In the many debates I have had with Nigerians on the future of Nigeria, there seems to be a common trend. I have noticed that the most optimistic Nigerians are those resident abroad and without a current plan of returning and resettling permanently in the country. This pride is usually based, not on any conviction on the greatness of the country, but by their interactions with African communities in their countries of residence. The Nigerian community in most foreign countries is the largest African community due to the large population of the country, and being able to identify with a large social group has advantages. Nigerians are more “Nigerian” when they leave the country, but return back to their ethnic camps as soon as they return to Nigeria.
In the many debates I have had with Nigerians on the future of Nigeria, there seems to be a common trend. I have noticed that the most optimistic Nigerians are those resident abroad and without a current plan of returning and resettling permanently in the country. This pride is usually based, not on any conviction on the greatness of the country, but by their interactions with African communities in their countries of residence. The Nigerian community in most foreign countries is the largest African community due to the large population of the country, and being able to identify with a large social group has advantages. Nigerians are more “Nigerian” when they leave the country, but return back to their ethnic camps as soon as they return to Nigeria.
Many Nigerians know something is wrong, but very few ponder on what it is, or practical steps to be taken in addressing the problem. They often say things like “we don’t need a conference, we only need to fight corruption”. This is an otherwise perfectly correct statement, but I am more concerned about the corollary question to this argument – how? What practical steps, beyond offering banal statements, do we take to tackle corruption? How effective is condemning corruption and asking people to refrain from corrupt acts compared with insisting on punishment for those found culpable in corruption? Why do we do more of the former than the latter?
For the record, unlike many in Nigeria, I do not see a Sovereign National Conference as the solution to all our problems. The fact that many do puzzles me. No doubt, the National Assembly has many of its own problems. The fact that many are asking for a Sovereign National Conference is proof that Nigerians have lost faith in the National Assembly and the political establishment. The National Assembly is as unbalanced in its representation of the Nigerian geopolitical zones as the Parliament was in 1960 when the British left. The Senate is meant to have representation of all the geopolitical zones in equal numbers regardless of population; but the South East has 15 seats, the North West has 21 and the other zones have 18 each. This imbalance is the reason the Northern senators were able to delay the passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill and even threatened to use their majority to vote against it.
Notwithstanding the structural and inherent deficiencies in the National Assembly, those who want change could achieve it by putting pressure on the legislators. If we wanted a more equitable representation of the geopolitical zones, for instance, superior argument on the floor of the National Assembly for this cause can bring about this change. The media could do more to enlighten the populace by focussing on important subjects being voted on in the National Assembly, not just side attractions like the wrangling within the People Democratic Party (PDP). The civic societies could put pressure on the senators and members on the House of Representatives to vote wisely. Bills with progressive policies could also be sponsored by these civic societies. We have members of the opposition parties that condemn corruption and wasteful spending and advocate true federalism, but we do not hear any of the representatives from these parties in the National Assembly reject their fat salaries or sponsor bills on fiscal federalism.
I am not against the convocation of the Sovereign National Conference either. What I am against is the real problem; and I think the real problem is ignorance – pervasive ignorance. Too many Nigerians do not know what is going on or how and why we are at this level of underdevelopment and strife. Nigerians do not even know their history, and that is why we are calling for a conference that already happened in Aburi, Ghana. It is ignorant to assert that the Nigeria-Biafra war was due to fight over leadership. The war on the Nigerian side was for the oil resources discovered on Biafran soil, while it was a war for survival on the Biafran side. Obasanjo admitted this much. If that oil did not exist, or was not discovered at that time, Biafra would have seceded as easily as Singapore did.
I read the article written by Mr. Anthony Akinola (National dialogue: A road to Babel?) and, I must say, that I understand his concerns about the conference. His passionate plea for the continued existence of this country is based on arguments advanced by many. However, all the reasons given are advantages for the rest of Africa and the rest of the world, not Nigerians. No country should exist to serve the interest of others nations; it never works in the long term. The alarmist assertion that Nigeria’s collapse would set West Africa on fire is probably as old as Nigerian independence from Britain. It is also false. Nigeria did collapse during the Civil War, and it is heading towards collapse with the rise of Islamist extremism. If any other part of West Africa is on fire, now or in the past, it is not caused by Nigeria’s internal problems. And there are very few conflicts on the African continent that Nigeria has addressed without the help of Europe, if any.
