'Biafra' and 'One Nigeria' as Psychoses/

Why have the most strident calls for secession been coming from the ranks of those who (collectively) have gained the most from the existence of Nigeria as one unified administrative unit? What exactly do Ibo mean when they demand that other Nigerians allow them (Ibo) to "leave Nigeria" for a sovereign state that they call 'Biafra'?

I start by challenging the repeated descriptions by various Ibo commentators of themselves as members of a uniquely' marginalised' collective. Being as it is a rentier state that has basically abdicated all responsibility for providing the fundamental requirements that a State is supposed to provide for it's citizens, Nigeria can be rightfully described as a State that has marginalised all of it's citizens with the exception of a minority of those Nigerians in the small circle of rent collectors. 

This fact of our collective existence as so-called Nigerians exposes the cries of 'Ibo marginalisation' as being nothing more than extreme self-centredness. Could there any justification in feeling aggrieved about how no one feels pity for your condition when all are in the same condition? What type of nature compels some people to expect that ones who are beset by the same negative forces will view their own condition as the sole issue that requires urgent resolution?

In Nigeria, aside from that tiny minority who sit next to the coffers that federal revenues from the renting out of oil fields fall into, everybody else has to find their own difficult way to make a living. From the ranks of this vast majority, another minority emerges who are - by dint of hard work, luck and the ability to recognise (and utilise) opportunity - able to improve their material lives. Ethnicity has nothing to do with any of this as there are near equal numbers (in proportion to population numbers) from all ethnicities in the classes described above.

Opportunity often requires access and what the existence of Nigeria as a unified administrative unit accomplishes in this sense is that it grants persons access (as citizens of Nigeria) to areas that would otherwise be inaccessible to them. In the case of the Ibo, Nigeria being one corporate body is what allowed such a huge volume of mass migrations out of the Ibo homeland that at present, the numbers of Ibo that reside in Iboland are about equal to the numbers that reside outside it.
This fact is what makes the demands that Ibo be allowed to "leave Nigeria" strange. What do these 'Biafran' activists mean when they say that their people must be allowed to "leave Nigeria"? The first clue that I get regarding the meaning of this demand comes from the history of the phrase itself. To "leave" a place that is perceived as oppressive for another that is envisioned to be better is a concept whose most famous expression (in this present epoch) was by the authors of the Hebraic historical texts that we all know as the Christian bible; a people leaving a country in which they are oppressed for a 'promised land' is one of the main themes of the bible's old testament and, the linkage between this ancient semitic concept and agitations by a segment of Nigeria's Ibo population is made explicitly clear by frequent borrowings (from the Hebrew old testament) of labels like "Zionism" to describe the 'Biafra' project and as such, a self-description of themselves as 'Zionists' by some of the more extremely demented colomentals from the ranks of these agitators.
But whereas according to the Hebraic history, the Jews who looked with longing towards Zion were descendants of those who had been forcibly expelled from ancient Israel first by the Persian conquerors of the Hebrew kingdoms (and later by the Romans), these latter day negroid 'Zionists' are either still there in their native lands (where they are governed by fellow Ibo) or, where this is not the case, departed of their own free will from their indigenous territories in pursuit of better economic opportunities outside Iboland.

Before tying things together, I will briefly touch on what the Nigeria that these 'Biafran' activists are talking about actually means. I do this because since the 'Biafrans' are talking about their desire to "leave Nigeria", overstanding what they mean might be made easier if we keep in mind the possibility that when they say "Nigeria", they may be talking about the other parts of (what is known as) "the Federal Republic of Nigeria" minus Iboland. In other words, it is very likely that in the minds of these people, "Nigeria" is Yorubaland, Hausaland, and all of those other regions that Ibo are not indigenous to. This is the only way that the phrase "leave Nigeria" makes sense because if the "Nigeria" that they are talking about includes Iboland, then they would have been demanding that they be allowed to leave their own territories as well. Which is something that would make no sense...

