The Nigerian state is delicately poised on the brink of a precipice. In this most crucial of times, the possibilities of survival or, disaster are almost equal. This state of affairs is neither strange nor unique. It is symptomatic of a virulent malaise that has plagued the world since the late 19th century to date. That malaise is soul-crushing poverty.
Nigeria like most former colonies is resource-rich. However, the vast
majority of Nigerians are poor, very poor. It is an undeniable fact that the
material condition of a human being determines every situation in his state of
existence. In other words, if a human being is materially poor, such a person
will also be mentally poor, emotionally poor, ideologically bankrupt,
psychically dislocated, and spiritually hollow. Simply put, because we live in a
plane of material existence, therefore, any form of material deprivation leads
to deprivation in all other aspects of material existence.
With this fact firmly established, it means that despite Nigeria’s
resource wealth, it is, in reality, a poor country. Thus, it must be the very nature
of its people to produce poor leaders. This singular fact can only partially explain
the deep crisis of survival that the Nigerian state is enmeshed in.
Colonialism as a model of imperial state business enterprise created
Nigeria. Every nation within the colony put up resistance but, this was usually
feeble due to the weakened nature of the sub-region. The people of the
sub-region had already been materially devastated and dislocated by many
man-made disasters – self-serving jihads, senseless civil wars, inhuman slave
trading, sadistic cultural practices, and disease. Thus, all the British had to
do was carry out a process of pacification, and then install a structure to
facilitate primitive exploitation of the territory.
Nevertheless, the British had to give up their imperial business holdings
due to the fallout of the 2nd world war. They were not given much of
a choice in this regard because, the newly emergent powers after the war were
the United States and the Soviet Union, two countries whose state ideologies
were vehemently against any form of slavery, be it human or territorial.
Colonialism is territorial slavery. Thus, a fundamental condition for economic
aid, was for the devastated European powers to give up their territorial slave
holdings(colonies) through the facilitation of state independence.
As an imperial business enterprise, Nigeria was a cash cow for the
British and it was not just ready to let go just like that. It created
structures and put into place certain instruments that made sure that it had a
neo-colonial hold over its business. This was not strange since all the other
European colonial powers did the same in their former colonies.
Using the instrument of divide and rule, control of resource extraction
entities, an extremely lop-sided regional structure, and the endemic distrust
among the co-existing nations; the foundation for state destabilisation and an endless crisis was firmly established. However, it must be clearly pointed out
that it was the conscious refusal of the elite state actors to confront crucial
and objective realities, and at the same time ask and answer vital existential
questions that have been the true foundation of the unending crisis faced by the
Nigerian state.
No entity can survive a state of immobility, and a country is no
different. Whether the state of Nigeria likes it or not, it has to keep moving
in time. Like all entities, it will like to remain in existence but, in the case
of Nigeria, will it? Its crisis of survival can only be rooted in three
outcomes – maintaining the status quo, complete administrative, economic, and
political restructuring, or, balkanisation. One of these three or, a hybrid of
them most occur. This is as sure as the sun rising tomorrow morning. Thus, we have to look at each of these
possible outcomes critically.
A position of being in a status quo is the desire for things to remain
the way they are and, continue the way they are. It is a conscious attempt to
keep things the way they are. In social, economic, and political terms, it is an
attempt at frustrating change. It is a desire to keep political and
administrative structures the way they are. It is a need to keep an oligarchic
socio-political hierarchy stable.
The status quo in Nigeria can be traced back to the misfortune of
military misadventure into Nigerian politics. The 15th January 1966
coup d' etat with its attendant unexpected consequences laid the groundwork.
The 1963 Republican constitution was suspended and, absolute political power
resided in the hands of the ruling military junta. The military dissolved the
three regions by chopping them up into smaller pieces which they gave the
grandiose titles of “states”. They then imposed an administrative and political
structure based on rigid centralisation of authority. Thus, though Nigeria was
called a federation, in reality, it was a unitary state in its extreme form.
The preferred nature of administration by the military was by decree. A
decree is a law that is both unassailable and unchallengeable. Although, it has
been argued that this was necessary for the successful prosecution of the 1967
– 1970 civil war by the victors; its retention after the war was by design and
not forgetfulness.
What this state of affairs did was to greatly increase the fears of
domination expressed by a section of the Nigerian state and the nationalities
therein. A fear that is based on good reasons and solid historical references.
Though the military had ruled
Nigeria for just over half of its post-independence history, the periods of
civil rule, which includes the present; have only reinforced the entrenchment of
the status quo. The constitutions of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th
republics were the instruments for maintaining the status quo. In name, these
constitutions claimed to be federal in structure but, in reality; they
continuously whittled away any powers that the so-called federating units had.
Thus, the constitution of the 4th republic is structured in such a
way that the central authority is monstrously powerful, while the “federating
units” are all highly dependent appendages. In fact, with the exception of its
title, the 1999 constitution is a classic example of a written unitary
constitution.
