Nigeria and Nigerians: Separate and Unequal

Nigeria was a concept imposed by colonial entities for the sole purpose of exploitative and extractive ease. Nigerians, as a people, became 'farm animals' for the farm concept called Nigeria. At independence, two clear archetypes of leaders emerged from the ruins of colonialism: the nationalists and the regionalists. Though regions were supreme at the inception of political development in Nigeria, some regional leaders were more enlightened, visionary, inclusive, progressive and amenable to national integration. The nationalists of Nigeria wanted to create a self-sufficient, purposeful and proud people while the regionalists wanted to create regional power bases and cared less about nationalism unless where it upheld regional tenets of feudalism and religious parochialism.

The departing colonial powers had plans and their plans were never in the interest of the budding nation. After assessing the political and economic potential of the country, the colonialists decided that, the only way to keep the 'Nigerian farm' under control will be to create an abstract concept that is relatable but unattainable. The most likely group to bring this about or at least maintain the status quo would be those who value regionalism over the Nigerian state. The most regional and therefore the least nationalistic was the northern part of Nigeria where the traditional and religious order was deliberately left intact by the colonial authorities. The northern part of the country was indirectly ruled through feudal traditional rulers. A similar convenient master-servant relationship was adopted for national governance at independence as the departing authorities imposed northern hegemony on the country. It was therefore easy to continue manipulating Nigeria and its resources after independence with the northern political establishment in power. The more independent minded, educated and articulate southern political establishment was sidelined through divisive means while conjured census numbers delivered the masterstroke by giving the north more political power. 

As countries go, Nigeria is a vague concept used by the political elite to defraud the commonwealth. 'Nigeria' is a convenient ruse that is used to whip us in line when we demand answers to national questions of sovereignty, security, nationhood and what the responsibility of the state to its citizens should be. It is easier to define who an American, Briton or an Israeli is when contrasted with who is a Nigerian.  When an American is abducted or killed anywhere on the planet the 24-hour, news cycle makes everyone conscious of the fact that the might of the United States will not be spared to rescue its citizens and bring the criminals to justice. About a year ago, the killing of three Israeli boys led to an all out war to bring those responsible to justice. It is no wonder that such countries produce citizens that are proud and willing to die for the motherland. In Nigeria, life is cheap, and Nigerians justifiably have no national pride. Despite the thousands killed; not just by Boko Haram, but also during senseless 'religious' riots over the years, no concrete steps have been taken to solve the problem or bring perpetrators to justice. There are records of many Nigerians missing, incarcerated, or killed all over the world but the Nigerian state is unmoved. 

When our leaders talk about Nigerian unity, they are referring to the concept not the people. We have not moved beyond the concept of Nigeria since its formation. The concept allows the leaders to exploit glaring inconsistencies in the constitution, enthronement of a parasitic class and destruction of any sense of nationhood while crippling the rule of law. Nigerian leaders hate to discuss the basis of the country's unity because it would probably destroy their concept of Nigeria and with it their unearned privileges. Aguiyi Ironsi was eliminated because he abolished the old regions of Nigeria and foisted a unitary government but what passes for federalism today is a glorified unitary system. 

 Our leaders hold tenaciously to the fallacy that the country makes the people but they need to realize that without the people the state is a concept awaiting realization. Gowon, Obasanjo, Danjuma and Babangida have all mused about the indivisibility and non-negotiability of Nigeria's existence at various times. But these leaders were simply equating the concept of Nigeria for true nationhood. If they understood the full import of nation building, the country should have been put on the path of greatness when these leaders had the chance.  The true failure of the Nigerian state is the exchange of the aspiration of living Nigerians who have borne, and still bear untold hardships for an abstract concept. 

Joseph can be reached at jrotimibgood@gmail.com