Back to pluralism

Lekan Sote

In his book, Which Way Africa?, Basil Davidson, British journalist and amateur historian, observed that the Berlin Conference of the closing years of the 19th Century (savagely?) divvied up Africa without regard  for ethnic or linguistic boundaries. He quotes the testimony of Gabriel d’Arboussier, President of Grand Counseil of French West Africa, that “African history  has been the history of large units. All the great African states of the past were large, and included many people (of different stocks).” He figures that most African nations, Nigeria especially, are a cluster of petty statelets whipped together by a strong central state apparatus that hosts its sovereignty. But these unwieldy smorgasbords come with heavy strains of discords. And to weld their seeming cacophony into single symphonies, new social orders must be wrought through some kind of restructuring of the communities, and the expansion of the economy to meet the patent needs of all.

To underscore the need for unity, even in diversity, he employs the manifesto of an African group which says “National Union is necessary because the whole population must now accept a national character and the unity that flows from it… We are concerned that it is possible for Catholics, Protestants, Salvation Armys-ists, and Muslims to agree on a programme for their common group such as respects the principle of natural morality …”

Davidson avers that only members of a society themselves can create a community. He added however, that nothing worthwhile could be achieved unless all have equality of status as citizens. If the unity is forced, he argues, they will soon collapse like a pack of cards. Witness how the artificial communist glue that held the fabric of the Soviet Union together melted, and the seemingly monolithic nation splintered into (a face-saving collective called) Commonwealth of Independent States.

Today, practically every ethnic group in Nigeria complains of marginalisation. They form parochial associations, such as Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Afenifere and Arewa Consultative Forum, to express their perceived grievances. Some even have militia like Oodua Peoples’ Congress, Movement for the Survival of the Sovereign State of Biafra and the pretend independent Boko Haram sect. To address the bogey of marginalisation, many Nigerian politicians, especially of the progressive hue, have called for a Sovereign National Conference of the ethnic groups; recognition of the federating ethnic groupings; regional autonomy; and fiscal federalism based on local community control of local (especially, mining) resources. But this agitation for sectional advancement is not quite new. While critics heap the blame for ethnic politics on Obafemi Awolowo, history reveals that the three leading founding fathers of Nigeria –Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello (Sardauna) and Nnamdi Azikiwe– dipped their hands into the ethnic cookie jar. While Awolowo and Sardauna openly protected their ethnic turfs, Azikiwe eulogised the intellectual prowess of the Igbo. His insight from living in, and speaking the languages of, the three Nigerian regions, as well as his professional background as an anthropologist, helped him to deftly avoid directly committing to an ethnic agenda. But he had no qualms in playing the Igbo hand to wrest the Premiership of Eastern Nigeria from Eyo Ita after losing out in the power play on the floor of the Western Region House of Assembly.

 Awolowo had suggested that each Nigerian should approach the Nigerian project from the point of view of his cultural background. He once observed that the peoples of Western Nigeria differ from those of the East the way the Irish differ from the Germans, and that the North differs from the South the same way China differs from the United Kingdom. He favours a federal system that confers autonomy on the ethnic and linguistic groups. Sardauna, who chose to remain in the North even though he could easily have been the Prime Minister, saw the modernisation and unification of the diverse people of northern Nigeria as the main purpose of his life. He desperately wanted to “northernise” every sphere of the North, including the public service, commerce, industry and banks. He would rather employ a foreigner to the Northern public service, than a southern Nigerian, in order (as he perceived it) to avoid southern domination. He saw the nation as “North-South”, and adopted the slogan, “One North, One Destiny.”  He  echoed Awolowo’s sentiments of recognising cultural differences. When Azikiwe told him, “Let us forget our differences,” he replied, “No, let us understand our differences. I am a Muslim and a northerner. You are a Christian and an easterner. By understanding our differences, we can build unity in our country.”

Anthropologist Azikiwe understood that the Nigerian nation-state must necessarily proceed from the specific primordial ethnic and linguistic formations, but hoped for accelerated breaking down of the pull of the tribes.  He saw the motley 400-some nationalities as a threat to Nigeria’s unity. His sojourn in the USA would have exposed him to the realities of what Davidson had observed about the peoples of African descent in the Americas: the loss, through miscegenation, of their separate sense of ethnic loyalties, languages and cultures. He said that the realities of proximity in the same geographical and political space, coupled with the human needs for self-preservation, and law and order, will eventually compel some kind of accommodation among the disparate peoples. He lists some examples: Britain, with the Angles, Scots, Celts and the Irish, united under the Union Jack; Switzerland, with the French, Germans, Italians and the Romansch, who managed to preserve a sense of unity; and the (now defunct)  Soviet Union, which treats each of the constituent groups of the Caucasoid, Chinese, Arabs, Asians and the Balkans as equal nations.

No doubt, Nigeria has opted for a democratic system, even if it is imperfect. But two major themes that run through Davidson’s book that also dominated the thoughts of Nigeria’s founding fathers are: How to ensure participation of the federating units in the polity, and also guarantee their equitable access to the commonwealth. Julius Nyerere, former Tanzania President’s suggestion of a one-party system will not work very well for Nigeria. Nigerians are too strong-willed and opinionated to stay in one political camp. Even the Nigerian military, despite its single command structure, exhibited several political tendencies. So the solution lies more in a two or multi-party democracy. But for any political party to succeed on Nigeria’s political landscape, it must be national in outlook. No longer will a political party with a regional name, like Northern Peoples’ Congress prosper in Nigeria. The Sardauna had fought to retain Northern Cameroun in the Nigerian state, and later used resulting numerical strength to dominate the politics of the First Republic. His political successors later used the military to “colonise” Nigeria.

No section of Nigeria will be able to dominate its politics ever again. The Peoples Democratic Party, whom Wole Soyinka describes in very uncomplimentary terms, succeeds because of its national spread. Only another nationwide political party can wrest power from it. A former Nigerian Chief Justice, Taslim Elias, says, “Political parties would have to cut across the artificial barriers of tribe and region, and social and political convictions of party members would replace the present tribal and regional affiliations. National loyalties must supersede sectional claims…” And, to borrow from Azikiwe’s page, the state must guarantee fundamental human rights; basic human needs of food, clothing and shelter; and an even spread of amenities like military bases, infrastructure, and industries across ethnic lines. But then, this ethnic balancing must not compromise merit.

  • gamma energy

    Lekan Sote has articulated very accurately the problem Nigeria is facing today, and has even suggested pluralism as a solution. How could he have omitted the pluralism we
    had in the first republic, which worked well even if it was not perfect? It was far better than the present system. He does not have to go far to look for solution to our problem. We were doing well as a country until the regions were abolished in favour of 12 states.
    A bloody war was even fought to achieve that destruction. Restructure and return to pluralism and we will stop sliding backward. A National party will not work; PDP has not worked. The new party of Buhari, Tinubu and Okorocha will not work. Restructure the country and parties will succeed.