The nature of the status quo remains entrenched because of its roots. The minority Fulani ruled most parts of
northern Nigeria as an oligarchic theocracy prior to the coming of the
colonialists. Using religious guile and military ruthlessness, they had
conquered and overthrown the political elite of the dominant Hausa nation and
many other smaller nations in what is today known as northern Nigeria. They had
also managed to destroy the only threat they had in the Sahel, namely, the Oyo
empire through the instruments of internal greed and treachery; tactics they
have used against the other nations till this day, over and over, with
unrelenting success.
By achieving this feat, the Fulani became the undisputed masters of the
Sahel. They then imposed their own form of colonialism on the conquered nations
of the area through the administrative instrument of an emirate system. It was
this state of affairs that the British found when they came to the region in a
colonising adventure of their own.
No nation gives up its cash cow without a struggle, and the Fulani were
no different. They resisted the British with everything they could muster. Things
came to a head when the two forces faced each other in pitched battle. The over
200,000 strong Fulani cavalries were decisively routed by the 5,000 strong British
infantry. The decisive factor was the wide discrepancy in weapons technology.
Soldiers armed with swords, spears, bows, and arrows and, fighting on
horseback; were simply slaughtered by soldiers lying in trenches, armed with
Gatling machine-guns and single-action rifles.
However, as every man of destiny knows, there’s nothing like a bad
situation, it’s what you make of the cards you’re dealt. The inheritors of the
decimated caliphate met with the representatives of the British crown and made
them an offer they couldn’t refuse. The Fulani asked the British to allow them to continue to run their caliphate, promising to make good on the issue of exploitation and expropriation on their behalf, while continuing to feather
their own nest.
The British being one of the most pragmatic people in the world, agreed
to this arrangement for very practical reasons. First, they already had this
kind of arrangement in the Indian sub-continent, a situation where the
conquered rulers assisted in the exploitation of their own territory. Second,
they had neither the manpower nor resources to directly subjugate and administer
the territory. They were still having an enormous headache with the
pacification of the southern part of the territory. Third, a partnership with
the Fulani in which they controlled the dynamic through the corruption of the
institutions of government was infinitely more profitable.
Thus, until the end of the 2nd world war, this was the status
quo. The need for the British to divest themselves of their colonial interests
after the war brought about the need to rearrange the colony in such a way that
exploitation would continue. For this plan to be successful, they used their
Fulani friends as proxies. Thus, the grossly lop-sided regional arrangement.
The arcane parliamentary machinations. The cooked census figures. The rigged
independence elections. The unending destabilisation and much more. The status
quo is about exploitation, unending exploitation. The result is endemic and
crippling poverty for the people. This can definitely not be the way forward.
This brings us to the issue of restructuring. In ordinary terms, the
word simply means, to rearrange the component parts of an object into a new
pattern or, form. In other ways, the rearrangement of the object could
be to return it to its old form. Whichever way you look at it, restructuring means
the rearrangement of the component parts of an object or, entity.
However, in its most clinical political form, what is restructuring? In
Nigerian political language, restructuring means the return to the political,
administrative, and institutional structures maintained and guaranteed by the
1963 Republican constitution; that preceded the 15th January 1966
coup d’état that demolished the first republic.
Nevertheless, it is very
important to point out here that, in Nigeria, the word restructuring, has a
deeper and highly emotional meaning. It refers to the cry of helplessness of
the disempowered and neutered power elite of the former southern regions. This
unhappy state of affairs now includes the middle belt areas and parts of the far
north. In actual reality, it means the agitation of various indigenous
nationality power elites who have been excluded in all areas of direct
influence, from acting within the country’s power matrix. By intrinsic
definition, it means all of those elements, whose political power yearnings are
not directly satisfied within the status quo. These are the people the
inheritors of the status quo, tongue-in-cheek call the “disgruntled elements”.
At this point in this write-up,
it is important that we have a fundamental understanding of the meaning of
political power. Political power at its most rudimentary is the power to
allocate resources and value. It is the right to decide who gets what, when,
where, and how? In simple language, it is the right to be the one who shares to,
or, withdraws the good things of life from others.
Despite the simplicity of the definition given above, it is easy to see
how universal its effect is on the life of an individual, nation, and state.
Thus, when we talk about restructuring, we are also talking about empowerment.
The first republic’s three region state structure empowers the elite of the
coexisting nationalities and through them empowers their people. The key positive
in this is that each group of people can pursue the necessity of development
at their own pace, without being tied to the apron strings of others.
Since power is intrinsic to human nature, and all human beings aspire to
areas of optimum personal power within their own worlds; restructuring will
reduce the winner-takes-all and, do-or-die attitude currently displayed by
state political actors. This is because, what they are looking for in Abuja,
will be in their backyards. The fact is that, apart from an almost complete
form of administrative and political autonomy; restructuring guarantees
resource control.
