The Political Dangers of Emotion: The Clear Demarcation Between Reality and politics of Illusion
By
Martins Chiedozie Ugwu
Johnmartinsworldonline@gmail.com

"When political spectators and actors subject politics to one universal perspective by depriving themselves of their ability to see and hear others, they simply imprisoned themselves in the subjectivity of their own singular experience and the consequence is a drastic distortion of moral and political judgment clouded by emotion and sentiment."

For decades now, a number of scholars have started to consider the role of emotions in political judgment, political mobilization and decision-making. Even some normative political theorists have included emotions in their research agenda and challenged, also from within the field of normative political theory, the dominant hyper rationalist liberal perspective. Here I will try to attempt to widen our understanding of the complex and multidimensional role played by emotions in politics, especially as it relates to the personality of political leaders and as an explanation for how the electorates evaluate significant features around them.

Perhaps the mysterious character of emotion has been largely to blame for the difficulty of executing scientific studies of emotion in politics. Also perhaps responsible is the dominant view in political theory that progress and democratic politics require less emotion and more reason. It has been common, at least for decades now, to treat emotion as an unavoidable factor in politics that should be constrained and minimized so that reason dictates judgment with minimal distraction. Though emotions may be important as subjective motives for individual action, my point here is that they should neither be aired in public nor be made the basis for collective action. Just as excitement can cause one to overestimate his/her chances of success, emotions can also disfigure politics and political movements or decisions should be based on rational argument, not passion or illusion.

But unfortunately, in this part of the world, it seems like our political debates and discourse largely centers on emotion rather than on the basis of realities and politics of ideology. Because in general, not just in politics, we have allowed our emotions to cloud our sense of reasoning. Even in our private lives, the pressure arising from or the quest for things that don't really matter in life, will continue to remain the greatest challenge facing us as a people and that is emotion directing our sense of judgment. The worst is when we replace reasons and right judgment with sentiments or emotion. As we get so emotional or heavily attached to certain dogmatic ideologies which usually provide us with a false sense of meaning about life especially as it concerns politics of development and when to separate emotion from politics. It calls for a sense of worry when there is no classification of our political parties on the basis of ideological differences or sound political ideology. And it has become more important now than ever, for us to begin to divorce completely from emotion while passing political judgment or lending our political support to our preferred candidates and it is only when we do that we can understand the clear gap between political opposition and enmity in real life which is what we have taken in places of political opposition or ideological differences. Only when we separate emotion from politics will we understand better the role of the majority in a democratic setting and the grave consequences of identity politics.

So it will be beneficial to the entire country if we begin to argue about our candidates on the basis of what they actually represent, what they have done in the past both in public and private life and not what they are telling us they are or what you are hearing about them. Yes, I believe and know that people of all temperaments, personality types, and personal/professional backgrounds can be great leaders, and that they can lead quite differently and still be successful. So like I said earlier, I believe that there are certain traits that are foundational traits of effective leaders which we should always look out for in any candidate of our choice before lending our support. You cannot be great or emerge as a transcendental leader without those traits which I will outline in the next publication. Because you cannot build trust without them. And the trick to measuring leadership is to measure a leader’s effectiveness.

Finally, as the general election draws closer, it is important we understand that political opposition is not enmity and should not be attached with emotion but reasons. I found it appalling that intellectual discourse is fast eroding in our political contests and decisions. That a certain candidate is good to you doesn't make that person a good leader or the best candidate. That a certain candidate is from the same region or tribe with you does not give the person automatic victory or qualification to make the best leader. Inasmuch we need effective leadership, we seem to lay more emphasis on the issues that don't really count than the real deal needed for transforming a backward society like ours. Instead of the candidate's health and mental capacity, it is senseless when we lay more emphasis on the candidate's tribe, zone or age which shouldn't be the basis of our argument. Even though we are aware that age can't be ruled out when considering effective delivery in some positions, we have seen several world leaders, far above retirement age but still delivering leadership excellence to their people. It is in the brain, not the tribe or age. What is important here is sound health and mental capacity.

Martins Chiedozie Ugwu
Johnmartinsworldonline@gmail.com
+2348037553190