|
President Obasanjo informs usthat the major problem of the political setup in Nigeria today is the fact that political parties have been unable to trascend National affliations and provide a commonality of ideology as a platform on which collective organization can be made. According to Obasanjo: [...Primordial groupings, disguised as cultural or regional associations have made crippling inroads into the political arena, and are, at this very moment,influencing the political direction of our nation without any responsibility for their actions. Between the vacuum created by the failure of political parties to set standards, give political direction and impose discipline, and the confused and erratic signals which emanate from the primordial groupings, many elected officials have set their own standards and determined their means of survival...]
Justic Chukwudifu Oputa says something along the same lines. He avers that the major problem with Nigeria is that: [...The Nigerian State is a multinational State in conception; yet the possibility of a Nigerian nation, demanding overarching loyalty from its diverse ethno-national groups, seems perpetually constrained and contradicted by the primordial demands of its multinational diversity. This has been, and continues to be the fundamental problem of nation-building, of democracy and development in the country...]
Oputa goes on to ask: [...How do we transform the Nigerian State into the Nigerian nation, thereby confounding the cynics who contend that, almost 87 years after amalgamation in 1914, Nigeria is no more than a mere geographical expression, or who refer to her as the mistake of 1914...]
These two statements provide a reasonable point of departure for analyzing the doctrinal worldview of those who sustain the Nigerian State today.
Immediately evident is that these popular narrators perceive a problem. This is not to say that a problem exists per se. However, with regards to their objectives and the context of the Nigerian State, they perceive a problem. The problem is the fiction of Nigerian Nationhood.In context, we can grant them the existence of this problem and even further posit that this problem exists because of the overarching need to continue to sustain the Nigerian State, legitimize and consolidate its hold on the physical territory it currently administers. However, States run on fuel; and as I mentioned in an earlier article; doctrines are need to justify the power of the State and its claims to territory. The crucial absence of a Nigerian Nation, i.e., a common whole which speaks, acts, thinks and perceives History with approximate or comparative unanimity threatens the claims of the State on territory. The claims of the State are of course backed up by force and Military power - but this also presents a problem. The exercise of power carries within itself the seed of resistance and fracture. It is thus the hope of the administrators of the Nigerian State their hold to territory be substantiated within individuals rather than without them. That is to say, they want the inhabitants of the Territories they currently administer by force to submit and be converted psychologically and to begin to see themselves as Nigerians. This dramatically lessens the potential for conflict, resistance and fracture that a continuance of purely militaristic claims to territory carry.
For the administrators, the point of departure is European colonialism. There is no interrogation of the colonial artefact in the doctrines of the administrators. The Colonial State is accepted as a given. The task then, becomes adjusting "reality" to suit and resemble what has already been ideologically conceived. The task becomes "substantiating" Nigeria in carne, that is to say, in the Flesh.
The problem of the Nigerian State (any colonial State, in fact) then becomes "Nation building", or "detribalization" or any of the other euphemisms used by Imperialists to essentially justify "cultural genocide", sweeping claims and acquisitions of territory and wide spreading disruptions of the underlying social order upon which they act. There are instructive examples from History - Look for instance, at Italy - a hodgepodge of smaller City States and Cultures which only became the Nation State we know today in 1861. Samnites, Umbrians and their allies have basically been congealed into a modern Italian "identity" through the use of force, Roman Imperialism and in modern times, fascism and Two World Wars. This pattern is repeated almost universally - In Germany, in Austria, in several Baltic and Slavic States, in Yugoslavia etc. The causes are again, almost universal: The demands of an expanding Imperial force neccesitates the "unification" of certain peoples as a minor byproduct of econo-military trade expansionism. The Imperial nexus collapses and the "United Peoples" then begin to legitimize their Unity and amalgamation as an original ideal, or perhaps, even a neccesary one. Historical retroprojection occurs, Imperial avarice is justified and a new "nation" is born. The task also involves meddling with the History books: "Unified" histories are produced, mythical linkages are discovered between peoples and the parties involved are assured that the hand of Fate really meant for them to be together.
For the administrators of the Nigerian State, Empire is (almost) gone. Territory has been assigned. Institutions are in place. Administrators have their office - and despite rebellion every now and them from the colonized, popular narrators assure the general public that the "Nigeria project" goes on, dismissing crises as a work of the enemy, stiffling journalistic opposition, establishing rent seeking themes to create centrifugal dependence and proclaiming that "Nigeria" was really meant to be - and that what could more accurately be characterized as a shoddy byproduct of British greed was actually an act of Imperial benevolence, an act of God and thus adjusting History to accomodate present realities. Critical to these narrators is establishment of social amnesia, such that the origins of the State are generally assumed to be benign, draped as they are in pictures of Messianic white man, salvific missionaries and mirror selling mercantilists.
To rectify their problem (as noted in the first five paragraphs), administrators of the State and their popular narrators must confront the final stage of their task with vigor. The first stages having been superbly dispatched by the European Imperialists who acquited themselves marvelously in their deployment of force to amalgamate and their establishment of amalgamative Institutions - most notably an institutional hierarchy of peoples and an expansionist military. Confronting the final stage mostly involves matters of doctrines. Yes, there is an Odi and Zaki-Biam every now and then when the "natives" are brutally reminded that the colonial State will brook no opposition, no dissent, no self-defence by the "natives" and certainly no aspirations to self-determination or freedom on their parts. Thus, the occasional exercise of force serves to keep pockets of resistance in line. However, with most of the underlying society stupefied through the exercise of force (the ever painful years of 1966 to 1970 being a major part of this), the State officers rest content in prostrateness of the Nationalities it administers. Proceeding from this, it now needs to harness them, that is, use them for its own gains and purposes. It needs to recreate them in its own image. Having smashed the vases of clay, they must now be remoulded. This is what "nation building" in Nigeria is essentially about. Part physical destruction, part violent traumatization, part brainwashing, part concussive amnesia - majorly stick and minorly rotten carrots - Nation building in Nigeria entails the production of Nigerians from an open market of raw materials.
Crucial to the doctrinal stage of this task is to stem a resurgence of centrifugal forces in the social milieu, i.e. pull forces that tend to force the Nationalities apart. In order to check such impulses at their inception, a doctrine of laudable diversity is deployed. This is a crucial point. From the physical world, we observe that analogous forces of congealment produce forces of reaction that have to be overcome to keep nuclei etc in place. In Nigeria, the subjugation of various Nationalities into a single political unit has produced forces of reaction. These forces are psychological in inception. They attest to the loss of identity, loss of territory and cultural alienation that amalgamation has produced. They emphasize difference and uniqueness in response to forces of homogenization. To overcome this, doctrines are deployed into the psychosocial spaces of "Citizens". In Nigeria, the doctrine of diversity is a preeminent part of this.
Diversity proponents hold that the advantages of "Unity" outweigh its "disadvantages". They begin to celebrate what is essentially a byproduct, as an idea that is beautiful in conception in and of itself. Thus; a Northern bloc, which was originally against the idea of "unity" with a vehemence trumped, perhaps, only by their later vehemence against "seccession" argues for Nigeria on the basis of mutually beneficial interests. Thus we are told that Nigeria is a mosaic of peoples, multinational, diverse, possessing a rich tapestry of cultures etc etc - as though this was something to celebrate in and of itself by common convention.
The origin of such a mindset is not hard to locate. With Africans ever hot on the heels of the latest foreign fad, I strongly suspect that laudable diversity as a common trope in contemporary Nigerian politics is an imitative response to Multiculturalism in the West. Imitation has long been a staple of African politics. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it is the primary staple of African politics. When Africans arent busy selling Adam Smith tomes, they can be found buying Karl Marx pamphlets. They shuttle between Unitary, Federal and ConFederal modes of Government all couched in the language of simulated applications: "Parliamentary", "Presidential", "Village Socialism", "African Socialism" - some time ago, I even read of some functionary calling for "Affirmative Action" for Women in Nigeria. Political oppositions are derided as "terrorists", Demagogues carry on about "development", "technology transfer" and the like. The curious fact that these concepts lie largely untranslated and meaningless to a massive rural constituency, who are isolated mainly on account of Linguistic colonization goes unnoticed. Yet, unfinished projects, decayed Universities and massive social disruption are testament to the follies of living life in the foreign context. Still, not to be left behind, if Western liberals are yelping about "Multiculturalism" and "Diversity" then Africans must follow suit - with the popular narrators of the State ingeniously interpreting such doctrines to retain their claims on territory.
Thus we are told, that what makes America strong is its "diversity" and are expected to believe that on sheer account of its "diversity" alone, Nigeria will prosper! What remains unsaid is the fact that American diversity, where it exists is itself not an original conception, but a byproduct. Equally unmentioned is the fact that America, for all intents and purposes, is NOT diverse. There is remarkable cultural unity (comparatively), linguistic stability and government by consensus. Not so Nigeria. But were we even to assume diversity = strength argument - we could ask: What about Japan, or Korea? Did they need "diversity" to make them strong also? The answer, of course, is no. The conclusion: that Nigeria does not need its diversity for anything (and certainly not for economic prosperity) is too horrible for the popular narrators to contemplate, yet it is the truth. Diversity per se, is neither a strength nor a weakness. Where diversity is the aborted fetus of rape (as in Nigeria) - it becomes even more of a weakness and a dangerous liability. As I have mentioned in a previous article and has been documented by several empirical studies; the kind of "diversity" that Nigeria has is strongly correlated negatively with economic growth. This is conveniently ignored by the popular narrators. However, the strong connections between American ideals and the Occident as a center of standards and values makes the "diversity = strength" argument very appealing to the audience of the popular narrators.
