|
Back To the Starting Block!
The facts: It took the British nearly forty years after their initial incursion into the geographical expression now known as
Nigeria, before the colonial power could bear rule over the eastern part of
Nigeria. The people of the area had resisted the British rule and not until 1906 did the British succeed in colonising eastern
Nigeria. The British on their own, despite being a world power, did not have enough British staff to govern the enclave that would later be known as
Nigeria. They, therefore, opted to govern through the traditional institutions that were already on ground as indirect rule. All, but one area had such traditional institution grounded in place. All attempts to impose traditional rulers on the Ibos, to bring it par with what existed in the North and the West failed disastrously. Consequently, the British could only govern the East through the Council of Chiefs. Whereas the rest of the country was administered through Indirect Rule, the egalitarian nature of the people of the area, mostly the Igbo speaking people, was the huge obstacle. Did the apparent success in 1906 pave the way for the amalgamation of the Southern and Northern Protectorates in 1914
The facts: The absence of indirect rule meant that the ordinary Ibo man was exposed to the direct rule of the colonial master, thereby, was made to face the naked brutality of colonialism. There was no shield, such as could be provided by the traditional institutions. Could that be responsible why the call for independence was heard loudest amongst the Ibos? The realisation of the denial of fundamental rights was occasioned by exposure to education and that also made others, apart from the Ibos, to join in the call for self rule. Two things, I suppose, could have hastened the amalgamation in 1914. One was the unstable political atmosphere in far away
Europe that did not only brew but led to the First World War (1914-1918). The second was the need to redeploy some British Staff back home to attend to that urgent crisis. Remember it was building up in the backyard of the world power,
Britain. Like all mergers, the amalgamation, the aim could have been the aggregate reduction in the number of people needed for the oversights, in this case the British supervising staff.
The facts: In retrospect, it is evident that the fundamental differences between the constituents that made up
Nigeria were not ironed out, before the amalgamation. Had that been, could that have prepared
Nigeria for the challenges of modern nationhood? Did the British then with reduced staff more than ever before, result to a divide and rule tactics in order to continue to rule? Were the amalgamation in itself and the divide and rule tactics just expedient and merely a fire brigade measure? It could have allowed the British to rule with ease under the circumstances; but we know that its attendant mistrust of each other, among the various entities, has lingered on well into the years after the British had left. If left alone, could these “incompatible elements” have naturally found a formula to coexist? Can we be allowed to base this assumption on the fact that the geographical expression in question is home to the largest concentration of black people in the world, which in itself defies all logic? Could the constituents brought together by default be explained as divine? That is if you believe in destiny. Besides, in all of history, any land of two great rivers had often been great. Can we say that
Nigeria has not does not mean it would not?
The facts: At about the same time that the British were subduing the eastern part of
Nigeria in 1906, a struggling ideology was breathing a fresh whiff of air in
Europe. Socialism as an alternative ideology had started gaining grounds, with the labour movement becoming a political party in
Britain in 1900 but adopted the name Labour Party in 1906. Socialism’s biggest gain was the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. Bolshevik and Menshevik are Russian words for “majority” and “minority” respectively and have no connection with socialism. However, within the movement tasked with the overthrow of tsarism in
Russia, the radical faction led by Vladimir Lenin who had proposed the communist doctrine based on the theories of Karl Marx was the majority. That faction eventually overwhelmed the Mensheviks during the revolution and the term Bolshevik Revolution clung. In 1945, the Labour Party in
Britain swept to power in the polls defeating the party of the war hero, Winston Churchill.
Among those that came from the colonies that went to study in
Britain during the Second World War and shortly after that war and that imbibed the principles of socialism was
Nigeria’s Obafemi Awolowo. We know Awo was an admirer of George Bernard Shaw, the lean derisive sage who was the cofounder of the Fabian Society. We know the Fabian Society in
Britain authored the non-revolutionary socialism, where the actualisation of the ideology was going to be gradual through public education. We know in the 1940s, Awo became involved in the politics of
Nigeria and in 1951 organised the Action Group. Did he need power to empower his people in order to transform his plans? We know that an opportunity came in 1952 when the British gave the regions in
Nigeria limited autonomy. We were told it was not a political party issue; but only the complexity that only those elected to parliament would choose the Head of Business for each region. It is a fact that Awo and his cohorts fell short of the majority in that parliament in the Western Region House of Assembly as the N.C.N.C. led by Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe had more members elected.
Did the opposition have no specific plans on how to run the business of government and were only content with just winning? Did Awo have a plan? Did he go round the N.C.N.C. members, who were willing to listen, with his plans on how to transform the region and was able to win the support of some of them? Did Zik, meanwhile, have relied solely on loyalty? When on the floor of the House some members of Zik’s party voted for Awo as the Head of Business instead of Zik, we know Zik and his cohorts cried foul. It is a fact that they argued that it was due to tribal advantage, could they have been wrong and that it was Awo’s superior argument that won? We know that long after Awo had demonstrated beyond all doubts that he might have won by superior arguments, through unparallel achievements for his region, his detractors still maintained he had introduced tribalism to the polity in
Nigeria. Did that victory on the floor of the regional house though a blessing for the region hurt Awo in future specifically and
Nigeria generally? Did it allow a springboard for the third conflicting ideology to be introduced in
Nigeria? That is socialism. We know up till that time, the existing dichotomy was feudalism in the North and West and almost republicanism in the East.
The facts: Between 1954 and 1959, Awo was the premier of Western Nigeria and turned the region into an
El Dorado. We know that in doing this, he tinkered with the traditional institutions in the Western Region that the British had used as indirect rule. It has been documented that any traditional ruler that did not toe the party line was cut down to size. Did that send jitters to the North, where the way of life of more than 500 years had been the supremacy of the traditional institution? Particularly so as Awo was aspiring to rule the whole country as
Independence approached. We know it was obvious no regional party could win enough to form a government and there would have to be a coalition of two parties. Logically, the almost non-existence of traditional institutions in the East where the N.C.N.C. had sway should have chosen Awo’s quasi-republican Western Region, where the traditional institution had been subdued, as a partner. But was Awo’s sour victory in 1952 forgotten?
We know Awo led his Action Group’s to talk with the Zik’s led N.C.N.C. We know it was futile as the N.C.N.C. chose to join the
Northern Nigeria’s N.P.C. as a junior partner to form the government at the centre. Was it my enemy’s enemy is my friend, though they were a direct opposite in ideology – feudalism and republicanism? Awolowo became opposition leader in the federal House of Representatives. Was Awo needed to be stopped or at worse weakened? Why was the first action of the coalition, the creation of Mid-Western Region that was carved out of the Western Region? Was it to weaken the base of Awo? We know that Awo despite that still remained resolute. Awo articulated what was prevalent at that time in former colonies. We know that he was an unyielding advocate of federalism; he was arrested in 1962 for allegedly plotting to overthrow the government and was imprisoned in 1963. Meanwhile, was it well in the house of Awo? We know that certain members of the Action Group wanted to participate in the government of national unity, but Awo had refused. The renegades were mostly traditional rulers or those who had sympathy for that institution that Awo had previously weakened.
The facts:
Nigeria became a republic in 1963. Did the fears of the North heighten? Was the threat to the way of life of the North no longer Awo who was now incarcerated, but the egalitarianism of the Ibos who were largely dominant in the coalition party of the N.C.N.C? It was documented that the
Northern Nigeria’s N.P.C. secretly sought partnership with the think-alike U.N.D.P. in terms of traditional institution, which had broken away from the party of Awo. We know that the N.C.N.C. pulled out of the coalition and thus made
Nigeria ungovernable. We know that a group of soldiers, who had watched from the sidelines, moved in to stop the slide into abyss. We also know that their execution, created more problems as it had the colouration of tribalism. We know the coup d’état was, in any case, hijacked from the original plotters by more senior officers mostly Ibos. We know that the military government that eventually emerged was still headed by an Ibo who wanted a unitary government. Did that further heighten the fears of the North? Would they have been comfortable with a republican-by-nature to supervise the affairs of the institutionalised tradition of the north? That seemed unlikely and could have been like a cat babysitting the mouse.
In the years that followed, the sons of the almighty North would grandfather a constitution that cut to size the traditional institutions and implemented it. That was the position of Sir Ahmadu Bello, who agreed that the traditional institutions, given time, would have no constitutional place in a republic. He could have worked with Awo, he stated on several occasions, but Awo was in a hurry. After all said and done, the fundamental differences between the regions came to a head and the civil war ensued. The traditionalists, however, won. The nation still bears the name of a republic but all that can be seen, according to Olisa Agbakoba – the present president of NBA, is a conglomeration of kingdoms and not a republic. After the civil war, the East – particularly the Ibos, has accelerated the institutionalisation of their traditions. But, there is a fundamental problem. The heart of an Ibo man is still egalitarian – a republican. The perceived marginalisation as echoed recently on BBC by Ojukwu could be an illusion borne out of the strangeness of the Ibos in this bowl of grounded kingdoms. Are we back to the starting block? Don’t forget it took the British nearly forty years to find a way around the issue of the Igbo speaking people.
Samuel Akinyele Caulcrick, the author of The Devil Must Be Laughing.
ISBN: 1-4241-2196-5.
|
Authors 
Posted by Robot| 09.07.2007 09:09