As President Tinubu prepares to rejig the second half of his first term, perhaps he may want to have a firm handshake with history by attempting a re-engineering of the Nigerian project. It doesn’t have to be a total dismantling, but certainly a level of unbundling to allow regions to develop at their own pace can’t do any harm… Nigeria is wide enough for all the tribes to thrive. As Chinua Achebe would say, “Let the kite perch and let the eagle perch too – If one says no to the other, let his wing break.”
It seems that everybody wants Nigeria to remain one indivisible entity. Right? At least, that is what they profess openly. But don’t be deceived, the hoopla that will greet you at the slightest sign of a social or political strain will make you wonder at the unwisdom of forcing such atavistic tribes together under one flag in one massive war theatre.
|
|
Each time there is a centrifugal tendency preaching separation, secession or even confederation in Nigeria, the mustachios of some of the usual suspects who can be described as professional defenders of the Luggardian contraption, stand on edge.
“Nigeria is indivisible”, they say.
|
|
|
|---|
“Says who?”, their interlocutors ask.
And agent provocateurs add their bit: “The house that Luggard built in the service of his female king cannot endure.”
“Female king? There you go again!”
Patchy Unity
Since 1960, we have always managed to patch Nigeria’s leaking roof to force a people with 350 independent languages to remain under one roof as one country! As a person, I am fascinated by the plurality of my country and the beauty of the variegated landscape. If I had my way, I’d have selfishly kept faith with Lord Luggard’s colonial contraption. However, I think it is about time we all put on our adult caps and look at other possibilities of running our societies without rancour so that we can all still remain brothers and sisters.
In 2017, when Professor Ango Abdullahi as the chair of the Northern Elders’ Forum, declared that, ”The North is ready for a Split of Nigeria if…”, all the other tribal organisations called him out as an unpatriotic elder.
According to Ango Abdullahi, “If we agree that we should live together as a people and as a country, so be it, but if the general consensus is that Nigerians want to go their separate ways either on the basis of ethnicity, culture, history or religion, why not?” He added that, “If anybody tells you that the large informed opinion in the North is against the dissolution of Nigeria, he is telling you lies.”
Abdullahi argued that since the South-West, South-South and South-East parts of the country have been campaigning for either a breakup or loose confederation, he wanted the world to know that the North was not afraid of a breakup. He was particularly unhappy at the detailed developmental plans of the South-West (as stated in the document of the DAWN commission).
“The South-west wants preferably a region, a region that was at one time under the leadership of Chief Awolowo, unless, of course, you are trying to ignore all the writings, all the things that had been written, particularly in their declaration called DAWN, Development Agenda for Western Nigeria, then you can ignore this,” he said.
One wonders what could be wrong with a section of the country having a development agenda. Must we all remain stagnated in the stagnant mud of prehistory?
Southern leaders immediately rose to the challenge. They reiterated their love for their Northern brothers but insisted that they needed some breathing space. They felt they would be able to better develop their areas and improve the fortune of their people if they were in the driver’s seat, deploying their natural resources in the service of their people.
Apart from the well known agitation of Igbos of the South-East for Biafra, leaders of the South-South also made it known that they would prefer a peaceful arrangement in which each of the six geo-political zones would run its own affairs as an independent country or as a semi-autonomous part of a confederal Nigeria.
Historic Challenge
One of the most consistent voices for the peaceful unbundling of Nigeria is the renowned professor of History, Banji Akintoye, who leads one of the major Yoruba self-determination groups. Akintoye is convinced that a peaceful separation, which would give rise to peaceful neighbours, is possible. And he thinks that President Tinubu is best suited to guide Nigeria in the process.
Akintoye’s argument: “President Tinubu needs to note that countries which separate violently tend to be dogged by violence afterwards — as in the case of Pakistan, which separated in a storm of violence from India in 1947; South Sudan, which separated after years of violence from Sudan in 2011; and some of the eight countries that resulted from the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia.
“Nigeria’s peoples are now trapped in a Nigerian space that is churning in an abominable curse of utter darkness, unspeakable poverty, hunger, hatred, hostility, mass murders, fear and death. The hatred and hostility are so deep…”
Then, last week, an intriguing article attributed to one Aminu Sa’ad Beli trended massively on social media. Titled “Road Map To Solve Nigerian Ethnicity Crisis, And Economic Development”, the piece draws on the lessons of history to canvas a peaceful unbundling of Nigeria.
Separation is Not About War
“In 1776, the USA split from the UK.
In 1830 Belgium separated from the Netherlands
In 1965, Singapore split off from Malaysia
in 2002, East Timor got split off from Indonesia
In 1921, Ireland split off from the United Kingdom, and (possibly in the future) there will be secession of Scotland.
In 1944, Iceland split from Denmark with remarkable ease.
In 1905 Norway split from Denmark
In 1905, Norway and Sweden also peacefully split ways. One got the car. The other got the kids.
“In 1947, the British India Dominion was partitioned into India n Pakistan. In 1971, Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan.
In 1992-93, the two parts of Czechoslovakia agreed to each go their own way. Thus were born the Czech Republic and Slovakia after what’s been named the “Velvet Divorce”., About the same time, another kind of separation occurred, of course, in Yugoslavia. This one led to a bloodshed.
“In 1965, Singapore split from Malaysia for a variety of reasons, including religious (Malaysia is majority Muslim, Singapore isn’t)…
Ethiopia and Eritrea
Sudan and South Sudan are now separate countries
USSR is now broken down into several countries.
I see separation as an avenue for a healthy competition for development as the case of Singapore and Malaysia, India and Pakistan, Norway/Denmark/Switzerland.
“In the case of Nigeria, I am sensing a healthy competitive development among the original component part, the North/West/East each making useful progress while competing with the others.
“It is not about war, after all there is nothing wrong for one to decide he is no longer comfortable with the union and therefore want to opt out. Let’s give peace a chance and separate honourably.”
Many social media commentators also noted that most European countries today comprise only one tribe, compared to Africa where colonialists lumped together hundreds of linguistic groups as was the case in Nigeria.
Tinubu’s Re-engineering
As President Tinubu prepares to rejig the second half of his first term, perhaps he may want to have a firm handshake with history by attempting a re-engineering of the Nigerian project. It doesn’t have to be a total dismantling, but certainly a level of unbundling to allow regions to develop at their own pace can’t do any harm.
Nigeria is wide enough for all the tribes to thrive. As Chinua Achebe would say, “Let the kite perch and let the eagle perch too – If one says no to the other, let his wing break.”
Wole Olaoye is a Public Relations consultant and veteran journalist. He can be reached on [email protected]; Twitter: @wole_olaoye; Instagram: woleola2021
