Literature and Politics A Review of George Orwell's Animal

International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
LITERATURE AND POLITICS-A REVIEW OF GEORGE ORWELL’S ANIMAL

FARM AND CHINUA ACHEBE’S A MAN OF THE PEOPLE
Dr. Rashid Hassan Pelpuo

Institute of African Studies, University of Ghana,Legon.
Justine Bakuuro
Department of English,University of Ghana,Legon.
Dr. Damasus Tuurosong

Department of African and General Studies,
University for Development Studies, Ghana
ABSTRACT: Philosophical discussion of the topic “the interrelations of literature and

politics” can take many forms. For instance, one might be concerned to argue for or against
the claim that literature must be understood as a product of the social and political forces
that are at work when it is produced. Or, one might be concerned to assess the claim that
literature is a form of political critique, perhaps even a preeminent form of it. Or, one might
argue that literature can induce political change, that is, can be revolutionary—perhaps that
it should be. Further questions involve how political and aesthetic properties interact in
works. Does the presence of both sorts of property in a work create difficulty for aesthetic
judgment? If one thinks that aesthetic judgment requires separating aesthetic from political
properties in some strict way, the presence of political properties in the work will be
problematic for aesthetic judgment. The problem might go as well to the heart of artistic
production—that is, formalism of various stripes holds that one isn't “really” creating art, if
one is creating political “art.” Or one might be concerned that political and aesthetic
properties are so intertwined that strongly negative or positive political judgment might spoil
aesthetic judgment.Recent cases in the relationships of literature and politics often are drawn
from music or cinema, for example, Dady Lumba’s Nana oye winner (A signature tune of the
present ruling New Patriotic Party,NPP, a political party in Ghana), and Dee Aja’s Onaapo
(A signature tune of the National Democratic Congress, NDC, the main opposition political
party in Ghana today). Typically, issues of the political nature of art center on conceptions of
artistic content, even where content is considered in relation to aesthetic form. In this paper,
we focus instead on the interrelations of literature and politics from the print point of view.
More specifically, we investigate claims that literature can criticize and alter political belief
by being experienced in terms of its form in Chinua Achebe’s novel A Man of the People and
George Orwell’s Animal Farm which are admired by some for their technical innovations
and formal composition but reproached for their political content by others. This battle of
complementation and condemnation of political satires applies to other standard cases such
as Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn, Luís Bernardo Honwana Who kill mangy dog, and Knut Hamsun's Hunger, Kwame
Nkrumah’s I Speak of Freedom.This study indulges the political satire in George Orwell’s
Animal Farm and Chinua Achebe’s A Man of the People.
KEYWORDS: interrelations, politics, literature, Animal Farm, A man of the People, satire
1
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
Research Objective
The study aims at espousing the ‘politics’ in the literary texts of Chinua Achebe’s A Man of
the People and George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Generally, most political literary writings are
a critique of the leadership, economic, social, political or religious ills of society. The two
authors in this study are heavy on political critique in the selected novels. The study is thus
discursive and cites appropriate information in the novels that satirise politics of their time
and beyond.
Theoretical Underpinning
This study is anchored by the theory of Comparative Literature.
The term 'Comparative Literature' is difficult to define for it involves not one but two or even
more than two literatures in comparison at the same time. It becomes still more difficult task
when the comparatist has to take into consideration the multi-dimensional aspects of
comparative literature such as-linguistic, cultural, religious, economic, social and historical
factors of different societies.
In order to understand the term "comparative literature" we must analyse its nomenclature.
Etymologically, the term comparative literature denotes any literary work or works when
compared with any other literary work or works. Hence, comparative literature is the study of
inter-relationship between any two or more than two significant literary works or literatures.
It is essential that while making comparative study we must take the sources, themes, myths,
forms, artistic strategies, social and religious movements and trends into consideration. The
comparatist with his critical approach and investigations will find out, the similarities and
dissimilarities among various works that he has undertaken for the purpose of comparison
and justification lies in the fact that his approach must be unbiased and unprejudiced to reach
the ultimate truth. It is only his earnest and sincere approach which will bring forth the naked
truth or natural results and this really is the purpose of comparative study.
Taken broadly, comparative literature is a comprehensive term. Its scope encompasses the
totality of human experiences into its embrace, and thus all internal human relationships
among the various parts of the world are realized, through the critical approach to literatures
under comparative study. It helps to vanish narrow national and international boundaries, and
in place of that universality of human relationships emerges out. Thus the term comparative
literature includes comparative study of regional literatures, national literatures, and
international literatures. However, there are many over-lapping terms in this concern such as
- Universal literature, General literature, International literature and World literature.
Repeatedly, we can mention here that comparative literature includes experiences of human
life and behaviour as a whole. In the conception of world literature the works of Homer,
Dante,
Shakespeara, Milton, Goetha, Emerson, Thoreau, Valmik, Vyas should be taken as one for
comparison.
2
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
Virgil’s Aeneid, Homer’s Iliad, Milton’s Paradise Lost, Indian Epics-the Ramayana and the
Mahabharta can be studied in comparison as world literature.
If taken psychologically, human nature is undoubtedly, the same all over the world. That is
why, human expressions in all literary works or literatures are bound to have deep-rooted
similarities and affinities. Hence there lies affinities between the masterpieces of different
literary works of different nations. Human nature, no doubt, is very complicated, and this
complexity in different kinds of literary works makes comparative study a complex
phenomenon.
As mentioned above, the comparative study is not different from a critical approach of a
particular literature except the fact that here we deal with two or more than two literatures
side by side. In this way, the subject matter becomes vaster and perspective wider.
Boundaries of comparative literature have to be extended to encompass the entirety of human
life and experiences in one's embrace.
The definition of comparative literature given by Bijay Kumar Dass is very simple vivid and
understandable: The simple way to define comparative literature is to say that it is a
comparison between the two literatures. Comparative literature analyses the similarities and
dissimilarities and parallels between two literatures. It further studies themes, modes,
conventions and use of folk tales, myths in two different literatures or even more.1
Tagore refers to comparative literature by the name of 'Vishvasahita'. Broadening the scope
of comparative literature he remarks:
"From narrow provincialism we must free ourselves, we must strive to see the works of each
author as a whole, that whole as a part of man's universal creativity, and that universal spirit
in its manifestation through world literature" (Quoted in Buddhadeva Bose, "Comparative
Literature in India, "Contribution to Comparative Literature ; Germany and India, Calcutta,
1973).2
If taken historically, comparative literature has been a result of a reaction against the narrow
nationalism of the 19th century scholarship in England. Though it was an occasional
tradition, the comparative study of literary works was in vogue, right from the beginning of
the Christian era. Romans were the pioneers in the field of comparative study. They out did
the Greeks in the development of comparative study. The Romans worked out the tradition of
comparing the works of great orators and poets of Greek and Roman and found out many
similarities among their studies of literary works. No doubt, Quintillion was the pioneer in
this concern, but Longinus endeavoured to set the comparative study in systematized
discipline. If he had preceded Quintillion he would have been the pioneer in this field. He
brought forth the names of Homer and Plato etc. In Indian comparative approach the Sanskrit
critics emerged out during the 6th century A.D. It is clear from the commentaries on
Kalidasa's Meghduta and Abhijnanasakutala. After that the critics like Kuntaka and
Abhinavagupta with their qualitative approach paved the way for modern comparatators.
R.S. Pathak, giving the historical development of the new discipline, comparative literature
says:
3
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
Mathew Aronold made meaningful efforts in English world and emphasized strongly the
significance of the comparative approach to literary works. He wrote in a letter in 1848,
"Every critic should try and possess one great literature at least besides his own and more the
unlike his own, the better.
Thus, he pioneered the comparative criticism in England and gave inspiration to other critics
to work on this new discipline. It is hearby suggested that the comparatist should undertake
the master pieces of creative writers, whose works have cosmopolitan status in literary fields.
That is why, Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot called for a criticism of poetry on parameters of
universal world-poetry, or the works of maximum excellence. This type of approach will
direct comparative study of literature towards international level.
In his article, “Comparative Literature and Aesthetics: the search for a significant order" R.S.
Pathak has indicated well-known aspects of traditional comparative studies i.e. Folklore,
Influence, Genres and Themes.
Animal farm (George Orwell)

