Ethnic nationalism: Challenges and prospects of a Pan Nigeriana (1)

Nigeriana Ethnic nationalism: Challenges and prospects of a Pan Nigeriana (1) BY PROF TAM DAVID-WEST I consider it logical that in order to know or fashion out the better than now Nigeria, the “Pan Nigeriana,” our eschatology of sorts, we should be aware of where we are coming from, and also where we are today. In this interlocking triad, the last, where we want to be, is of course very much obvious to us. In fact this is why we talk of “Challenges and Prospects of a Pan Nigeriana.” My interest is to invite us to have another look at this much pilloried, much blamed, much-demonized 1914. And here I tend to blame the eggheads, the intellectuals, for also jumping on to the fashionable bandwagon of the demonization of Lord Frederic Lugard. The Nigeria-Britain Association kindly invited me to give their 2003 Annual Lecture. The title of my lecture was, “Fighting with the past: How Africans Underdeveloped Africa.” I posited that in fighting with the past, we continually engage the past in combat. We immerse ourselves with alibis and excuses. We work ourselves into paroxysm of anger, hate, even vengeance. Self Pity. We tilt at windmill like Don Quixote, The Man From Lamancha. On the other hand, in, fighting the past, we engage our unacceptable past shortcomings rationally and circumspectively with a view to having a better than “the past.” I then concluded, “Fighting with the past is wasteful. Fighting the past is useful. And as Winston Churchill rightly said: “If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future.” And perhaps also the present. Because we dissipate our useful energies quarreling with the past, and thereby allowing golden opportunities to improve the present to pass us by. My other problem with the Lugard-phobia has to do with selective extraction of who said what about 1914. This is oftentimes tendentious and a trifle intellectual fraudulence. Some even went ahead to say that Lugard had some hidden agenda. He was not sincere. I am afraid I disagree. He was quite sincere. We cannot blame Lugard if we over-read him. We have no strong moral grounds to blame Lugard for our failures. For instance, it was Lord Lugard’s fiancée (some terribly even say “his mistress”) Flora Shaw who in 1897 coined the name Nigeria, being so inspired by the River Niger. She later became Lady Lugard. Seventeen years after the coinage of Nigeria, in 1914, the Northern and the Southern Provinces (Protectorates) were amalgamated for administrative convenience. Quite logical. For instance, it is trite or normal practice among Counsels (Lawyers) to consolidate cases that have essentially common ingredients. Sometimes even the trial Justice will demand so in order to facilitate the judicial process. Lord Lugard, thereby became the first Governor-General of the amalgam, Nigeria. In order words, the “British are the sole creators of the political entity known as “Nigeria” James S. Coleman: In his “Nigeria Background to Nationalism” (1958). There was no pretensions whatsoever about the intensions of Britain or Lord Lugard id est the creation of an amalgam to serve their purpose, “Administrative convenience.” Simpliciter. In chemistry, as we all know amalgam is different from compound. Without being pedantic in an amalgam (alloy) say of “A”, “B” “C” though bound together neither “A” nor “B” nor “C” loses its identity. But on the other hand, if “A” “B” and “C” form a compound, each of them sheds or melts away its original identity and form an indivisible new object, say, “Y.” In this metaphor, compound represents nations, which I now tag “Pan Nigeriana.” In short, it was not Lord Lugard’s mandate or assigned responsibility to forge a Nigerian nation. Thus, there was neither any sneaking “Hidden Agenda” nor insincerity on his part. None. In a recent interview with the Sunday SUN 04 March, 2012 page 5, Richard Akinjide, under the caption, “The British conspiracy,” stated inter alia, “Lord Lugard deliberately created things so North will be dominant and South subservient.” This is arrant nonsense. It is like many other obsessional anti-Pan Nigeriana stereotypes of the South, spins the truth on its head. An objective dispassionate analysis of the records will debunk Akinjide and people like him. Let’s for the sake of argument, and for that alone, accept that there was British anti-South conspiracy. Question: Why has the ‘victim’ South not been able to correct it even after some 100 years after Lugard? And much earlier, some couple of years ago, a Briton who claimed to be an administrative officer during our colonial era also subscribed to the Akinjide, nay the south, “Conspiracy theory.” All nonsense. I believe in objective non-sentimental analysis of our socio-political problems. No stereotypes. No pre-conceptions. As a research scientist, I don’t presume. I don’t work from answer to question. For instance, when Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto insisted in 1950 that the North must get 50% of the Central Legislature or it will secede. We South shouted foul! Some still believe that the North was over pampered. However, time has vindicated the Sardauna as a better expert in demography. For instance, all the National Population Census after Independence still gave the North even more than 50%. The Sardauna could therefore be said to be generous. Example: 1953, North 53.8% 2006, North 53-6%. (South, 46.4%). It should be emphasised that some of these post-Independence census were chairmaned by southern elites. And the Census Boards were loaded with southern demographers. Professors of Geography etc. I take special interest in this because Pan Nigeriana is sometimes put on a rugged road because of disinformation from some southern intellectuals about the population of the North vis-à-vis the South. We did (still doing!) the same thing by the obsessional so-called Northern domination. Again, words, words. No structured research. In my “Northern Domination: Myth or Reality,” I challenged it (The so-called ‘Northern Domination’) with facts and figures. No counters. Chief Richard Akinjide, SAN also goofed in the Sunday SUN interview. That “A Sovereign National Conference presupposes that there is no government in place functioning in the country.” Implication? That Government or Parliament, or National Assembly is “sovereign.” This is embarrassing fallacy. Sovereignty belongs to the people. The (our) Constitution is quite unequivocal. People in government are mere trustees. Akinjide and I were among the so-called “50 Wise Men” who drafted the 1979 Constitution – a template for the 1999 Constitution. Benin Republic under President Mathieu Ahmed Kerekou had a Sovereign National Conference in 1990. There are more examples of Sovereign National Conference during extant or existing governments. “Britain did not consciously plan to create an independent Nigerian nation when it established Nigeria’s boundaries, developed a common administrative system; constructed a common transportation grid and a communication network; introduced a common currency; a lingua franca and an educational system; and recruited a corps of Nigeria clerks and artisans who developed Pan-Nigerian perspectives and aspirations – all were simply requisite to the administration of an arbitrary chunk of an overseas dependency.” In: Nigeria, Background to Nationalism” by Professor James S. Coleman. “If the amalgamation of 1914 was aimed at a political fusion of the North and the South, it did not have the objective of building a united state, nor did the British envisage, by the remotest of imagination, that a ‘nation’ would emerge from the ‘geopolity’ ’’ J. Isawa Elaigwu. Did Britain ever envision a united Nigeria or Pan Nigeriana or was it the often quoted and sometimes orchestrated mantra: “Divide and Rule”? From the records, I will once again be somewhat intellectually different. Controversial? I will for instance argue what some may tend to say arguable that in fact British scepticism (sometimes even cynicism) about the possibility or probability of Pan Nigeriana started when our leaders with the historical responsibility to forge a nation or United Nigeria got themselves immersed in regional or sectional rivalries. And these were sometimes very bitter and terrible indeed. Hence, James S. Coleman in his opus “Nigeria, Background To Nationalism” captioned his Chapter 15 appropriately: “The Regionalising of Nationalism.” A good example was from Margery Perham. In 1937 she wrote: “Among many doubts and uncertainties, however, one thing is certain, that it is both our duty and our interest to assist the Africans of Nigeria to build a sound united state.” But after some ten years, doubts began to creep in. This was manifest in her Forward to Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s book, “Path to Nigerian Freedom” (1947) in which the much quoted Awo’s “Nigeria is a mere geographical expression….” was printed. The same Margery Perham, this time around, wrote: “….the day when Nigeria from being a name written on a map by Sir George Goldie and an administrative framework put together by Lord Lugard, becomes a true federation, still more a nation, is still far away.” Raymond Leslie Buell, a strong Afrophile, shared Perham’s doubts. I repeat based on our leaders fighting like Kilkenny cats. He gave us a century from 1948 to achieve Pan Nigeriana i.e. 2048. Terribly pessimistic? No. Remember the United States Intelligence Apocalypse of 2015. The Report stated that Nigeria or a wobbling Pan Nigeriana will quench in 2015. But curiously it did not explicitly state, only by extrapolated implication: “To your tents O! Nigerians” But are the ethnic tents themselves insulated from atomised bickering? I am too sure. In fact, the probability is robust that there are bound to be more internal fights, which are likely to be dirty than the previous. Some more of the British positive expectation: “From 1948 on, Governor Macpherson spoke repeatedly and emphatically in favour of united Nigeria, on many occasions publicly deprecating manifestations of disunity and tribalism among Nigerian political groups.” In his Notes to chapter 15, Coleman, cited a letter written by the Secretary of State for the colonies, James Griffiths, to Governor Sir John Macpherson: “any tendency to break up Nigeria into separate parts would in the view of His Majesty’s Government be contrary to the interest of the peoples of all three Regions and of Nigeria as a whole.” He was favourable for a strong Central Legislature and Executive. From 1960 to 2012 is 52 years. I therefore argue that if even after one Century after Lugard, and if even after half a century after Independence, we are still bickering over Political Order, Modus vivendi; or in fact if integral corporate Nigeria should not cease to exist then we cannot as a people lay any claims to seriousness.