By Chido Onumah
For
a people in search of a meaningful national identity, I worry when we miss any
opportunity – no matter how insignificant – to solidify the bonds of
nationhood. Undoubtedly, those who have appropriated political power and those
who have had the privilege of overseeing the affairs of the country have been
our greatest undoing.
Some
of us held out hope – the visible shortcomings notwithstanding – that the National
Conference would offer an opportunity to focus on the fundamental defects of
Nigeria. That optimism was based on the belief that if we took away the other
options – descent into anarchy and, perhaps, another civil war or a
revolutionary upheaval – a “peaceful” national dialogue was the way to go.
As
it turns out, we may have to look beyond the current National Conference. Clearly,
the conference has lost focus, relegating its fundamental task which is to
define (indeed, redefine is the word) the terms of our corporate existence – terms
that would then be passed to Nigerians to finally decide on.
Once there is
collective understanding and agreement on what our co-existence entails (the
structure of the country, including what the federating units should be, the
form of government as well as fiscal relations between the units) other things –
health, education, corruption, rule of law, political parties and electoral
matters, etc – can then follow.
Why
is it that we are unwilling to address the fundamental question of our existence
as a country, considering our history and the seeming lack of agreement on what
the future should look like? It seems, for us in Nigeria, that we want to make omelette
without breaking eggs. If we can’t agree on how to co-exist peacefully, then we
must find an amicable way to “dissolve” this union. Truth is that if we don’t, and
allow these crises to fester, Nigeria will sooner or later implode and the consequences
will be grave for all parties.
There
have been many flashpoints in the turbulent history of Nigeria. I think,
however, that three issues – without attempting to downplay others, like the
Tiv Riots of 1960 and 1964, the first military coup of January 15, 1966, the 12-Day
Revolution of Isaac Adaka Boro which led to the declaration of the Niger Delta
Republic on February 23, 1966, the Maj. Gideon Orkar-led coup of April 22, 1990,
the murder of the Ogoni 9 by the Nigerian state on November 10, 1995 – stand
out: the civil war, the June 12 crisis and the current onslaught by Boko Haram.
And each time we think we have laid the threat to rest, it rears its ugly head.
Yet, we hide our heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich, hoping against
hope that somehow our fault lines and the tension they generate will vanish
overnight.
There
were reasons for Biafra, even if there are disagreements about what precipitated
the internecine civil war that followed and how the crisis and its aftermath were
managed. There were reasons for the annulment of the presidential election of
June 12, 1993, no matter how unconscionable we think the annulment was. There
are reasons for the actions of Boko Haram, even if we find its activities
loathsome.
Part
of the narrative of the Nigerian tragedy is economic. The near collapse of the
Nigerian state and its structures, particularly security and law enforcement – a
phenomenon rooted in many years of bad leadership and corruption – has not only
bred poverty, alienation and disillusionment of the masses across the country, it
has turned the country into a carcass and a veritable meal for vultures of
every hue. And each day, there are new vultures ready to feast on this carcass.
But,
if we focus on the preceding, we miss the big picture. For me, the underlying
reason for the flashpoints in Nigeria is that we have not come to a collective
agreement about what Nigeria is or what it should be. And until we do, we will
not be able to make progress as a country. Nigerians did not create Nigeria.
So, if we want to make it work, if we want to counter the different centrifugal
forces that seek to rip it at the seams, we must go back to fundamentals. We
were handed an unjust and skewed state. Our first task ought to be how to fix
the distortion.
Nobody could
have put this dilemma better than the former attorney-general of the
federation, late Chief Bola Ige, who noted in his 1998 speech titled Towards the Beckoning Glory of the 21st Century, that “There are two basic questions that
must be answered by all of us Nigerians. One, do we want to remain as one country? Two, if the
answer is yes, under what conditions?”
There is no
need for equivocation. Like Chief Ige, I believe strongly that “we” have to
answer these questions. Except that for me, in the 21st century,
after 100 years of amalgamation and 54 years of independence, the “we” do not
necessarily have to be the “we” that existed before 1914, but the “we” that
have called Nigeria the Motherland in the last 100 years. I have argued repeatedly
that we can build civic nationalities where ethnic nationalities currently
exist. All it takes is sacrifice and the willingness to make it work.
There are
those who assume, wrongly, that the first part of the question is taken for
granted; that after 100 years of marriage and 54 years of raising a family
there is no need to question the sanctity of a marriage whether it is working
for the partners or not. Unfortunately, while we can make the analogy, we must
face the reality that the amalgamation of Nigeria is different in many ways
from a marriage between two lovers.
In the case of
Nigeria, it was a forced marriage as is the practice amongst some families in
the country; the lovers had no say or the opportunity to understand each other,
much less appreciate and love each other. While it works in some cases, in our
own case it hasn’t worked; and like many forced marriages, the parents (the
colonialists) got their desire while the couples (Nigerians) are left with the
hope that their problems and disagreements will sort themselves out.
Perhaps, if
the citizens of the different ethnic nationalities in 1914 were involved in the
creation of Nigeria, they would have decided the terms of their co-existence
and would have long gotten used to their obligations in the union. The fallouts
of this seeming lack of accountability are Biafra, June 12 and Boko Haram, amongst
others; each
event leading to further disaffection and division in the country.
Like Chief Ige, “I do not belong to the group of Nigerians
deluding themselves that we can keep Nigeria forever as it is.” If we can’t
and do not want to live together as a people, we should be open and honest
enough to sit at a table for an open discussion on the way forward.
I don’t wish
for a national conference that is convoked – usually by a foreign power or “the
international community” – when parties to a conflict have exhausted every
bloody option, but that is the road Nigeria is travelling currently; a road of
mutually assured destruction.
Concluded.
conumah@hotmail.com; Twitter: @conumah
No comments:
Post a Comment