The ideological contention of historical attempts towards an essentialism of art as a value product of social change within any given society, has remained from the time of the Greek Philosopher, Plato, to the Russian thinkers, Leo Tolstoy and Plekhanov, and to the erudite African theatre scholar, Wole Soyinka. The discourse extends even to the argument of this paper.
Art itself a major part of the cultural consciousness of society cannot be devoid of man’s daily mechanism of existence. Modern art has gone beyond the argument of Plato’s “imitation and truth” or Tolstoy’s, “art as religion”. Art has as in the belief of Plekhanov left the docile “beauty” alone. It has instead become more organically beautiful. Highlighting the issues of the relevance of the creative mind as reaction to the beauty of the social life and critical aspects of human existence. It has become more functional, more immediate, more realistic, more truthful in mirroring the social reality of a people. In short, art has become like man and his culture, more organic – constantly evolving. This is the art that I am concerned with in this paper. The art that is part of man’s social transformation, man’s development and growth. The art that examines man’s link to universality.And the art which assist man’s manifestations of idealistic concepts which are to help him raise questions, and find answers that border on his social sensibilities, and assist him in plotting a focused sense of direction, especially in a “globalizing world”. This is the art which must treat the issues of language and identity first, within the individual, then through the differences of communal groups, forge wider intra-cultural understanding of new meanings and solutions to the socio-political challenges of the twenty first century.
With these new demands on art, the artist has also attained a new status within his immediate society. He can no longer be satisfied with the lofty descriptions or accolades such as “the gifted”, “the seer”, and the “teacher”. He too must be more functional and organic. Ironically, because some artists like Wole Soyinka, Femi Osofisan, Peter Badejo, Jide Kosoko, Adebayo Salami, King Sunny Ade, Lagbaja, Olu Jacobs, Peter Edochie, Tuface Idibia, Antar Laniyan, Mamood Ali-Balogun, Don Pedro Obaseki, and Alhaji Wasee Kareem to name but a few, have excelled both professionally and financially, society no longer ignores the artist. The challenges have become enormous. He too must join the social market, and compete for his own existence. This has also meant that he is now placed within a position of responsibility, were the society expects him not only to be an individual within a society, but also use his artistic tool to observe the ills of a society, comment on the ills of the society, and inspire younger generation of the society in order to achieve social change.
From the observations above on the status of the new art, it is easier to agree with Piscator, a German political theatrical initiator, when in considering the various qualities and functions of modern art, came to the following conclusion that:
I too now had a clear opinion on
how far art was only a means to
an end. A political means. A
propagandist means. A pedagogical
means.
(Piscator 1963: 23).
These attributes as listed by Piscator later gave birth to what is called the epic theatre, where theatre as used by another contemporary of Piscator, Bertolt Brecht was the formal and effective use of theatre as a weapon for instructive or didactic purposes.
This discourse shall remain with theatre as a subject and practice, because the title specifically demands for the relationship between theatre and change, and it is only theatre in all the genre of art that can be used to achieve and assess the type of organic involvement which is demanded by this paper.
Explaining why he chose the theatre genre, Piscator had once explained that, “if art were to have meaning at all it must be a weapon in the class struggle” (Piscator 1963: 21). This is because through the use of direct presentation, theatre presents vivid and practical acting and imitation which is truthful and real. Highlighting immediate conflicts through dialogue and characterization, theatre tells a story. Theatre’s other unique quality is to confront man’s emotions and demand that he reasons along with the string of action presented. Theatre envelopes other subjects, history, culture, sociology, psychology and politics.And through a confrontation with the audience, lures them towards a form of judgment, a valued evaluation and assessment of situations, and an ethical abstraction of thought which helps to effect changes or point towards social changes within any given society.
For the purpose of this paper, power must be defined within a cultural realm. I shall adopt the definition of Jenkins which sees power as “social categorization” of a people which is “bound up with power relations and relates to the capacity of one group successfully to impose its categories of ascriptions upon another set of people and to the resources that the categorized collectivity can draw upon to resist, if need be, that imposition”. (Jenkins 1997:23). The issues of dominance, significant class inequalities, group identification and social categorization have remained the problem with power in Nigeria. Even as the 2011 elections draw near, the placement of power within ethnic groups, acceptability of impending losses and victories, and the centrality of power within the bigger Nigerian polity has remained the major political issues. We are not lacking in leadership materials, but the quality of leadership. This is the bane of the Nigerian populace.The Nigeria of today, at fifty years of existence is again at that point where it has to decide through elections on who rules her citizens for the next four years. This is the threshold of the confrontation or collaboration between theatre and political change. It is also important to quickly note that these political realities are good materials for great drama. The language appearing in most cases as lyrical expressionism, is dramatic. The real political characters are grand, colourful and sometimes, larger than life, and some ideas and projected ideals are so mundane and far from reality that they can also when well crafted by good playwrights, hold the audience attention, no matter how restless, for a full dramatic performance. This is the thrust of this discourse.
