Criticism and opposition, dissent and dissident opinion, adversity and strife, diversity and competition, all constitute fundamental natural strictures that guide, moderate, and sometimes dictate, innovation, progress, and development in human affairs. Any system devoid of these encumbrances during development is fraught with difficulties in adjusting and adapting to life’s novel and emerging exigencies. Biological evolution, the very elixir of human nature and development, operates on the differential abilities of biotic nature to overcome adversities that are closely coupled with survival and perpetuation of genes into future generations. Planning, administration, and governance derive from reconciling extant differences with adversities of the future. If the present was homogeneous, the future fine and devoid of adversities, there would be no need for biotic evolution, no need for management and administration, governments and cabinets, politicians and presidents, and other command and control structures! This truism has hugely advised scientific, technological and socioeconomic advancement. Criticism, opposition, and their various derivatives and manifestations, are the seminal drivers for improvement.
Criticism and human nature
A critique embodies more than criticism. It should operate at a different level. It is philosophical hard talk. It subjects the issue in question to a searching evaluation of its premises, its assumptions, its terms of reference, and especially its informant ideological framework. It does so in a way that is quite overt in juxtaposing its objectives with a set of principles held by the person launching the critique. The more covert the phenomenon or text under scrutiny, the more searching the critique, whose aim is to make such phenomena as lucidly clear as possible, and to hold them accountable to the public domain advising the critique. It is unfortunate that the application of this wider and deeper meaning of the term “criticism” is not the norm. In several instances, this level of persuasion is practically and theoretically kaput! Critics engage their subjects in debate and for a reason they tend to be marvelously disrespectful. But I derive consolation in the fact that they remain generally and relentlessly democratic. Critics often have this inebriating penchant to see beyond the veil of secrecy and underhand practice – they perform detective work. Regrettably, human nature by design and default is embroiled in secrecy and expectedly then, “nnete ea baba, puo-phaa ke mmaba”! Humans are not readily transparent by any measure of the definition ÔÇô except when the gains outweigh the costs!
Notably, natives in political spaces of influence stubbornly abhor criticism. This is understandable but unfortunate! Elation to the gaze of the public domain exposes one to the whims of the critical elements. The upper social perch is a privileged one and does surely attract varied attention. Every twist and turn while on that social perch is subject to keen scrutiny, wanton conjecture, and advisedly spiced gossip. In fact no (im)mortal is immune to criticism. Not even renowned habitual retributionists can evade this searching indulgence! Assumption of public office erodes the luxury of “personal life” and activities of incumbents become horridly glass-transparent. So, society expects public figures to throw no stones! This essentially entails avoiding the glare by moderating any controversial pronouncements, personalities, or allegiances unless they are perpetrated where the public scrutiny enjoys limited penetration.
Opposition, conflict and cooperation
Criticism is akin to peer review. Sharing knowledge and ignorance, as well as the airing of uncertainties is important in gaining confidence from colleagues and the general public. Formal peer review helps reassure the public and other stakeholders that approaches and interventions embarked upon are relevant and indeed solidly sound. Scientific and economic progress is based on evidence, as well as the critiquing and confirmation of one’s work by others. Questioning, dissent, and dissident opinion are hugely useful. The point is mundane whether the criticism is between individuals, intra- or inter-party formations. Human beings as individuals are different and naturally selfish – as individuals and as identified coalitions of individuals. Any subsequent relationship between individuals, be it friendship, marriage, economic or political formation, is a carefully calibrated and moderated amalgam of the relative costs and benefits ultimately accruing to the individual or identified group. So disagreements and conflict, compromise and cooperation are quite inevitable in order to realise coexistence between contestants. This necessary balance between conflict and cooperation is the most recurring theme in human and animal behaviour. It is the obsession of governments and opposition parties, of organisations and families, of lovers and rivals, of males and females, of predators and prey, of parasites and hosts. It is also the key to economics as game theory would attest. Hence, whatever the detail of the interaction, it is important that consensus should not be reached too early least it inhibits important lines of departure, investigation, analysis and understanding. Ideological sparring should occur to allow contestants and observers weigh out relative merits and eventually realise tried and tested outcomes. Criticism, opposition, and the exposure of fundamental differences offer such a panacea. Unbeaten paths should be trodden!
Pacifying criticism
It is vital that people from various rungs of society should learn to tolerate and manage a diversity of viewpoints. Diversity by its nature, suggests potential to alternative approaches to doing things. Barring excesses, a good leader should tackle differences usefully and tactfully to succeed in the governance mandate. Biotic nature, humans included, “manages” its differences through complex interactions to realise optima as precursors and templates for coexistence! In the absence of trade-offs, life becomes a winner-takes-all encounter. Criticism, whether “constructive”, “destructive”, or “instructive” serves a useful purpose in the natural order of things. I differ with people who view “destructive” criticism as an entirely bad practice.
Society’s broadcast adversity to criticism is a human pathology akin to inferiority complexes. We feel bad, become unsettled, and over-react when initially criticised, primarily because we believe and succumb to the criticism as something negative and denigrating to our personae. Critics employ covert mind-reading of their subjects and this shatters the latter’s self-esteem and ego. It is a well established truism in economics and behavioural ecology that mind-reading some person is an unlikely source of gratification for the subject since human interactions are heavily doused with, reliant upon, and thrive on lies and deceit, albeit leaders tend to publicly minister to the contrary. The weakness therefore actually rests with our belief systems as individuals! We mostly apportion the blame on the critics to heal our self-inflicted emotional bruises, not realising that it is us who are susceptible. By virtue of our innate weaknesses we provide fertile media for culturing, nurturing, and imbibing self-destruction.
The tact is to manage, pacify, and convert seemingly “bad” criticism into good outputs. We need to take note, but not mind the somewhat lame “pull-him-down” correlate to “criticism”. We know that critics are generally perceived as being hell-bent on undermining the mental faculties of their subjects or downplaying their successes. But we should learn to tolerate criticism and use it to bolster and better ourselves and our institutions even if it makes us feel horrible and belittled.
Criticism should re-energise and empower us to improve on identified mandates. We should note that in some events, the criticism may just be perceptions about us. Our core preoccupation then should be to skilfully separate the reality (facts) from the perceptions (hypotheses) and deal with them proportionately. Few of our leaders exude ideas on the managing of differences of opinion, criticisms included. Perhaps this stems from our systemically top-heavy and authoritarian African culture where criticism was little entertained but squashed as something akin to insult or insubordination. I agree that those tendencies have served, and continue to serve their relative purpose in shaping human nature and behaviour, but they should not be allowed to metamorphose into excesses of evil. They should be used advisedly and reservedly.
