Agitation is a process that exists when a change in status quo is sought by a group of people or individuals when their collective interest is seen to being jeopardized by an existing arrangement whether political, economic or social.
There is, therefore, no wrong doing when a group of people in a political arrangement decide to agitate for sovereignty.
Agitation for sovereignty is not a criminal act. It is considered civil and legitimate, especially when pursued in a peaceful and orderly manner.
The United Nations Charter on Human Rights for Self Determination clearly supports this sort of agitation.
In fact, most countries of the world today emerged through this process. For example, the Soviet Union (Russia) used to be one country, but today, many countries have been carved out from the old Soviet Union. The same applies to Germany and the rest.
In Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Swaziland all used to be part of South Africa, but today, they are independent nations.
Southern Sudan used to be part of Sudan, but it is now a sovereign state.
Similarly, Southern Cameroon used to be in Nigeria until she opted to join Cameroon, even though she is currently agitating for a sovereign status.
The reasons for agitation for sovereignty may vary depending on the prevailing conditions in the political environment.
In the case of Nigeria, some people of the former Eastern Nigeria are currently agitating for a separate state of Biafra from present day Nigeria.
The main thrust of their agitation, notwithstanding the embedded economic and political reasons, is lucidly explained in the common saying that when a man has the opportunity of marrying two wives, he will be able to know the better one.
The logic in this saying succinctly exemplifies the current relationship between the Biafra agitators and the one Nigeria group.
In 1967, the people of the then Eastern Nigeria severed relationship with the rest of Nigeria and formed a separate country of their own called “Biafra.”
The state of Biafra existed as a sovereign entity for about three years. In the three years Biafra existed as a sovereign nation, she succeeded in raising the psyche and consciousness of the people of their capacity and capability to achieve their collective and individual aspirations in a one united virile nation of limitless opportunities.
In Biafra, the people saw freedom; freedom to express themselves, freedom to unleash their energies and God given talents and creativity to pursue legitimate means of improving their wellbeing and also significantly contribute to the growth and development of their nascent country.
In Biafra, the people saw a vision of a people united by a common history, culture and tradition and who were propelled by strength of character to succeed irrespective of daunting limitations. The period was seen by the people as a golden era when they were truly in charge of their destiny and were determined to prove to the rest of the world that a black country, nay of a “Third World” order can join the league of “First World” countries through advancement in indigenous technology, resourcefulness and unity of purpose.
However, that era was short-lived and quite regrettably, the alternative option provided by the state of Nigeria was unable to harness the spirit and gains of that era for the benefit of one Nigeria.
The state of Biafra unlike the state of Nigeria was a product of a common hegemony. The state of Nigeria is not a product of a common bonding; rather, she is a product of a political arrangement foisted on the people of Nigeria by the British conquerors for their economic and administrative interests. The successive governments of Nigeria over the years have tried to make the concept of “One Nigeria” work. The military introduced a unitary template as against the post-independence federalism and that created more problems. There have been clamour for restructuring of the country to allow the component parts play more significant role in governance but that was not to be.
Meanwhile, the country continues to drift apart. The concept of “One Nigeria” has proved to be only relevant in sloganeering without building a sense of patriotism and nationhood in the citizenry.
The consequences are that peace, unity and respect of the will of the people, which are the building blocks for nationhood have remained alien to Nigeria.
The former United States President, Barack Obama, once said during a state visit to Ghana in 2002: “Governments that respect the will of the people are more prosperous, more stable and more successful than those that do not.”
And indeed, things will continue to fall apart in Nigeria until the government recognizes and respects the will of the people. Those who want to walk away from the British foisted arrangement should be allowed to do so without coercion, intimidation and harassment. That is the essence of democracy and it is a better way to go.
• Chief Emeka Uwah wrote from Eket, Akwa Ibom State