A vision of the united nations of Nigeria

Let me start this intervention with a provocative statement. Nigeria is a state, and not a nation. If that’s not provocative enough, then this: Nigeria is a mere geographical expression. Now, I can imagine the pretentious indignation of some Nigerians, as they shout heresy! Indeed, I can hear some of our former military leaders, saying: “We fought the civil war to keep Nigeria one. How dare you say Nigeria is not a nation?” But, stripped of all the emotion and the sentiment, the truth is that Nigeria is anything but a nation. To understand why, let’s settle some definitional issues first.

A state is a political organisation of a body of people for the maintenance of order within its territory by coercion. Thus, the defining features of a state are the power of coercion, a territory and sovereignty. But none of these makes a state a nation. After all, as we know, the nation of Israel was, for centuries, stateless, as are the Palestinians today. So, a nation can be a state, but a state may not be a nation. What then is a nation? It is a population of a fixed area that shares a common language, culture and history. It is the soul of a nation that gives the common experience of the people its particular identity. But a state, as a legal construct, is hardly an affair of the heart unless it can forge a common identity.

Going back in time, we find an early example of the distinction between a nation and a state in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. For instance, the ancient Greek idea of ‘polis’ or city state is the equivalent of the modern concept of the nation. The ‘polis’ was defined by its cultural similarity or homogeneity. By contrast, the Roman ‘respublica’ or commonwealth is similar to the modern idea of the state, in that it was a legal jurisdiction covering culturally different or heterogeneous entities.

Clearly, Nigeria is a state consisting of nations, much like the United Kingdom. Indeed, British prime ministers often talk of “the nations of this country”, referring to the English, the Scots, and the Welsh. And Britain’s constitutional and political arrangements reflect this reality. However, Nigeria behaves as if it’s like America, a “no man’s land”, which has no distinct history of ethnic nationalism. Virtually every nationality in America was a settler, beginning with the first British emigrants who supplanted the indigenous American Indians in the 17th century. Even so, the US has a genuine federal structure that reflects its diverse origins and post-war political settlement. By contrast, despite its ethnic diversity, Nigeria has a centralised political culture, with excessive concentration of power at the centre and in a powerful executive presidency.

Yet, ethnic nationalism runs very deep in this country. The evidence is there for everyone to see. There are today many ethnic nationalist organisations, such as Afenifere, Ohaneze and Arewa, as well as militant groups or “freedom fighters”, as the Oduduwa People’s Congress (OPC) calls itself, which exists to “defend” their ethnic identities and interests within Nigeria.

Consider also the fact that most Nigerians, however highly educated, are hyper-sensitive to perceived ethnic slights. For instance, the hysterical reactions of Yorubas to Chinua Achebe’s criticism of Obafemi Awolowo in his book, “There was a country”, were recently matched by the hysterical reactions of Igbos to the Oba of Lagos’s statement concerning the voting preferences of Igbos in Lagos. Okay, Achebe’s criticism was unfair and the Oba’s statement was uncalled for, but the group-think that drove both ethnic groups’ collective angst and outrage shows how delicate and emotive the issue of ethnicity is in Nigeria.

Ethnic nationalism is also at the heart of the ethnic bloc voting that now sadly shapes elections in this country. The “we-identity” is very strong as most voters prefer to align with their own ethnic people. Across the country, the voting pattern in the presidential election broadly reflected these ethnic biases. The fact that Buhari’s total votes in the whole of the South-East were less than 300,000, compared to Jonathan’s 2.5 million shows that “Igbo spoke with one voice”, as Ike Ekeremadu, Deputy Senate President, recently said.

Even Igbo in Lagos, a miniature Nigeria, echoed their people back home, as if acting on telepathy! The North also virtually spoke with one voice, as Jonathan struggled there while Buhari flourished.  And, of course, the Hausa community in Lagos voted massively for their own, Buhari! South-South people, too, voted for their own, Jonathan. Although the Yorubas didn’t do bloc voting in the presidential election, we know from experience they too are not immune from it. Of course, ethnic-based bloc voting is not new, it’s common in the US. But given the nature of ethnic nationalism in Nigeria, it could fuel political tension in the country.

There is also the risk of some ethnic groups becoming alienated if ethnic voting perpetuates the domination of the minority by the majority. For instance, every analysis of the presidential election shows that General Buhari won because of the alliance between the North and the South-West. In the past, the North had won the presidency simply by aligning with the South-South, and it didn’t matter whether or not the South-West or the South-East voted for its candidate. Thus, all it takes for the North to win the presidency or to determine who wins it is to vote largely as one –and this election has shown the North can act as one when it serves its interest – and then find just one willing ally among the South’s three zones. The implication of this is that in any presidential election there could potentially be two geo-political zones in the South, whose votes would not matter, because they don’t determine who governs the country. This power structure favours the North, and gives it significant advantage over the South.

Of course, this won’t matter in a genuine federal union. For instance, in the US, no state feels disadvantaged for being in opposition to the federal governing party. But, in Nigeria, a state is almost deemed to have committed political hara-kiri for being in opposition to the federal ruling party, which is why there is so much talk about bandwagon effect after each presidential election. Yet if you have an ethnically diverse  country in which an ethnic group feels that its votes cannot determine who controls the country, and feels alienated as a result, there will be political tension. For instance, Scotland’s agitation against the United Kingdom stemmed from the fact thatthe Conservative Party always won the general elections in the 1980s and 90s just with English votes, without winning any single seat in Scotland. In other words, the Scottish votes did not count. This was seen as an affront to Scottish sensibilities, and left Scotland feeling alienated.  The South East and the South-South will probably feel the same for voting against Buhari, but he must ensure they are not alienated.

However, a more fundamental risk to ethnic harmony is the disruption of the implicit rotational presidency arrangement. For instance, the North was said to be angry that they could not complete their two-term slot due to the death of UmaruYar’Adua in 2010, and felt cheated that Jonathan, from South-South, used the North’s putative second term!

So, they wanted power to return to the North. Fair enough. But, now that Buhari, a Northerner, has been elected president, are we to assume he would serve only one term to complete the North’s remaining one term? And if he does two terms, as he is constitutionally entitled to, would that not create imbalance,since the North would then have done three terms? What about the South-South? Would they still be able to complete the second term of their own slot? After all, the fact that Jonathan lost his second-term bid should not deny the South-South of their full slot. And what about the South East – when would the Igbosproduce a president for this country? The folly and illogic of rotational presidency is    undeniable, but the fact is that it’s a political expediency, driven by ethnic nationalism.

The fear of domination by other ethnic groups and perception of unfairness in how power is shared and exercised are strong drivers of ethnic tension in Nigeria. But this is not new. Concerns about balance of power are as strong within ethnically diverse countries as they are between countries.

But Nigeria must devolve power from the centre and ensure parity in how political power is shared and exercised between the six geo-political zones. We cannot wish ethnic nationalities away, but the notion of Nigerian-ness will be stronger if we can create a system that allows the ethnic groups to cooperate rather than clash. Then Nigeria, though a state, can forge some common identities that unite its people. Certainly, this makes political and constitutional reforms an imperative. The Buhari government must make this a priority!