utterly reprehensible totalitarian states. The media were muzzled, and the populace had no access to free and independent press in a fast-paced world. The perceived soullessness in that system of governance totally eroded the innate spirituality of the dispossessed and downtrodden hoi polloi. These contradictions not only affected the mentality of the populace but turned their hopes into hopelessness. The despair among the masses reinforced the disconnect with the society, inevitably leading to the citizenry becoming depressed.
Most nations elected to strike a ‘delicate’ balance by adopting the ‘best aspects’ of the two diametrically opposing ideologies: Capitalism and Socialism, blending them ‘seamlessly’ without trumpeting didactic nuances. In some Western countries, their democracy was founded on capitalism and welfare; where the populace is entitled to free health care, free qualitative education, subsidized housing, and benefits for the unemployed and less privileged.
The democratic world battled the thresholds of dictatorship in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, winning some battles and losing some battles, as well. The collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991 was a major milestone. So many democratic nations emerged from the ashes of that monumental collapse, enshrining freedom, and free-market economy in the emerging democratic nation-states. But the fault lines of subtle dictatorship and abuse of human rights are still prevalent in former satellite states of the defunct Soviet Union, like Ukraine and Georgia.
Although ideologies are important in piloting the affairs of humanity, the most important issue in governance is the well-being of the citizenry, not just economic and political wellbeing but psychological and spiritual wellbeing. The mental state of the populace should be accorded priority and nurtured in such a manner that the citizenry would be strong enough to cope with the vicissitudes of life. Rather than toe the nebulous path of escapism or euthanasia to escape from daunting challenges, the mechanism should be developed, based on proven scientific templates, to nurture the populace to develop a strong mental attitude and positive dispositions, that are tailored toward surmounting obstacles. Developing such a mechanism should take cognisance of the diversity inherent in the society. There are few absolutes in the modern world even as relativism of knowledge is gaining ground in intellectual circles. An interplay or an amalgam of philosophy, religion, psychotherapy, psychology, ideology, sociology, anthropology, history, archaeology, political science, arts, and humanities, could be beneficial to humanity. No aspect of human reasoning or thinking should be muzzled. ‘Positive thinking,’ if recognized as one of the backbones of the mental well-being of an individual can engender the much-desired antidote to some of the mental issues plaguing society. No one is dismissing the enormous credentials of the field of psychiatry, thus the earlier postulations canvassing the adoption of an interdisciplinary approach in tackling issues that are bound to impact the mental states of the populace.
The mental state of people is not radically propelled by ideology, but the ways ideologies or systems are implemented could impact the mental state of the populace. The combinations of social engineering and statecraft are, therefore, crucial in building bridges that would connect the minds of the people to the policies that would engender hope in the society and guarantee the mental balance of the citizenry. Political leaders should always reflect on the Zulu aphorism: ‘A human is human because of the other human.’ No doubt, we are inseparable since we share a common destiny. Our common humanity must be cherished since we face common threats like climate change and global warming which must be addressed collectively. Climate change does not distinguish between races, neither does it recognise ideological differences.
To avoid what Thomas Hobbes referred to as ‘war of all against all,’ ‘Bellum omnium contra
Omnes,’ political leaders should ensure there are checks and balances among the various organs of government: legislature, executive and judiciary. In the same vein, it would not be out of place to distil ancient wisdom, insights, perceptions, thoughts, and ideas that were propagated by eminent philosophers that would stimulate the consciousness of the populace, galvanizing them to the thresholds of positivism. There were Socratic nuggets that pontificated that: ‘an unexamined life is not worth living and the Buddhist exhortation: ‘the mind is everything, what you think you become,’ the evergreen thoughts of the 17th-century French philosopher, Rene Descartes: ‘cogito, ergo sum’ which means ‘I think, therefore I am,’ the concise exhortation in Christian Science Sentinel periodical: ‘change your thinking, change your life.’ These nuggets of wisdom, if blended, wittingly, or unwittingly, with the subsisting systems, would curtail the rudderless tendencies toward the unconscionable ‘primitive accumulation of wealth. By de-emphasizing unbridled obsessions with material wealth, and enthroning good governance, positive dispositions, mental and spiritual development, humankind could rediscover the lost mental nuggets of the renaissance era, where there was a relative balance between civilization and the mental wellbeing of humanity.
Hope is, irretrievably, connected to the systems of governance. That connectedness must not be divorced from the system but the strings connecting hope to the systems will snap if the system is not working. Therein, lies the dangers of erecting systems that are anti-people, as such systems would adversely affect the mental states of the populace, and trigger disaffection in the polity. Therefore, those at the helm of affairs, irrespective of the ideologies they proffer or their political inclinations, should ensure that the well-being and security of the populace are never compromised for their mental being.