Introduction
This study examines George Orwell's Animal Farm as a political satire which was written to
criticise totalitarian regimes and particularly Stalin's practices in Russia. It aims to show the
elements of satire in Animal Farm, and to compare characters, events and some elements of
Animal Farm and The Russian Revolution. Orwell clearly explains that his main purpose for
writing Animal Farm was to write a satire on the Russian Revolution (Shelden, 1991, p.399).
Through animal satire, Orwell attacks Stalin's practices in Russia and in a wider scope, on
totalitarian regimes. Taking Bozkurt's (1977) classification into consideration, Animal Farm
would be said to be a Juvenial satire. Since, it is clearly shown that Orwell bitterly criticises
Russian Communism and Stalin.
Background of Author
The British author George Orwell, with pen name Eric Arthur Blair, was born in Motihari,
India, June 25, 1903. His father was an important British civil servant in India, which was
then part of the British Empire. A few years after Eric was born, his father retired on a low
pension and moved back to England. Though their income was not much enough, the Blair
family sent their son to a boarding school which was an exclusive preparatory school, to
prepare him for Eton College. Eric later won a scholarship to Eton College. During his
education from the age of eight to eighteen, as he wrote in his essay about his school
experiences titled "Such,Were the Joys," he experienced many things about the "world where
the prime necessities were money, titled relatives, athleticism, tailor-made clothes",
inequality, oppression and class distinctions in the schools of England .After his education at
Eton College in England, Eric joined the Indian Imperial Police in British-Ruled Burma in
4
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
1922. There, he witnessed oppression again, but this time he was looking at things from the
top. Having served five years in Burma, he resigned in 1927 and went back to Europe where
he lived in Paris for more than a year.
Though he wrote novels and short stories he had no money to get them published and there
was no one ready to help him publish them. He worked as a tutor and even as a dishwasher in
Paris. During his poor days in Paris, he once more experienced the problems of the
oppressed, the helpless and lower class people. In 1933, after having many experiences about
the life at the bottom of society, he wrote Down and Out in Paris and London and published it
under his pen name "George Orwell." After a year, in 1934, he published his novel Burmese
Days, which reflected his experiences. Then, he published A Clergyman's Daughter in 1935,
and Keep the Aspidistra Flying in 1936.In 1936, his publisher wanted Orwell to go to the
English coal-mining country and write about it. This was another important experience in his
life. He wrote The Road to Wigan Pier to reflect what he saw there, the real poverty of people
of the Lancashire Town of Wigan, and published it in 1937.1937 was the year that Orwell,
who for some time had been describing himself as "pro-socialist" , joined the Republican
forces in the Spanish Civil War. When the Communists attempted to eliminate their allies on
the far left, Orwell fought against them and was wounded in the fight, and later was forced to
flee for his life. His experience in that war was to have the most significant impact on his
political thoughts and his later works. In 1938, Orwell wrote Homage to Catalonia, which
recounts his experiences fighting for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. One of his
best-known books reflecting his life -long distrust of dictatorial government, whether of the
left or right, Animal Farm, a modern beast-fable attacking Russian Revolution, Stalinism and
totalitarianism, was published in 1945, and in 1984, a dystopian novel setting forth his fears
of an intrusively bureaucratised state of the future was published in 1949. His first fame was
brought by these two novels and they were the only ones which made a profit for him as a
writer. Orwell died at the early age of 47 of a neglected lung ailment in London, January 21,
1950.
Satire
There are many different ways to reveal one's perception of life and its reflection by a person.
In art for instance, the reflection may be revealed in the form of a sculpture, a song or a
picture. Satire is one the ways that the reaction or perception of life is expressed, through
writing. Since people look at life from different stand points, as a matter of fact, they
naturally perceive it in numerous ways. As a result of the variety in perception, the way of
revealing the effects or reflections of these perceptions also shows variety. Originally, the
word "satire" comes from the Latin word for medley, “satura”. The impression that it is to do
with the word "satyr" is a popular delusion" (Abrams, 1986, p.2598). It is a way of revealing
the reaction to what is perceived, with a mixture of laughter and outrage. In The Quarterly
Journal of Contemporary Satire, the description of satire is given as "a work in which vices,
follies, stupidities, abuses, etc. are held up to ridicule and contempt." In the preface to The
Battle of the Books, Jonathan Swift, who claimed that satire is therapeutic, describes satire as
"A sort of glass wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own" (
Bozkurt, 1977, p.71).Bozkurt (1977) offers two fundamental types of satire: Horatian and
5
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
Juvenalian satire. These types are named for two Roman poets Horace and Jevenal, the most
differentiated practitioner of them.
Political satire
As already explained above, satires are critiques of society as perceived by a writer. We
critique all aspects of life, including politics. A political satire is therefore a critique of a
system of rule or governance. Animal farm for instance was written to criticise totalitarian
regimes and particularly Stalin's practices in Russia. It is therefore a very good example of a
political satire.
Plot Summary Of Animal Farm

One night, all the animals at Mr. Jones' Manor Farm assemble in a barn to hear old Major, a
pig, describe a dream he had about a world where all animals live free from the tyranny of
their human masters. Old Major dies soon after the meeting, but the animals — inspired by
his philosophy of Animalism — plot a rebellion against Jones. Two pigs, Snowball and
Napoleon, prove themselves important figures and planners of this dangerous enterprise.
When Jones forgets to feed the animals, the revolution occurs, and Jones and his men are
chased off the farm. Manor Farm is renamed Animal Farm, and the Seven Commandments of
Animalism are painted on the barn wall. Initially, the rebellion is a success. The animals
complete the harvest and meet every Sunday to debate farm policy. The pigs, because of their
‘intelligence’, become the supervisors of the farm. Napoleon, however, proves to be a power-
hungry leader who steals the cows' milk and a number of apples to feed himself and the other
pigs. He also enlists the services of Squealer, a pig with the ability to persuade the other
animals that the pigs are always moral and correct in their decisions.
Later after that fall, Jones and his men return to Animal Farm and attempt to retake it. Thanks
to the tactics of Snowball, the animals defeat Jones in what thereafter becomes known as The
Battle of the Cowshed. Winter arrives and, Mollie, a vain horse concerned only with ribbons
and sugar, is lured off the farm by another human. Snowball begins drawing plans for a
windmill, which will provide electricity and thereby give the animals more leisure time, but
Napoleon vehemently opposes such a plan on the grounds that building the windmill will
allow them less time for producing food. On the Sunday that the pigs offer the windmill to
the animals for a vote, Napoleon summons a pack of ferocious dogs,who chase Snowball off
the farm forever. Napoleon announces that there will be no further debates; he also tells them
that the windmill will be built after all and lies that it was his own idea, stolen by Snowball.
For the rest of the novel, Napoleon uses Snowball as a scapegoat on whom he blames all of
the animals' hardships.Much of the next year is spent building the windmill. Boxer, an
incredibly strong horse, proves himself to be the most valuable animal in this endeavor.
Jones, meanwhile, forsakes the farm and moves to another part of the county. Contrary to the
principles of Animalism, Napoleon hires a solicitor and begins trading with neighboring
farms. When a storm topples the half-finished windmill, Napoleon predictably blames
Snowball and orders the animals to begin rebuilding it.Napoleon's lust for power increases to
the point where he becomes a totalitarian dictator, forcing "confessions" from innocent
animals and having the dogs kill them in front of the entire farm. He and the pigs move into
Jones' house and begin sleeping in beds (which Squealer excuses with his brand of twisted
6
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
logic). The animals receive less and less food, while the pigs grow fatter. After the windmill
is completed in August, Napoleon sells a pile of timber to Jones; Frederick, a neighboring
farmer who pays for it with forged banknotes.
Frederick and his men attack the farm and explode the windmill but are eventually defeated.
As more of the Seven Commandments of Animalism are broken by the pigs, the language of
the Commandments is revised: For example, after the pigs become drunk one night, the
Commandment, "No animals shall drink alcohol" is changed to, "No animal shall drink
alcohol to excess."Boxer again offers his strength to help build a new windmill, but when he
collapses, exhausted, Napoleon sells the devoted horse to a knacker (a glue-boiler). Squealer
tells the indignant animals that Boxer was actually taken to a veterinarian and died a peaceful
death in a hospital — a tale the animals believe.
Years pass and Animal Farm expands its boundaries after Napoleon purchases two fields
from another neighboring farmer, Pilkington. Life for all the animals (except the pigs) is
harsh. Eventually, the pigs begin walking on their hind legs and take on many other qualities
of their former human oppressors. The Seven Commandments are reduced to a single law:
"All Animals Are Equal / But Some Are More Equal Than Others." The novel ends with
Pilkington sharing drinks with the pigs in Jones' house. Napoleon changes the name of the
farm back to Manor Farm and quarrels with Pilkington during a card game in which both of
them try to play the ace of spades. As other animals watch the scene from outside the
window, they cannot tell the pigs from the humans.
George Orwell And Political Ideology

