The Nigerian challenge…

The Nigerian challenge…
By Paul Inyang

A few days ago someone put out a map of Nigeria with all the permutations for a divided Nigeria. I counted by their estimation seven different countries products of their considerations. I then took my scalpel and went to work on the Nigerian map and had so many configurations that it seemed like madness. One thing was clear with the exercise that it was somewhat frustrating and filled with anguish at the reality of such break up. If someone had asked me if this would was possible a year ago, I would quickly have asked them what it is they were smoking. Nigerians have always flirted with the idea of a break up since the advent of Biafra. The truth has been that since that last incident Nigerian’s it seems have had very little tolerance for conflict and have been careful not to engage in any activities that would stir the pot enough to set the country on such a path. Even with the issues of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (M.E.N.D), it was not a consideration for many. That conflict was clear to most Nigerians who cared to listen—the utter disregard for the people of the Niger Delta and the collusion of government with the multi-nationals to totally devalue life and environment of the people. The Boko Harram assault has renewed the restlessness of Nigerians, to the point that people are uncharacteristically speaking up on the need to separate. This writer has come to believe that it is possible although not based on any conviction that it will or should happen.
In the 52 year history of Nigeria’s existence we have gone from four provinces (Northern, Western, Eastern and Midwestern provinces) of the 60’s to 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja of today. These are significant changes for a relatively young country like ours. Many may dispute the youth of the country but in all fairness, when compared to other nation Nigeria is a relatively young country. The great impetus for more configurations started with the military decree during General Gowon’s era to create the initial 12 states. Consequently, there was and continues to be a clamor for more states. The premise has been three prong in this writer’s opinion. The first factor is geographical—the need to cluster people according to their physical locations while taking into account historical and cultural relationships. The other is the grouping of folks according to their, ethnic affiliations’ to achieve greater homogeneity, with the hope that with assumed affinity they will be able to live and work together. Finally, the belief that as the country is divided into manageable pieces, insular interest will spur and bring greater development closer to the people.
The overall assessment of our national evolution based on the above principles has been positive for the most part. One can say that Nigeria has benefited from this arrangement and in many ways, we have created some buy-in on the need to remain together. For instance, the creation of Akwa Ibom State was and is still welcomed by all indigenes of the state. I can say that a lot of what we see as development today in Akwa Ibom would not have happened if the state was not created. This has spurred development within the state and has brought government closer to its people. It has also empowered citizen who until now felt marginalized within the Nigerian scheme by dominant groups in the country. The same can be said of other geographical areas of the country where people have begun to see themselves as thriving entities. As Nigeria is moving towards a representative government, citizens are beginning to understand that they count and can purposefully pursue beneficial goals and objectives. A good example is the resource control argument that occurred during President Obasanjo’s civilian regime, which led to the allocation of a measly 13% derivative in the sharing of oil resources to the states, which were previously managed and mismanaged by the central government. Prior to this the Federal Government was the sole beneficiary of the oil proceeds (rent and royalties) despite the recommended 17% by the National Political Reform Conference. Only a beginning—it further recognizes that the people who own the resource have a right to benefit from it and have a say in how those resources are managed.
There is also the unintended consequence of the partitioning of Nigeria, which appears to be the raising of expectations. If Nigeria functioned as most normal societies with patriotic zeal and the understanding that no matter what separates us we are headed in the same direction, then it would be a very good thing. There is also what this writer refers to as a minority complex—meaning that no one wants to be a minority. For obvious reasons the perception is that all minorities are persecuted and treated very unfairly. This has gone beyond minority resentment to—ethnicity, becoming a major issue and folks that saw themselves as brothers and sisters now have difficulty working and living together. The truth is that these folks have lived and done almost everything together in the past. They inter-married, schooled and fought political battles together, now there is an internal drive to differentiate themselves, brought on by some divisive forces. There is thrust to accentuate the superiority of one ethnic group over the other and in some places it has taken worrisome directions which have led to the unthinkable happening. It is natural to exercise self-determination but this driving force goes beyond such, providing motivation for revisionist to begin to redefine who they are at the expense of the truth. In Akwa Ibom for instance, ethnic groups are burgeoning daily, some conspicuous for first time. Little clans that in some cases do not constitute a village rename themselves—republics. Some groups have issued disclaimers implying that they are not of the so-called majority tribe. Some have gone as far calling the other “slaves” and “uncircumcised”. Is this a case of pride, arrogance or plain stupidity? How does this foster unity and sustainability among a people? No matter how many times we divide there will always be a majority and minority—it is how the world was created, with expected disparity. In every village some group likens their situation to that of minorities. We are one or the other by the sheer accident of birth, so what is the big deal? This writer opines that this has contributed the espousing of political concepts such as zoning and the recently introduced issue of indigenization, both polarizing issues.
We should realize that what matters is that we are able to create a niche for ourselves. The Jews in America for instance, understand that they are minorities but have never been preoccupied with this reality and have chosen through their business acumen, astute determination and acquisition of knowledge to control the financial sector and markets. Guess who one has to deal with when they need money for business? There are many examples to draw on including countries such Turkey which is a predominantly Muslim society with a complex mixture of other cultures and religion and has found a way to allow each to flourish and coexist with minimum conflicts. Each community should prioritize and decide what they can bring to the table collectively and individually and work at being great for the betterment of the larger Nigerian community. Sounds simplistic? Some of the best ideas are the simple and obvious ones.
If threatened one should defend themselves if possible to the last man. This is one of my many concerns about our country. We have so imbibed poorly the biblical principle of turn the other cheek that we have abdicated our responsibility to protect our communities within a united Nigeria. We misunderstand that principle completely. For that we have paid a very expensive price. This principle does not preclude that we defend ourselves or pursue appropriated channels to self-determination. Our first thought and action should not always be that of separation. The beauty of our country should be our diversity and we must learn to work together; disagree and settle our dispute amicably. If we separate prematurely, we “will live to fight another day”—our borders after all will be occupied by people who will pursue our demise.
All bright and intelligent people should aspire to be leaders irrespective of where they come from. There will never be a point when we will all have leaders who come from all of our communities, although we all should be able to share in governance. It presumes that if we have one of our own at the helm of affairs, then we will be better off. History has proven that this is not the case. There are too many different communities to accommodate, so the key is participation. Our leaders have never really had our interest at hand. The most that can happen is that they help themselves and their relatives and ignore the rest. All we need are leaders who care enough to change the course of history by doing for all and pursuing the common good—who cares where they come from? Most people would not, as long as we have an enabling functional environment to succeed. What else could be better?