The
dividing line between polarization and discrimination are sometimes too slim. I
have deliberately chosen polarization instead of discrimination but not without
acknowledging that the former is a necessary outcome of the latter and the
latter dominant where the former is normative.
Globalization, with its pros and cons, may have successfully reduced the
world to a global village. The threat of polarization in a globalized world
however, still stares us in the face. From the universally irreconcilable
North-South dichotomy to racial and religious differentiation, from regional to
continental self-ascription of prominence and worth over others, polarization
rears its ugly face all around us. Polarization sometimes takes the form of
subtle accolades such as “the West and the Rest.” I have deliberately left out
the duality of Platonism so as not to complicate my conversation for those not
so inclined to academic jargons, and for those so inclined not to hide behind
it as a basis for explaining away human
responsibility for and culpability in Nigeria’s polarization.
From Kano to Kaduna, Bauchi to Jos, the Nigerian nation is plagued by
emerging settlement patterns that are religiously and ethnically polarized.
Some of these settlements may have been shamelessly termed “Afghanistan,”
“Saddam City,” or zionistically “New Jerusalem.” These designations depict a
caging in on itself by the agitators for such appellations. It defines not only
who belongs but also who does not. In these exclusivists’ settlements, others are
discriminated upon based on having a religious and ethnic affiliation and
affection different from the designators.
The founding fathers of the Nigerian nation may have this glowing
tribute to their credit of being people who were unequivocally united in the pursuance
of one indivisible and indissoluble Nigeria. They are often referred to as
selfless and detribalized, and this, ironically, by a generation of Nigerians
that think only in terms of self and tribe. If there were undisclosed ulterior
motives for Nigerianization in the minds of some of the Nationalists at this
point, those were carefully concealed under the ‘One Nigeria’ slogan
When Nigerianization got sacrificed on the altar of regionalization, and
with that religionization, not only were the warning lights of polarization
blared, but regional and intolerant religious ideologies were sown with a
painful bounty harvest of casualties in the coming years. The Constitutional categorization of Nigeria
as a secular state—secular not secularly—was perhaps to guard against the
excesses of religionization defeating the collective aspiration for Nigerianization.
Not so much because there is anything inherently evil about religion but
because some religionists and their religions are notoriously, intolerant and
as such religionization becomes tantamount to radicalization. More so, that
religion could susceptibly excite the best and worst of human reactions.
Shortly after the Nation’s independence the Nigerianization project
suffered its first national threat—the Nigerian
civil war. The civil war was the first loudest call that the one indivisible
and indissoluble Nigeria will certainly
go beyond the ‘One Nigeria’ slogan cum cliché. Yes, Gowon may have declared at
the end of the civil war, “No victor, No vanquished”, and we may have acronymized his name into “Go On
With One Nigeria” (Gowon),
but Biafranization was the lone voice
audibly protesting that inaudibility in the face of obvious discriminatory marginalization
for fear of unfavorable labeling only accentuates the spread of polarizing
ideas and influence. Unfortunately, the three “R”s (Reconciliation,
Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction) of the post-civil war declaration of Gowon sounds
good to the ear only rhythmically, but does not translate to reality. The ‘splitting’
of the nation into so-called geo-political zones seems an admittance of and
legitimization of polarization. Rather
than being a statement about unity in diversity, the zoning of the country is
more a statement about divisiveness in this ‘unity’—Nigeria.
How more glaring can polarization be than in acronyms such as WAZOBIA,
an invitational from the so-called ‘three major languages’! The identification
of three major languages leaves the rest grappling for minority placement.
There is a way in which such a coinage defines the ‘owners’ of Nigeria and
those who are either late-comers or even tenants. The eclipsing of the minority
by this so-called majority soon lends itself to arrogation of a superior status
by the powerful Three and that of inferior/subordinates on the nameless others.
But it must also be said that the big three are internally fragmented as the
three-legged stool they pretend to be soon severs one they are not comfortable
with, as is the case with the marriage of convenience fraudulently called ‘Zoning,’
(where the heirs apparent to the throne are the ‘wa’ and the ‘zo’ not the ‘bia’).
But even the two are never without mutual suspicions. In this battle for
supremacy among the powerful three, the powerless, nameless, minority becomes
the proverbial grass that suffers. This sets the tone for ‘us’ and ‘them’ in an
entity we call Nigeria.