With this in mind, the question then becomes one about whether or not obstacles are placed, as a matter of official (or unofficial) government policy, in the path of individual diaspora Ibo who wish to depart from wherever they are in the non-Ibo parts of Nigeria and return home. The answer is no; there is in fact nothing stopping Ibo from picking up (individually or as groups) from wherever they currently are and leaving "Nigeria". That being the case, why does a misrepresentation of themselves as an exiled people who are prevented by alleged enslavers from returning to their tropical 'Zion' persist?

Every human is a container for a multitude of personas each of which represents a unique potential of being; whether or not a particular potential is realised is a matter of destiny; destiny not being so much a mystic force as it is something that is determined either by the rational or, by the irrational part of the mind; one who drowns may be described as one who was destined to die in water but, if further investigation is taken into the matter, the interlinked trial of decisions (by the deceased and by others) that led to the drowning will be revealed...
Thus far, it would seem that for the majority of Ibo, the rational mind is the driver; they know that the existence of Nigeria as one corporate body was/is the benefactor of those who utilised/utilise the inherent opportunities offered by such a dispensation to find new residences and places of employment and business. However, it is possible that right beside the rational part of minds that acknowledge these facts, the heartbeat of the irrational twin, though faint, still beats. It still beats because Nigeria as THE primary idea around which all else that one knows about the world revolves does not exist as a positive force and, for as long as this remains the status quo that the country's so-called leaders strive to protect, there will always be room left for the irrational...even within those minds that appear to be most devoted to the rational.  

While there is a minority for whom no material improvement in life will douse the flame burning for 'Biafra' (or some other ethnicity defined sovereign country cleft from the carcass of Nigeria), for most, the flame burns brightest when everything else looks dim. That is to say, just as a spouse will seriously start to consider divorce when he/she feels that a permanent and joyless lower hand has been dealt to him/her, so too do most who agitate most vociferously for 'Biafra'-type cleavages do so only after it becomes plain that if the world remained configured as it is, rewards that can be accrued only by the successful will either no longer be coming their way or, may only do so after great difficulty. In other words, since they can no longer get the world to pay out goodies on demand as it once had, they determine that it would be a good idea to destroy the world and construct another world with the fragments. But because humans must always drape their grubby appetites in sombre and dignified robes made out of high ideals, these prosaic desires to reconstruct a more amenable environment for the primitive accumulation of wealth is described as a 'Zionism'-type ideology.   

So while non-Ibo (and those Ibo who wish to continue enjoying the opportunities that only Nigeria's continued existence can guarantee) may scorn this current ideas-bereft manifestation of the secessionist impulse by some miseducated Ibo juvenile delinquents, the fact remains that for most Nigerians who have lived under the description, Nigeria has not only offered nothing, it has also taken much.

Ones often talk about development as if it were a process whose end results can only be measured through assignation of a cash value (and/or by enumerating the quantity of gigawatts in electricity produced, the number of graduates produced in universities, the mileage of highways laid down, number of skyscrapers and mansions constructed, number of factories built, etc.) but in truth, real development has it's foundation in the human spirit and since the human spirit is immaterial, it stands to reason that the foundations of true development are also immaterial.

Civilization is primarily about the nature of the ideas that mold a society and to overstand why countries like Nigeria continue to find it impossible to take the first steps along the path that leads to the development of a useful civilization, we have to start by recognising the ways in which the very processes that are supposed to midwife the birth of this civilization function as abortionists. Minds are the fields in which ideas are planted and, from where we harvest the components with which, when we put them together, we either build civilization or barbarism. After an objective assessment of the type of ideas that the minds of too many so-called Nigerians have been exposed to, one would be hard-pressed to find a systemic strand from which the individual (if exposed from his/her earliest years up to the age of adulthood) will garner those tools that are indispensable if one is to take his/her place as the co-builder of a civilization that ever evolves progressively.    
The compulsion that drives collectives (made up of individuals whose primary/selfish grievance is their distance from the rent-collection troughs) to threaten secession is a psychosis that must not be allowed to obscure the legitimate and reasonable need for the very existence of Nigeria as a corporate entity to be negotiated by it's component nations. There is a demand for greater political and economic autonomy (and even separation if no common ground can be found) that is based on sound arguments that can withstand (and indeed welcome) any challenge for debate from those who hold an opposing view and, those of us on the assenting side of this demand will eventually be in a position to make it an issue upon which future electoral outcomes will hinge.

