THE IDEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF NIGERIA
Uji, Wilfred Terlumun Ph.D (Associate Professor of History) ujiter@gmail.com, 07031870998(SMS only)
Since the inception of modern Nigeria, which began with the amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorates in 1914, the basic question in Nigeria is that of how power and resources can be shared between the entrenched majority groups and minority groups within the context of Nigerian federalism. Towards this end, during the first republic, Nigeria experimented with a regional structure that gave greater power to the entrenched majority to control the resources of the state at the exclusion of minority ethnic groups. As from 1967 following the coming into power of the military regime of General Yakubu Gowon. State structures were introduced into the body of politics of Nigeria as basis for the share and distribution of both economic and political power.
Since the 1960s, there have been several constitutional reviews all with attempt to define Nigeria as well as give a sense of belonging to her majority and minority ethnic groups under a state structure in a federal system. The definition of Nigeria has often been loft sided, often given majority groups’ ascendency and hegemony over minority groups. The politics of Nigeria revolves around this theme; how power and resources can best be shared equitable by states in the federal structure. It is within this context that this discourse looks at the position of Benue State within the trajectory called Nigeria and how politics at the federal has impacted on the outcome of development of the state in our recent nascent democratic experiment beginning from 1999 to the present.
The Ideological Foundation of Nigeria
From the historical background, the different groups and ethnicities in Nigeria did not enter or became part of Nigeria at the same time. For instance, the Lagos colony had existed as far back as 1860s; the oil protectorates were govern differently until in 1906 when all of the southern groups irrespective of their differences were amalgamated into the southern protectorate. These differences in their historical experiences as to how these groups were admitted into Nigeria continue to define their expectations as well as their dreams within the framework called Nigeria. The Lagos colony obviously had different expectation from that of the oil protectorate and these differences has continued to filter down in the making of the modern Nigeria. In the north, the Sokoto caliphate was ruled differently from that of Kano/ Borno. In their colonial experience, never at any time were these separate entities belonging to one nation state until the amalgamation of 1914 which brought the southern and northern protectorates into one nation called Nigeria under Sir Lord Lugard. Nigeria was a nation state created by the British colonial system in which different groups within the polity did not have a common shared vision of Nigeria. This colonial foundation and heritage rot by central petal and central fugal forces have remained the basic challenge of nation building in Nigeria today.
The fundamental challenge in Nigeria is that of the collective sense of identity and unity, collective share goals and visions with a common destiny and future that is binding on every Nigerian. It is against this backdrop that perhaps Chief Obafemi Awolowo did said that nothing exist as Nigeria or Nigerians, that Nigeria is a mere geographical expression. Statesmen in Nigeria like Anthony Enahoro, Wole Soyinka, and Ben Nwabueze have repeated re-echoed this phrase in their definition of Nigeria as a modern state.
Sir Ahmadu Bello the Premier of the Northern Region in the first republic defines Nigeria as the estate of their great grandfather Usman Danfodio. This ideological definition of Nigeria clearly revealed the strong intent of entrenched majority ethnic groups like the Fulani over and above that of minority in northern Nigeria such as the Tiv, Idoma, Birom, Jukum etc. In the definition of Sir Ahmadu Bello, Nigeria was a colony of the Sokoto caliphate in whose true existence and purpose can only be manifest in an Islamic expansionism over Nigeria. The point is that, from the historical background as well as the speeches and actions of Nigeria’s past elites, there is every indication that the ideological foundation of Nigeria was anchored upon the premise that was both false and misleading and did not in any way protect the interest of minority ethnic groups within the state structure. Nigeria was defined in the best interest as the private property or expression of some selfish groups or individuals.
In the Richard constitution of 1946 and McPherson constitution of 1956, Nigeria was defined as tripartite system with the hegemonic control of three ethnic groups namely Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo. In that definition, it was subsumed that, although erroneously and false that the northern region was Hausa/Fulani, the eastern Igbo and the western region Yoruba. But we all know from our historical experiences and identities that there are ethnic groups in the north that are neither Hausa nor Fulani; it is also misleading and false to assume that every ethnic group from eastern region is of Igbo extraction.
Despite this misconception of Nigeria, we can find evidence of this definition of Nigeria as belonging to three major ethnic groups appearing on our national currency, national language policy, even arts and culture. These are deliberate institutionalize state designs to stamp the hegemonic tripartite in the trajectory of Nigeria politics. It has come to be the basis and the cornerstone on how Nigeria shares both political and economic power. This has been the trend in Nigeria since 1960s up to the present; it is the tripartite system that excludes the minority ethnic minorities but rather gives ascendency to entrenched majorities to stamp their identity on minority groups in both politics and the share of national resources. This has been a constant feature of Nigeria’s political struggle as manifest in Nigerian civil war, the Tiv riot, the Niger Delta movement, the Boko Haram in the north east as well as the Fulani herdsmen invasion of north central Nigeria.
The Philosophical Foundation of States in Nigeria
The emergence of states in Nigeria under the federal system is radically different from what happened in all other countries such as the United States of America (USA) that operates a federal system under a presidential form of government. In the USA for instance, it was the states that first existed and created the centre that is the federal. In addition, the states were viable both economically and resource wise; had their separate identities; had control over their resources as well as their military and defence. In Philadelphia convention of the 1770s, over thirty states came together initially to form a union called the USA, it was therefore evident that in the constitution laid a foundation for modern America. It declared that all these states were equal and free irrespective of their creed and race. The right of any state to secede from the union was the fundamental threat but a clear objective danger by the federal state. In Nigeria, the Nigerian states in itself was an imposition of the British colonial system and the states that began to emerge as from 1967 that were created by the federal centre through the military decrees, not as an act of the people’s sovereignty and will.
In the constitution of 1979 as revised in 1999, the federal government or the centre in Nigeria exercised absolute control over exclusive list such as national defence, mining, manufacturing, security etc. The federal system in Nigeria as define by the Nigerian constitution put overwhelming power and resources at the centre to the detriment of states which constitute the subunits of the federation. States in Nigeria are over dependent, in a slavery dependency on the centre in both their political and economic wellbeing. This structural defect has grossly eroded the sanctity and sovereignty of states in Nigeria to effectively deal with their common challenges. A president in Nigeria exercises overwhelming power in such a manner that even the security and wellbeing of the state can be overthrown by the centre. For instance, under President Olusegun Obasanjo, using the disguise of emergency rule, some state governors were deposed and supplanted by military sole administrators. In some cases, the federal government deliberately blocked the monthly revenue allocation to states as a political weapon to control states.
In Nigeria, where the tripartite system control the politics of the nation, hegemonic majority interest by a sitting president of a majority ethnic group extraction can be used as a veto power against a state with a minority ethnic group. For instance, the military invasion of Benue State (Zaki-Biam) by President Olusegun Obasanjo (a Yoruba); the military invasion of Odi village in Rivers State by General Sani Abacha as well as the hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa by the same regime and the political persecution of Professor David West by General Babangida. These are all glaring examples of how sitting presidents in Nigeria of the extraction of ethnic majorities, exploiting the weak state structure in Nigeria can use state power against minority groups.
The central argument of this paper has been focused and centred on two main variables. First, the way and manner Nigeria has been defined over time has given greater advantage to majority ethnic groups to manipulate, dominate and exploit minority ethnic groups. In every state in Nigeria where such majority groups exist, they often exploit the strength of minority ethnic groups, sometimes in population or economic power, to dominate and suppress the minority ethnic groups within the state. Secondly, the federal structure in Nigeria has reduced states as appendages and footnotes of the centre; these structural defects threaten the survival of states as well as erode the identity of state in political and economic ramifications. In addition, in the constitution of Nigeria on the concurrent list of national defence and security, revenue allocation, and several others, the states in Nigeria are more or less relegated to the back waters of Nigeria development. It is against this backdrop that this discourse looks at the trajectory of Benue State in national politics and what has happened to the state in the areas of national security, state identity, minority ethnic agitation, federal intervention and development etc. Until Nigeria practices a true federal system as well as redefines the foundation basis of the nation, states in Nigeria including Benue will remain mere appendages in the development process in Nigeria. These suggestions provide the way forward:
It is clear from my discussion that the strategic consideration to the economic greatness of the state lies in the access to the sea port in order to boost international trade, or some cargo airport infrastructure to connect to international world. We have demonstrated what states like Lagos, Rivers, Cross River, Kano, and Sokoto have achieved using the diplomatic window with the outside world which is far more viable than other states in Nigeria. to this end, this discourse suggest that Governor Samuel Ortom as matter of priority should revisit the cargo airport project in Makurdi as well as explore possibility of a joint Benue-Cross River sea port at Calabar linking the two states up with an express road and rail way system. In addition, the government of Benue State should follow up the federal government promise to dredge Rsiver Benue as an outlet to the Atlantic oceans. This project if concluded will create inland ports in which Makurdi definitely ought to be one of such ports to boost international trade and domestic economy.
There is every need to revisit the national conference with the matters arising in order to reengineer Nigeria in a more balance, equitable and fair direction that could accommodate and carry along all ethnic groups in Nigeria irrespective of their status. There is need also to restructure Nigeria or even revenue aspect of our constitution to allow states in Nigeria to preserve their local identities.
States in Nigeria should be allowed under the federal system to choose the economic identities of their state on the basis of comparative advantage. The federal system should not be aggressively involved in defining the economic identities of states. Every state based on the comparative advantage as well as the needs assessment of the state should grow her local economy taking it to the peculiarity and uniqueness of the state. For example, you cannot expect Sokoto State to export a Christian economy to Israel through pilgrimage system. What is peculiar to Sokoto State as the seat of the Sokoto caliphate is an Islamic economy that looks outward to Saudi Arabia for service. It is in this direction we recommend that the government of Benue state should stand on the anti-open and ranches establishment law which seems to protect both farming and pastoral economy of Benue State in a peaceful, just and orderly manner. The Benue State population is mostly farmers and thus over depends on land as a factor of production. This is the local peculiarity of Benue State on the basis of comparative advantage. To allow and predict an unregulated nomadic economy, will threaten as well as destroy the wellbeing of the farming economy of Benue State.
Multinational corporation operation in Benue State as well as federal industries in Benue State, or private industries established in Benue State should by law contribute a significant portion of their revenue to the government of Benue State for instance, the Dangote cement factory in Gboko is a private company richer than the government of the state, yet the state is impoverished at all sides by poverty and misery. This is the same also from the Benue brewery Makurdi and other private corporations. As corporate organisation doing business in Benue State, they should also contribute a significant portion of their revenue to the Benue State government for the running of the state. This idea can be extended to financial and banking corporations in the state, the global and international outlet that can help provide credit and finance to the Benue economy.
