If I were to write a book on how to measure intelligence, it would look almost nothing like what most people imagine intelligence is. Intelligence here transcends formal education; it’s a much broader concept than the ability to write or speak well. For example, one sign of an intelligent person for me is the ability to use and/or understand sarcasm. It has been scientifically proven that the ability to process abstract thoughts and come to a sensible conclusion is genius. Another sign of intelligence for me is the ability of a person to change his or her mind when presented with superior information. This is virtually self-explanatory; knowledge is in a constant state of flux. Some things we consider as facts can become invalidated by innovation and time. Changing your mind isn’t just a sign of humility is proof that you have a healthy thought-process.
The third, for me, which is relevant to this essay, is pattern recognition. Everything around us follows patterns, and we are not exempt because we’re creatures of habit. Half the job of intelligence agencies is pattern recognition; that’s why they have analysts who take data dumps and interrogate them for what is known as actionable intelligence. Saul and David are not just two individuals in the bible; they exhibit certain traits that, when you interrogate forensically, you can make bold deductions and even conclusions about them. Apart from Jesus and Paul in the bible, there is no character that I have studied more than David, and because Saul was adjacent to his story, I had to study him too. This is why I use them as archetypes, and you will hear me say that my references to either of them are not personal but deductions from interrogating their actions.
Retro: The Intelligence Chief
Samuel wasn’t just some pay-for-play prophet or seer that would say “Thus saith the Lord” when that wasn’t the case to validate his personal opinion; he was a product of a covenant that preceded his birth. It was said that none of his words fell to the ground, meaning he had established credibility. In fact, whenever he showed up in a vicinity, the place would grind to a halt in reverence because he was the mouthpiece of God. So when there was a hue and cry from the people about having a king, Samuel publicly shared some pointed patterns from Saul’s dossier – effectively making it open source intelligence. Thankfully, I had captured some of it exactly three years ago, and I will reproduce excerpts just for context:
• He’ll conscript your best fields, vineyards, and orchards and hand them over to his special friends.
• He’ll tax your harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. Your prize workers and best animals he’ll take for his own use. He’ll lay a tax on your flocks, and you’ll end up no better than slaves.
• The day will come when you will cry in desperation because of this king you so much want for yourselves.
Translation: Saul would systematically amass and siphon national wealth using his cronies, proxies and special purpose vehicles. He would tax them to the high heavens without any commensurate delivery of the social contract clause, and when the rubber hits the road, the people would have to own the consequences of their unfortunate choice of his leadership. Basically saying that they wouldn’t just deal with bad governance, they would be traumatised by Saul’s leadership. Just so you know, Samuel didn’t say all of these out of malice – it was not a campaign of calumny. Even when Saul’s disastrous reign was in full swing, Samuel was still interceding for the king. It was God who rebuked him and told him that he had moved on from Saul. Pause and think about what you just read. The intelligence chief, who has high credibility, said Saul would be a disaster in power, and God (the all-knowing being or supreme intelligence) said he had moved on from Saul. So even if people genuinely liked Saul, could they confidently say they knew him more than these two people? Remember, one sign of intelligence is the ability to change your mind when presented with superior information.
Red Flags Hidden In Plain Sight
The story of David and Saul is evidently very familiar to me, so now and then, I revisit the plot, and whenever I do, I find new details. If you pay attention to the rumblings that precede the emergence of Saul, one phrase succinctly captures the sentiment at that time, which was this obsession with what I suspect to be a vocal minority to be, “like all the nations around us”. Ordinarily, this will fly over our heads, but if you pay a little attention to the subtext, you will see how ominous this proposition was. Every nation has its own identity, values, culture, religion and more elements that shape its unique civilisation. Here comes a movement that wanted a king who would upend everything that made the nation a peculiar entity, basically committing civilizational suicide. For a nation whose foundations were holy (this word actually means to be sacred, set-apart or distinct), Saul’s emergence seemed to be an existential threat to those tenets.
One of the many layers that Goliath represented was a battle of civilisations; remember the losers of that fight would become slaves to the other nation. The first thing that slaves suffer is the loss of their identity, history and culture – they would be forced to adopt another civilisation’s signatures. Saul’s unwillingness to confront Goliath is suspect because it was the same Saul who personally led the military to headhunt David. How convenient it is that a king who swore to protect the homeland from internal and external threats chose to be cavalier about such a national security situation but deployed the resources of the state in a botched attempt to take out his political rival? When Goliath cursed David with his gods, David responded with a covenant word, “uncircumcised” – effectively referencing that his nation was dedicated to God and he was willing to defend that identity. If Saul was more than willing to allow his nation to be overrun by another civilisation but fought the guy who successfully stopped the enemy, does his actions in any way suggest that his loyalty is first to the homeland? This is why in my book, David is a patriot, and Saul is not.
Here’s another thing that always flies under the radar about Saul. He was the king of a nation which had the Philistines as its top geopolitical foe. The Philistines were not subtle about their intentions against the homeland; it’s well-documented. One of their goals was to ensure that there was no blacksmith in the land so that weapons couldn’t be developed; basically stifling industrialisation. The arrangement was put in place so that the Hebrews would perennially go to Philistia to keep their farm tools sharp and in good repair, and they were charged exorbitantly for this. Sounds familiar, right? This wasn’t just a terrible economic arrangement but an assault on sovereignty, which in principle made Saul a vassal king. For some reason, Saul was comfortable with such an arrangement as long as he and his son had weapons. It then made sense to me why the Philistines would be unbothered when Saul emerged as king, but declared war when David emerged as king; they knew one was a puppet and the other was a patriot. Let me give you Geopolitics 101: assuming countries A and B are rivals or have diametrically opposing strategic interests, one way to know a bad leader is when the other country is covertly supporting that leader via silence or overtly with an endorsement.
“…but David Is No Saint”
I never said David was without flaws. In fact, his nefarious acts are well-documented. Yes, he committed adultery with Bathsheba and went further to set up her husband to die in battle. God punished him for this by the way: the child that was conceived died despite his fasting and prayers, the sword would never depart from David’s house (his son Absalom killed his half-brother and even attempted a bloody coup against him) and his own wives would be publicly taken and violated. However, this affair with Bathsheba happened because David had strengthened the military to the point where he could commission a battalion to successfully prosecute a war without being personally involved. Remember, David didn’t just kill Goliath; he had trained highly skilled men to also take out the lineage of Goliath. There are at least three reasons Solomon ended up with 700 wives and 300 concubines. First – the sexual propensities in the family tree, second – there was the wealth to do it and third – David had established institutional deterrence such that even after his death, no nation wanted to mess around with the homeland. Solomon enjoyed that reputation and didn’t have to fight any wars, so he had much time for marital extravaganza.
It’s very rare that the exploits of individuals in the military other than kings are documented with prominence; the political risks were just too much on the part of historians. However, David’s mighty men were hard to forget; these were warriors with faces like lions. From being broken and battered at the Cave of Adullam, David trained them into becoming elite fighters. What I’m really saying is that David might be flawed in his personal life, but on matters of national security, it’s an insult to compare him with Saul – both men are like night and day. David’s military doctrine was simple: FAFO. No retreat, no surrender and definitely no appeasements because weakness invites aggression. It would be a cold day in hell before David allowed some suckers to terrorise the homeland under his watch. If he could fearlessly confront Goliath as a civilian, what do you think he would do as C-in-C? Till this very day, they still draw inspiration from David – numerous missions and military-grade weapons are named after him. If you come for them, you had better not miss because they will hunt you down, no matter how long it takes and at whatever cost. If you know, you know.
Surviving Saul
True to Samuel’s words, Saul’s reign was an unmitigated disaster – a once glorious homestead had now become a disgraced country. Human beings are created as free moral agents, and they have the freedom to support whoever they please. The problem starts is when when people try to divorce consequences from their choices. Where were those people who insisted that it had to be Saul as king or nothing? Where were they when Saul ordered the massacre of God’s priests? Even his own lieutenants refused to comply with such abominable orders until he found one son of perdition to do his dirty work. Where were his sympathisers when he suffocated the civic space such that a whole Samuel couldn’t move or talk freely owing to fear of political retribution? Where were they when the institutions of state were either attacked or usurped for untoward purposes? Of course, they went quiet – they were only interested in getting their man into power and not the responsibilities that come with it.
Thankfully, wisdom ultimately prevailed. It wasn’t just horrible governance they had to endure under Saul; they realised that they were this close to losing their civilisation. So the silent majority woke up from their sleep and reached a consensus at Hebron that David had to be the next king. Saul’s own son had much earlier ceded his rights to the throne to David. David’s brothers, who hated him so much, had abandoned Saul and aligned with David. All the elders and leaders in the land came to the common-sense conclusion that this son of Jesse was the light of a nation. It would take more than sophistry and propaganda to change my mind about David; there is a reason why God said David was a man after his heart. Selah.
The post Mfonobong Inyang: Deconstructing Saul’s Leadership Through The Appeal of David appeared first on BellaNaija - Showcasing Africa to the world. Read today!.
from BellaNaija https://ift.tt/dxLDjEP