Reinforcing the doctrine of diversity involves very strong emotional appeals to the idea of Unity. Again, popular narrators play their hand very skillfully at this. The spectre of the European Imperialist is invoked, the threat of African survival is enunciated - a few sprinklings of History added and the result? A narrative that calls for "Unity in Diversity" as an agent of progress in the face of a hostile West. "United We Stand" is the battle cry - "Pan Africanism" is hailed and the curious question of how "unity" is to be achieved is neatly sidestepped in the ochlocratic rush for the golden fleece of development. For to answer that question means that all must concede that a "unity" founded and sustained on coercion is hardly any unity at all - and any Pan-Africa that is not built of volition (in so far as volition is a property expressible only by self determining entities) is a fake, bearing more in common with the hull of a slave ship than with the Motherland many eagerly romanticize.
The truth is that "diversity" does not work. Should our popular narrators in Africa bother to crosscheck - State and Nation building in those parts of the world they admire has always involved the uncompromising negation of centrifugal identities. Thus, the founding Fathers of America expressed fears that new immigrants from Europe would not assimilate and took great pains to ensure that African slaves were so thoroughly afflicted with concussive amensia that the thought of being anything other than slaves or Americans (a later concession) would remain far removed. States thrive when they assimilate diverse peoples into a common cultural mode - States thrive not when they celebrate essential diversity, but when they negate it.Thus, American Multiculturalism is anything but. Though the academic conceivers of the idea may have had other plans, the popular representation of American multiculturalism - where one meets Jewish Americans, Swedish Americans, German Americans, Polish Americans etc, is merely a veneeric representation. There are no "Swedish Americans" in the same sense that there are "Yoruba Nigerians" for the simple reason that Swedishness is not a functional parameter in the life of the Swedish American whereas, Yorubaness largely is, in the life of the so called Yoruba-Nigerian. The Swedish American probably doesnt speak Swedish. He speaks English to his fellow Americans, adheres to the constitutional dictates of WASPish tradition, is ruled by doctrines of Western liberalism and constructs his identity as a racial one. Memories of Sweden are far removed from his mind (by volition), He is American. He couldnt possibly be Swedish - he has no Swedish social or cultural capital. On the other hand, the Yoruba-Nigerian speaks Yoruba to his fellow Yoruba, speaks English to his fellow Nigerians, wears Agbada, recites his Oriki and spends his Yoruba cultural capital in public spaces. This is multiculturalism in the flesh - when cultural capital is possessed to be spent, and cultural properties can be claimed. This does not exist in America and the double purpose of the doctrine of diversity in Nigeria involves reducing Nigerian diversity to nothing more than its impotent American counterpart.
American Multiculturalism involves the marketing of goods as tokens of cultural representation.
The popular narrators of the Nigerian State are determined to reduce the cultural and national properties of those under their jurisdiction to marketable goods: No wonder then, that the Ministry of Culture is the same as the Ministry of Tourism in Nigeria. To the State officers, "Culture", that is, the properties of the Nationalities under the administration of the State, is a curio, an artefact merely to be displayed and sold for money - NOT a principle or a body of thought for the organization of living spaces. This takes a leaf right out of the pages of the Imperialists - who sometimes didnt even believe Africans had any culture at all! Nowadays, Europeans regard African culture as the remnants of humanity's primitive past - to be studied and enjoyed - a respite from a world buffeted by modernity (Africa lying outside the boundaries of that world, that is). For if the officers of the State were to concede that National cultures were anything but curios for cash, they would probably have to concede that Nationalities could legitimately make demands on the basis of their peoplehood. But the plan of the State is to reduce National cultural properties to curios, homogenize the society and govern them with State culture, i.e. British Imperial culture - the linguistic aspect of which is almost complete.
Thus, the Linguistic colonization of our living spaces - that remarkable phenomenon in which we are governed in a language which we do not speak in our homes goes entirely unremarked - mainly in the hope that its consolidation will proceed apace. It is essential for the State that things like this go unremarked, not only to forestall reactionaries, but also to speed up the work of "Nation building": Language a people makes and the State is intent on recreating a people in its image which and against to all protestations to the contrary WILL merely be a caricature of the Imperial progenitor. Whether this is a fate Africans wish for themselves is a question no one has bothered to ask them. But we see the advance all around us in the schools: expulsions and suspensions from schools, physical beatings and humiliations etc - should any memory of a time before Empire be relived as linguistic expression.
The dual purpose of the diversity doctrine then is to laud diversity while undermining it. The doctrine lauds diversity to overcome centrifugal forces of political fragmentation in the short-term. It does so to give everyone a feeling of inclusiveness and unity. To stop fragmentation in the long term, it undermines diversity by homogenizing society; linguistic colonization being only one aspect of this. In homogenizing society in the long term, the doctrine posits the reduction of present National / Cultural properties to mere goods, functionally impotent and exchangeable for cash - with the needs for identity being supplied by State. This identity is essentially an imperial caricature.
In a couple of lines, I will return to highlight what I consider to be the significant portions of Obasanjo's and Oputa's statements as cited in the opening paragraphs. Before I do that, I will address memes and ideas that are associated with the diversity doctrine as I have encountered them in the flesh and in the world of scholarship. A previous State National anthem is examplary of this, with a line that goes: [...though tribe and tongue may differ, in brotherhood we stand...]. Explicit in that Statement is the notion of brotherhood - in the presence of differing cultural and linguistic identities! What then is the basis for "brotherhood"? The next lines tell us: [...Nigerians all are proud to serve our sovereign motherland...].In this National meme, we clearly see the symptoms of historical retroprojection: What exactly is the concept of a Motherland supposed to signify if not an approximate sameness of tongue and culture? But the double blow of the diversity doctrine is clearly evident here: Nationalities have a MotherLand foisted on them in the presence of differing properties. Why a Mother Elephant has chosen to give birth to chicks, lambs and joeys is of course the question no one asks. The animals are merely told that they are of the same Mother! How "Mother" came to be "Mother" is left untreated and anything but a flitting glance in the Mirror of Introspection is rigorously avoided. There are others. A powerful example is the meme of "Unity" Federal Government Secondary Schools. We are told that [...Government believes that education should help develop in our youths a sense of unity, patriotism and love of our country. It is essential that everything possible should be done to foster in them a sense of national belonging. Every secondary school should therefore function as a unity school by enrolling students belonging to other areas or states...] yet, the evidence gives the lie to this. The enrollment at Unity Schools are anything but unified. The situation is replicated in the Universities so much so that Jibril Aminu complained of the "tribalization" of the Universities while proposing that the education of certain regions should be retarded so that other regions could play catch up.The diversity doctrine spawns memes in the jokes we tell for instance, in the Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba jokes which play on ethnic stereotypes. It spawns itself in the ridiculous yet (given their starting premises) strangely logical calls for "inter-tribal" marriage and an end to "tribalism". It spawns itself in exploitative NYSC assignments.
I have seen it proferred (by Mahmood Mamdani for instance) in discussions of Identity in Africa that the Political claims of Nationalities are a colonial invention and need to be subsumed into common ideas of political citizenship that provide harmonious environments for all ethnicities and cultures. There is much that it untrue and illogical with this. Mamdani for instance, develops his treatment in East and Central Africa where social realities do not really correlate with realities in West Africa. But let us accept the argument. The first, that ethny as political identity is a colonial product, is false. The Fulani had a political identity long before the British based on religion as distinguishing the Fulani from the Habe. This is replicated in Asante/Fante relations (without religion). In the Yoruba States, the so called civil wars of the Yoruba are often offered as proof of (at best) a fragmented and possibly non existent Yoruba political identity. But this is naive. Do the civil wars of the Japanese and the Koreans invalidate their political identities in antiquity? The problem here stems from delineating Political and ethno-cultural identities. But this is impossible to do. When Mamdani and others speak of umbrella Political citizenship, they coveniently forget to inform us of what the cultural content of this citizenship is. In Africa, it is assuredly European Imperial content. Thus all Mamdani and others achieve is to propose Imperial culture as a substitute for African culture (at least for political purposes in modern Colonial African States). The argument that even the Imperial culture of State is itself a product of colonization does not seem to invalidate this proposition as they would have us believe it invalidates the notion that ethnic Nationality can (and even should) be the basis of Political identity in Africa today. The reason is simple: They are unwilling to abolish States that arent built on volition, hence, they try to justify their position by colonializing African ethnies as Political identities while offering up Imperial replacements.
The key argument: WHY any African people should continue in the political States they are in at present is left untouched. Yet this question may present a viable alternative to more stable conditions. Ethnic Nationality as political identity means that Nations can aggregate with other African Nations that they so wish to - and can equally disaggregate given the terms and cirumstances. However, none significant in the halls of African academia have challenged the usefulness of PanAfricanism as a philosophy of organization, none have affirmed the preeminence of Nationality as opposed to the Colonial State and top down, central planning approaches are still the order of the day. The curious phenomena - that reality, life as lived everyday, gives the lie to these assorted doctrines of diversity is unnoticed in the hope that a substantiation of the State will occur.
There are other ideas: One is that these States are sacred or inevitable - as though challenging and undoing the work of the Imperialist constituted some sort of iconoclasm. We are told to "Go On With One Nigeria". BUT WHY? The answer is silence: born of the brutal logic of colonization which issues divine injunctions and needs not explain. Another idea is that manifestations of ethnicism in conflict do not reflect problems with the condition of "diversity" per se, but are reflective of political failures. Ethnic conflicts as cast as the results of unscrupulous Political actors playing Nationalities against each other. This framework essentially seeks to belittle National emphasis and place the emphasis on political institutions and "good governance". But it is contradictory. For if National identities had no Political instrumentality, the very phenomenon of ethnic politics would be absent. The reason Politicians are able to play Nationalities against themselves is because there are pre-existing faultlines which were only realized upon the act of amalgamation. Ethnic Politics is merely a reflection of a grim reality: That there are Ethnic Nationalities and that Persons of these Nationalities can make claims based on their ethnicity! Ethnic Politics is thus not an aberration that can be "fixed", it cannot be cured by good political institutions or governance. Ethnic politics disappears with the disapperance of Ethnic Nationality - which is precisely why States homogenize and the diversity doctrine is deployed today. That such Homogenization is racist, imperial and genocidal is hardly commented upon by the hordes of Statist apologists and academicians who pontificate on African matters. The central motive is to rigorously refuse to acknowledge that volitional aggregation and disaggergation is a property of Ethnic Nationalities who themselves must be held to have preeminence over colonial States. On this grounds, we must equally question the notion that National manifestations are the product of an elite and as such are irrelevant with regards to the plight of the masses or perhaps even illegitimate. Certainly, should there be calls for self determination or change, they would most probably not emanate from among the poor. However, the very presence of say, a Yoruba elite is testament to the existence of a Yoruba Nation. Yes, the elite may be exploitative, yes, they might be manipulating their Yorubaness for personal gain - BUT, their elitism is a product of the fact that they are Yoruba and not, as some argue, the other way round. Those who will have us believe that neutral economic elites are cashing in on nominal ethnic affliations for material gain are wrong. Their fallacy rests upon the supposition that latent identity, that is, cultural capital currently unspent can NEVER be spent and if spent in the future tends to illegitimacy. There is no reason to believe this.
We thus have literature that is filled with "Problems of Nigeria", "Problems of Ghana", "Problems of Ivory Coast" type talk: Yet, the structural failures in Ivory Coast today have not led any to reconsider what is essentially the grim failure of European colonial State homogenization. The idea, that it is not "Nigerians" that have problems, but the "Yoruba" or the "Igbo" or the "Ijaw" who have problems is not an approach you find in most of the "respected" literature on Africa. But we live our lives, NOT as Nigerians, but as Yoruba and as Igbo. Why then are we not treated as Yoruba, or Igbo and analyzed in that context? Because pretense is essential to the diversity deception: We MUST pretend that we are all "Nigerians" that we all live our lives as "Nigerians" in the hope that our pretense will be substantiated into reality. African identities are not treated as constructs in themselves, they are appended to non-volitional European State arrangements in order for them to have legitimacy. The rebuke proferred as a response to demands for a contrary approach is the supposed "non existence" of Pre-Colonial African Nationalities. Even African constructs are subsumed as acts of European creation. But this is not all - Even more appalling to the apologists is the notion that "Nigeria" does not have a problem, but rather, that Nigeria IS the problem. It is the problem of the Tiv, it is the problem of the Yoruba, it is the problem of the Igbo, it is the problem of the Ijaw and it is the problem of the Calabar, Urhobo, Itsekiri, etc. It is their problem in that as a Colonial State structure which claims itself as the grounds for political preeminence, it robs Africans of any true self determination or volitional arrangements - essentially constraining them in perpetuity to Western Imperialism. The apologists will have nothing of this: Their emphasis is on how to "make Nigeria work"; in their resolute imitation of Sisyphus, they have shed rivers of blood, killed millions, brought tears to the eyes of countless Mothers, orphaned tens of thousands and still they plunge on: Armed with the sweet delusion of diverstity and future greatness.
A final idea: It would be remiss for me not to address the strawman of political irreducibility so often deployed about issues like this. The argument is that if all Ethnic Nationalities determined to have States of their own, Africa would be populated by tiny, unviable States locked into and consumed by their own parochial attitudes. This is a ludicrous argument, mostly because it fails to understand the meaning of Self determination, volition, or the nature of political organizations or even of human societies. Self determination is not merely about disaggregation, it is also about aggregation - It is not only about leaving or joining - It is also about leaving and joining and even about staying! The key issue here is volition and platform of preeminence upon which decisions about the organization of public and living spaces are made. It does not follow that since 5000 Republics on the continent is inefficient, therefore, 53 Republics is the optimal arrangement! The current status quo must be rigorously questioned by Africans and messages of volitional self determination propagated. This crucial distinction is ignored by the apologists and Statists because the colonial States are already locked into patterns of corruption, extraction of resources from National territories and rent seeking. Thus, anything that could occur to disrupt this equilibrum in the flow of income is vigorously resisted. Closely related to this is the idea that Republics produced by volitional self determination would have the same problems as Nigeria. This is equally ludicrous and illogical. That a course of action produces problems is not a justification for inertia, if it can be shown that such a course of action also produces resources with which to address the problem. If a volitional Republic generated from the abolition of Nigeria experiences the same problems of corruption, it is already, by virtue of inception, equipped to develop a culture of accountability and punishment. Yet, it is hard to conceive that Nigerian corruption can be reproduced, where Nigerian rent seeking behavior with regards to territorial resources is absent. There is also another meme; an offspring of Marxist thought which alleges that bourgeois reproduction in any setting will create equivalent problems. This is hardly worth dissecting. Give me a Japanese bourgeois with a Japanese economy any day any time, over an always yet-to-materialize Nigerian revolution and its promises of egalitarianism. I would rather be bourgeois in a Yoruba republic where all have a comparatively decent standard of living than be Proletariat in Nigeria. But of course, the African Left has always romanced Statism and the results are strewn across the continent. Not that we expect them to admit this, of course - the world generally is yet to be presented with the "real" interpretation of what Karl Marx really meant.
I now return to Obasanjo's and Oputa's symptomatic statements. As mentioned earlier, a primary method of the diversity doctrine is to reduce cultural and National properties to curios - to take the potency out of differing identities. This is typified in Obasanjo - he refers to "primordial groupings" which affect the political arena. He is strongly against this and in so doing, pitches his tent with the Imperialist. To him, being Yoruba, or being Igbo is primordial. It is primitive. It is not advanced. It is unsophisticated - thus he betrays a remarkable ignorance of the evolution of modern societies anywhere as well as a robust colonial mentality. This is the key to the thought of the State officers - Ethnic Nationalities are reduced, in the most racist terms, to impotent, anachronistic constructs unworthy of invocation. This comes right out of the Imperialist playbook. Africans, with the European constructed hyphen, as Primordial. And these politicians refer to themselves as "detribalized" as though "detribalization" were achievable (even the assumption of a Nigerian identity would carry a "tribal" spark in an African and global context). No one speaks of "detribalized" Germans or English or French. The reason they do not do this is because they believe that Europeans have attained unto an apogee of Political development, ostensibly with the fruits of Roman colonization. Ergo, Africans should pass through the same experience and emerge in new forms. Apologists who parrot this line point to the various European unifications accomplished under colonial rule - even as they conveniently fail to speak of the 1500 years of post-colonial misery that Europe was thrown into after Alaric marched on Rome. They also conveniently forget, that for all intents and purposes, analogous examples of European unification already exist in the narratives of the Nationalities in Africa today. Are we then to assume that the popular narrators simply want to go the Europeans one better?
Oputa says pretty much the same thing: The Nigerian State is to be turned into a Nation by resolving the demands of a "primordial" multi-national diversity. Again, the word "primordial". For the State to survive, it must abuse and insult Ethnic Nationalities into the shadows and kill them if need be. The demands of the ethny are primordial - yet another testament to the great ignorance of the State officers.For if the Yoruba are primordial, what of the Germans? Are the Germans any less of an ethny than the Yoruba? And if the Igbo are primordial, what of the French? Yet, the primordiality of the Germans and the French - a vicious, violent primordiality which engendered wars between "cousins" has not precluded either of the cultures from self determination, State formation or cultural development.German primordiality did not keep the German writing and singing in Latin forever, as a testament to their post-colonial trauma. Why then, do some hold, that the supposed primordiality of the Yoruba condemns them to an existence as mere characters in an Imperial drama sketch; with their borrowed language and cultural accoutrements? Why then, do some assume that even now, the Yoruba are incapable of developing their language and other cultural properities as elements of organizing their living spaces?But these are the questions that arent asked: As mentioned earlier, European Colonialism is the point of departure for most and the State is accorded preeminence - but this neednt be the case. Asking the right question is often the first step towardfreedom from a maze of deception.
5 Comments:
Neop,
there is a world of difference between what is ideal and what could obtain in reality. In striving for the ideal, we shouldn't always assume that once a certain organisation of people or society is put put in place, then an ideal situation would automatically occur; there has be VIGILANCE all the way in ensuring that things do not go wrong. It's not a case of "once A is done, B will be achieved". In the event of a break-up of Nigeria, one is almost totally certain that some of the new entities would happily form a quasi-dependence political arrangement with the British, or Americans, with all the economic implications therein, thereby starting a new cycle of slavery. Do not be surprised. The other issues are:
1. The Nigerian state is not willing to let any group go without a fight, in which the Nigerian state would likely be supported by the West.
2. Would statehood be granted to any separating units without the endorsement of the UN? The racism-based international political intrigue that could play out is capable of leaving the separating units weaker than previously. Is there a way to gain statehood without the UN, in the absence of peaceful separation, or SUCCESSFUL military separation?
3. Would the newly established states be faster in establishing new long term economic relationships between one another, than the Western interests who would undoubtedly rush in with tempting economic offers? Or to put it in a different way - the new states have as much to fear from western interests manipulating their leaders, as from their leaders themselves.
Your article concentrated more on what is wrong with Nigeria, accurately dealing with the issues at stake (especially the common mistake of a colonial point of departure in our analysis of Nigeria), than on the workings and Life of the new entities, which is where A LOT OF DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS/TREATISES is necessary, if only to create foundational nuances of perception and understanding.
I'd say you were being far more anti-Nigerian than being Pro-new-states judging purely from the relative amounts of information dedicated to both areas. You did say that Fortune favours the bold. But Fortune also favours the prepared.
The question is, what are the elements of preparedness for a brave New African tomorrow?
[...It's not a case of "once A is done, B will be achieved"...]
And whoever said that it was?
[...In the event of a break-up of Nigeria, one is almost totally certain that some of the new entities would happily form a quasi-dependence political arrangement with the British, or Americans, with all the economic implications therein, thereby starting a new cycle of slavery...]
So what? Why should what other people decide to do with their destinies be of any concern to those who have chosen NOT to form dependent relationships?
[... The Nigerian state is not willing to let any group go without a fight, in which the Nigerian state would likely be supported by the West...]
This is a red herring. No State is willing to relinquish territory without a fight - yet, we continue to see such State relinquishments every day. The "without a fight" part is irrelevant - as is Western support (which shouldnt neccesarily be assumed). The truth of the matter is that the only reason any such "fights" will occur is beause the Nationalities under the jurisdiction of the State are yet to make up their mind to abolish the State. If the Igbo, the Ijaw and the Yoruba mobilize popular support to abolish the Nigerian claims to their territory - what army will stop them? An army marching from Sokoto across the River Niger? The problem is not the fight - the problem is that people havent made up their minds.
[...Would statehood be granted to any separating units without the endorsement of the UN?...]
Come now! Surely you dont mean to ask this...The U.N is irrelevant as far as we are concerned. The legitimacy of a State is dependent on a) the consent of the populations it administers and b) on the International scene, recognition from fellow States who then initiate dealings with it. The UN is not some reified International Government that we have to defer to, or that exists independent of the Sovereignty of constituent States to do what they wish - or that even exists independent of the Military capabilities of these States.
[...Would the newly established states be faster in establishing new long term economic relationships between one another...]
This is irrelevant. The issue is not about the new States establishing economic relationships with one another. It is about the new States establishing *beneficial* economic relationships - i.e. Relationships that do not threaten National Integrality.
[...the new states have as much to fear from western interests manipulating their leaders, as from their leaders themselves...]
You place great faith in the ability of the West to manipulate. But even the old Kings of Western African Kingdoms did not fall so easily to sheer manipulation without a consideration of their own interests: Such a consideration is what eventually had to be terminated by European Imperial armies.
[...than on the workings and Life of the new entities, which is where A LOT OF DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS/TREATISES is necessary, if only to create foundational nuances of perception and understanding...]
I disagree. I am not inetersted on writing on the workings and Life of a people that I know nothing about. How can I write on the workings and life of the New States when I dont even know what volitional arrangements will bring them into being? I am satisifed that Africans can decide their own arrangements based on their own Patrimony. I could of course write on what I would want a Yoruba State to look like - because that is my patrimonal base: But do not expect me to be pontificating on behalf of the Igbo. I reject, in a fundamental sense, such "Pan-Africanism".
[...I'd say you were being far more anti-Nigerian than being Pro-new-states judging purely from the relative amounts of information dedicated to both areas...]
You are quite wrong here: I am neither anti-Nigerian, nor Pro-New States. I am pro Liberty, pro Volition and Pro self determination. If all the Nationalities in Nigeria decided to remain under the jurisdiction of the Nigerian State - finito; at least with respect to a facet of my work. I dedicate information more to Nigeria because that is what the article is about: It is not a manifesto: It is a look at how deceptive narratives consolidate the Nigerian State.
[...The question is, what are the elements of preparedness for a brave New African tomorrow?...]
I dont know. "Africa" is not my point of departure when talking about "tommorrows" - except in a very narrow, ultimately unwieldy sense. What are the elements of preparedness for a Yoruba tommorrow? That is a question that concerns patrimony and is one which I will answer in an upcoming post.
Neop
>>>>>>So what? Why should what other people decide to do with their destinies be of any concern to those who have chosen NOT to form dependent relationships?>>>>>>
That's just the point isn't it? The catastrophic results of the wrong relationships can eventually affect the welfare of those who may have chosen not to form wrong relations. Isn't that what is happening in Nigeria today? No African ethnoculturally-based state, no matter how well run, will be an island. In any case, African redemption, in my opinion, is when the African racial axis has EMPOWERED itself as a WHOLE. Anything but that is too inadequate.
>>>>>>The problem is not the fight - the problem is that people havent made up their minds.>>>>>
What if the people are unwilling, or even unable to make up their minds? And why aren't they making up their minds anyway?
>>>>>You place great faith in the ability of the West to manipulate>>>>>>
Simply - when the West takes control of the resources of the new states in the same manner it has done presently, the other new African states would find them (Western companies) very difficult to displace. You have said in one of your posts that Africans are weak. I will not bother to describe the nature of this weakness. But addressing this weakness is perhaps the most important task of all. This same weakness follows us until we recognise it and deal with it.
>>>>>I dont know. "Africa" is not my point of departure when talking about "tommorrows" - except in a very narrow, ultimately unwieldy sense. What are the elements of preparedness for a Yoruba tommorrow? That is a question that concerns patrimony and is one which I will answer in an upcoming post.>>>>>>
It is all very well to state that Africa is not your point of departure, but it is precisely the racial point of departure, from the point of view of the slave merchants and the colonial conquerors, that has precisely shaped the African journey for the past 500 years, or even longer it seems. We have the right to CHOOSE our point of discursive departure, but can we really ignore the issues that present themselves as intellectually relevant to the general subject of interest .We can only ignore them at our peril.