There is pride among some Nigerians in the status Nigeria has as a large country. They say this gives the country a big sway in international affairs. Big nation states with large populations, they say, tend to dominate the affairs in regional and global geopolitics. For the most part, this is true. Countries with large landmass and big populations have innate advantages over their smaller counterparts. The large population of Nigeria is the reason Nigerians make a significant proportion of any country in Africa. This means that the interest of Nigeria can be served by Nigerians who can work for her interests around the world. The large population of emigrants from Nigeria means that Nigeria can recruit skilled Nigerians with international experience. But this is not always the case. Britain is a small country that colonised most of the world from the 15th to mid-20th century. Israel is the smallest nation on the Arabian Peninsula, but dominates the economy and political affairs in her neighbourhood. Most Nigerians resident in the country are more concerned about getting their daily bread than on how big the country is; even more would prefer the standard of living in a small country like Singapore, and this is evidenced by the number of Nigerians that get deported from such countries.
Despite the advantages of size, Nigeria does not have power in international or regional affairs. If Nigeria was a powerful country, she would not have lost Bakassi to Cameroun. Even if Nigeria had to lose a part of its territory to another country, why are the rights of the residents not protected? Why do they have to be resettled in Nigeria instead of staying in their ancestral land? Whatever power any country has, or claim to have, should be exercised in the protection of the interests of the country and her citizens.
I also find it strange when people refer to Nigeria as a property or idea on which the Black race has provenance. Nigeria was not established by the Black race. Nigeria was part of the British “possessions” in Africa, and Britain sought to maintain their influence on Nigerian affairs even after independence. Nobody conceived Nigeria to exist as a nation of peoples with different cultures. Nigeria was conceived and handled as a business to yield profit to the British.
Every nation has their problems and parts of their history they are not proud of. The Civil War is an uncomfortable subject to discuss in Nigeria. Also, earlier parts of American history are controversial – genocide conducted against the Aborigines, colonisation of Hawaii, slavery, racism, etc. The difference between the two is that America encourages discussion of these issues and sometimes makes reparations, while Nigeria censors controversial topics. Americans are made to know their history, while Nigerians are encouraged to substitute facts with fables. These are two different countries with different world views, which is the reason America is progressing while Nigeria is retrogressing.
This is why comparing America with Nigeria is like comparing apples and oranges. These countries have different histories. The initial 13 states freely chose to be members of the Union. The additional 37 territories were mostly bought and paid for. Nothing similar ever happened in Nigeria. The US also started on the right footing. Being a confederation of independent states, they could negotiate and resolve thorny issues – like the heavy weight bigger states could carry in national politics under proportional representation – before coming together to fight the common enemy, Britain and other European colonial powers. Canada, for example, was not forced into the Union. Europe did the same with the European Union; subjects like multiculturalism, freedom of movement, common currency, etc were and are still negotiated and agreed to by all before any member state can be bound by any EU treaty.
If creating “lands of opportunity” was done by merging territories to form big countries, Russia would be the biggest “land of opportunity” on earth. America is not a great country as a result of merging states; America is great because of the prudent management of the economy. Canada is the biggest country in North America in terms of landmass, but is not half as rich as the US. And financial prudence can flourish only under the right national framework. There is little incentive for the states in Nigeria to come up with new ideas on how to encourage businesses to setup and boost economic activities. Why wait for tax revenues from businesses when there is oil money to share?
The threat of secession of one region or the other is older than Nigerian independence, and the underlying cause was never addressed. The pre-condition that the regions – North, East and West – must be on the same page in the independence movement and none must secede is a big part of the problem. Agreements must be freely made by the parties involved without the interference of foreign interests. The fact that America was too involved with the support of Turkish membership of the European Union (EU) caused suspicion in Europe and hurt Turkey’s chances.
In order to address our challenges and move forward, discussion and negotiation is important. In whatever form, whether through a National Conference or through the National Assembly, all national issues must be tabled and discussed without inhibitions. It is better to discuss it in a Conference Hall than on the battlefield. If we cannot discuss important issues in peacetime, we are only postponing the issues till a time when it must be discussed. And the fear of Nigeria becoming a “Tower of Babel” should not arise because Nigeria can never be that. We must first agree to build a nation before we can entertain fears of Nigeria collapsing. The people of Babel agreed to build their tower, together; the Nigerian peoples never agreed on building anything together, and that is the key difference.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of SaharaReporters
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });