This week, internet sites and newspapers are abuzz with news of the Golden Jubilee of Nigerias independence. Student groups, diplomatic missions and the Government of Nigeria are all trying to outsmart one another in a frenzied pursuit of pomp and pageantry to mark this great milestone of Africas most populous country and the largest black nation on planet earth.
This week, internet sites and newspapers are abuzz with news of the Golden Jubilee of Nigerias independence. Student groups, diplomatic missions and the Government of Nigeria are all trying to outsmart one another in a frenzied pursuit of pomp and pageantry to mark this great milestone of Africas most populous country and the largest black nation on planet earth.
Not prepared to be left out, the Obama administration invited some young African leaders to the White House, a few weeks ago, to chart a new path for African countries, seventeen of which would be marking their 50th year of liberation from the shackles of colonialism, this year. Nigeria, a key ally of the United States, 8th largest oil producing nation with an estimated population of 150 million, celebrates its independence anniversary on October 1. But does October 1, 2010 really mark Nigerias 50th year of independence?
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
The story of Nigerias birth must be familiar to anyone with as much as a fleeting interest in the countrys history. Created in 1914 following the merger of the northern and southern protectorates, Nigeria is unarguably a product of British imperialism. Colonial rule had assumed its most formal shape over part of the territory that is now Nigeria, in 1861, when the British annexed the colony of Lagos. The invading foreigners conquered and arm-twisted other self-ruling kingdoms in the south (mostly traditional worshippers), and also took control of the Muslim-dominated northern emirates and chiefdoms. Peoples of diverse nationalities, languages and ethnic identities were lumped into the new behemoth casually called Nigeria, a vast area of land spanning from the lower end of the Sahara desert in the north to the Atlantic Ocean in the south. The years that followed saw the emergence of various nationalists who attended conferences in London where the new elite negotiated the fate of the soon-to-be independent country; however, Nigerians were not given a choice as to whether they wished to stay as one or not.
Although Nigeria became officially independent in 1960, the country was still tied to the apron strings of Britain. The Governor-General of Nigeria was only a representative of the Queen of England. Appeals from the highest court in Nigeria were still heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, presided over by members of the British House of Lords. The Constitution Order in Council of 1960 otherwise called the Independence Constitution was laden with vestiges of colonialism. In more ways than one, the newly independent state of Nigeria still felt the omnipresent specter of the British Crown. Not happy with some of the repercussions of this state of affairs, the country severed a significant portion of the reminders of colonialism and proclaimed itself a republic with a President and Prime Minister on October 1, 1963. For the sake of argument, lets assume that Nigeria became independent-in-fact in 1963.
Sadly, the countrys newfound independence was truncated just after two years and three months. This time, the forces at work were not external, they were internal; they were not of the West, they were Nigerians. Soldiers, unskilled in the art of governance and intolerant of dissenting opinions sacked the elected rulers and returned Nigeria to a new form of colonialism: this time internal colonialism. I remember growing up and for much of my youthful life thinking that just anything you wanted could happen if you were a friend of the Head of State. He was the President, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the Chief Law Maker as well as the ultimate court on all matters. The Nigerian military ruler was so powerful that he could wake up one morning and announce the creation of new states by the way, all the 36 states Nigeria parades today were incrementally created just by military fiat. When the prices of goods rose, it was just not unusual for a military order to fix a price cap and soldiers whipped traders into compliance. Robbery suspects were shot in broad day light without trial. Military decrees typically had ouster clauses that conferred absolute immunity on the military overlords and their associates, regardless of the gravity of their wrongdoing. This state of affairs lasted from 1966 to 1999, broken only by a momentary four-year stint with civil rule from 1979 83. And at least until I was a full-grown teenager, I could only imagine what a President in plain clothes looked like.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
Strikingly similarly to military rule, colonial rule in its heydays had as its hallmark the suppression of the colonized people. Districts were carved, boundary lines were drawn on bare maps in London and Paris, and kinsmen were split into countries and regions, with scant regard for their wishes. In 1960, the United Nations gave impetus to the struggle for the liberation of colonized peoples when by the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Resolution 1514, XV), it recognized the rights of colonized people to govern themselves and also determine for themselves the type of government that best suited them. One flaw of that resolution, however, was that it essentially recognized the entities already created by colonial warrants, and only sought to allow the inhabitants to govern the entities. The grant of independence, that year, to as many as seventeen African countries including Nigeria was seen by the international community as a watershed in the restoration of human dignity and the equality of all peoples. What was seemingly ignored was that while external colonialism was becoming history a new form of colonialism was emerging in some of these countries. In Nigeria, the actual independence gained in 1963 was lost on January 15, 1966 the day the military returned the country to colonial rule.
When in 1999 the military handed over power to a retired military general via what could be called a general election, it was probably the beginning of the new Nigeria. The sad reality however was that the 1999 constitution under which power was assumed, like that of 1979, was only a schedule to a military decree. Contrary to its preamble (We the people of) it did not derive its validity from the wishes of Nigerians, and the independence of a free society was still lacking. However, there is the principle of effectivity, which validates an otherwise unlawful legal order if generally accepted by the people. The Supreme Court validated the election and all Nigerians recognized the new system. A new national day was added May 29 (1999) - marking the day Nigeria returned to republican status. Since then, it has been a little more than eleven years. Nigeria has conducted two other general elections after 1999 and as flawed as those elections were, the country is still forging ahead.
Now the question is: what exactly is Nigeria celebrating this weekend? It is not the day Nigeria was created by the British. That would be January 1 (1914), and Nigeria would be 86 years old. It is not the first attainment of true independence. That would be October 1 (1963), and Nigeria would be 47 (assuming military rule was part of independence). It is not the birth of the modern republic of Nigeria still struggling to shed the last relics of internal colonialism. That would be May 29 (1999), and the country would be only 11. Nigeria, instead, celebrates the official (though not actual) termination of British rule on October 1, 1960. In that sense, it would be a valid claim that Nigerians have ruled Nigeria for 50 years, 29 of which were spent under internal colonial masters and tyrants in military uniform.
No doubt, Nigeria has good reason to celebrate this October. Most foreigners and Nigerians alike do not quite appreciate what it means to have well over 300 different ethnic nationalities forced into a union they never bargained for in the first place. The story of Nigeria is akin to a polygamous marriage with many wives, gathered from different parts of the world, each with her children, and all speaking different languages and practicing various shades of different religions. Each mini-household would strive to grab as much from the fathers wealth as possible to cater for its interest. Some wives would be quite self-sustaining, and would see the others as mere pockets of liabilities. Mutual suspicion and scant loyalty to the center would be rife. Each child, when asked how many siblings he or she has, would say I have ten (for example), and only when pressed for details would she add but my father has 9,768 other children. Inevitably there would be powerful and senior wives, and there would be the weak ones; there would be those wives with children in sufficient numbers to form two soccer teams, and those with only a number suitable for a game of two. The fathers relevance and ability to hold the family together would, at best, be a function of his possession of sufficient wealth to sustain a common interest in distribution. What else? Such questions as which of the wives would have the husband on a given night, and whose food he would eat, and for how many days, would assume the status of daily arguments. If possible, the man would be zoned, and wives would take turns based on a roster drawn up by the most powerful ones among them.
Viewed from this prism, Nigeria is very different from the United States. Unlike the US, Nigerians did not fight to get rid of external colonialism; they only bargained for it. Unlike the US, Nigerians do not nearly all speak one language; English (or more specifically, Pidgin English) serves functionally to connect people of various tongues. Yes, Nigeria, like the US, fought a bitter civil war to forestall disintegration; but unlike the US, Nigeria spent more than half of its life since formal independence, under internal colonial rule. So when it is said that Nigeria has been independent for 50 years, it must be appreciated the quality of independence that is being referred to. A fifty year old felon who spent thirty years of his life in prison can lay no better claim to real life experience than a 25 year old who has been law abiding.
Importantly, the US and the international community in general must appreciate the amount of resilience that has sustained the country for so long. It is so easy to classify Nigeria as a mass of Christians in the south and Muslims in the north, ignoring the complex diversity that defines the country. Nigerians on the other hand must begin to appreciate the strength in diversity and size. In large measure, the many years of lawlessness under military rule set the country backward, but that is now history. Most Nigerians have given up on government, having been disappointed by successive regimes of failed promises and imposition of rulers. The Nigerian government must see the urgent need to restore confidence and a sense of ownership in the masses. Patience has its span: even the most docile creatures in nature, fight back when pushed beyond the threshold of endurance. Colonialism the suppression of the wishes of the people has not been completely eradicated. True independence comes from the free exercise by the people, of the right to elect their leaders, and to determine the type of government they want. With the 2011 general elections only a few months away, internal colonialism (via hijacked ballots) has to stop and Nigerians must, now more than ever, understand the urgency of the task of building a great nation that can vie for a dominant status in global politics. Only then can we lay claim to true independence.
Gomiluk Otokwala
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });