Bayo Olupohunda
In
2014, Nigeria will mark the centenary of the amalgamation of the
Southern and Northern protectorates which gave birth to present day
Nigeria. As a former colony of the British, the country has existed for
close to a century after a forced marriage of convenience in 1914, half
of those turbulent years have been spent as an independent, sovereign
nation having gained independence in 1960 and becoming a republic three
years later. As the country approaches a century of nationhood, it is
ironical that instead of celebrating the birth of a nation and a shared
destiny, there are latent fears that the “mistake of 1914″ may manifest
in the break-up of the country in 2015- a year after the centenary date.
Will Nigeria as we know it today cease to exist in 2015 as predicted?
Will the country implode and eventually be balkanised to reflect the
years after amalgamation? Can the country continue to exist under this
present warped federal structure?
An analysis of the historical forces that have shaped
the evolution of present day Nigeria can be traced to the period
leading to the amalgamation and after it. The union itself has been
criticised for not taking into consideration the intractable differences
between the North and South-both of which, Nigerian leaders, historians
and even the British have agreed, had no related identity to exist as
one. But in spite of the wide gulf, the colonialists felt the need to
place all territories in Nigeria under one political and administrative
authority in the ultimate economic interest of Her Majesty, the Queen!
This was achieved on January 1, 1914 when the two
protectorates were amalgamated to form the Colony and Protectorate of
Nigeria under Lord Lugard as the Governor-General. The historical roots
of many contemporary problems in Nigeria today date back to the period
after amalgamation. Years after the forced merger, the period of
decolonisation and growing nationalism exposed the fundamental
differences why the amalgamation was deemed a mistake. Political leaders
on both sides of the divide could not agree on the direction the
country should go. The three principal ethnic groups that dominated the
national scene: the Igbo in the East, Yoruba in the West, and
Hausa/Fulani in the North, do not really belong together; hence each has
its own ideology. From the 1950s onwards, latent forces of disunity
remained, but did not become active until after independence. The
British, of course, realised the imperfections of the Nigerian Union,
they had ample opportunity to restructure it along the regional lines
actively canvassed by all interested groups from the 1940s upwards. For
obvious reasons, they chose to ignore and there lies our present
problems. Today, the possibility of a break-up stares us in the face.
From those halcyon days of British political ingenuity of 1914 to the
present turbulent period of Boko Haram insurgency in the North,
deepening ethnic mistrust, widespread poverty, events have changed
dramatically leaving vestiges of political bitterness and a country
hurtling to the brink. Will Nigeria survive or will the country crumble
under the overbearing weight of the imbalances that are threatening to
make it a failed state? The signs that the country may implode began to
manifest shortly before and after independence. All the three ethnic
blocks that emerged after decolonisation, growing nationalism and during
the fight for independence, had begun to tout the idea of secession. At
the negotiation for independence for example, the Sarduana of Sokoto,
Ahmadu Bello, was quick to consider secession. His argument then was
that Northerners would not rush into independence if it meant replacing
European domination with southern domination. That line of argument is
still valid till today as the major ethnic groups continue to tear away
at one another on who controls the centre.
Also during the 1950 constitutional conference, the
country was sold into a proposed representational ratio that favoured
the North. At the vanguard of Northern interests were leaders, who
declared that the North must have 50 per cent of the seats or it would
secede. It is on record that the idea of secession was first hatched by
the North, nursed by the West, and executed in the East. The Sarduana
first called for secession when he became afraid of southern domination
in the early 1950s. The Emir of Zaria during the constitutional
conference of 1950, called for Northern secession if the North was not
given 50 per cent of the seats. Northern politicians in 1953 through the
Northern House of Assembly and House of Chiefs called for confederation
and separation in opposition to a motion for self-government sponsored
by the Action Group. The idea of secession was equally nursed by the
Action Group in 1954 when it insisted that a secession clause be
inserted into the proposed constitution. When the Easterners through the
Premier, Dr. Michael Okpara, threatened to secede because of the
problems of “the mistake of 1914″, the Sardauna himself was quick to
point out to him that there was no secession clause in the nation’s
fundamental laws, notwithstanding, the East seceded and declared for the
sovereign state of Biafra.
Compelling factors that threaten the corporate
existence of the country have emerged in recent years. The thickening
mistrust among the major ethnic groups jostling to rule the country has
further widened the fault liness that have existed since independence.
How this will play out in future is uncertain. Today, ethnic militias
championing or promoting ethnic nationalism have proliferated across the
country. It is one of the reasons why Nigeria could distingerate. In
2011, when the North lost the Presidency to President Jonathan Goodluck,
violence broke out in the region. By far, the greatest threat to the
continued existence of Nigeria is the emergence since 2009 of the Boko
Haram sect in the North. The members want to impose strict Sharia law in
the country. If they succeed, Nigeria could be another Somalia where
the Al-Shabab jihadists control a large portion of the country. The
spate of bombings targeting churches are meant to provoke violent
reactions. If this happens, it may spiral into an all-out war that may
dismember the country. This has become a possibility as the government
has failed to stop the insurgents from causing instability in the
country. There are genuine fears that the bombings may spread all over
the country. If it does, the government that has not demonstrated the
capacity to stop the terrorism in the North may find it difficult to
stop violent reprisal across the country.
The enervating and disturbing poverty rate is also
one of the main reasons why the country is hurtling to the status of a
failed state. Deepening poverty across the country has led to growing
crime rate. This has manifested in kidnapping and other violent crimes.
The capacity of law enforcement agencies to combat these crimes is
limited. Nigeria is currently one of the most dangerous places to live
in the world.
What use is a state that cannot guarantee the safety
of lives and property of its citizens? The prediction by the US National
Intelligence Council and other think tanks that Nigeria may break up in
the nearest future should not be seen as an end in itself. It is a
metaphor of the tragedy of a country living on a borrowed time.
Punch
No comments:
Post a Comment