March 17, 2010
Muammar Ghadafi, the strong man of Libya was recently widely quoted as saying that the only solution to the crisis in Jos is that Nigeria should break up into “Muslim North” and “Christian South”. Ghadafi equally blamed Britain for the crisis in Nigeria, noting that it was the forcible amalgamation of “strange” people that brought about the crisis in Nigeria.
Muammar Ghadafi, the strong man of Libya was recently widely quoted as saying that the only solution to the crisis in Jos is that Nigeria should break up into “Muslim North” and “Christian South”. Ghadafi equally blamed Britain for the crisis in Nigeria, noting that it was the forcible amalgamation of “strange” people that brought about the crisis in Nigeria.
Such a remark is inflammatory, misleading but also borne out of ignorance about the sociology and politics of Nigeria and more importantly the causes and reasons for the Jos crisis and indeed, similar crises in the country. Ghadafi’s preferred solution, oversimplifies the matter. True, colonialism had its problems, but for how long can we continue to blame colonialism and refuse to do nothing on the continent of Africa? For how long will we continue to demonise Britain? Was Britain or Gordon Brown the one who instigated the Dogo Na Hawa killings? Is there any nation-state in the world that was not a forcible amalgam of peoples of different cultures and history? Is heterogeneity the basis of conflict and homogeneity the basis of unity? If that were the case, why is it that Somalia and Rwanda that have homogenous people both in terms of religion and ethnicity went up in flames and today they remain the two most traumatised states on the continent of Africa? Doesn’t this suggest that we need to search for the answer to the crisis in Jos or other crises elsewhere?
The one thing about Muammar Ghadafi is that he is maverick, unpredictable, sometimes unstatesmanly, often misguided and highly insensitive when he makes public remarks. Today, he supports a progressive cause and the next minute, he is supporting a reactionary and backward position. Today he is Chairman of African Union (AU) supporting the total Unity of Africa, and the next second he is supporting separatist forces asking for the destabilisation and balkanisation of a country.
It is unclear whether this is a result of ill-advise, ideological inconsistency or even political somersault or even a case of being insulated or removed from the reality of real world politick or simply that Ghadafi is being too self-opinionated or that he simply does not care a hoot about what the world feels about his remarks. But the risk he runs is that people may no longer take him seriously or simply dismiss him as somebody who has no genuine solutions to the issues at stake. He demonstrated this when he was at the United Nations General Assembly (UN GA). While he mounted a radical tough like Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, and the latter who spoke in strong terms as Ghadafi and was stridently critical about the role of the United States in Latin American and world politics, elicited and commanded greater world attention. Ghadafi who was engaged in showmanship and attention dragging by go to live in a tent, simply ridiculed himself. At the time Ghadafi addressed the UN General Assembly, he was the Chairman of the African Union (AU).
Muammar Ghadafi is also fresh from the Minaret question in Switzerland where he asked for Jihad and boycott of all Swiss items, following that government’s policy over the erection of Minarets in the country. Fundamentally, such a policy violated the right of peoples to practice their religion.
On the Nigeria question and colonialism; to be sure, colonialism used the principle of “divided and rule” as a key political weapon to emphasise difference rather than unity of African peoples, and it undermined the nationalist firmament through sectarianism, regionalism and ethnicity. It deliberately promoted/privileged one ethnic group over the other. In that way the patriotic instinct that was expected of citizens was not created. Yet, African nationalists managed to wage anti-colonial struggles that brought independence to the continent. The project of construction of the nation-state was reduced to that of nation building. Hence state-building became nation-building project. Ethnicity was truly a colonial creation. But why haven’t Africans overcome the wrongs and aberrations that were inherited as the legacies of late colonialism in Africa? This is because it serves the interest of specific élites; it reinforces and sustains their stranglehold on power. This is also the basis for producing and reproducing undeserving people who occupy positions that they do not merit.
It is because the political space is occupied preponderantly by undeserving people, who are insensitive to the needs, yearnings and aspirations of the toiling people, that is why there is total lack of commitment to the common good. In a situation where nobody is willing to take responsibility for abandoning the common good as a national project, the ordinary people are mobilised by the undeserving but politically entrenched elite to look up to them not only as their ethnic representatives, but also as the ones who alone can defend and protect their ethnic needs, ethnic aspirations and ethnic “gains”. Hence, the appointment of a federal Minister is seen purely as filling a state quota; and that state quota is reduced to the quota of an indigenous/ethnic group of a state. Consequently such a Minister perceives himself/herself not from the point of view of a Nigerian Minster, but a Minister appointed by virtue of being a representative of a clan, ethnic, or provincial /state representative on the Federal cabinet.
Whilst the Minister may not necessarily project or even promote the interest of his/her clan or ethnic group or even state, he/she will however continue to make the ordinary people have the feeling that they are well "represented” merely because they have a bench warmer on the Federal Executive cabinet. This ideology has reigned in Nigeria since 1960, but it has not worked; it has only taken Nigeria backward. It is like the scenario in the defunct Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) soap opera “The Village Headmaster” where the King would take ten steps backward in order to take one-step forward. It is high time we moved away from it and faced the challenges of the 21st century.
Now, back to Ghadafi, the Jos crisis is not a religious crisis; indeed it is only partially/coincidentally an ethnic crisis (i.e. when posed as a native vs. settler crisis). Fundamentally, the Jos Crisis, which found its true expression in 1989, following the elections into the Jos North Local Government, is primarily about citizenship. The military junta at the time under the leadership of General Ibrahim Babangida skilfully evaded the matter and refused to do anything about it. The repercussions were to come back hunting the entire people of Plateau state. Disaggregated, the crisis is about the settler and the native.
The natives, who are preponderantly Birom, woke up to say that the settlers who are Hausa; do not have political right to govern over them. They made this claim because the Birom are in majority and are the natives. When the crisis started, the military junta who were then ruling Nigeria refused to do anything. This led to reprisal attacks and counter-attacks. And subsequently, since 2002, the spirit of revenge has been taking spirally cycles. In this recent killings at Riyom, Dogo Nahawa and so on, the Fulani are joining in the fight between the Hausa and Birom, purely because in the January 2010 killings, many Fulani were killed even though they were not part of the initial crisis or conflict between the Birom and Hausa. Now, all this is finding meaning only when posed in the context of citizenship and who controls political power. And the elite of the Hausa, Fulani and Birom were all politically mobilised in support of their own people in the conflicts. Because those élites are so entrenched in power, the government is reluctant to fish them out and make them face the force of law.
If we do not have a deep understanding of what is going on in Jos, it is easy to hastily and simplistically conclude that it is a religious conflict, just as the international media and Ghadafi are wont to do. The simple analogy will be: the Birom are Christians, while the Hausa and Fulani are Muslims. Sociologically, the identities of Muslims and Christians are true about these ethnic groups; however, politically the identities of settler and native or in one word, citizenship crisis are at play.
Ultimately therefore, the crisis in Jos is both a constitutional and political crises. It is a constitutional crisis because the constitution of Nigeria privileges indegeneity over citizenship. Indeed, you are a citizen of Nigeria (excluding those who naturalised), primarily because you are an indigene of a state. And according to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to be an indigene of a state, you have to be a native of a community in that state. Rights and entitlements of citizens are given on the basis of this logic. Hence, what we have in corporate Nigeria are not citizens of Nigeria but natives of communities and ethnic groups.
Following this logic, the political project in Nigeria is very narrow and contrived. And it is within this narrow prism that the hegemonic class play their politics, manipulate the people and dominate over them. It pays to play ethnic politics, because that is the only business in town. The Jos crisis is constructed around this logic. But who are the losers? The losers are the ordinary people who have nowhere to go. It is therefore not by accident that it is the ordinary people that are being mobilised to kill fellow folks across the divide. The crisis in Jos will not end merely by militarising the region or imposing curfew. Those are mere ad hoc and palliative measures that do not address the issues at the heart of the crisis.
To conclude, the crisis in Jos is not religious, and it is only coincidentally an ethnic crisis. But it is far from being a religious crisis. The crisis is about who is a native (owner of the land) and who is a settler (alien or “intruder”)? The answer to this question cannot be found through military highhandedness it can only be found through politics and constitutional instrumentality. Bringing perpetrators on both sides to book is novel and necessary, but that in itself will not resolve the crisis until the core reasons for the conflict are addressed. To that extent, Ghadafi’s solution to the Jos crisis without considering the socio-political issues surrounding the crisis would only amount to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Such a remark is inflammatory, misleading but also borne out of ignorance about the sociology and politics of Nigeria and more importantly the causes and reasons for the Jos crisis and indeed, similar crises in the country. Ghadafi’s preferred solution, oversimplifies the matter. True, colonialism had its problems, but for how long can we continue to blame colonialism and refuse to do nothing on the continent of Africa? For how long will we continue to demonise Britain? Was Britain or Gordon Brown the one who instigated the Dogo Na Hawa killings? Is there any nation-state in the world that was not a forcible amalgam of peoples of different cultures and history? Is heterogeneity the basis of conflict and homogeneity the basis of unity? If that were the case, why is it that Somalia and Rwanda that have homogenous people both in terms of religion and ethnicity went up in flames and today they remain the two most traumatised states on the continent of Africa? Doesn’t this suggest that we need to search for the answer to the crisis in Jos or other crises elsewhere?
The one thing about Muammar Ghadafi is that he is maverick, unpredictable, sometimes unstatesmanly, often misguided and highly insensitive when he makes public remarks. Today, he supports a progressive cause and the next minute, he is supporting a reactionary and backward position. Today he is Chairman of African Union (AU) supporting the total Unity of Africa, and the next second he is supporting separatist forces asking for the destabilisation and balkanisation of a country.
It is unclear whether this is a result of ill-advise, ideological inconsistency or even political somersault or even a case of being insulated or removed from the reality of real world politick or simply that Ghadafi is being too self-opinionated or that he simply does not care a hoot about what the world feels about his remarks. But the risk he runs is that people may no longer take him seriously or simply dismiss him as somebody who has no genuine solutions to the issues at stake. He demonstrated this when he was at the United Nations General Assembly (UN GA). While he mounted a radical tough like Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, and the latter who spoke in strong terms as Ghadafi and was stridently critical about the role of the United States in Latin American and world politics, elicited and commanded greater world attention. Ghadafi who was engaged in showmanship and attention dragging by go to live in a tent, simply ridiculed himself. At the time Ghadafi addressed the UN General Assembly, he was the Chairman of the African Union (AU).
Muammar Ghadafi is also fresh from the Minaret question in Switzerland where he asked for Jihad and boycott of all Swiss items, following that government’s policy over the erection of Minarets in the country. Fundamentally, such a policy violated the right of peoples to practice their religion.
On the Nigeria question and colonialism; to be sure, colonialism used the principle of “divided and rule” as a key political weapon to emphasise difference rather than unity of African peoples, and it undermined the nationalist firmament through sectarianism, regionalism and ethnicity. It deliberately promoted/privileged one ethnic group over the other. In that way the patriotic instinct that was expected of citizens was not created. Yet, African nationalists managed to wage anti-colonial struggles that brought independence to the continent. The project of construction of the nation-state was reduced to that of nation building. Hence state-building became nation-building project. Ethnicity was truly a colonial creation. But why haven’t Africans overcome the wrongs and aberrations that were inherited as the legacies of late colonialism in Africa? This is because it serves the interest of specific élites; it reinforces and sustains their stranglehold on power. This is also the basis for producing and reproducing undeserving people who occupy positions that they do not merit.
It is because the political space is occupied preponderantly by undeserving people, who are insensitive to the needs, yearnings and aspirations of the toiling people, that is why there is total lack of commitment to the common good. In a situation where nobody is willing to take responsibility for abandoning the common good as a national project, the ordinary people are mobilised by the undeserving but politically entrenched elite to look up to them not only as their ethnic representatives, but also as the ones who alone can defend and protect their ethnic needs, ethnic aspirations and ethnic “gains”. Hence, the appointment of a federal Minister is seen purely as filling a state quota; and that state quota is reduced to the quota of an indigenous/ethnic group of a state. Consequently such a Minister perceives himself/herself not from the point of view of a Nigerian Minster, but a Minister appointed by virtue of being a representative of a clan, ethnic, or provincial /state representative on the Federal cabinet.