Can theatre be used to achieve political change? The answer is simple, yes.
This is because it has been tried before in different forms, and it has either helped to achieve change by “educating” and “mobilizing” the society whose problems are reflected in the play, or helped to point towards change by “conscientizing” and “demanding” for it for the society. Again it must be noted that the specific desired effect and its resultant effect of the uses of theatre, depends on the intention and skill of the artist.
For example, Pablo Ferre used theatre
as a weapon in Latin America to mobilize the masses towards a change in the education system. InSouth Africa, Arthol Fugard, had collaborated with John Kanni and Winston Shona to use theatre to preach against the apartheid system of government. It is believed that their plays like Sizwe Bansi is Dead, Antigone and The Island contributed a lot in educating the world about the ills of the South African government which led to a political change.Ngugi wa Thiongo and Micere Mungo had also used theatre in the Kikuyu language to capture the historical happenings of colonial Kenya to move for political changes in their play, The Trials of Dedan Kimathi. And in Nigeria, Hubert Ogunde had used his play, Yoruba Ronu to examine the ills of the developing Nigerian society of the 5os and 6os. In the play, Ogunde had spoken directly to a cultural group in Nigeria, asking them to find a focus of identity for themselves within the political reality of Nigeria. Wole Soyinka again leads in the act of using theatre to effect change. In his “Before the Blackout” Series of sketches by his Orisun Theatre Company at Ibadan and Lagos in the 60s, and the Guerrilla Theatre Unit at the then University of Ife in the 70s and early 80s, Soyinka captured the immediacy of theatre as a weapon of change. Employing the graphic use of historical, socio-political issues and music, with a good dose of iconoclastic wit, where the audience laughed at themselves being presented as character caricatures. Soyinka confronted the society with immediate problems, dissecting the ills, proffering solutions if need be, and forcing the audience to ponder and arrive at their own decisions on the state of their nation. Segun Adefila has continued to use theatre to ask for social change within contemporary Nigerian polity. Using improvisation, gestures, acting close to the burlesque, humour, songs, music, and dance, Adefila confronts the Nigerian audience with the ills of his society, while he criticizes and analyzes the Nigerian society. In skit performances such as, The Fall of A King, Whispers in the Dark, and Our Area, Adefila continues to use theatre successfully as tool for social mobilization and change.
So how can one use theatre to effect changes towards credible elections for good governance in Nigeria in 2011?
Again the responsibility falls on the theatre artist. He must understand his tool. He must understand the craft of skillfully turning theatre from a tool for entertainment and enjoyment into a weapon of social change. He must observe the society, recognize the ills, and begin to weave his plot so that the conflict of his play carries the message without making it too didactic. The society must recognize and identify themselves within the context of the play. All sides of the political discourse must be presented within the context of the play. Questions on good leadership and governance must be presented in the plays. The society must be able to find a space to pause and think, and come to logical conclusions of issues raised in the play. For example,the electoratesshould be able to know that their votes should not be sold to the highest bidder or should they allow themselves to be carried away by the promises of politicians. They should be made to know that they must properly analyze such promises before decisions on who to vote for are made. Questions such as is government ready for free and fair elections must be asked.The dramatic presentations must be direct, yet humourous, the language clear, and the images and imageries recognizable.
Another way of using theatre to speak to the over one hundred and forty million Nigerian population, especially as it concerns the coming political elections of 2011, is to use theatre as a tool for grass root education. This is the use of theatre as a tool for community development, children’s theatre, or theatre in education. In all these forms theatre is taken to the base community or base age group by practitioners. The issues to be passed on to theaudience are discussed and broken down into plots and scenario, and professional actors, children actors, or actors from various communities are made to act out roles who pass on the information which would in turn inform the audience on the need for good and credible elections and good governance. Followup discussion sessions can be organized after the play performances to ensure proper entrenchment and understanding of information. In most cases this is a very good tool for mass education, mobilization and building public awareness. Theatre at this stage, becomes the ideal tool for propaganda and instruction.
Another unique aspect of theatre is its ability to be used by both parties: the artists and government. As a propagandist tool, theatre can serve both sides. Government can also use theatre to educate, mobilize, and prepare the society for free and fair elections. Government can embark in the performances of small sketches and skits that will convey specific messages on themes of free and fair elections. Ironically, the government of Gen Ibrahim Babangida had through the use of theatre embarked on a mass mobilization programme. Called MAMSER, and under the supervision of the Ministry of Information, government was able to teach the society about the “Option A4” system of voting which it intended to use at the time for the elections. To show the effectiveness of the use of theatre as a tool for change, the elections turned out to be the fairest and the best in the country at the time. The present government can also adopt this system of using theatre effectively to propagate change, to prepare the people for change, and to effect change.
The theatre artists can come together as a unified voice and collective consciousness of the society to call for an “abolition of theocratic ideal in all forms of government”. Soyinka goes on to announce such an invitation to other writers in his keynote address at the 1988 symposium which was on, African Literature Before and After the 1986 Nobel Prize when he says;“I urge my fellow writers to use their skill and exploit whatever strategies can be thought of for ending the uncertainty of social existence which is innate to the condition of the forcibly governed” (Soyinka1988:12). In line with the focus of this discourse, such collaboration can be a submission of writers from different parts of the country to evolve a storyline which examines the issue of political elections in different geopolitical zones, strung together, the power of such a play would be in its completeness of details, its representations of the problems, and its diverse appeal to the different segments of the society.
Another way theatre can be used to achieve change in the coming elections is the use of its age old media partners; Radio and Television. Through Radio and Television jingles, plays and skits, propaganda materials on the impending elections can be performed and transmitted throughout the country. This will reach a wider number of audiences and make the messages more effective. Specially produced Nollywood movies in English, ibo, Hausa and Yoruba languages can also be commissioned to send specific messages on the elections to the Nigerian populace.
The power of the individual artists in terms of his or her personality and fame to effect political change cannot be undermined. It must be remembered that the endorsement of the actress, and Television hostess, Orprah Winfery started President Barrack Obama’s rise in the presidential election victory which changed the face of American politics and history. Already Nigerian theatre and film artists have started to endorse political candidates. Political rallies are strewn with theatre artists singing and dancing for candidates. The Nigerian President who is also running for electoral office in 2011 has already announced a $200 million incentive funds for the arts. Is this the much awaited Endowment for the Arts? How will these funds be distributed to all the genres of the arts? Or is it a political gimmick to win the votes of gullible, hungry, poor, stupid artists?
All these are developments towards the 2011 elections. The artists must note that the credibility of the elections also depend on the credibility of the candidates endorsed by the artists. They should be careful not to sell their fame cheaply for a few financial remuneration. Good governance can only be achieved if the individual artists are also careful in the choice and the personality they endorse to rule. Their fans who believe so much in them, can also easily be mislead
I must conclude by reechoing the fact that each society creates its own theatre, and each society in turn,also demands its uses of theatre based on its needs. But for theatre to be functional and helpful to society, it must be taken beyond the realms of entertainment and enjoyment. It must go into the realm of instruction and dialectical analysis of societal reality. One is then forced to conclude this paper by quoting Brecht when he says that:
It is not enough to demand of our
theatre that it offer understanding and
instructive reflections of reality. Our
theatre must arouse delight in
knowledge, and organize pleasurable
convivial feelings at the changing of
reality. (Brecht 1966: 10)
This is the supreme manipulative spirit of the theatre. The only viable communicative power that can become the tool that can address and attempt to correct the excesses of political power in a subtle and persuasive manner, without much offence. At this level, theatre in all its ramifications can then point towards or demand for change be itsocial or political, in any given society. This in itself,is anotherpragmatic truism.
References.
1.Erwin, Frederic. (1992) BERTOLT BRECHT
HIS LIFE, HIS ART, HIS TIMES. Secaucus:
CITADEL PRESS BOOK,
2. Piscator, Erwin. (1963) The Political
Theatre. (trans) Hugh Rorrison. London:
Eyre Methuen.
3. Plato. (1997) REPUBLIC, Clays,
Wordsworth Classics.
4.Soyinka, Wole. (1988) WOLE SOYINKA,
ART, DIALOGUE & OUTRAGE : ESSAYS ON
LITERATURE AND CULTURE. (ed) Biodun
Jeyifo. Ibadan: New Horn Press
5.Tolstoy, Leo. (1995) What is Art? Suffolk:
PENGUIN Books.