In his essay "Why I Write", Orwell (1947) says: I do not think one can assess a writer's
motives without knowing something of his early development. His subject matter will be
determined by the age he lives in-at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like
our own.Taking Orwell's own words into consideration, in order to get a better
understanding of his works and particularly of his political satire Animal Farm, we should
look at his political convictions, and the historical context which influenced Orwell and
inspired him to write.
Very few authors develop essays explaining the motivation behind their writing. Orwell was
one of them. Therefore in order to understand his motivations, his essay "Why I Write"
would be the most appropriate source to be looked at. Orwell was a political writer and
according to him he was 'forced' to be a writer by the circumstances under which he has
become aware of his 'political loyalties'. His Burma and Paris days increased his 'natural
hatred of authority' and 'made him aware of the existence of the working classes (Orwell,
1947).As mentioned earlier, he described himself as "pro-Socialist." What he was longing for
was a society in which there would be no class distinctions, and he named his ideal ideology
"democratic socialism".
He says "every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been directly or
indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism " (Orwell, 1947).There are
two significant events that have great influence on Orwell's political thoughts: The Russian
7
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
revolution that took place in the second decade of the 20th century and The Spanish Civil
War between 1936 and 1939.The Russian Revolution -Bolshevik Revolution- of October
1917 was the first great revolution which aimed to overthrow the owners of the means of
production, that is Capitalist Bourgeoisie, and to establish a state to be ruled by the working
class, the Proletariat.
The ideological basis of the revolution was taken from the philosophy of Karl Marx and
Frederick Angels who believed that the history of the world was the history of a struggle
between classes- that is, ruling classes and ruled classes . Marx was very critical of industrial
capitalist society in which there are many cruel injustices and men are exploited by men. Out
of his analysis of the Capitalist system, he attained a vision of ending these injustices and
establishing a society in which there would be no social classes and everybody would be
equal. For him, in order to achieve this end the only way was a revolution made by the
working class or the Proletariat against the Bourgeoisie. After a revolution, working classes
would own the means of production.
Marx called the new order that would be set after revolution "dictatorship of the Proletariat"
which was eventually replaced with a classless society.In October 1917, V.I. Lenin, led the
socialist (Bolshevik) revolution in Russia. After the revolution was a four-year bloody civil
war. During this war, a group known as Red Army of the Revolution, organised and headed
by Leon Trotsky, had to fight against both Russians who were loyal to Czar and foreign
troops (The Academic American Encyclopaedia, 1995).After Lenin died in 1924, a struggle
between Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky started for the leadership of the Communist Party.
Stalin gained priority over Trotsky and; in 1925 Trotsky with several other members were
ousted from Politburo (the chief executive and political committee of the Communist Party);
in 1927 Trotsky and his followers were expelled from the Party and Stalin took control.Later,
Trotsky was exiled and in 1929, he was deported. In 1940, he was assassinated. During this
period, Stalin always denounced Trotsky as a traitor .In the following years, Stalin started to
arrogate all state authority of Russia to himself. In the 1930's, many people were arrested
under the instruction of Stalin.
After public trials, most of the opposing elements were eliminated. Stalin has been accused of
being a very cruel dictator. However, Nikita Khrushchev, who ruled USSR between 1958-
1964 and who was very critical of Stalin's crimes and non-human practices, said in 1956 that
Stalin believed that all his practices were necessary in order to defend the benefits of
labourers. He looked at these practices from the view point of the benefit of socialism and
labourers. Thus, we cannot define his practices as those of a greedy cruel despot.
Orwell and the Spanish Civil War

David Ball (1984) points out three experiences in the Spanish Civil War that were important
for Orwell: atmosphere of Comradeship and respect, what happened to his fellow fighters and
what happened when he returned to England and reported what he had seen. After spending
very poor days in Paris, Orwell went to Spain to fight for the Republicans in the Spanish
Civil War. When he arrived in Barcelona, he found an elating "atmosphere of Comradeship
and respect". People were friendly and addressing each other "comrade". To Orwell, relations
in the militia group he joined were the same and this made him feel that socialism was in
8
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
action there. But later on, he was disappointed by what happened to his army friends who
were imprisoned and killed by their own "comrades" who were of Communist-dominated
elements of the Republican government that they were fighting for. The Communists
believed that the communist ideas were betrayed by the militia group that Orwell belonged
to. After he was wounded, Orwell went back to England for remedy and was saved from
being killed by his "comrades". When he returned to England, he reported what he witnessed
in the war, but the Socialists strongly resisted to understand what he told people about the
practices of the communists in Spain. The reason was that it was not the right time to
publicise all these things while the war was going on and this information would harm the
Republican's position in the war. After this bad experience, he started to be more critical of
British socialists and of communism. He wrote in his article "The Spanish war and other
events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood." (Orwell, 1947).
Through the questioning of his own experiences in Burma and Spain and communists'
practices in USSR, Orwell began to develop a rejection of totalitarian systems. He was also
denouncing the acceptance of soviet regime by the left-wing people of other countries and
particularly of England without questioning in depth. For Michael Shelden, "the idea for the
book" which was to serve Orwell's desire to "make a forceful attack, in an imaginative way,
on the sustaining myths of Soviet communism had been in the back of his mind since his
return from Spain" (Shelden, 1991, p. 399). Another author Peter Davison points out that,
besides Orwell's experience in Spain, Animal Farm "originated from the incident that
suggested its genre: the little boy driving a huge cart-horse, which could easily overwhelm
the child had realised its own strength"(Davison, 1996, p.125).Shortly after he published
Animal Farm, Orwell (1947) in his essay titled "Why I Write" wrote about his goals in
writing his book. “Animal Farm was the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of
what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole. I have not
written a novel for seven years, but I hope to write another fairly soon. It is bound to be a
failure, every book is a failure, but I do know with some clarity what kind of book I want to
write” (Orwell 1947).When Orwell finished writing his book, no one wanted to publish it.
Since, like his efforts to publicise reality after he returned from Spain, for many people, and
of course for publishers, it was the very wrong time to attack Soviet myth, particularly when
the World War-II was going on and Russia was Britain's ally. Consequently the book was
published in Britain on 17 August 1945, after the war was over, and sold more than 25,000
hard copies in five years. When it was published in the United States in 1946, it sold about
590,000 in four years (Shelden, 1991).The book was a satire on totalitarian regime of Stalin
in Russia. Many people thought (and still think) that the book reveals Orwell's opposition to
the ideology that was prevailing in Russia.
As Michael Shelden states, the book "caught the popular imagination just when the Cold War
beginning to make itself felt. For many years 'anti-Communists' enjoyed it as a propaganda
weapon in that war" (Shelden, 1991, p.404). But this interpretation of the book was
completely opposed to the real intention of the book. As Roger Fowler reports, in his preface
to the Ukrainian edition of Animal Farm, written in 1947, Orwell writes that his aim with
Animal Farm was not only to attack and to criticise Soviet Communism, but to attack "Soviet
Myth" as received in Britain. To him, this myth was giving harm to the Socialist movement
9
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
(Fowler, 1995, p. 163).Animal Farm might leave a kind of pessimism on readers who have
knowledge of historical background that inspired Orwell to write it.
For instance, one possible pessimistic view that can be derived from Animal Farm is the
impossibility of establishing a social system in which there would be no inequality between
individuals and there would be no individuals or groups of people who apt to make use of
power just for their benefits. Another possible pessimistic view of those who rely on
socialism or communism would be that: even socialism, which is claimed to be a more
egalitarian system, would be turned into a dictatorship by human beings' desire for power.
Actually, the point that Orwell intended to give emphasis to is not the ideology itself, but the
human nature. As Christopher Hollis (1962) explains, "The lesson of Animal Farm is clearly
not merely the corrupting effect of power when exercised by Communists, but the corrupting
effect of power when exercised by anybody" (Yemenici, 1997). Finally, for a better
understanding of Orwell's intention, it is the best way to consult Orwell himself. Shelden
(1991) quotes Orwell's letter he sent to Dwight Macdonald in America in which he expresses
his intentions in writing Animal Farm. The letter included his arguments against pessimistic
view of his book: Of course I intended it primarily as a satire on the Russian Revolution. But
I did mean it to have a wider application in so much that I meant that that kind of revolution
(violent conspiratorial revolution, led by unconsciously power-hungry people) can only lead
to a change of masters. I meant the moral to be that revolutions only effect a radical
improvement when the masses are alert and know how to chuck out their leaders as soon as
the latter have done their job. The turning point of the story was supposed to be when the pigs
kept the milk for themselves (Orwell 1947). If the other animals had had the sense to put their
foot down then, it would have been all right ... what I was trying to say was, 'You can't have a
revolution unless you make it for yourself; there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship
( Orwell 1947,p.407).
Satirical Dimensions In Animal Farm

A satire may roughly and briefly be defined as a humorous or witty exposure of human follies
and vices. By means of a satire an author can strip the veil from things, and expose the reality
of individuals, communities, groups of people, institutions, etc. A satirist generally employs
irony, mockery, ridicule, and sarcasm as his weapons of attack. Swift is regarded as the
greatest satirist in prose. His book Gulliver Travels is a great satirical work. It is written in
the form of a travel-book. Swift adopted the form of a travelogue because travel-books had
been very popular for a long time in those days. Swift's purpose in writing this book was to
lash all mankind for their follies, vices, absurdities, and evil ways, and to bring about some
reform if possible. Gulliver's Travels is an allegorical satire because Swift does not attack
persons and institutions directly but in a veiled manner. All the persons and institutions and
other aspects of life attacked by Swift are presented in this book in disguise.
"Animal Farm", an Allegorical Satire

Orwell shows himself as a great satirist in Animal Farm. Animal Farm is also an allegorical
satire. But the scope of Animal Farm is very limited by comparison with Gulliver's Travels.
Swift's book attacks all mankind, but Orwell's book is a political satire which attacks certain
political institutions and certain selected political personalities and events. Besides, Orwell's
10
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
book is written in the form of an animal fable. Orwell's object in writing this book also was to
reform the thinking of those who had been misguided or who had formed wrong judgments
about certain political systems and political personalities.
A Satire on Revolutions (and on the Russian Revolution)

Animal Farm is a satire or the course taken by revolutions in general and by the Russian
Revolution of October, 1917 in particular. It is a satire on the process by which a revolution
is effected and by which it is afterwards betrayed. This book has a particular and pointed
reference to the Communist regime in Russia under Stalin who came to power soon after the
death in 1924 of Lenin. Orwell had felt much disgusted with the arbitrary and brutal methods
which Stalin had been adopting to consolidate his power and with the way in which Stalin
had betrayed the ideals of the Russian Revolution to establish a totalitarian regime in the
country. Stalin had employed cunning, deceit, fraud, and force to achieve his purposes; and
Orwell wrote Animal Farm to poke fun at Stalin and Stalin's methods and to degrade Stalin in
our eyes. His object was to open the eyes of his readers to the truth about Stalin and also
about revolutions in general.
A Satire in the Form of an Animal Fable

As already pointed out, the satire here takes the form of an animal fable. The main characters
are the animals of whom the pigs are the most important. From among the class of the pigs,
three leaders emerge. These leaders are Napoleon, Snowball, and Squealer. The principal
targets of satire are Napoleon, who represents Stalin, and Squealer who represents the
Communist propaganda machinery, especially the servile Soviet Press. Another target of
satire is Moses, the raven, who represents religious institutions like the Roman Catholic
Church.
A Satire on the Methods Employed By Stalin

Napoleon is the chief target of satire in Animal Farm. This pig has the reputation for getting
things done in accordance with his own wishes. He is contrasted with Snowball who is candid
and open in his methods, while Napoleon works in devious ways. Snowball can impress the
animals with his eloquent, speeches and can sway their judgment. But Napoleon works
behind the scenes and is able to canvass support for himself in a secretive manner. Napoleon
is especially successful with the sheep who are trained to bleat a slogan "Four legs good, two
legs bad" and who interrupt the animals' meetings by their loud bleating whenever Snowball
is about to score a point against Napoleon. Napoleon has also secretly reared a number of
dogs and trained them to obey his orders. By his cunning and by his use of the fierce-looking
dogs, Napoleon is able to drive Snowball away from the farm and to become the sole leader
of the animals. All this is Orwell's satirical method of informing us that Stalin had used deceit
and the force of his secret police in order to pass an order of banishment against his rival
Trotsky. After Trotsky had been sent into exile, Stalin became the sole dictator of Russia.
Thus the power-politics rampant in Russia of that time is also satirized here.
11
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
The Emergence of a Privileged Class and of Napoleon as a Dictator

The rest of the story shows how Napoleon, once he has got rid of his rival Snowball,
consolidates his power on the farm and becomes an autocratic ruler. By having driven away
Mr. Jones, the real owner of the farm, the animals had liberated themselves from human
tyranny and become their own masters. The animals had now looked forward to a democratic
functioning of the farm in the light of the Seven Commandments which had been formulated
soon after the expulsion of Mr. Jones. But Napoleon now begins a systematic attempt to
shelve the Seven Commandments and to depart from the ideals and principles of the
successful rebellion which had been accomplished by the animals against Mr. Jones.
The first decision taken by Napoleon, when Snowball was yet a respected leader on the farm,
was that milk and apples would be reserved exclusively for the pigs. This decision was a
clear departure from the concept of the equality of all the animals. Even Snowball had on this
point agreed with Napoleon. As a result of this departure from one of the Commandments,
the pigs emerged as a privileged class. The privileges accorded to the pigs now go on
increasing as a result of further announcements made by Napoleon when he has become the
sole leader. In course of time Napoleon himself becomes more and more powerful. He
abolishes the system of all the animals meeting together to discuss the
affairs of the farm and to take all decisions pertaining to the farm. Now a committee of pigs is
formed, with Napoleon as its president, to take all decisions which are then merely
announced to the other animals. Thus both the principle of equality and the principle of
democracy have been forsaken. A time comes when Napoleon decides that the pigs would
begin living in Mr. Jones's farmhouse and sleeping in the beds in which human beings used to
sleep. This is another glaring departure from the Seven Commandments. Napoleon then
carries out a purge on the farm. All those animals whom he suspects of being his opponents
are made to confess certain crimes which actually they have not committed at all, and who
are then put to death by Napoleon's fierce dogs under Napoleon's orders. Here is grossly
violated yet another Commandment which originally was: "No animal shall kill any other
animal," but which now reads: "No animal shall kill any other animal without cause."
Subsequently, the pigs, led by Napoleon, begin to drink whisky and to brew beer at the farm.
In this way some more privileges have been conferred upon the pigs.
Then comes a time when Napoleon decides that the pigs would walk on their hind legs and
hold whips in their trotters in order to supervise the work of the other animals. This is, of
course, the height of absurdity, and we are greatly amused by this decision of Napoleon's.
Napoleon himself now wears the clothes of human beings, dons a hat, and keeps a tobacco-
pipe in his mouth. Here, perhaps, the satire reaches its climax. Napoleon, and with him all the
pigs, have bidden good-bye to most of the ideals of the rebellion. But more is yet to come.
The Seventh Commandment which promised equality to the animals is now altered to read as
follows: "All Animals Are Equal But Some Animals Are More Equal.” There is a lot of irony
in Napoleon's violations of the Seven Commandments. The irony arises from the contrast
between what the animals had looked forward to and what Napoleon has actually done on the
farm. Irony, as we know, is one of the chief weapons of satire.
12
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
A Satire on Stalin’s Betrayal of the Ideals of the Russian Revolution

Napoleon’s deviations from and violations of the Seven Commandments are intended by
Orwell as satire on Stalin’s betrayal of the ideals of the Russian Revolution. The Russian
Revolution had promised equality, comradeship, social and economic justice, and the
freedom of thought, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of action to the citizens. But,
after coming to power, Stalin curbed all the freedoms and soon suppressed them altogether.
Stalin, likewise, rejected the concept of equality and economic justice, and allowed a
privileged class to emerge in the country and to rule the country under his direct orders. This
privileged class in Russia was, of course, the bureaucracy which enjoyed many privileges,
while the common people had often to face shortages of food and other commodities.
Stalin had also liquidated his supposed opponents through wholesale executions of the
suspects, these suspects were first forced to confess the crimes which they had never
committed, and were then sentenced to death. This drastic step was taken by Stalin during
1936-38. The Moscow Trials of these years caused a wave of terror all over the country. The
executions of a large number of people tried during these years came to be known as the
''Great Purges". Napoleon's absurd method of adding to his dignity also corresponds to
Stalin's efforts at self-aggrandisement. In short, all the policies, decisions, and actions of
Napoleon, which excite our mirth and laughter, are based on the policies, decisions, and
actions of Stalin, though there is certainly an element of horror in the mass executions. The
whole portrayal of Napoleon and his emergence as the dictator of Animal Farm shows
through mockery and ridicule, Stalin's betrayal of the Revolution and his
emergence as the undisputed and unchallenged dictator of Russia. Stalin re-established
totalitarianism in the country within a short period of about twenty years after the overthrow
of the totalitarianism represented by Nicholas, the Czar of Russia. But Orwell also implies
that most revolutions follow the same course which the Russian Revolution took. Thus
Orwell's conclusion is applicable to the French Revolution and also to the Spanish Civil War.
A Satire on the Russian Propaganda Machinery

Squealer amuses us greatly by the manner in which he defends and justifies the policies and
decisions of Napoleon. For instance, he amuses us greatly when he tells the animals that there
are certain substances in milk and in apples which are essential to the health of the pigs who
are the brain-workers on the farm. He amuses us when he tells the animals that, by abolishing
the democratic procedure, Napoleon has taken extra labour upon himself, and when he adds
that Napoleon still believes in the equality of all animals. Squealer amuses us when he tells
the animals that Napoleon's original opposition to the windmill had merely been a matter of
"tactics" to get rid of Snowball who was a dangerous character and a bad influence. Squealer
repeats the word "tactics" several times, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail as is
his habit. Indeed, Squealer abases us every time he tells a brazen lie to support and justify
Napoleon. When the rations of the animals have been reduced on account of a food
shortage, while maintaining the rations of the pigs and the dogs, Squealer says that a strict
equality in rations is contrary to the principles of Animalism. Squealer's perverted
logic and his sophisms are one of the chief sources of humour in this book. He carries on his
false propaganda against Snowball in a most shameless manner. One of his most
amusing lies is that the van, which had taken away the sick Boxer had originally belonged to
13
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
a horse-slaughterer but was now the property of a veterinary doctor who had yet to order
the rubbing out of the horse-slaughterer's name from the van and the painting of his own
name in place of it. As has already been pointed out, the portrayal of Squealer is meant to
satirize the Russian Press, represented by the News Agency called “Tass” which always lends
its support to official pronouncements and decisions. The press in Russia is servile to the
dictator just as Squealer on Animal Farm is servile to his boss Napoleon.
The Use of Religion for Political Purposes, Satirized

The portrayal of Moses is intended to satirize religion and the use of religion for political
purposes. Moses is a spy and a tale-bearer and he talks about an animals' paradise called
Sugarcandy Mountain. We are indeed very amused by Moses' talk about Suearcandy
Mountain because we know that the priests of all religions beguile their audiences by talking
to them about the joys of heavenly life which, however, is only a myth. Napoleon’s tolerance
of Moses on the farm was intended by Orwell to ridicule Stalin's attitude of indulgence
towards a Roman Catholic priest through whom Stalin wanted to establish friendly Pope in
Rome.
Shirkers, Satirized
There are workers and shirkers in every society. Boxer and Clover in this story represent the
honest and conscientious workers, while Mollie represents the shirkers. The portrayal of
Mollie is satirical in intention. Mollie avoids doing any work on the farm. She is fond of
wearing red ribbons in her white mane and chewing a lump of sugar. She is also vain about
her appearance and often stands on the bank of a pool, admiring her own reflection in the
water. She is cowardly too, because when a battle has to be fought against Mr. Jones and his
men, she runs away into the stable and buries her head in the hay. Boxer's adopting the motto
"Napoleon is right”, and his meeting a sad fate when he has become useless from Napoleon's
point of view, are a satire on the treatment which the common people receive in Russia when
they can serve the nation no longer. Boxer’s fate symbolically conveys to us the callousness
of a dictator like Stalin.
Animal Farm as a Political Satire

Books are a medium through which the author can express his views; whether they concern
social injustices, current issues, or in Orwell’s case, politics. For centuries, writers have
weaved their opinions into their work, conveying to the reader exactly what they
intended.“Orwell saw himself as a violent unmasker of published pretentiousness, hypocrisy
and self-deceit, telling people what they did not want to hear….” (Crick 1996,pp 244). Orwell
accomplishes this unmasking of these facades through his use of rhetorical strategies to relay
his views to the reader. Through his books and essays, George Orwell has found a forum in
which he can express his opinions, fusing his political beliefs with a satiric quality all on his
own.
A piece of literature that illustrates his ability to do this with unmatched skill and unrelenting
satire is Animal Farm. Jeffrey Meyers said of Orwell’s novel, “In this fable about a barnyard
revolt, Orwell created a satire that specifically attacked the consequences of the Russian
Revolution while suggesting the reasons for the failure of most revolutionary ideals”. In the
14
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
book, the reader is given a situation in which the animals are fed up with the over-indulgent,
unappreciative human beings that run their farm. They decide a rebellion would cure their
woes and so they revolt. However, they soon realize that the uprising was the easy part. Now
they must establish a government with leaders and their own rules. The pigs are the self-
appointed leaders because they are the smartest and cleverest of all the animals. The two pigs
with the most power and persuasion are Snowball and Napoleon. The farm begins to run like
a democracy, and all the animals are satisfied until Napoleon runs Snowball out of the farm
with a pack of wild dogs. After the exile of Snowball, the animals on the farm increasingly
become oppressed and Napoleon slowly starts to resemble a dictator.
Throughout Animal Farm, Orwell’s main weapon of choice is his stinging satire. In fact, the
entire book can be viewed as a one hundred page satiric look at politics and human life. Not
only do we see humans being overthrown by pigs and chickens but all the animals can talk
and some can even read and write. Naming one of the pigs Napoleon is also significant
because as Meyers puts it, “The carefully chosen names are both realistic and highly
suggestive of their owners’ personalities and roles in the fable” (Orwell 1947,pp353). Later in
the story after Napoleon takes over, we see him declaring days of celebration on his birthday
and not allowing the other animals to call him Napoleon but rather “our Leader, comrade
Napoleon” (Animal Farm,pp66). Orwell uses satire here by equating the arrogance of this pig
leader to that of the well-known arrogance of the French leader Napoleon. Orwell satirizes
the effects alcohol has on people as well. After a night of drunken madness, the pigs are
horrified in the morning to learn that their beloved leader Napoleon is, in fact, dying. Because
of this tragedy, Napoleon decrees that any animal that drinks alcohol would be punished by
death, even going as far as creating a new commandment. After realizing that he was merely
having a hung over, Napoleon celebrates with more drinking, orders a field to be planted with
barley, and changes the commandment from “No animal shall drink alcohol” to “No animal
shall drink alcohol to excess” (Animal Farm,pp77).
Not only does Orwell use satire in Animal Farm, he employs this strategy throughout most
of his writings. Orwell satirizes the British police in an expertly written and vividly detailed
essay called “Shooting an Elephant.” An example of this is when Orwell says “In Moulmein,
in lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people – the only time in my life that I have
been important enough for this to happen to me” (Orwell 1947,pp 1). Orwell uses satire to
lighten up a work of literature and point out in a not so flattering way, the injustices and
ironies of society and politics.
“Animal Farm was the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of what I was
doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole.” This quote from Orwell
in his essay “Politics and the English Language” precisely illustrates what Orwell attempted
to do and achieved in Animal Farm. Jeffrey Meyers said Orwell, “…brilliantly presents a
satiric allegory of Communist Russia in which virtually every detail has political
significance” . The characters of Napoleon and Snowball are representative of Russian
communist leaders Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky. Napoleon (Stalin) takes over the farm in
much the same way Stalin slyly took over Russia; Snowball (Trotsky) goes from being a
powerful leader to being exiled and almost assassinated by Napoleon (Stalin). “Both
15
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
characters are drawn fully and accurately, and reflect almost all the dominant characteristics
of the historical models.” (Meyers, 353). The struggle between Snowball and Napoleon is a
struggle “within the party elite whose final result, whichever had won, would have been the
increased consolidation and centralization of power into the hands of the pigs” (Woodcock,
2578). I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge cart-horse along a narrow path,
whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of
their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the
same way as the rich exploit the proletariat (Orwell, 70).
This quote from George Orwell provides his reasoning for choosing the farm as the backdrop
to his political fable. Orwell uses the animals to portray the poor nature of society. Unlike the
pigs who are educated yet lazy, the rest of the animals on the farm are hardworking yet
stupid. A character that represents this idea is the diligent Boxer. Boxer is a strong and
powerful horse who can only memorize the alphabet until the letter D; yet his maxim is “I
will work harder” (Orwell, Animal Farm 22). The animals, such as Boxer, are employed by
Orwell to make the reader think of the poor and impoverished as the animals in the story,
powerful but uneducated. Orwell empathizes with the animals in the book; perhaps it was
because he grew up demeaned by his social standings, explaining that his experiences during
his school years fostered his extreme sensitivity to social victimization (Meyers, 339).
Throughout Animal
Farm the reader picks up on Orwell’s immense dislike of the Communist government through
the rise and eventual failure of Napoleon. This extreme disgust for the Communist party was
most likely because Orwell disapproved of the British becoming allies with the Russians and
not recognizing the faults of the Communist government. In theory, Napoleon’s rules and
changes sounded like an incredible idea; but, like Communism, ended up dividing the leaders
from the animals even more than when the tyrannical Mr. Jones was the human owner of the
farm. Napoleon failed to provide sufficient amounts of food for the animals which were not
pigs, as in a Communist country where the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting
poorer. In the end of the book, the pigs begin walking on their hind legs and taking on other
characteristics most commonly attributed to humans, the very ones the animals revolted
against and swore they would never resemble. Orwell uses the rise to power of Napoleon to
demonstrate the theme that “once in power, the revolutionary becomes as tyrannical as his
oppressor” (Meyers, 353). The slow but definite oppression of the animals is clear from the
beginning of Napoleon’s rule; yet the only ones to notice this is the reader. The animals don’t
realize this until the single commandment Napoleon chooses to rule by is “All animals are
equal but some animals are more equal than others” (Animal Farm,pp 10). The last scene in
the book in which Orwell’s political preferences and disgusts are the most distinctive is when
the oppressed animals look upon the pigs and humans saying, “The creatures outside looked
from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was
impossible to say which was which” (Animal Farm,pp101).
Throughout Animal Farm, Orwell employs rhetorical strategies to aid the reader in
realizing the political innuendos he simply and carefully wove into the book. Orwell
foreshadows the events that are about to take place with subtle hints and clues. Orwell clues
16
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
the reader in to the possible Communist-like future of the farm by saying, “All that year the
animals worked like slaves. But they were happy in their work; they grudged no effort or
sacrifice, well aware that everything they did was for the benefit of themselves and those of
the kind who would come after them, and not for a pack of idle, thieving human beings”
(Animal farm,pp44). Orwell uses this excerpt to portray to the audience the thoughts of the
animals who were “…accepting the fact that no matter what the pigs may do, no animal
wants to be ruled again by Farmer Jones or his kind” (Woodcock, 1977). After reading this
excerpt and then seeing the slave-like conditions the animals are in by the end of the book,
one can infer through Orwell’s use of foreshadowing that the oppression and unjust treatment
of the animals was a likely outcome. Orwell also utilizes characterization by attributing
human qualities to the animals, giving the impression that we almost nowhere feel that we are
in an animal world. Orwell uses Napoleon to represent the dictator, Boxer to represent the
over-worked lower classes, and the old goat Benjamin to represent the always skeptical few.
Orwell does not fully develop these characters because he uses them to depict character types
with easily recognizable character traits . Through his use of these strategies, Orwell achieves
his miniscule reproduction of the Russian Revolution in the early 20th Century.
Experiences from one’s life shape and mould the person one is, whether good or bad. The
same holds true for Orwell. His mistrust of governments and politics could be traced back to
his days as a police officer for the Indian Imperial Police where he was stationed in Burma.
There, he encountered the harsh reality of colonial rule and unjust treatment of the lower
classes. Disgusted with that life, Orwell left the police force but didn’t forget the things he
had witnessed. Recalling the injustices he saw during those past experiences, Orwell enlisted
in the British Army and fought Fascism in the Spanish Civil War, fostering his hatred for
oppressive governments. Several of Orwell’s novels deal with the kind of victimization he
saw in Burma and Spain and even experienced in his own life.
George Orwell effectively conveys what he intended to through a simplistic style of writing
that is forceful, to the point, and gives the reader only the impression which he wanted. His
use of satire combined with a headstrong political opinion creates for the reader thoughts and
questions that were not there when one opened the pages of a book such as
Animal Farm and began the journey chosen for them by Orwell. Orwell is a writer who not
only gives the reader entertainment and enjoyment, but is set out to make the reader think and
feel what the characters who are being victimized think and feel like. He is on a mission to
make the reader ponder the injustices of society and the political regimes that run our
countries, our world. George Orwell did not set out to create books that kindly represent
everyone, even the tyrants. He set out to create books and literature that may have shocked
some readers at first but without a doubt, told the truth. Orwell once said, “Possession of the
‘truth’ is less important than emotional sincerity.” Orwell is unwavering in his commitment
to make the masses aware of the injustices, victimizations, and corrupt politics. A writer’s
only and best weapon is his words; Orwell chooses his words wisely. They can be bitter or
sweet, but they always convey truths about the world ignored by many but seen and written
about by Orwell. The persona which Eric Arthur Blair fabricates through George Orwell,
meticulously implements a paradoxical set of literary devices throughout his thesis, which
has arguably forged him as one of the greatest social commentators of modern history.
17
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
Orwell’s essays have sparked a plethora of adverse and auxiliary opinions regarding the
imperishability of his work, from those who believe that his efforts are archaic, to those who
believe that his craftsmanship of language addresses issues which had once been hidden. No
matter what side of the social spectrum one categorises themselves into, it is undeniable that
Orwell’s essays resonate a certain quality of genuine concern for society which is echoed
throughout his formulaic journey of writing in “Why I Write”, the prophetic piece depicting
the influence of politics on a writer’s conscience in “Writers and Leviathan” and in Orwell’s
emphasis on the duality of politics and literature in “Politics and the English Language”
which reverberates the transcendental message of his essays which shall be critically studied
for years to come.
A Man of the People (Chinua Achebe)

Introduction and Background of the Author
A Man of the People (1966) is the fourth novel by Chinua Achebe. This satirical novel is a
story told by the young and educated narrator, Odili, on his conflict with Chief Nanga, his
former teacher who enters a career in politics in an unnamed modern African country. Odili
represents the changing younger generation; Nanga represents the traditional customs of
Nigeria. The book ends with a military coup, similar to the real-life coups of Johnson Aguiyi-
Ironsi, Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu and Yakubu Gowon.[1]
A Man of the People is a first-person account of Odili, a school teacher in a fictional country
closely resembling post-colonial Nigeria. Odili receives an invitation from his former teacher,
Chief Nanga, who is now the powerful but corrupt Minister of Culture. As Minister, Nanga's
job is to protect the traditions of his country especially when he is known as "A Man of the
People". Instead, his position is used to increase his personal wealth and power that proves
particularly alluring to Odili's girlfriend; she cheats on him with the minister. Seeking
revenge, Odili begins to pursue the minister's fiancee.
Odili agrees to lead an opposition party in the face of both bribes and violent threats. Then
there is a military coup.
Summary of the Plot of A Man of the People

Written in 1966, A Man of the People by Chinua Achebe is a story of warlords, mentorship,
and even revenge and romance. It begins with the narrator, Odili, who is a teacher in a small
African village, central to a corrupt and debased government. Odili receives a letter one day
from his mentor and former teacher Mr. Nanga, who has risen in the ranks of government and
has become the Minister of Culture in their unnamed African country – he now goes mainly
by Chief Nanga. The letter informs Odili of Chief Nanga’s arrival to his home village, where
they meet, reminisce and Odili is offered a chance to come back with Nanga to the capital
city, where Nanga will help him leave the village and study abroad.
Odili agrees to visit Chief Nanga’s city, and as they become more friendly, Odili learns more
about his mentor’s part in the African government. Although he finds himself entranced by
his old teacher’s charisma, he despises what he stands for politically, and especially loathes
the corrupt ways he achieved his status. Odili also learns that despite being a Minister of
Culture, Chief Nanga knows nothing about the culture, and is only residing in this position
18
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
because of the extravagant living comforts that come with it. As they spend more time
together, Odili finds himself enamored with Edna, a woman who travels with Chief Nanga,
and is betrothed to be his second wife. This causes Odili to find his own woman, Elise, who
he seduces and brings back with him to Nanga’s home, to stay with her during the night,
however Chief Nanga ends up spending the night with her instead. Odili is both hurt and
furious because of this, and sets his sights on Nanga’s fiancée, Edna.
Along with pursuing Edna, Odili agrees to join an opposition party against Chief Nanga’s
organization, despite his hate for politics, however revenge is now more important to him,
and begins to work towards taking Chief Nanga’s position away from him. To counter his
distaste for government, Odili decides on running an honest organization, however he finds it
more difficult than he had first thought, as every other official is only after filling their
pockets, and the people of this African country are both used to and have accepted corruption
as the status quo. This jaded view of the village people also contributes to the fact that Odili
is unable to smear the current government, because the people have lost complete faith in the
concept as a whole, and he is unable to gain the upper hand. Other issues Odili has to deal
with are considering taking a large sum of money to drop out of the political race, trying to
prove that the current government is corrupt and taking bribes to the unreceptive people, and
having his family and his village threatened as well as being browbeaten into stepping down.
Along with all these political struggles, Odili slowly discovers that his plan to seduce Edna to
hurt the chief has backfired, because Odili finds himself in love with her, and he desires her;
however, she feels forced to marry Chief Nanga because he had paid her father a great deal of
money. Odili, growing more frustrated with his opponent, attends Nanga’s campaign party,
where is recognized as the rival candidate, and is beaten to an inch of his life, and is forced to
spend weeks in the hospital.
During Odili’s recovery he remains out of action, causing Chief Nanga’s party to gain the
electoral victory, which naturally thrills Chief Nanga, however the residents of the African
country are livid, and start a military coup in which Nanga’s government is overthrown,
causing more people to come forward and discuss their hatred for the government that they
were under all these years.
The book really pushes the satire by highlighting the types of people in this world – how
people are never satisfied and often angered by their own decisions, like how the countrymen
voted for Chief Nanga, but then were unhappy when he won, and how no one wanted to step
up when it mattered except Odili, and even when he did, he suffered greatly for it. A Man of
the People had grown in popularity since its publication, mostly because many other authors
have hailed it and Chinua Achebe as being a form of premonition, since all the fictional
events happened in different African countries under the rule of monstrous dictators.
Near the end, Edna stays by Odili’s side the entire time, helping him heal, revealing her love
for him, and their families make arrangements and help the couple stay together, and
eventually Odili and Edna marry. Odili discovers much loss at the end of the book, like losing
the election, having the countrymen resort to chaos and violence to bring down the
government that they themselves elected, and having lost many people in the war, including
one of his closest friends who was killed by a government official. Despite that, he feels that
19
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
at least he had won the heart of the woman he loves, and that now his country lies in ruins,
but at least he tried.
A man of the people as a political satire

Chinua Achebe’s A Man of the People (1966) is a political critique of the Nigerian political
situation in the post-independence era. Independence is supposed to be a glorious period in
the history of a nation; however, it is presented in this novel as very gloomy. Achebe’s first
three novels–Things Fall Apart (1958), No Longer at Ease (1960), and Arrow of God (1964)–
can be read as a critique of tribalism and bad traditions as well as a counter writing to the
English colonial canon. On the other hand, in this fourth novel the reader encounters a very
harsh self-criticism that exposes the wrongs of the intellectual elite, the politicians, and the
public. Hence, Achebe’s sociopolitical satire is a directed one. In “The Novelist as
Teacher,”Achebe (2007) confirms his position as an author who uses literature to correct the
nation’s deeds. He believes that the “beneficent fiction calls into full life … total range of
imaginative faculties and gives … a heightened sense of … personal, social and human
reality” (p.104).
Therefore, we look into the political implications of Achebe’s fiction, namely his novel A
Man of the People, by way of showing the corrective function of his definitive satire.
Abiodun (2014) exposes the link between the power of politics and the corruption of wealth,
on the one hand, and the negative role of people, on the other, arguing that these people
endorse such corrupt politicians to gain personal favors. For Abiodun, the novel condemns
“the African politicians’ negative tendencies” and “the ordinary people in different African
societies, for their seeming endorsement of corrupt politicians” (p. 202). This write up
focuses more on the interrelationship between literature and politics and unlike Abiodun’s,
presents a way out of the failures of nationalism depicted in Achebe’s novel through
highlighting the ameliorative potential of satire as a genre.
In A Man of the People, Chief Nanga represents the politicians. According to Appiah (1991,
p. 348), Odili is a member of the “comprador intelligentsia” who were well trained in the
West and “are known” there “through the Africa they offer”. Fanon (1967, p.178) also says
that this group of intellectuals, who received Western education and got assimilated into
every English-like way of thinking, came to Africa to apply what they have learnt on a newly
independent Nigeria. They suffer from divided loyalties as they “can’t choose; they must
have both. Two worlds: that makes two bewitching … each day the split widens” (p.17). For
Fanon, this split state of the native intellectual’s mind between two cultures is called “cultural
imposition” (p.139). A Man of the People symbolizes the rift between the native intellectuals
and the politicians in a politically turbulent Nigeria and in the absence of an engaged public.
This national leadership, in Fanonian logic, is neither fully prepared for nor seriously
engaged in issues of nationhood.
In the novel Achebe predicts a military coup. Morrison, (2007, p.115) states that Achebe’s
prediction of a military coup in his novel turned “to be so accurate”. On January 14, 1966,
Achebe celebrated his novel with “the society of Nigerian Authors” (p.115). The next day,
20
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
the coup’s leader “demanded that the radical action taken by army officers … had been a
patriotically necessary act” (p. 115). After that, the commander of the Nigerian army survived
and arrested the coup’s leader, announcing himself the “Nigerian Head of State” (p.114).
However, the Nigerian public were absent from the scene. This was the political context that
surrounded and followed the publication of A Man of the People.
In fact, many critics thought that Achebe’s novel was “prophetic” in its prediction of a
military coup. However, Bernth Lindfors (1968) believes that it only reads reality so well to
the extent that it demands a military coup to settle the whole country down (p.131). The novel
is “a devastating satire” which reflects, Lindfors contends, “the developing political crisis”
(p.131). Morrison (2007) agrees with Lindfors that the novel is a political satire in the general
sense, being “a commentary on the situation of many of the newly independent states in
Africa in 1960s” (p.119).
On the other hand, Ngugi wa Thiong’o in his 1966 essay argues that A Man of the People is a
continuation of the framework of earlier narratives seeking “to look back and try to find out
what went wrong” (as cited in Morrison, 2007, p. 119). Morrison agrees with Ngugi that it is
the “first time that Achebe turns his back on the colonizers” and that “his anger is directed
with full force at his countrymen for their corruption, indifference and cynicism” (p.119). On
the other hand, Morrison criticizes Achebe for what he believes to be a superficial treatment
of the political situation in the novel. He declares that “in searching for the causes of
Nigeria’s national crisis”, the novel “is ultimately unable to show us anything more than its
symptoms” (p.123). After the publication of the novel, three thousand people were killed in
the Eastern region of Nigeria where Achebe belongs. What began as fiction has turned to be
so personally real for Achebe when his novel was seen to implicate him in the country's
military coup. However, we argue that the novel is not an empty satire concerned with its
own symptoms of political corruption as has been claimed. There is a worthy sociopolitical
vision that needs explication. As a corrective satire, the novel works symbolically though
suggesting or hinting at counter/better sociopolitical realities. It is our task as readers to
foreground such hints and look at how literature relates perfectly with politics.
The Politician (M. A. Nanga) Chief Nanga is “the most approachable politician in the
country” and a former school teacher (Achebe, 1966, pp.1-2). He is lucky enough to become
a Minister of the people. It seems that he tries to compensate for the years of poverty that he
has lived before. His philosophy is to eat and let the people eat. He brings his people water
and other small services to make them superior to their neighbors (p. 91). However, what
really happens is that he eats whole cake and gives the people only a bite.The politician plays
the role of the patriotic man, misleading people’s consciousness. Once, he told Odili that the
meaning of “Minister” is “servant” (p. 6). However, he lacks simple political leadership skills
such as the ability to give a speech. Max and Odili criticize his underserved position due to
his humble educational background. Max tells Odili: “just think of such a cultureless man
going abroad and calling himself Minister of Culture. Ridiculous. This is why the outside
world laughs at us’’ (p. 16). To support his position as an “educated” politician and a
guardian of culture, Nanga is looking to get an honorary law degree from a small college in
U.S without working for it (p.18). For Zapata (1993), “politicians” like Nanga, despite their
“apparent social commitment,” are basically interested in “the perpetuation of their power,
even if this means the persecution of dissenters” (p.215). In this negative model of leadership,
21
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
education becomes a means of gaining more political power at the expense of the uneducated
masses.Everything is going smoothly for Nanga until the appearance of Odili. Since Nanga is
ethically corrupt, he cheats on his wife several times with Odili’s knowledge (Achebe, 1966,
p.49).
However, Odili turns his back on this fake politician only after he took his own girlfriend.
Although Nanga was a man of the people who voted for him, he turns his ugly face to others
who chose not to vote for him, as when he tries to kill Odili (p. 94). He antagonizes Odili
who calls people to stop voting for the “Honourable Thief” (p. 93).A Man of the People
begins by portraying Minister Nanga as a loved public personality. However, Odili leaves
Nanga because of a girl. Surprisingly, it turns out to be bigger than it begins. Odili now starts
to see the reality of Nanga. Nanga has connections with the black side of Nigeria. He offers
to bring Odili six girls to compensate for the girl he has taken from him. He tells Odili who is
very angry over the matter: Don’t be childish … After all she is not your wife…She told me
there is nothing between you and she… But anyway I am sorry if you are offended; the
mistake is mine.... If you like I can bring you six girls this evening. (p. 49)
Achebe continues, through Odili, to expose the scandalous parts of Nanga’s political life. The
Minister a symbol of the corrupted politician in an underdeveloped country had everything in
his hands. He built a very huge house (p.68). Also, he paid the price of a new bride (p.75).
Ironically, the corrupted politician himself suffered from bribes and journalists. He tells Odili
about the Press that blackmailed him: “if I don’t give him [the journalist] something now,
tomorrow he will go and write rubbish about me. They say it is the freedom of the Press” (p.
45).This enthusiastic “intellectual” came to apply Western democracy to his Nigeria. He was
unaware of the reality of Nigeria after independence, seeing it as the cake that every
politician and his followers are looking to taste (p. 97). Real democracy and corruption are
necessarily enemies. So, Odili is fought by the ideal teacher who is indeed “Honourable
Thief” (p. 93). At first, Nanga tries to seduce Odili with money, but Odili refuses. He bribes
him to step down, saying: “take your money and take your scholarship to go and learn more
books; the country needs experts like you. And leave the dirty game of politics to us who
know how to play it” (p. 81). This was a threat; however, naïve Odili goes to a speech of
Nanga thinking that he is in a free country. Unfortunately, he is almost killed and put in
hospital under arrest to be prevented from signing the paper that proves him a possible
candidate for elections (pp. 94-100). Odili sympathizes with Edna, who was to be Nanga’s
wife because he has paid her greedy father the bride-price (p. 75). Odili sends her a message
informing her of the risk of marrying such a bad person as a second wife (pp. 60-66). A
shared self-destructive point in Odili and Nanga is their weakness with women, like Elsie and
Edna. Odili falls in love with Edna. Nanga did not miss the opportunity and he politicized it,
for he declares to his audience when he caught Odili there: “He even tried to take a girl on
whose head I had put full bride-price and many other expenses---and who according to our
custom is my wife” (p. 94). Such two models of leadership are essentially weak or
incompetent, more personally-centered than national. Bribes, womanizing, and personal
grudge, among others, distort the claims of such two representative “leaders” to nationhood.
The European educational ideals of such men as well as their personal interests distort their
claims to leadership. The Novel’s Ending (Neither Politicians nor Intellectuals).The novel
ends with a military coup, which is presented in “a positive light” (Morrison, 2007, p.124).
22
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
Odili welcomes the coup, for now he is free to marry Edna because Nanga is out of sight
(Achebe, 1966, p. 99).
Similarly, in an interview for the Kenyan Sunday Nation in January 1967 Achebe admits his
understanding that A Man of the People “would be controversial and that its publication
might lead to some negative personal consequences” (as cited in Morrison, 2007, p.125). In
this interview, Achebe presents his ambivalent attitude towards the coup. He says:
Military takeovers are not always bad in themselves. The Nigerian situation left no political
solution. The political machine has been so abused that whatever measures were taken, it
could only produce the same results … I don’t think one can say a military takeover is never
worth it. (p. 125)Ngugi analyzes the military coup, arguing that it is controversial; but
Achebe wants the readers to wonder whether any of the antagonists could find a solution for a
corrupted Nigeria without the intervention of the army (as cited in Morrison, 2007, p.120). It
is a really harsh criticism of both politicians and intellectuals who turned to be useless when
it comes to real future national solutions. Both were good at fighting each other instead of
looking for a shared opinion that gives each class its position.
According to Obi (1990), the justification of the uselessness of both politicians and
intellectuals is that there was an intra-elite split … between the political elite and the literati.
The handful of nationalistic politicians who articulated the demands for self-government …
joined their not-so-educated colleagues (i.e., the commercial elite as well as traditional rulers)
to wield power. This arrangement excluded the writers and the bulk of the intellectual class
from the power to direct their societies other than as subservient civil servants. (pp. 404-405)
Consequently, intellectuals such as Odili try to find themselves a place from which they can
state their opinions about solutions for their Nigeria. Odili and Max established a new party
to counter Nanga’s. Unfortunately, Max got killed while Odili survived (Achebe, 1966, p.96).
Nanga was removed with the military coup and got arrested (p. 99). Commenting on the
characters of Nanga and Odili, Morrison (2007) quotes his book Scandalous Fictions: The
Twentieth Century Novel in the Public Sphere (2006), declaring that the effect of Achebe’s
text is to present Nanga’s corruption as an organic extension of traditional mores into modern
national literature, culture and politics. If Nanga is shown as a retrograde figure whose
weddedness to the past stifles both political and economic development however, Odili is
shown as an equally poor progenitor of change. Vain, pompous, misogynistic and elitist.
(p.128)
Nanga was arrested after the fall of the government when he was “trying to escape by canoe
dressed like a fisherman” (Achebe, 1966, p. 99). On the other hand, Odili’s “dubious
seductions of women” were more obvious “than any kind of political or social reflection” in
the novel. He was politically “impotent” and “self-regarding” (as cited in Morrison, 2007,
p.128). Additionally, Morrison believes that “if Odili and Nanga are, each in their own way,
profoundly unsatisfactory agents of national development, then this in itself can be read as
one of the challenges Achebe’s novel lays down to its readers” (p.127).
Achebe “was identified as a possible conspirator” of the coup in Nigeria after the publication
of A Man of the People (Morrison, 2007, p. 129). However, he stays committed to his “ego
ideals” that appeared “in his fictional and non-fictional works.” He incorporates such
corrective ideals in his satirical works as reminders for himself as well as other African
23
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
writers (Abussamen & Neimneh, 2016, p. 221). Thus, he continues what he believes to be the
kind of responsible and beneficent literature and politics that contributes to raising national
awareness. The ideals Achebe fosters, however, function in this satire through analogy with
the shortcomings of existing models, like those related to education, politics, and the mob.
According to Obi (1990), A Man of the People is a novel that exposes the author’s
“disillusionment with the fruits of independence” (p. 402). Although Nanga was corrupt, he
was a symbol of a stable country which has a parliament. And after Odili, Nigeria is ruled
with force because “the country was on the verge of chaos” (p.68). Many thought of coups as
good solutions, but it is ironic to use military weapons and soldiers to keep peace. On the
other hand, Nanga, the greedy politician who wants to stay long in power, tries to kill Odili to
move him from his way (Achebe, 1966, pp. 94-97). By contrast, wouldn’t Odili being a lover
of women, money and fame becomes a thief like Nanga if he won? Consequently, Achebe is
directing his readers to the importance of real national education through the inadequate
examples of political leadership he offers.
As Woodson (1933) memorably states in his study on miseducation, If you can control a
man’s thinking you do not have to worry about his action. When you determine what a man
shall think you do not have to concern yourself about what he will do. If you make a man feel
that he is inferior, you do not have to compel him to accept an inferior status. If you make a
man think that he is justly an outcast, you do not have to order him to the back door, his very
nature will demand one. (p. 84)
Woodson has clearly articulated the interrelationship between literature power, politics, and
education. For Woodson, the educated “Negro” was taught to despise his people and think
like and imitate whites. The educated “Negroes” have failed to make their race progress
because of “their estrangement from the masses” (Woodson, p. 88). Hence, Woodson claims
that the black race “needs workers, not leaders” (p.118) as good leadership entails service
rather than the empty talk of miseducated leaders chosen by whites. Achebe criticizes the
former colonials who still intervene in Nigeria through their well-formed intellectual elite.
Fanon (1967) declares that “inside the nationalist parties, the will to break colonialism is
linked with another quite different will: that of coming to a friendly agreement with it. Within
these parties, the two processes will sometimes continue side by side” (p. 98). Those people
inside the nationalist parties are the means of intervening in the newly independent country.
Also, Achebe criticizes his fellow Nigerians who are still unable to serve their country and
build their nation.
CONCLUSION
In this study, we have clearly pointed out how the subject politics is discussed and perceived
by two authors in their works. The striking comparative feature here is the fact that the two
literary works are political satires. We deliberately selected an African and a European author
who, by their works under study in this article, are political satirists. Despite the vast
differences in terms of setting, diction, structure and other literary features between the two
novels, they heavily converge on the same theme, that is, political satirism.
24
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
George Orwell's Animal Farm has drawn high levels of criticism for over half a century.
Some of this criticism has been negative, arguing that the novel is too simple, strays too far
away from the truth, and is too broad in its interpretations and critiques of the Soviet
revolution in Russia. However, many critics have found Animal Farm to be of literary merit.
They argue that its simplicity is a well-wielded device to make his satire easier to understand,
that diversions from the truth are minimal, and that its critiques hit the mark. Ultimately, the
novel's source of literary merit will be its staying power and ability to remain relevant despite
having already served its original purpose in helping to destroy Soviet communism. The
timelessness of Animal Farm will necessarily be measured in the years to come.
The problem of Nigeria in A Man of the people is that intellectualism does not stand firmly
against the corruption of politicians. Rather, it seeks to establish a politics of itself instead of
working hand in hand with the current authority. We have argued for a national consensus
that puts a blueprint for the future to uplift the country at the hands of a truly educated class
of organic intellectuals and an engaged public. Force generates force, and violence is exactly
what has happened in real Nigeria after the coup; a counter coup (Morrison, 2007, p.115).
Unfortunately, the enlarged egoism of the intellectuals and politicians, together with the
complacency of the public, has endangered the country. Educating the masses is crucial to
change the political situation of a place like Nigeria. As Fanon (1967) declares, to be
responsible in an underdeveloped country is to know that everything finally rests on
educating the masses, elevating their minds, and on what is too quickly assumed to be
political education. Political education means opening up the mind, awakening the mind, and
introducing it to the world (p. 138)
Achebe adds that “the most urgent thing today for the intellectual is to build up his nation”
(p.199). Nigerians have to control their destiny by having political education. They should
produce their organic intellectuals according to their own national standards. The public must
be the rulers who choose a man from the people to serve the people, not to exploit them.
REFERENCE
Albert S. Gérard -European-language writing in Sub-Saharan Africa -1986 Page