[...The catastrophic results of the wrong relationships can eventually affect the welfare of those who may have chosen not to form wrong relations...]
I disagree. The relationships of others do not affect me in so far as I am determining my own destiny. That is the whole point. I am not going to try to make others sort their lives out when a more efficient way of achieving my prosperity would be to disavow any connection to them.
[... In any case, African redemption, in my opinion, is when the African racial axis has EMPOWERED itself as a WHOLE. Anything but that is too inadequate...]
I disagree. I would be quite content with Yoruba prosperity. I hope Igbos and Efik would be content with the prosperity of their respective patrimonies. It is this incessant focusing on the "whole" that hobbles advancements which can be made. Whole focus - while deployable when in confrontation with an external other who addresses you based on his perception - is entirely inadequate for living spaces organization. That is, I, as a member of my neighborhood will deploy a collective identity when Robbers come marauding looking for loot. However, I will NOT organize my own home - its chairs, its curtains, what I eat, how I raise my children, what I watch, what I read, etc on the basis of a collective identity. The whole approach is entirely suitable for purposes of mutual defense, but for the organization of living spaces (cultural, economic and otherwise) it fails miserably. Thus, African emancipation means little or nothing when used in the context of development or progress.
[...What if the people are unwilling, or even unable to make up their minds? And why aren't they making up their minds anyway...]
Unfortunately, my view of Africans is not so dismal as yours. Given the right information, people *will* make up their minds. The deficit is not one of will, or ability - it is one of information - which is why people like myself are around.
[...when the West takes control of the resources of the new states in the same manner it has done presently...]
But this wasnt through "manipulation" it was through Military conquest.
[...the other new African states would find them (Western companies) very difficult to displace...]
I disagree. No State will find any company difficult to displace if it is operating on the right doctrine. There is the issue of force - but I am willing to bet that what keeps these Companies as putative undisplaceables is Material dependence on the part of Africans and not the threat of Western Military action. The cure for such dependence is information, and the right doctrinal model for engaging with the world.
[...It is all very well to state that Africa is not your point of departure, but it is precisely the racial point of departure...]
I will trouble you on this point. I think you will find that geographical Africa as a Racial point of departure is already inadequate even today...South Africa, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc attest to this.
[...but can we really ignore the issues that present themselves as intellectually relevant to the general subject of interest .We can only ignore them at our peril...]
Certainly not. However, what needs more emphasizing is precisely what isnt being emphasized - namely that Africanity is a product of patrimonies and these Patrimonies are expressed through Nationalities - nationalities which are currently being devastated by colonial States. Without these National Patrimonies - what is African about Africa? This is precisely why I referenced Mamdani in the post: The notion of an umbrella political citizenship as a neutral platform for diverse nationalities fails because such citizenship has a cultural content and it is European. Why should the African National Patrimony be jettisoned in favor of this? The problem is not Continental Africa. It is Patrimony.
>>>>>>>However, what needs more emphasizing is precisely what isnt being emphasized - namely that Africanity is a product of patrimonies and these Patrimonies are expressed through Nationalities - nationalities which are currently being devastated by colonial States. Without these National Patrimonies - what is African about Africa? This is precisely why I referenced Mamdani in the post: The notion of an umbrella political citizenship as a neutral platform for diverse nationalities fails because such citizenship has a cultural content and it is European. Why should the African National Patrimony be jettisoned in favor of this? The problem is not Continental Africa. It is Patrimony.>>>>>>>
No one has said that African patrimonies must be jettisioned, but it is a fact of life that the full REALISATION/ACTUALISATION of these patrimonies is directly related to the point that the partakers of the patrimonies BE FULLY AWARE in the first place that such patrimonies are of invaluable character, that they are secondary to no other patrimony(including the vaunted patrimony of religion), and that they deserve jealous protection. What goes on in people's minds is as important as the organisational changes that go on around them.
Vitally, the patrimonies MUST justify themselves by thriving, one way or the other. What would ensure their thriving? That is a question for people to answer. That is a process for people to oversee. In failing to answer this question, Africa runs the risk of sustaining more injury that it already has. The "patrimony" of the culture of competition, qualitative survival, excellence is really just as important.
It is important that our recommendations are based on worthy long term abstractions of implicit economic and cultural function, and not be ends in and of themselves. Thus we may argue that ethnoculturally based political autonomy is really a greater realisation of African cultural spaces, since ethnicity is consolidated by political self-actualisation. But again the mere existence of these cultural spaces doesn't mean very much if they don't wax strong. I'll just digress a bit and state that geographical extension of African spaces is also relevant.
The question now is, how SHOULD African cultural spaces conduct themselves to ensure not only their individual growth but a general thriving of African peoples?
|
RSS Feeds | Podcasts