The theatre as an integral part of the society cannot be expected to be detached from the political dynamics of the society. In this regard, the theatre artiste has not been apolitical. Neither has he been apathetic to the struggle for democracy. According to Ayo Akinwale (1993:18-19), the blazing of the trail of productions which have poltical undertones, could be traced to the father of Nigerian theatre, late chief Hubert Ogunde. His earliest documented effort was in 1945 with his play “Worse than Crime” which presented colonialism as a system that is worse than crime. In this same year, he produced “Strike and Hunger”, which expressed the hopeless condition of labour in colonial Nigeria at the time. “The opera was so successful and popular that it attracted government attention. It was banned in Jos in 1946 with Ogunde fined £125 (Akinwale, 1993:19). These pioneering efforts of Ogunde blazed the trail for other theatre artistes to make political statements regarding the absence of democracy in the country. Ogunde’s impact was felt once again after the Republican Constitution had come into force. At the time, political life had degenerated into a war of attrition with betrayals and violence pervading the entire Western Region. The events leading to the production of Ogunde’s “Yoruba Ronu” started in 1962 when Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the leader of the Action Group (AG), the main party in the Western Region, fell out with his deputy, Chief S.L. Akintola, who then formed his own party, Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP). He then formed an alliance with the main party in the Northern Region, the Northern People’s Congress (NPC). This caused a serious political and economic upheaval in the Western Region, more so when chief Awolowo and his associates had been jailed by the Federal Government in 1962 for treason. Ebun Clark (1979, cited in Akinwale, 1993:20) documents the events appropriately. According to her, the cultural arm of the NNDP commissioned Ogunde to present a play for their entertainment in February, 1964. Ogunde came up with “Yoruba Ronu” which sought to make the Yoruba see the need for unity. The play focused on the conflict between an Oba Fiwajoye who is betrayed to his enemy by his deputy. Fiwajoye’s enemy then got him imprisoned and the deputy installed himself as the new king. But because of the cruelty of this deputy, the people rebelled, killing him and releasing Oba Fiwajoye and peace returned. The satire was clear enough. Fiwajoye was regarded as Chief Awolowo, the deputy was chief Akintola, while the enemy was the Sarduna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello. Akintola, then Premier of the west had to ban the Ogunde theatre from performing in any Yoruba-speaking area, in March 1964. Other dramatists have contributed their own measure towards the democratization of the country. One of the most prominent in this regard, is Wole Soyinka. He has not only written and produced plays designed to enhance the process, he has also been personally involved in the process itself and has suffered so much indignity for wishing that the process be speedily actualized. He had to flee into exile in mid-1995 when it was apparent he would be thrown into detention like other pro-democracy activists. Soyinka’s most notable effort in 1960 and thereafter were Kongi’s Harvest and A Dance of the Forest. According to Akinwale (1993:22-23), Soyinka’s vision in A Dance of the Forest where he believes that a country with a regrettable past and a chaotic present has an uncertain future, is still seen in literary circles today as a high level of the artiste’s prophetic eye. Soyinka also emphasized in Kongi’s Harvest that the old order must give way to a new one in a most violent way if peaceful change is rendered impossible. Ola Rotimi is another dramatist whose contribution to the democratization process in Nigeria cannot be neglected. His comedy, Our Husband has Gone Mad Again, portrays the political terrain of the country in its actual light during civilian administrations. However, his best plays in this direction remain If and Hopes of the Living Dead, where he throws his lot with the masses and the exploited class by condemning the ideology of the ruling elite (Gbilekaa, 1993:9). In both works, the plight of the down trodden is focused upon and some hope provided in the direction of giving the leadership which the country lacks. Radical playwrights have emerged since the advent of these dramatists. Most notable among these is Femi Osofisan. His play, Morountodun, features peasant revolt against the oppressing elite who have been cheating them. It is rehash of what actually happened in the West in the sixties. The relevance of this play is best analyzed against the backdrop of the anti-SAP riots of 1989. Osofisan’s Another Raft echoes one salient point raised in Rotimi’s If. This is the fact that our destiny is in our hands and if the oppressed do not come together and control their own destiny, they shall continue to remain oppressed. It is apparent, then, that the Nigerian theatre artiste has been very much involved in the Nigerian political process. He has been quite concerned with efforts at installing a long lasting democracy. As noted by Emeana (2005:480). “theatre practitioners over the ages have performed plays to entertain their audience with the purpose of calling attention to injustice, making statements against war, or raising moral and social questions.” The Nigerian theatre artiste has, therefore, been concerned with the evolution of a better society in all its ramifications. However, this concern has not had any substantial impact on the political system. And this is contingent on the way theatre has continued to operate in the country. It is evident that theatre has not transcended mere communication. It has only led the people to the stream, but has not been able to make them drink. So far, the theatre artiste has operated with the philosophy of theatre being a mirror of the society and nothing more. It is the feeling that while mirroring the society the theatre artiste unveils his vision which he wants the people to share for the purpose of making amends and moving in the right direction. Even then, such vision has not been expressed outside the confines of elite theatres or academic environments. For example, strong as the vision of Soyinka, as expressed in Kongi’s Harvest, may be, it has not gone beyond the elite theatres of universities and other academic citadels. Even so, some scholars are beginning to become uncomfortable with this vision of radical fatalism, which is predicted to befall the nation unless we changed our way of life. Harry Hagher (1995), for instance, suggests that Soyinka’s vision must be rejected because it lacks hope for the common man and predicts unavoidable death. However, part of the discomfort results from a rebellion against the complexity of Soyinka’s language, and not his vision which is shared by majority of scholars. One of such scholars is Tunde Fatunde. According to Dunton (2006), the generational rupture in Fatunde is more extreme than that apparent between Soyinka and Osofisan (xvi). Duton finally submits that Fatunde and two female playwrights – Tess Onwueme and Stella Oyedepo “have produced works for the stage that articulate far more overt engagement with politics of resistance than generally encountered in the plays of their predecessors.” (XVI). Incidentally, Soyinka’s theatre and those of other theatre artistes who have been mentioned, merely mirror the society, predicting what is likely to happen, like Ogunde did in 1964. Such a vision is orchestrated to influence the political system and engender change in the right direction. Such a theatre is reminiscent of such a philosophy, which prescribes the examination of one’s conscience as the best way of solving political problems. Angya (2005:143) rightly notes that “plays have always been written based on the writer’s understanding of the society and its needs.” Hence Soyinka continues to warn before the doomsday as could be seen in his play Madmen and Specialists. The philosophy has fast become obsolete in transforming the Nigerian society into a stable polity. It is, perhaps, still the idea of today’s theatre, that by merely mirroring the society, the theatre artiste would engender the pertinent change, as the people would see their nakedness, notice their aberrant social and political life and change. Just as Bertolt Brecht changed the German society with his plays and Arthur Miller changed the concept of tragedy, thereby restoring the dignity of man, with his Death of Salesman, so it has been expected that the theatre in Nigeria would change the political scene by merely mirroring the society. The suggestion, then, is that unless there was a change of political attitude, perdition would be the ultimate result of our political rigmarole. However, this role of mirroring the society cannot be taken as the ultimate role of the theatre artiste in the nation’s democratization process. Being a mirror of the society should merely be the first step of the Nigerian theatre. The theatre artiste must be involved in the democratization process in a capacity which transcends merely showing the society as it is without saying how it ought to be and how we must go about making it what it should be. The people must be persuaded about, or mobilized towards the adoption of, the ideals of democracy. The situation in the country today is still a transition from the war situation with an undeclared state of emergency into which the country degenerated. Democracy had receded into oblivion in the days of Abacha as pro-democracy activists and journalists continued to be harassed perpetually, intimidated, arrested, detained, jailed for life and even killed. The theatre artiste must fight for the accomplishment of the task of installing democracy. The theatre must participate in the mobilization of the people to join the fight. In essence, the theatre artiste must no longer be the detached observer in the political configuration of the country. He must be an active participant – not merely using his trade to make political comments and urging the people to adopt a better system. He must strive to be part of the political system, so that he can determine what is better for the society. One has the best chance of influencing a system when one is part of it. The theatre, then, should become more militant, moving beyond mere prescription. In this regard, the example of the Philippines readily comes to mind. The theatre in that country contributed immensely to the enthronement of democracy by forcing dictator Ferdinand Marcos to abdicate the seat of power and flee into exile in February, 1986. The contribution of the Philippino theatre is well noted by Van Erven (1987, cited in Adedokun, 1995:1). According to him: throughout this island – nation of 60 million Inhabitants … community – based repertory troupes incorporated in the Philippines’ People Theatre Network, were involved in the election Campaign, siding either with Cory Aquino’s Laban Coaliltion, or with the more radical Bayan boycott Faction. The plays created between December, 1985, when the elections were first announced, to February, 1986, when Marcos fled with his wife, Imelda, were biting satires as well as realistic dramas designed to bring down the dictator. The people were urged not to vote for Marcos. The suggestion here that theatre should be more militant and play a more active role in the Nigerian democratization process can only be cosmetic unless problems pertaining to the theatre itself are solved. These problems have to do with the theatre itself becoming a democratic enterprise. The theatre itself must be a democratic model which the people should emulate. According to Dan Uwandu (1995:3), “to think of theatre in democratic terms is to think of how people – the rural folk – can be involved in the making of theatre for individual development as well as the development of the society.” It has been noted that theatre is mostly elitist, having no impact on majority of the people. To have the pertinent impact, it has to move out of the elite environment and go to the people and influence them