Whilst the Minister may not necessarily project or even promote the interest of his/her clan or ethnic group or even state, he/she will however continue to make the ordinary people have the feeling that they are well "represented” merely because they have a bench warmer on the Federal Executive cabinet. This ideology has reigned in Nigeria since 1960, but it has not worked; it has only taken Nigeria backward. It is like the scenario in the defunct Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) soap opera “The Village Headmaster” where the King would take ten steps backward in order to take one-step forward. It is high time we moved away from it and faced the challenges of the 21st century.
Now, back to Ghadafi, the Jos crisis is not a religious crisis; indeed it is only partially/coincidentally an ethnic crisis (i.e. when posed as a native vs. settler crisis). Fundamentally, the Jos Crisis, which found its true expression in 1989, following the elections into the Jos North Local Government, is primarily about citizenship. The military junta at the time under the leadership of General Ibrahim Babangida skilfully evaded the matter and refused to do anything about it. The repercussions were to come back hunting the entire people of Plateau state. Disaggregated, the crisis is about the settler and the native.
The natives, who are preponderantly Birom, woke up to say that the settlers who are Hausa; do not have political right to govern over them. They made this claim because the Birom are in majority and are the natives. When the crisis started, the military junta who were then ruling Nigeria refused to do anything. This led to reprisal attacks and counter-attacks. And subsequently, since 2002, the spirit of revenge has been taking spirally cycles. In this recent killings at Riyom, Dogo Nahawa and so on, the Fulani are joining in the fight between the Hausa and Birom, purely because in the January 2010 killings, many Fulani were killed even though they were not part of the initial crisis or conflict between the Birom and Hausa. Now, all this is finding meaning only when posed in the context of citizenship and who controls political power. And the elite of the Hausa, Fulani and Birom were all politically mobilised in support of their own people in the conflicts. Because those élites are so entrenched in power, the government is reluctant to fish them out and make them face the force of law.
If we do not have a deep understanding of what is going on in Jos, it is easy to hastily and simplistically conclude that it is a religious conflict, just as the international media and Ghadafi are wont to do. The simple analogy will be: the Birom are Christians, while the Hausa and Fulani are Muslims. Sociologically, the identities of Muslims and Christians are true about these ethnic groups; however, politically the identities of settler and native or in one word, citizenship crisis are at play.
Ultimately therefore, the crisis in Jos is both a constitutional and political crises. It is a constitutional crisis because the constitution of Nigeria privileges indegeneity over citizenship. Indeed, you are a citizen of Nigeria (excluding those who naturalised), primarily because you are an indigene of a state. And according to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to be an indigene of a state, you have to be a native of a community in that state. Rights and entitlements of citizens are given on the basis of this logic. Hence, what we have in corporate Nigeria are not citizens of Nigeria but natives of communities and ethnic groups.
Following this logic, the political project in Nigeria is very narrow and contrived. And it is within this narrow prism that the hegemonic class play their politics, manipulate the people and dominate over them. It pays to play ethnic politics, because that is the only business in town. The Jos crisis is constructed around this logic. But who are the losers? The losers are the ordinary people who have nowhere to go. It is therefore not by accident that it is the ordinary people that are being mobilised to kill fellow folks across the divide. The crisis in Jos will not end merely by militarising the region or imposing curfew. Those are mere ad hoc and palliative measures that do not address the issues at the heart of the crisis.
To conclude, the crisis in Jos is not religious, and it is only coincidentally an ethnic crisis. But it is far from being a religious crisis. The crisis is about who is a native (owner of the land) and who is a settler (alien or “intruder”)? The answer to this question cannot be found through military highhandedness it can only be found through politics and constitutional instrumentality. Bringing perpetrators on both sides to book is novel and necessary, but that in itself will not resolve the crisis until the core reasons for the conflict are addressed. To that extent, Ghadafi’s solution to the Jos crisis without considering the socio-political issues surrounding the crisis would only amount to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });