National Unity: A Ruse or Reality?

The imposed geographical marriage that was conducted in the early era of the 20^th century which birthed the colossus known as Nigeria today has survived for a hundred years today. Many countries where such conditional political matrimony was conducted had since hit the rock and had irrevocably broken beyond second consideration. Countries such as Korea, Congo and Sudan which used to be a state of many nations have today been divided into northern and southern sovereign nations. It is to be noted that these nations after division, will become mortal enemies to each other.

Surprisingly, Nigeria has been the only surviving country that was amalgamated by Lord Luggard and still exists as a “united group”. This is not to say that the question of continuous existence has not being raised by progressives who feels the marriage has done more harm than good to the nation. The document provided a condition for review after its hundred years of operation after which all concerned region will sit and agitate for their demand and a resolute consensus will usher either a continuous existence or an amicable division.

Dr Agbaje during one of the annual Amical Cabra dialogue took time to differentiate between a nation and a state. He believes that Nigeria is a product of misconception rather than a platform for progress and development. He defines a nation as a group of people who shares more than just a geographical area. A nation according to him is the social interaction between a definite group of people who shares the same affinity, language, culture and history. It is in this similar vein that Edward Anderson defined a nation. He believes a nation should have one common language. If we have to go by his conception of a nation, Nigeria therefore does not in any way qualify as a nation. A state on the other hand can be identified by four main features: people, government, territory and sovereignty. Nigeria therefore qualifies more as a state than a nation.

The ideology of Edmund Burke who posited that a shared purpose can give mortal enemies a common ground was what marked the beginning of a seemingly unified future of the country during the struggle for independent. The educated elites who fought for independent did not polarise the group as peculiar regions, rather the battle was fought on a common ground.

When the prospect for independent was becoming more visible for these groups, they came together to discuss what would become the fate of the country as a united entity. Obafemi Awolowo was quoted to have suggested that they bury their differences on other socio-cultural and political history and differences. Alhaji Tafawa Balewa, who was also at the meeting, suggested that such differences should rather be understood rather than buried. The result of the meeting was the tool that sustained the country till date.

Would it be safe to submit that the vision of our past leaders has become blurring? Dr. Mrs Oduwole from the department of Philosophy in Olabisi Onabanjo University said that these front-liners at a time realised before independent that the unity of Nigeria might be of negative impact than the progressive prospect that was once effisiaged.  This can be seen by the quotes of these leaders when events are beginning to turn sour.

Alhaji Abubarkar Tafawa Balewa was quoted in 1948 during one of the progressive movement against the unified structure of Nigeria as he said “Since 1914, the British Government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their background, in their religious beliefs and customs and do not show themselves any signs of willingness to unite…Nigeria unity is only a British invention”

Obafemi Awolowo was also quoted in 1947 that “Nigeria is not nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no “Nigerians” in the same sense as there are ‘English’, ‘Welsh’, or ‘French.’ The word ‘Nigerian’ is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria and those who do not”.

In a similar vein, Nnamdi Azikiwe stated that “it is better for us and many admirers abroad that we should disintegrate in peace and not in pieces. Should the politicians fail to heed this warning, and then will venture the prediction that the experience of the Democratic Republic of the Congo will be a child’s play if ever it comes to our turn to play such a tragic role”

It is the prophetic position of Nnamdi Azikiwe that that seems to be evident in today’s political event as what has characterised Nigerian states varies from revenue allocation, derivation fund, self-determination, power distribution, zoning system, religious contest, marginalisation of minority group, cultural intolerance and the least is endless.

The document that binds Nigeria together in the amalgamation constitution legally expires this year. Views from various citizens in the country have been conflicting as to whether a mutual and amicable division should be discussed or we should continue to exist as a united group as every member of these regions are already pointing accusing finger on one another

The Movement for the Actualisation of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) still maintained that the movement will ensure the secession of the Igbo from the colossus called Nigeria. The ex-governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi was quoted in his “words on marble” as saying that the Yorubas are the problem with Nigeria. He analysed the chronological event that transpires from independent till date as he believes every crisis that the country has experience since 1960 was caused by what he termed as “area boy politics” of the south-western leaders. The south-south movement has also been threatening brimstones and fire if President Jonathan loses in the 2015 presidential election.

The political climate at this period therefore calls for a popular debate among Nigerian citizens to articulate their positions as to whether Nigeria is still good to go as a country or there be a round-table deliberation to decide the fate of a post-Nigerian state. A state that will be void of political hatred and religious enmity, a state that will eschew any form of marginalization and a state that will be concerned about the interest of the common masses.