In 2011, the ACN let it be known that the Party's legislators resuming duties at the newly elected House of Representatives and Senate in Abuja had been given instructions to put this very matter at the forefront of their collective agenda. But for reasons best known to them, nothing much was done to forward the mission. While it is quite possible that those members of the ACN who had authored papers on the Party's intent had been urged to put away those thoughts to enable realisation of the alliances leading to the emergence of the APC, it must be clear to all political actors that these legitimate demands for greater autonomy by Nigeria's constituent nations is not going anywhere. In fact, as the ongoing Boko Haram tragedy shows, the refusal to comprehensively attend to a region's specific political and/or cultural demands (while they are still mainly manifesting as issues to be reasoned upon) can be detrimental in the long run. It is only after adults refuse to recognise extant realities and, as a consequence, act responsibly to ensure equitable/manageable outcomes that the leading roles are taken by psychotic juvenile delinquents like Shekau and Kanu.  

If at the end of this particular season the only arguments occupying the arena are those made by 'Biafran-Zionist' type of agitators and the 'One Nigeria' (by any means necessary) camp, then we face a dire future because a complete victory by either position will eventually lead to an unimaginable catastrophe.

The only way that the 'One Nigeria' argument can carry the day is if it is supported by several genocides - i.e. for one singular Nigerian identity to exist as the operational knowledge-of-self from which responsibilities, duties, and privileges are perceived, all other currently existing identities that serve that purpose must be eliminated.

There are two ways that this can be done: the first requires a brutally all-encompassing application of deadly force while the second calls for a mixture of force and the wide-spread dessemination of an ideology whose precepts are beyond the reach of basic counter-arguments...and for this to work most efficiently, the force component must always be a last resort.      
All available evidence leads to the conclusion that not a single one of Nigeria's self-appointed leaders has the intellectual capacity (or the will-power) to implement the second, so, the first it will have to be (if 'One Nigeria' is to become a permanent and immovable fixture).
On the other hand, if the 'Biafran-Zionists' succeed, then it can be expected that the sundering of Nigeria will proceed amidst much rancour and eventually, a considerable amount of violence as it can not be expected that people who separate as enemies will be happy to have substantial numbers from a foe nation still living in their midst. We can look to the separation of Pakistan from India as an example of what will happen if any of the groups presently preaching for a violent parting of ways get their wish.

If indeed the sovereign state of 'Biafra' is actualised by groups with the mindset of IPOB, then expect Yoruba to demand that all Ibo currently residing in Yourubaland return to their new country. After all, why would any people permit enemy aliens to have free passage through their territories? Has such ever been done in any part of the world throughout human history?

It is time for those who have thrust themselves into leadership positions in Nigeria to act like responsible adults. They have so far refused to recognise that this Nigeria is not working and will never work; the model is dysfunctional - the educational institutions inculcate ignorance, the religious institutions groom servitude to gross materialism in adherents and, the political system mostly rewards those best able to deploy the basest talents that humanity is capable of.        
It is time for those who have thrust themselves into leadership positions in Nigeria to act with some courage. It is time; meaning, it will eventually be too late...
This is the time to acknowledge the necessity of allowing so-called Nigerians to found their own country (or countries if that is what is decided). Let so-called Nigerians define themselves so that they can take ownership, like adults, of what they are. We were herded together by British Imperialism but since we now claim to be a free people (and thus no longer a caged herd) allow us to affirm or decline the nature of our continued association. For myself, I favour comprehensive autonomy within a continued association. That is to say an association which can be likened to a verdant forest that is home to many species of vegetation who, while different, co-exist - each master of it's own space - to each other's mutual benefit. I also envision a future where this association is expanded until first, it covers the entirety of the West African geographical space and eventually...