The agitation for restructuring and its key component of resource
control is boosted by the discovery that practically every part of the country
is resource-rich, either in oil or, solid minerals. Everybody has the
instrument of development in their backyard. Everybody can move at their
desired pace. Everybody can authoritatively protect, enhance and enjoy their
own cultural ideals. More so, everybody can feel less threatened. The truly
strange thing is that the agitation and settlement for the three region
structure at independence are to prevent what is happening now – the fear of
domination!
Thus, a majority of the elements
within the counter-elite believe that the opposition to restructuring is based
on the selfishness and greed of the elite. They see the position of those
trying to protect the status quo as a blatant exhibition and practice of
internal or intra-state colonialism. Unfortunately, most members of the
counter-elite have refused to stare the truth in the face. Most of them have
been compromised by peanuts and crumbs from the master’s table. The result of
this brand of myopic intellectual behaviour is that they are too busy throwing
each other under the bus, instead of paying attention to what really matters.
The objective truth is that the crisis of state that the country is
currently facing, will be enormously reduced with restructuring. The leaders
and their followers in the coexisting nations that make up Nigeria will have their
hands full, trying to actualise their development goals, instead of fighting a
do-or-die battle for the centre. It is a situation in which there will be hope
for the average man on the streets. It will greatly ameliorate the soul-crushing poverty that is now being experienced around the country. It is the
narrow perception of entitlement intrinsic in the mentality of the protectors
of the status quo and, their active perpetuation of such, that is the crux of
the call for balkanisation.
The process of balkanising a state can come about in two ways – by
negotiation or, by secession. In the first instance, members of the elite and
counter elite sit at a round table and mutually agree to carve up the country.
In this situation, an agreement is reached in terms of the former state’s assets
and liabilities. In other words, a mutual agreement is reached on who gets what
and, who pays for what? Separation by negotiation is always a long, drawn-out process.
This process is only short and quick if the parties involved are all eager to
go their separate ways. History has
examples of this type of mutual willingness to separate. It is usually
profitable and painless.
The second process of state balkanisation is by secession. In the case
of secession, a portion of the state decides to cut all ties from the whole,
and create a new, totally independent state. In the first instance where
separation is by negotiation, issues and assets of common interest can still be
owned and jointly administered. However, in the case of secession, separation
is usually total. In most cases, the people or nations of a seceding portion of
a state come to this decision out of a feeling of acrimony; which is borne out
of a sense of alienation. The process of secession comes about in two ways,
which are either through a referendum or, through armed struggle.
In the case of secession
through the process of referendum, the affected people, or nations of the
seceding portion of the state go to the ballot box to vote “YES” or “NO” to
stay in the union or not. If “YES” is the simple majority vote, separation is
immediate and total. If the simple majority vote is “NO”, then the seceding
portion remains in the union. However, it should be pointed out that a
referendum vote can only come about through an enforced mediation of superior
power or, the superior intelligence of the state’s ruling elite.
Conversely, secession can come through armed struggle. In this case,
separation is brought about through the instrument of violence. The seceding
forces engage in pitched battles against the forces of the state. This is what
is known in common parlance as a civil war. This form of separation is always
messy and wasteful both in human and material resources for both sides. If the
secessionists succeed, they spend years licking their wounds, while their antagonists
are doing the same. If they lose, the victors are always wary and
uncomfortable, and the losers harbour deep-seated hatreds that never go away,
except through true and sincere integration.
In Nigeria, the cry of secession is now country-wide. The reasons for
this have already been mentioned, but for the sake of articulation will now be
reiterated. First, is the issue of poverty. The undeniable and irrefutable
facts are that a vast majority of Nigerians are poor. This is despite the proven
fact that Nigerians are one of the most industrious people on the face of the
earth. So, why are Nigerians so poor in their own country? In 2019, at the
height of the raging COVID-19 pandemic, Central Bank reported that Nigerians
sent over $17billion dollars into the country. This is more than total oil
revenues for that year. If ordinary Nigerians could generate this kind of
wealth in foreign lands, why are they so poor at home?
Second, is the issue of exclusion of the counter-elite. The feeling of
powerlessness that is systemically created is a source of frustration for most
of the power players. It is this politics of exclusion that is being played
that makes unity unattainable, no matter the amount of lip service or
propaganda that may be applied. The feeling of domination is real and true. No
nation of people likes to be dominated. The issue of domination comes directly
through the exclusion of their elite from the power matrix. Once a nation’s
elite is excluded from the power matrix, the whole nation is excluded.
Third, the problem of an intellectually myopic and insular ruling elite,
and their second-class collaborators. It is the determination to continue
reinforcing a system that is practically unsustainable. If the Nigerian state
is to survive common sense has to prevail. The fear is of the country imploding
not exploding. In their myopic and insular intellectual state, they refuse to
see that their need to support and propagate the status quo is a recipe for
mutual disaster. They refuse to see that the status quo promotes poverty. The poverty that’s rooted in institutionalised social injustice.
No comments:
Post a Comment