Bozkurt (1977); the satirical myth. Oxford University Press;London.
CliffNotes. (n.d.) Animal farm: Critical essays: The russian revolution. Retrieved 3/28/2013
from http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/animal-farm/critical-
essays/russian-revolution.html
Crick (1996) Orwell and Totalitarianism. SAGE Publishers Inc. UK-London.echoed in his
novel, A Man of the People (1966)."
Elliott, Robert C (2004), "The nature of satire", Encyclopædia Britannica.
Ezenwa-Ohaeto (1997). Chinua Achebe: A Biography. Bloomington: Indiana
Grolier Incorporated (1995) The Academic American Encyclopaedia,vol 14;Grolier
Incorporated 1995.New York
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/stalin_joseph.shtml
http://www.theorwellreader.com/essays/yemenici.html
London.
25
Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018
Meyers (2002): Orwell and the Russian Revolution. Blackwell Publishing House.
Naeem, M. (2010) What is meant by satire? In what sense is animal farm a satire and what
does it satirize? Retrieved 4/1/2013
from http://neoenglishsystem.blogspot.hk/2010/10/what-is-meant-by-satire-in-what-
sense.html
Orwell, G. (2008) Animal farm. London: Penguin Books
Orwell,G. (1947);Why I write. Retrieved from: http://www.resort.com/prime8/orwell/
Richard (1976); Techniques of satire. Liverpool University Press; Liverpool.
Shelden (1991); Orwell: The Authorised Biography; Heinemann, pp563, October 1991,
ISBN 0 434 69517 3.
University Press. p. 109. ISBN 0-253-33342-3.
Woodcock (1977): Animal Farm and Politics. Penguin Publishing Group Inc.; London "A
Man of the People by Chinua Achebe". Time. August 19, 1966. Retrieved 2007-
Mercedes Mackay (January 1967). "Review: A Man of the People by Chinua Achebe".
African Affairs. 66 (262): 81.
BBC. (n.d.) Joseph Stalin (1879-1953). Retrieved 3/29/2013 from
Yemenici, A. (1997) Animal satire in animal farm. Retrieved 3/29/2013 from 09-19.
26

Literature and Politics A Review of George Orwell's Animal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Literature and Politics A Review of George Orwell's Animal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Literature and Politics A Review of George Orwell's Animal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research

Vol.6, No 2, pp. 1-26, April 2018

___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)