Let’s talk: Identity politics and brinkmanship can tear Nigeria apart

In 1947, long before this country’s independence, Obafemi Awolowo wrote in Path to Nigerian Freedom that “Nigeria is a mere geographical expression”. He was misunderstood and called all sorts of names! But Awolowo did not invent the phrase. It was probably first used by the Austrian statesman Klemens Von Matternich, who wrote in 1847 that “Italy is a geographical expression”. Germany was also described as “little more than a geographical expression” before Bismarck turned it into a nation in 1871. So, what does this phrase mean? Well, it refers to an entity that has all the features of a state, but lacks the essential elements of a nation. This is a significant distinction: statehood is not necessarily the same as nationhood. An entity can have the key ingredients of a state – a territory, a population, a government, sovereignty, and the power of coercion – but still lack the sentimental unity and common like-mindedness necessary to weld its people into a nation.

Yet a state can evolve into a nation. After all, Lee Kuan Yew took Singapore, a state that was blighted by racial, religious and language divisions, and turned it into a nation with a single identity. But achieving nationhood requires the leaders and people of a state to work tirelessly and selflessly to transform it from a mere geographical expression into a nation. Unfortunately, over 70 years since Awolowo made that statement, and nearly 56 years after its independence, Nigeria is still a state and not a nation.

Truth be told, Nigeria is a deeply divided country with schismatic tendencies. As I write, the so-called Niger Delta Avengers are threatening to destroy major oil installations across the country; violent Fulani herdsmen have left trail of destruction, rape and murders in many parts of the South (including killing about 40 people in Enugu State!) and some parts of the North; and ethnic militias, such as the Biafra agitators, are creating conflict zones across the country, even as Boko Haram still poses a serious danger. So, make no mistake, things are currently not at ease in Nigeria, at a time the economy is also in terrible shape. If you are looking for a perfect storm, look no further!

For me, there are two reasons for this perilous state of affairs. First, politics of identity and nationalism is deeply entrenched in this country, and second Nigeria’s ethnic nationalities have developed a culture of belligerence and brinkmanship; they pursue their goals by pushing things to the brink of conflict instead of talking to find mutually acceptable solutions. The phrase “Let’s talk” is attributed to the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas, who is known as the father of “communicative action”. Habermas argues that societies achieve greater progress when actors seek to reach common understanding and to coordinate actions by reasoned argument, consensus and cooperation rather by strictly pursuing their own goal. Habermas would argue, for instance, that the farmer-herdsmen conflict and other crises in Nigeria could be resolved amicably through communicative action. Sadly, Nigerians prefer belligerence and brinkmanship to talking and negotiating: it’s war-war over jaw-jaw! And this is because of toxic politics of identity and nationalism.

Surely, identity politics is behind the plan to establish grazing reserves for herdsmen across the country. The fact that the controversial grazing reserve bill was introduced by a Northern senator, Zaynab Kure, and actively supported by Northern legislators and ministers, is itself telling! At a recent Senate public hearing, the Chairman Senate Committee on Agriculture, Abdullahi Adamu, reportedly told stakeholders, who opposed the grazing bill: “The government is free to establish grazing reserves anywhere”, adding menacingly: “Government is government. If anybody thinks he is violent, government has the monopoly of violence”. So, then, instead of trying to win hearts and minds on such a sensitive issue, supporters of national grazing reserves want to use federal might to achieve their goal. But let me also say that identity politics is what led leaders of the Southern Nigerian People’s Assembly (SNPA) to adopt a blanket “not-in-my-back-yard” (NIMBY) approach to the idea of national grazing reserves.

Even President Buhari played the politics of identity recently during his visit to Kastina state. Speaking at the palace of the Emir of Kastina, the president reportedly said: “With the way the Sahara is advancing, with Boko Haram, growing number of people and uncertainty over rainfall, in a land where we fought civil war, it would be foolhardy for someone to just say he would chase us away. So where do we go?” Given the president was speaking to a Hausa/Fulani audience, the “us” and “we” in that statement would appear to refer to Fulani herdsmen. Indeed, Buhari sometimes feels the need to speak up for Fulani herdsmen. For instance, he reportedly told the then governor of Oyo State, Lam Adesina: “your people” are killing “my people”, during violent clashes between farmers and herdsmen in the state.

But let’s be honest. President Buhari faces a predicament on the farmer-herdsmen issue. He is Fulani, who owns cattle, and understands that nomadic pastoralism is embedded in the culture and custom of his people. He is also acutely aware of the economic and ecological challenges that the nomadic herdsmen face, as his comment indicates, with, for instance, the problem of desertification in the North. What’s more, he knows there is widespread hostility to nomadic herdsmen in other parts of the country. So, when the president said it would be “foolhardy” for someone to say he would “chase us away”, he genuinely felt the need to defend the Fulani and their way of life: nomadic pastoralism.

To be sure, I don’t blame the president for the “us”, “we” and “my people” comments! That’s the language that currently defines the Nigerian polity. After all, why would there be the Southern Nigerian People’s Assembly and the Northern Elders Forum, not to mention the countless ethnic militias? Even take the so-called Southern unity. Once you remove the common fear of Northern domination that unites the Southern leaders, the unity in the South is threadbare. The Igbo don’t like the Yoruba, who, in turn, don’t trust the Igbo. There is, for instance, one source of recurrent inter-ethnic tensions. Igbo in each Yoruba town want to appoint a king called Eze Ndigbo but Yoruba Obas won’t accept that in their domains. Recently, the new Olubadan of Ibadan, Oba Saliu Adetunji, found an ingenious solution. He appointed an Igbo leader, Alloy Obi, as the “Balogun Ndigbo of Ibadanland” and made him one of his chiefs. But Oba Adetunji won’t let Obi use the title Eze, which may not please some Igbo. It’s called ethnic or identity politics!

Of course, ethnic nationalism and identity politics also defines much of the world. So, ethnic nationalism or identity politics is not peculiar to Nigeria. However, while other countries constantly try to perfect their unions through negotiations and constitutional settlements, in Nigeria, we refuse to talk and restructure the country even though it’s clear that we need to renegotiate the country’s imperfect and fragile union and create new politico-governance structures that are fit for purpose and can unite the people. Yet President Buhari won’t talk about political reform. Instead, he said recently: “I always say the civil war was fought for the unity of Nigeria”. But, Mr President, civil wars don’t unite countries. It’s only political settlements that weld people into a nation. After the American and English civil wars, there were negotiated political settlements to unite the countries. Unfortunately, the Nigerian civil war was only ended militarily, but not politically. Nigeria needs a negotiated political settlement to perfect its union; that is why we need to talk!

So, I say, in the words of Habermas, let’s talk! Let’s talk even now and reach consensus on the vexed Fulani herdsmen issue. For me, two principles should prevail: federalism and inter-state commerce. The first means that the federal government must respect the rights of the states to regulate land use and protect the lives and properties of their citizens. The second, however, means no state must do anything to impede inter-state commerce. For instance, to ensure that federalism doesn’t hinder commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states, the US constitution contains the “Commerce Clause”, which allows Congress to enact overriding US-wide laws to facilitate inter-state commercial activities. But to prevent Congress from abusing the “Commerce Clause” and undermine the principle and values of federalism, in a ruling that should have persuasive effect in Nigeria, the US Supreme Court held in US v Lopez that Congress may only invoke the commerce power to regulate, inter alia, “activities which have a substantial relation to interstate commerce.”

Certainly, any attempt to prevent cattle herdsmen from moving freely around the country with their cattle, for example, to avoid hostile weather conditions in the North and take advantage of favourable conditions in the South would undermine productivity and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Thus, on face value, the plan to establish national grazing reserves for herdsmen appears sensible. However, the federal government cannot simply seize land and private assets across the country, and ignore local sensitivities, in order to establish grazing reserves. In a true federalism, the activity of herdsmen would be private and state government affairs, and not a federal government matter. Therefore, in my view, Northern states should enter into negotiations with their Southern counterparts on grazing reserves, with proper consultation with local people. Once agreements have been reached, the federal government can come in to provide support. This voluntary and cooperative approach, rather than a federal diktat, could produce a better solution to the farmers/herdsmen issue. Above all, though, let’s start talking to keep Nigeria as one, and turn it into a nation!

Olu Fasan