A social scientist once described Nigerian political behavior and culture in terms of a continual ability to move dangerously closest to the edge of disaster before pulling back just in time to avoid falling into the deep. Nigerians in high and low places have a passion for insisting on the absolute rightness of their positions and claims sometimes with little regard to the consequences for others as well as for themselves. Sometimes groups in the nation act as if they will rather be dead right than heed the political necessity of mutual accommodation and prudent compromise. The Daily Times Opinion of April 29, recalls Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher (1588-1679) when it declared that “Nigerians are brutish and nasty. They are contentious and cantankerous. They are irreverent. And they are ungovernable. . . . [They] are an intensely political people, the more so today, when the promise of a return to civilian government has understandably led to the flexing of muscles by all manner of interest groups.” This is national high-wire politics at its best! But it is also dangerous politics at its worst. It reflects an ingrained political attitude about which more should be learned.

The term, “brain drain,” has been controversial ever since the Royal Society (1963) coined it to refer to the emigration of British scientists to the United States and Canada. The ensuing debate has produced two schools of thought. The nationalists, such as Patinkin (1968) who assume that the brain drain is dysfunctional to nation-states and who more or less view the talented individual as a property of a nation-state, have found sympathetic audiences in most of the developing countries and also among the altruistic moralists of the developed world. The moralists are concerned with the propriety and logic of the recipient countries accepting brains from the underdeveloped while at the same time granting them foreign aid. In response, the internationalists, such as Johnson (1968), who assume that the brain drain is functional to the pervasive trend towards closer integration of world economy and community and who more or less view the talented individual as a commodity in the international rather than the national market, have also found an equally sympathetic audience, especially among the drainees themselves. Being even more underdeveloped than the other developing areas, Africa is seen by the moralists as an ideal example of the follies of the brain drain.

The term, “technology,” as used here, refers basically to: (1) the science or art of devising tools and instruments and how to use them; (2) the development of new materials and substances and their application; (3) the development of machines to supplement or replace human effort, where desirable and feasible; (4) the development of energy and power resources for running the machines; and (5) the development of efficient methods of doing work—that is, using tools, machines, and instruments. From an observation of human efforts throughout the world, it is clear that every human society is concerned with technology, for it is a proven means by which man has extended his power beyond his physical capacity and gained some control over his environment. Although technology exists in every society, it is the amount and quality of the technology that separates nations today on a scale of economic development. Whilst the developing, technologically backward countries of Africa constantly face the basic human needs of food, shelter, and clothing, the developed nations consume and enjoy a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources and wealth by reason of their technological advancement.

The brain drain phenomenon has been a topical issue for quite some time. It has been argued by some writers that there are definite benefits derived by both donor and receiving nations as well as the individual involved (Chukunta, 1976; Oh, 1973; Adams, 1968). It can be said that the loss suffered by the donor-nation by far outweighs the attendant benefits. This becomes obvious when one considers the following facts: (1) the donor-nations are generally the developing nations which are suffering from acute shortage of high level manpower desperately needed for accelerated economic development; and (2) the individuals involved (that is, the nationals of the donor-nations who have left their countries to reside in foreign countries either permanently or indefinitely) belong to the very small group of intellectuals and high level manpower most needed in those developing countries. Many studies have been conducted to find out why the phenomenon does exist (Adams, 1968;Okediji and Okediji, 1973; Oh, 1977; Chukunta, 1976).

On the surface, it would appear far-fetched to link the concept of the absurd with the brain drain. The connection, however, exists. For, the brain drain, which here will sometimes be referred to as expatriation, is the logical extension of a process that begins with alienation and which, in its extreme case, manifests itself in the form of the Camusian absurd. After all the ink has been spilt on the economic “causes” of the brain drain, the concept of the absurd may turn out to provide new insights into the phenomenon and may be the foundation on which the “causes” rest.