Apart from the colonial antecedent, polarization in modern Nigeria is
the creation of an Islamic Northern hegemony that has held sway to power for
far too long. The Nigerianization project soon fell prey to the predatory
antics and craftiness of Northernization—Northernization here more religiously
than regionally defined. But if regionalization defined ‘us’ and ‘them’, northernization
defined who is ‘us’ even among ‘us’. This explains why the Middle Belt does not
fit into this configuration, even if situatedly ‘Northern’.
One would have assumed that this was going to pave way for national
integration where leadership would not be the exclusive reserve of some
geo-political zones of this country but for all. When some zones of this
country are shortchanged, one wonders the meaning of integration.
In some earlier submissions, I have argued that the fueling of
polarizing ideals are to be found in the sacrifice of genuine nationalist
agenda of some of our selfless founding fathers on the altar of parochial and
myopic egocentricism and eclipsed by regional agitation. This threatens
national integrity and constitutional stability threatened through the fanning
of Regional, sometimes religional tensions.
But if as I have argued in an earlier submissison, Nigeria at 49: So Far, How Far, (published by Today’s Challenge);
The proliferation of regional pressure or unity groups in Nigeria seems to
consistently perpetuate the tradition of mutual suspicion in the Nigerian
political orientation. This regional identification suggests that remaining one
indivisible Nigeria may not necessarily mean the dissolution of regional
ethnicity. So long as harmonization is understood not as meaning homogenizing,
the Nigerian nation will remain one internally fragmented polarized state.
The desecration of the constitutional secularity of the Nigerian nation
reached a crescendo with the Shariah declaration by Ahmed Sani Bakura of
Zamfara State. Shortly after fracturing the secularity of this nation for
ill-conceived Islamic sentimentality, other northern States with sinister motives
followed suit. This was a breach of the country’s constitution by a northern
oligarchy who have always thought of themselves to be by nature custodians of
power in the country. But as is to be expected, no one dare cautioned the ‘aggrieved’
northern hegemony from whom power was democratically wrested, since any caution
would be religiously interpreted letting heads rolling over shoulders. The
allowance of Shariah by the Obasanjo administration seemed an appeasement move
to placate the non-appeasable Islamic North.
It is this sort of allowance in 1979 that saw the provision of Shariah
and Shariah courts of Appeal with their Grand Khadis into the Nigerian judicial
system. With this benefit of hindsight, we would not be wrong to say that Ahmed
Bakura, by his Sharia declaration was just harvesting the seed of sharia sown
in the 1979 Constitution where sharia courts of appeal and its legal system
were dished out to the unsuspecting Nigerians.
As it is there is now no secrecy about the country’s polarized status. The
country’s numero uno citizen Dr.
Goodluck Ebele Jonathan during last year’s army day celebration alluded to an
obvious polarization in the military along religious lines as evidenced in the
Jos crises. If the assertion of Mr.
President about the Nigerian army being religiously polarized is true, then we
can say the constitutional custodians of the nation’s indivisibility and
indissolubility are themselves a house divided against itself, which invariably
means we are standing on the quicksand of divisiveness. This being the case we
can emphatically say that the seeds of mutual suspicion, hatred, and anarchy
have already taken deep roots in the heart of the nation. This, to say the
least, is a sad commentary for a nation that still professes indivisibility and
indissolubility.
I am not for bloodshed, I do not subscribe to any form of religious
fanaticism that means the extermination of anyone who does not worship as we
do, or even speak as we do. Whenever there is a crisis, which these days carry
the stamp of guerilla warfare, there are proven cases of the involvement of the
military. This only goes to mean that the very ones shouldered with the task of
ensuring the ideals of One Nigeria are actualized have indeed become its
derailers. By implication, a whole nation is left in the hands of miscreants
and mercenaries instead of the military.
If Murtala sowed the seed of a Polartized military, they were watered
and pruned by Shehu Musa Yar’Adua in the massacre of senior Army officers of
Middle Belt extraction; fertilized by Babangida, but the ingathering ripened with
Danbazau. When Danbazau said the military is apolitical and that the military
is his constituency one wonders if by that he was referring to his Islamic military
constituency or the Nigerian military in general.
Nevertheless, I long for a Nigeria where a man isn’t judged by his
ethnicity or religion and region, but by the strength of his character as a
Nigerian. I dream of a Nigeria where the children of the Hausa-Fulani Muslims
and those of the Beroms, Bajju, or Bassange will have access to equal
educational, health, vocational, and credit facility. My heart longs for a
Nigeria where the citing and execution or non citing of any projects in a
domain are not determined by a religious or ethnic constituency but that we are
all citizens of equal constitutional standings. For this Nigeria, I pray; for
this Nigeria I live; for this Nigeria I work; yes—ONE NIGERIA.
No comments:
Post a Comment