Anyone who thinks that the rising drumbeat of secession in Nigeria is an abnormality, that the separatist agitations by Yoruba, Igbo and Niger-Delta youths are, as President Buhari said, “the antics of a few mischief mongers”, is not in tune with developments in Britain. Recently, the Financial Times had to ask, “Is the UK heading for break-up?” But if Britain can face separatist pressures, why wouldn’t Nigeria that it created on quicksand foundations?
The desire for self-determination is at the heart of all separatist agitations. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy defines self-determination as “the rule of a particular group of people over their own affairs.”And Wolfgang Danspeckgruber, Director of the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University, said: “No other concept is as powerful, visceral, emotional, unruly, as steeped in creating aspiration and hopes as self-determination.” This is particularly strong in multi-ethnic states like Britain and Nigeria.
So, what do the United Kingdom and Nigeria have in common that fuel separatism within them? Well, first, we need to understand that they have broadly similar histories. Both were artificially created from distinct and independent ethnic nations.
In the case of the UK, it consists of four nations: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But how did the UK emerge? Well, England conquered and annexed Wales in 1282; England signed the Treaty of Union with Scotland in 1706; and England conquered and colonised Ireland, but after Partition in 1921, the South became an independent nation called Republic of Ireland, while Northern Ireland remained part of the UK. So, the UK was created by England conquering or signing a treaty with the other nations.
Sadly, while Britain is handling its separatist pressures through persuasion, dialogue and democratic means, Nigeria, nay, President Buhari is sending soldiers to suppress separatist agitations.
By contrast, Nigeria was not created through conquest or agreement by its constituent units: Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa/Fulani, Ijaw, Tiv etc. Rather, these definable, independent and proud ethnic nations were brutally subdued, coerced and cobbled together into one entity called Nigeria by a foreign power: Britain. So, Nigeria is a product of brutality and a “forced marriage”, in the sense that its coming together was coerced from outside.
In his book Empire, Professor Niall Ferguson, a renowned historian, described the brutality that preceded the creation of Nigeria, with George Goldie using the Maxim guns to mow down indigenous communities that resisted him.
Ferguson wrote: “By the end of the 1880s, he (Goldie) had conquered several of the Fulani emirates and launched wars against the settlements of Bida, Ilorin (and other towns). Though he had little more than 500 men at his disposal, the Maxims enabled them to defeat armies thirty times as large.” He summed up the situation pungently: “Chiefs hoodwinked, tribes dispossessed, inheritances signed away with a thumbprint or a shaky cross and any resistance mown down by the Maxim guns.”
That was the context in which the Northern and Southern protectorates were created and subsequently amalgamated into one country, called Nigeria, in 1914. Some, with absolutely no ethnological sense, argue that nothing was wrong with the way Nigeria was created, and that the ethnic groups should just subsume their individual identities under the Nigerian identity. Recently, former President Goodluck Jonathan said during the 18th Daily Trust Dialogue on restructuring: “The amalgamation is not the problem in my belief.”
Truth is, no sensible person can justify the brutality that preceded the amalgamation and the fact that it was coerced from outside. Today, young people in western countries are pulling down statues of people who lived hundreds of years ago. Why? Because they are appalled by what they read about their brutality and racism during slavery and colonialism. Some countries went to the extent of removing some colonial vestiges, such as their colonial names. For instance, Ghana dropped its colonial name, Gold Coast!
It’s one thing to accept the amalgamation, which most Nigerians do, but it’s another to live with the structurally-flawed country that emerged from it. Truth is, the country – Nigeria – that emerged from the amalgamation and colonisation is characterised by many flaws: overcentralisation of power, political dominance by one ethnic group, lack of equity and fair material treatment of all ethnic groups, etc. The call for restructuring is about tackling these structural fault-lines and making Nigeria work for all. Sadly, the refusal to restructure and create a proper federal state is the main cause of the separatist tendencies.
Think of it: If the Igbo can never produce president for Nigeria because the other major ethnic groups would gang up against them, why would they have faith in Nigeria? If power is so centralised that the regions, where the ethnic nationalities are located, cannot deploy their own resources, and develop at their own pace, would they be happy in Nigeria? It’s naïve for anyone to expect that, in a multi-ethnic state, any ethnic group would subordinate its core identity to the ‘national’ identity when there’s no true nationhood. Britain, like Nigeria, is grappling with the same problem of nationhood.
Recently, the Sunday Times in Britain published a report titled “Revealed: Our disunited Kingdom”, which showed “rising support for a break-up of the UK.” When asked in a poll, 56 per cent in Scotland said they’re more Scottish than British; 45 per cent in Northern Ireland are more Irish than British; 36 per cent in Wales are more Welsh than British; and 27 per cent in England are more English than British. The Times columnist Alex Massie wrote: “The UK is, in a quite literal sense, dying”, adding: “The future hinges on identity.”
Anyone who says that in Nigeria, who warns that Nigeria is structurally flawed and could fracture if not restructured, would be called unpatriotic. But read the following statement and guess who made it: “The Union, as it is, is over. We have to create a new Union. We have to recraft the UK as a voluntary association of four nations.”
Well, that statement was made by the First Minister (i.e., Governor) of Wales. His view is that the UK must be restructured, or it will break up. In Scotland, the governing party, Scottish National Party (SNP), has long been pushing for Scotland’s independence from Britain. In 2014, it lost an independence referendum by 45% to 55%. If the SNP wins the overall majority in the Scottish Parliament election on May 6, the party’s leader and Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, would push for a second referendum.
Britain’s former prime ministers are also warning of the danger ahead. Gordon Brown put it starkly: “I think the UK could end unless it fundamentally changes.”Another former prime minister, John Major, wrote in the Financial Times: “Scotland cannot be kept forever in an arrangement if her people wish to end it”, adding: “If the Union is to be kept together, it must be as a true partnership.” Isn’t it also true that Nigeria won’t work unless its component parts are treated equally, and have more control over their own affairs? Of course, it is!
So, Britain and Nigeria are both struggling with nationhood, experiencing separatist pressures. Sadly, while Britain is handling its separatist pressures through persuasion, dialogue and democratic means, Nigeria, nay, President Buhari is sending soldiers to suppress separatist agitations.
Yet, what Nigeria needs is a political and constitutional settlement that removes the structural obstacles to its internal cohesion, stability and progress. Nigeria acts as if separatism is peculiar to it, well, it should ask Britain, its founder!
Farewell Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh
I have just heard about the death of Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh, aged 99. May his soul rest in peace. My condolences to the Queen, the Royal Family and the British people. I also commiserate with the families of Yinka Odumakin, 54, and Innocent Chukwuma, 55, who died recently. They were, respectively, strong advocates of true federalism and good governance. May their souls rest in peace.
