The
conventional explanation of crippling poverty, economic backwardness and
perennial social turmoil in the midst of vast human and material resources in
Nigeria is in terms of leadership failure, administrative ineptitude,
technological deficiency, moral decadence and more recently, grand corruption. Other factors advanced include ethnic and religious differentiation. There is scant recognition of the absence of
the spirit of nation behind the inability of Nigeria to take its rightful place
among developed countries of the world.
Most Nigerian military and
civilian political elite proceed on the highly questionable premise either that the National Question does not exist
or that it was resolved with political independence in 1960. This class of
citizens also ignores massive distortions which have taken place in the federal
structure of the country since the advent of military dictatorship in the
country in 1966.
The delusionary
assumption of the political elite that Nigeria is already a nation poses the
greatest hindrance to the solution of several problems besetting the country.
Is there a Nigerian Nation?
It is significant to recognize that Nigeria was not
a nation ab initio. Numerous
independent kingdoms, empires and nations existed before the idea of a Nigerian
state was conceived by the colonialists. Indeed, an attempt to identify distinctively ‘Nigerian’
traits would stretch the imagination quite a bit.
British colonial masters who amalgamated the
territories known as Protectorate of Northern Nigeria with the Colony and
Protectorate of Southern Nigeria to form the Protectorate of Nigeria on January
1, 1914 administered the territory to foster the national interest of their
home country. They did not come for the purpose of building a great African
nation.
Indisputably, since it gained
political independence from Britain in 1960, Nigeria has had requisite
characteristics of a state namely, a defined territory, population, government,
currency accepted within its borders and recognition as an international person.
It however lacks qualities of a nation. There is clear absence of strong
feeling of affinity among diverse nations within the country necessitating periodic
resort to force to compel some sections of the country to remain within it. As
the Anglo-Irish political theorist and philosopher, Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
observed in the 18th century, “a
nation is not governed that is perpetually to be conquered.” Some nations
within Nigeria resent being ruled by those they perceive as aliens or people
who do not share the same value ideals with them. In addition, internal
functionality of the state in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and
credibility of state institutions is in high deficit in the country.
The issue is aggravated by the hypocrisy of the
ruling class. Unlike most of the current leaders, the founding fathers of
Nigeria were reasonably honest and often spoke with sincerity. As far back as 1947, Alhaji
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, who became Prime Minister of Nigeria from 957 to 1966,
stated the issue with eloquent candour when he told the old Legislative Council
(LECO) in Lagos in March 1947:
“Since 1914, the British government has been
trying to make Nigeria into one country,
but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their backgrounds, in their religious
beliefs, and customs and do not show themselves any sign of willingness to
unite…
“Nigerian unity is only a British intention for
the country. Many deceive themselves by thinking that Nigeria is one
particularly some of the press people … this is wrong.
I am sorry to say that this presence of unity is
artificial and it ends outside this chamber, the Southern tribes who are now
pouring into the north are more or less domiciled here and do not mix with the
Northern people … and we in the North look upon them as invaders.”
Concluding, Sir Abubakar
stated in clear and unmistakable terms:
“Since the amalgamation of
Southern and Northern provinces in 1914, Nigeria has existed as one country
only on paper…it is still far from being united. Nigeria unity is only a
British intention for the country.” (The
Hansard, March 20 to April 2, 1947).
Chief Obafemi Awolowo also
expressed a similar sentiment at pages 47-48 of his book, Path to Nigeria Freedom published in 1947.
“Nigeria is not a nation:
It is a mere geographical expression. There are not ‘Nigerians’ in the same
sense as there are ‘English’ or ‘Welsh’ or ‘French’; the word Nigeria is merely
a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries
of Nigeria from those who do not.”
Most of the things that
appear to unite the country or which most Nigerians share in common such as
federal constitution, parliament, official language, currency, defence, postal
system and other federal agencies are things brought from outside, specifically
British experiment. Nigeria
was expected to evolve on the basis of co-operation and mutual respect with a
view to forming a more complete union. But this process is yet to take off.
In opening his insightful
piece entitled How to be a Nigerian published in May 1966,
Peter Pan asserted in his humorous style of writing:
“The search for the Nigerian is in progress.
“Optimists say that
before this (20th) century is out, the experiment begun in the 19th
century will produce such a people.
“Meanwhile, there are
Hausas, Yorubas, Tivs, Edos, Fulanis, Ibos and 87 other lesser peoples inhabiting
that area of geography” called Nigeria.
And Nigeria’s 2nd
Military Dictator, General Yakubu Gowon (retd.) asserted with vigour that “the
basis for Nigerian unity no longer exists”, as he seized power in an anti-Igbo military coup in July 1966.
Dismemberment of the Nigerian Federation
Nigeria’s
fledgling democracy appeared to be on course until it was violently torpedoed
by some misguided military officers in the first military coup in the country
in January 1966. The coup involved the killing of the Prime Minister of
Nigeria, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and several high ranking civilian and
military officers in the country.
The
coup leader, late Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu was however quickly shoved
aside by superior officers who were not part of the planning and execution of
the coup. Whatever might have been the revolutionary zeal of the plotters, they
had no opportunity to show it.
By the Constitution (Suspension and Modification)
Decree No. 1 of 1966, the Federal Military Government assumed “power to make laws for the peace, order
and good government of Nigeria or any part thereof with respect to any matter
whatsoever.” This
was a classic case of displacement of goals as the Nigerian Armed Forces took
on the main business of government allotted to the Legislature and the
Executive under the Republican Constitution, 1963.
The
soldiers did not only subvert constitutional democracy in the country, they
instigated a civil war, the Nigeria-Biafra war which lasted from July 6, 1967
to January 15 1970.
The end of the war was followed by over 20 years of
military dictatorship during which period military dictators dismembered the
four-regional structure which existed in 1966 and created 36 unviable states, a
Federal Capital Territory and 774 local government areas, most of which remain
economically unviable. Unfortunately, those leaders who succeeded military
dictators prefer to live in denial rather than address the crucial issue of
nation-building.
Consequently, 58 years after becoming an independent
country, the search for the Nigerian is yet to take off effectively. Successive leaders of the Federal Government
of Nigeria failed to initiate processes to build a Nigerian nation.
A basic
condition precedent for Nigerian unity was the adoption of the principles of
constitutionalism, federalism and democracy through electoral processes.
However, sustained threats to these basic issues by military znc civilian
operatives have been subversive of the country’s existence.
National Interest and Political Power
National
interest is often mistakenly associated with the interest of an individual
incumbent or group in power. This grievous error makes strategic government
functionaries, particularly security agencies to victimize citizens who are
patriotic and courageous enough to point out the errors, failures and misdeeds
of rulers which detract from the ideal of a united country or nation-state. Security
agencies in the country routinely demonise patriots who raise issues aimed at building
a better society. They wholeheartedly embrace sycophants and charlatans while
regularly harassing, sometimes falsely imprisoning or causing disappearance of
patriots who truly love their country.
The fact that a
person is a Head of State does not, ipso
facto, make him or her a national leader. A nepotistic leader who utilizes
his position to bolster his sectional interest is not a national leader but more
likely a tribal leader.
Properly construed,
national interest must be defined in terms of broad issues relevant to orderly
development of a united Nigeria. A true nationalist would promote universalistic
values such as meritocracy, democratic governance and values and rule of law as indispensable tenets of a growing national
culture.
Therefore, partisan
regimes dedicated to protection of group or class interest represent only
sectional interests whatever big names they may assume. Whatever praise singers
may say, such leaders have no legitimate claim to national leadership.
Nation Building
Nigeria
is a conglomeration of about 250 nations spread from the fringes of the Sahara Desert
to the Atlantic. The fashioning and building of a nation out of such a
poly-national state cannot be left to happenstance. It must be consciously
designed, cultivated and nurtured by informed, patriotic and visionary
nationalist leadership, devoid of parochial and sectarian bias.
Nation
building means that there should be a conscious effort to erect integrative
social forces to moderate the potentially polarizing influence of ethnic,
religious or group allegiances. National interest should be pursued to the
benefit of the whole system, not to the overriding benefit of sections of it.
Critical moments
arise when certain interests become genuinely national, shared by all classes
and groups in such a way as to intensify the spirit of nationalism. Nigerian
nationalism was accentuated by accumulated grievances of peasants, civil
servants and the educated class against British domination. In the final
analysis, nationalism should mean love of fatherland and of a common heritage.
The National Question Defined
The national
question has been variously conceptualised in terms of several significant
questions in the Nigerian society. Principal among these are the continuing
relevance of British Design for Nigeria, power politics, problem of minorities,
ethnicity, religious fundamentalism, the Igbo Question, the Niger Delta
Question, the Middle Belt Question and more recently, Islamist terrorism as
well as cultural and class issues.
The national question arises when two or more nations are joined in one
state. The Nigerian experience is that perceived oppression by any of the
nations against one or more of other nationalities participating in the state
enterprise often leads to social tension or threats of breakup of the union.
In an article
titled “Whose national conference?”
published in THE GUARDIAN, Thursday, June 21, 1990, p 9, Dr. Edwin Madunagu
noted that the Nigerian society is increasingly structured against some social
groups and classes. He defined the National Question as “the range of specific problems that arise when two or more ethnic
groups are merged under one polity and governed by one state.” In the
Nigerian context, the questions that arise under this rubric include “ethnic and religious questions” as
well as “human rights”.
A genuine National Question is that whose solution
advances the interests of the working and toiling population –the overwhelming
majority of the people.
The National
Question pungently described by late Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and
Chief Obafemi Awolowo in 1947 and Peter Pan (Peter Enahoro) in 1966, was
compounded and aggravated by 28 years of barbaric military dictatorship which
lasted from January 1966 to October 1979 and again from January 1983 to May
1999. During this period, democratic
governance was banned, constitutionalism was abrogated in place of arbitrary
Military Decrees, the rule of law was thrown to the dustbin while the federal
structure established at Independence in 1960 was bastardised.
Resolving the National Question in Nigeria
On
the resolution of issues National Question, Madunagu argued that “the National Question is a structural
question, not a constitutional one. It can only be resolved the same way it was
created, namely, by deliberate political decision, sharply and courageously
executed. In other words, structural imbalances are not redressed through the
application of constitutional provisions. On the contrary, constitutional
provisions are made to legalise and formalize structural shifts that have
already taken place through deliberate political action. This is the
historically correct line that must be urged on the government.”
Therefore, resolution of the National Question must be
direct, categorical and precise.
Chris O.O. Biose
