A few days ago, during a heated online conversation about the political decentralisation of Nigeria, someone said something that I found very interesting. Reacting to a statement about the importance of prioritising lives while deconstructing the existing monstrosity, this fellow said, “Death is not the worst thing to happen to Nigerians.” In the context of the conversation, that statement meant that regardless of whatever human cost was possible, his ideological hard stance – which happened to be secession – must be actualised no matter what.
I found the statement interesting for a number of reasons, not least of which the sheer ideological conviction with which he was essentially argued for people to die. The most interesting thing about the statement for me however, was the inference that he – or his preferred decision maker – somehow had the right to decide on behalf of millions of Nigerians, who should live and who should die, without asking them for their thoughts on the matter.
I’m a Coward – Twitter said so
The conversation was born out of the discourse surrounding the recently released report detailing the ongoing silent genocide in Nigeria’s Middle Belt. Predictably, one set of people invited themselves into the conversation and proceeded to insult and gaslight their way through it, insisting that the report was dishonest and that there is no ethno religious genocide anywhere in Nigeria’s northern half. Never mind the pages and pages of death certificates and mass grave photos in the report – nothing to see here, thank you very much.
One of the surest markers of a totalitarian dictator in the skin of a freedom fighter is his reaction to different ideas and viewpoints or criticism
In reaction to this group of people came another group of people whose position was that nothing short of violent secession away from Group 1 was acceptable. The name “Maazi Nnamdi Kanu” came up a lot in this group’s engagement. I was expected to ‘naturally’ side with the latter group because both the report and my position appeared to align somewhat with Group 2. Instead, I angered both groups by picking an ideological stance that was opposed to both.
Group 2 was incensed. I was a “sellout” and a “typical Yoruba intellectual” apparently, despite the fact that a) Nobody has ever successfully placed a valuation on my soul; and b) I am not even Yoruba in the first place, much less subject to whatever political establishment exists therein. Amid the fire and fury, I just wanted to know – who made the decision that any acceptable solution to Nigeria’s internal civilisational clash must necessarily involve the shouty bloke from Radio Biafra or the unique brand of demagoguery he is known for? Where was that meeting held, and why was I not invited?
I mentioned that I would always advocate for a peaceful and non-acrimonious route to devolution and decentralisation over a blood-and-thunder civil war solution. My reasoning by the way, was not born out of “fear” or unwillingness to tackle a tough topic in my trademark abrasive, uncompromising way. For the record, if proper federalism and decentralisation of power does actually involve the corporate breakup of Nigeria, that is not a discussion I am afraid to have. If it is a valid option on the table, then it should be discussed.
My point however, was that before even considering – much less exhausting – the galaxy of other available options, Group 2 had already made a decision and a commitment based solely on one man’s say-so. Deciding on behalf of people that they should die for the sake of what I personally consider to be the “greater good,” is not something I subscribe to, I told the fellow in the outset. In response, he doubled down and said “Death is not the worst thing to happen to Nigerians.”
Ideological totalitarianism is wrong
It has been pointed out repeatedly in the past, but it serves to flog this deceased horse once again – the thin line between the African freedom fighter’s methods and those of African dictatorships which are supposedly his mortal enemy. It is a mistake that Africans do not look to be getting tired of anytime soon. The Nnamdi Kanu-supporting demographic are proving to be the latest demonstration of this.
One of the surest markers of a totalitarian dictator in the skin of a freedom fighter is his reaction to different ideas and viewpoints or criticism. Where a democratically minded, level-headed and rational leader will entertain competing views and ideas and often even abandon their own in favour of someone else’s, the totalitarian is never wrong. His viewpoint never changes or evolves. The position he held decades ago is the exact same one he holds today.
It is this exact commitment to a singular course of action regardless of any potential human cost that leads “freedom fighters” to begin budgeting the lives of their constituencies as expendable items to be spent. Instead of looking for the solution that serves their constituents best (which would always involve keeping their constituents alive), this “freedom fighter” takes it upon himself to determine who lives or dies. All for the greater good of course.
Totalitarianism of any sort is always a bad thing, but it becomes especially tragic when it dons the cloak of ideological purity and moral rectitude. It is the exact mindset that pushes religious people into extremism and acts of great violence and cruelty – that which lacks introspection, compassion and humility. Those of us who claim to respect and represent ideas and principles should always remember this – it is not our place to determine who lives or dies.
Nobody is a “coward” for wanting people to stay alive.
