In his recent open letter to Chief Edwin Clark, leader of the Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), on ownership of the Niger Delta oil, a subject I addressed last week, former President Olusegun Obasanjo made another statement that struck at the core of what Nigeria is: a multinational state. Obasanjo said that Chief Clark should “change from a tribesman to a statesman.” He went on to say that “tribe has to be suppressed for the state to emerge,” adding: “Until the state emerges, tribesmen will always sacrifice state for their tribe.”
These are profound statements, but they ignore the fact that Nigeria is a multinational state, defined as a sovereign entity comprising not one but many nations. The comments also overlook the fact that “tribal” allegiances can’t, and won’t be suppressed unless and until Nigeria forges nationhood and becomes an inclusive nation. Truth is, ethnic nationalism is a function of Nigeria’s failure to emerge as a nation, not just as a state.
Well, before we come to the substance of the issue, let’s address some preliminary points. First is Obasanjo’s use of the word “tribe”. He described Chief Clark as a “tribesman,” a term used in a derogative sense: a tribalist! But what tribe? Obasanjo’s Owu is a tribe of the Yoruba race, but the Yoruba is a nation, not a tribe, and the same goes for the Ijaw, the Igbo, the Fulani, the Tiv and other nations that make-up Nigeria. The English, the Scottish, the Welsh and the Northern-Irish are never described as tribes but as the four nations of the United Kingdom, with each represented on the UK flag.
Truth is, in Nigeria, powerful groups dominate weaker groups, and the state does not guarantee fair material treatment for every ethnic group
This is not a trivial point. It matters because centralists, as opposed to federalists, call Nigeria’s centuries-old nations “tribes” to deny or diminish their pivotality in a multinational state and to treat Nigeria as a “nation” without nationhood. Furthermore, centralists use the contemptuous term “tribalists” or “tribesmen” in an attempt to demean and intimidate those justifiably fighting for ethnic justice and genuine federalism.
Read also: PANDEF tackles Obasanjo over ‘inflammatory’ comments on Niger Delta
Think about it. What makes Clark a “tribesman” and Obasanjo a “statesman”? Well, Obasanjo said Clark is “characteristically known and noted for Urhobo or Ijaw.” So what? Does Chief Clark call for Nigeria’s break-up or for the Niger Delta’s secession? Far from it. Rather, he only advocates justice and fairness for a region, his region, that’s utterly impoverished despite producing the oil that accounts for over 70 per cent of Nigeria’s total revenue, despite, that is, effectively “bankrolling” Nigeria. Put simply, Chief Clark is saying to Nigeria: Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg! How is that tribalism?
Truth is, in Nigeria, powerful groups dominate weaker groups, and the state does not guarantee fair material treatment for every ethnic group. Surely, leaders in minority regions, such as the Niger Delta and the Middle Belt, must speak for their regions. It’s perverse to besmirch such advocates of ethnic justice with the pejorative tag of tribesmen.
In 2019, former President Obasanjo alerted Nigerians to what he called a “Fulanisation” and “Islamisation” agenda, and, indeed, Fulani militia launched genocidal attacks in the Middle Belt states. So, were those Middle-Belt leaders who cried out about the “ethnic cleansing” of their people tribesmen? Or are leaders in the South-East who cry out about the Igbo’s marginalisation and their lack of a fair opportunity to provide national leadership tribalists?
It is ironic because the same Obasanjo said in June 2021: “I am a strong believer of one Nigeria, but not one Nigeria at any cost.” Surely, by his own definition of “statesmen”, he should believe in one Nigeria regardless, at any cost. Yet, he said he only believed in one Nigeria “where every Nigerian can feel proud that he or she has a stake in this country.” That statement is remarkable, but it’s at variance with saying that those fighting for ethnic justice, for equity for weaker ethnic groups, are tribesmen, not statesmen!
That brings us to another conceptual error in Obasanjo’s open letter: his conflation of “state” with “nation”. He said tribes must be suppressed “for the state to emerge.” But Nigeria is a state, albeit an acutely dysfunctional one. However, Nigeria is not a nation. By no stretch of the imagination can Nigeria lay any claim to being a nation. Yet, a functioning state cannot emerge unless a nation first emerges. As the authors of a seminal report on state fragility put it: “State building requires nation-building, and nation-building requires actions by the state.”
In a sense, when Obasanjo said that “tribe” must be suppressed for the state to emerge, he was indirectly saying that only nationhood could lead to proper statehood; after all, how would tribe be suppressed except there’s a true nation where everyone has a sense of belonging? Yet, Nigeria is not forging nationhood. The leaders of the state, of government, are doing absolutely nothing to build Nigeria into a nation. Universally, the best way to forge nationhood is through an inclusive political settlement, through inclusive governance.
Professor Chris Brown of the London School of Economics argues in his book, ‘Political Restructuring in Europe’, that in multinational states, politics “at best takes the form of group bargaining and compromise and at worst degenerate into a struggle for domination”. Well, in Nigeria, politics is a struggle for domination, with entrenched oppositional identities. As Chinua Achebe put it in ‘There was a country’, “The structure of Nigeria was such that there was an in-built power struggle among the ethnic groups.”
Yet, let’s face it, the tendency of Nigerian leaders to ignore the nature of Nigeria’s creation is mainly why the country remains troubled. The failure to acknowledge Nigeria’s birth defects and tortured history has led to the unwillingness to invest time and effort in nation-building. Truth be told, Nigeria is an artificial construct. It was cobbled together from several ancient empires and kingdoms, proud nations, that had existed for centuries.
But while the amalgamation in 1914 became a fait accompli, and while most of us want Nigeria to remain one, the truth is that the imperfect country that emerged from the contraption must be perfected and forged into an inclusive, fair and just nation if ethnic allegiances are to be suppressed and subsumed under a state with a sense of common purpose. Even so, ethnic nationalism can’t be wished away totally.
Professor Paul Collier of Oxford University once pointed out that over 300 years after Britain was forged together, the British identity is still weaker than the core identities of English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern-Irish. Indeed, according to one poll, 56% of Scots described themselves as more Scottish than British; 45% of Northern-Irish more Irish than British; 36% of Welsh more Welsh than British; and 27% of English more English than British!
Writing in the Financial Times last year, Sir John Major, former UK prime minister, said: “Scotland is a definable and proud nation. She is perfectly capable of self-government and has a right to seek independence.” A former UK prime minister said that? Was he undermining the corporate existence of the UK? Absolutely not. Here’s his key point: “If the Union is to be kept together, it must be as a true partnership”.
The same must be true of Nigeria, a multinational state comprising definable and proud nations. Surely, if, as Obasanjo wishes, “tribal” allegiances or ethnic nationalism must be suppressed, Nigeria must become an inclusive country, a true partnership among its constituent parts. Only nationhood can engender a sense of common purpose, unity and progress.
Sadly, Nigeria’s current constitution and politico-governance structure, and the nonchalance of its leaders, are not allowing an inclusive and cohesive nation, and a functioning state, to emerge. Nigeria badly needs visionary leaders and nation-builders!
