Follow Us on Google
Without doubt, the absence of an integrity-based political leadership in Africa’s largest democracy that is high in morals and ethical values has ensured its stunted national development within the context of a united, socially cohesive, secure and prosperous Nigerian nation. On the contrary, it would seem that Nigeria has been plagued with corrupt, inept and incompetent political leadership in varying forms throughout its existence as an independent country. That Nigeria is currently confronted on multiple fronts with heightened insecurity, ranging from the Boko Haram insurgency in the North East, banditry in the North West, violent farmers-herders’ conflicts across the country, and oil theft and sea piracy in the Niger Delta region is a consequence of failure of its political class. With various armed groups controlling large swaths of Nigeria’s vast ungoverned spaces and unleashing terror on defenceless Nigerians, maiming, killing, kidnapping, robbing and displacing thousands of people from their homes, farmlands and other places of work, it would seem that Nigeria is in a state of undeclared war, not against a foreign enemy nation but against its own self.
Added to the mounting problem of insecurity is also the worsening economic situation in the country. With a growing population now exceeding 200 million people but sources of national revenues still largely dependent on some two million barrels daily exports of crude oil, it has become abundantly clear that revenues generated from the internal exploitation of Nigeria’s rich deposits of hydrocarbons alone are not enough to sustain the socio-economic development of Nigerians; hence the growing problem of unemployment, poverty, hunger and destitution. Nigeria’s inability to cater adequately for its citizens is the reason Nigeria has sunken to an all-time low in the Human Development Index as the poverty capital of the world.
The role of corruption as well as economic and financial crimes that appear endemic in government at all levels in Nigeria cannot be overemphasized. The pervasive culture of corrupt practices such as nepotism, cronyism, favouritism and sectionalism that often result in conflict of personal and public interests in the management of state resources inevitably results in the outright stealing of public funds, otherwise known as economic and financial crimes, with severe consequences in the form of Nigeria’s socio-economic underdevelopment. Nigeria’s steady decline in the Transparency International corruption perception ratings in recent years is a clear indication of Nigeria’s worsening problem of corruption. Corruption-induced socio-economic problems have contributed immensely to Nigeria’s heightened problem of insecurity. Therefore, the nexus between corruption, economic dislocation and insecurity should open a robust and frank conversation about the roots of Nigeria’s fundamental and seemingly intractable problems that now pose an existential threat to the continuous corporate existence of the most populous Black nation in the world.
In the face of mounting corruption-induced economic and security challenges that have weakened the Nigerian state to such an extent that government at all tiers and arms is increasingly finding it difficult if not impossible to carry out the primary function of providing for the welfare and security of the citizens as enshrined in Section 14-[2]-[b] of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, has led many to believe that Nigeria may be inching closer to the end stage of state failure. The anxiety, concern and palpable fear over the collapse of our dear country Nigeria, on the positive side, affords us an opportunity to put on our thinking caps and with open minds reflect sincerely on how we are collectively driving Nigeria down the road to a failed state, but only with the aim of bringing up practical solutions that can pull Nigeria back from the brink of state collapse.
Although seemingly worse off today, the underlying socio-cultural issues that are driving Nigeria’s existential problems of corruption-induced economic dislocation of many able-bodied young men and women leading them into sundry acts of violence, criminality and terrorism did not start with the current administration and neither did the problem begin in 1999 when the transition from military to civil democratic rule took effect. The problems of Nigeria began before the beginning of Nigeria’s journey to nationhood in 1960. And these problems have root causes in the disunity of Nigeria and the associated unresolved question of national identity.
Convinced that the constituent peoples of Nigeria were irreconcilably different to such an extent that a united, strong and virile Nigerian nation could not evolve from the 1914 British-created country of Nigeria, our founding fathers negotiated an independent Nigeria with a federation structured along ethno-geographic fault lines, from the regions to the provinces. Whereas, the First Republic Nigerian federation of three (later, four) regions substantially satisfied the requirements of fiscal federalism, its structural rigidity along ethno-geographic fault lines without a mechanism for the assimilation and integration of Nigerians wherever they chose to reside outside their region of origin with full political and economic rights extended to them effectively made Nigeria a country of indigenous tribesmen of the over 500 constituent ethnic nationalities and not a nation of citizens. And the crude contestation for power of resource control by its many ethno-geographic groupings over Nigeria’s internal resources found expression in the politics of ethnic and religious identity.
As a representative constitutional democracy, the First Republic federation that was structured along ethno-geographic fault lines inevitably gave rise to a political culture of ethnic, regional and religious identity. And identity politics becoming entrenched in our polity meant that the democratic recruitment process of Nigeria’s political leaders was primarily determined by primordial sentiments of ethnicity, region of origin and religion. Consequently, the post-Independent political leadership class of Nigeria, in their bid to retain their privileged positions, devised sundry means to deepen the dividing ethno-geographic fault lines by influencing their respective peoples to always align their democratic choices with their ethnicity, region or religion. That was how a solid foundation for a Nigerian state increasingly weakened by the ravages of identity politics up until 2024 was laid and concretised 64 years earlier at our independence in 1960.
Unfortunately, Nigeria once again embraced identity politics fully following the transition from military to civil democratic rule in 1999. Retrogressive in nature, identity politics is divisive, parochial and bigoted and negates every norm of modern nation-building. And if identity politics is allowed to take root in the political system of any country, as has been the case of Nigeria in 24 years of democracy, it will spread like a cancerous cell and sap life out of that country. Sadly, after 24 years of civil democratic rule in Nigeria the promises of the dividends of democracy in the form of improved welfare and security of lives and properties remain largely elusive, no thanks to our collective wrong choices of aligning our democratic choices with our ethnicity, region and religion. As Nigerians, our purveyance of identity politics has made us victims of corruption-induced economic dislocation and heightened insecurity.
Other News
In identity politics the seeds of corruption were sown. This is so because the only reward system for identity politics is patronage at the expense of the public treasury. Therefore, such corrupt practices as nepotism, cronyism, tribalism, favouritism and all other forms of sectionalism are legitimate cultural tools by the elected and appointed representatives of the over 500 ethno-geographic groupings in government to extract from the commonwealth [national cake] to their respective sections of the country. Corruption with its debilitating effects has become intractably endemic because, in Nigeria, as the ugly phenomenon is sanctioned by culture and with Nigeria now a ground for supremacy competition between the leading Abrahamic faiths [Christianity and Islam], corruption also enjoys the ratification of religion. If the principle of zoning and rotation of elected and appointive offices among the competing ethno-geographic groupings in Nigeria that was adopted by the Fourth Republic political leaders was meant to address the equitable distribution of resources, then it not only failed to achieve the objective but actually resulted in the equal distribution of loot by conniving political leaders from all divides of our ethno-geographic and religious fault lines. And, consequently, Nigeria’s identity-driven political process has degenerated into a criminal franchise of power grab by the political leadership for self-service, to the detriment of public service. Clearly, the problem of corruption in Nigeria enjoys legitimacy that is sanctioned by culture, ratified by religion and administered by government.
Whilst Nigeria may not be a failed state yet, our beloved country is undoubtedly exhibiting mild symptoms of state failure, which includes but not limited to [a] the loss of control of its territories and the monopoly of the use of legitimacy of force within those territories, [b] increasing erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions and [c] inability to adequately provide public services. It is important to note that the causative pathogen for the afore mentioned symptoms of state failure, is always and almost the inability of failed states to resolve their question of national identity as a means of achieving a united, just, fair, egalitarian and strong nation state. From British India, Somalia, Sudan to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, the absence of an inclusive and pragmatic political leadership to harmonise the preponderance of ethno-geographic and religious identity dissonance through an excellent diversity management system in line with the rule of law is fundamentally responsible for the fragility, failure or collapse of some of these countries. In India, the inability of the post-colonial political leaders of that country to harmonise the religious identity dissonance of its Muslim and Hindu peoples resulted into the breaking away of Pakistan in 1947. Similarly, the split of Sudan into north and south was caused by the poor diversity management by its political leaders who could not provide an inclusive leadership for its Black African Christian, Arab Muslim, and non-Arab Muslim peoples. Today, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are embroiled in a devastating sectarian war between its Sunni and Shite communities, which has all but resulted into near total state collapse. Nigeria and troubled countries such as Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon and Iraq have something strikingly in common; their leadership recruitment processes are firmly hinged on the politics of ethno-geographic and religious identity, which has given rise to sectional, parochial, clannish, bigoted and divisive leadership.
Many Historians and political commentators have attributed Nigeria’s problem of identity dissonance to the colonial misadventure of lumping together different peoples without much in common into a single geographic entity by the amalgamation act of 1914. Variously described as a ‘’mere geographic expression’’ that was a ‘’mistake’’ Nigeria it would seem was programed to failed even before it started. However, are we to continue to blame the past for the present or should the present start taking responsibility for future? 107 years after amalgamation, 61 years after independence and 26 years into civil democratic rule of the 4th republic, with the promise of a united, strong and prosperous nation still elusive, now is the time to reflect appropriately on our yesterday with the aim of making our tomorrow better starting from doing the right thing today.
Contrary to the entrenched narrative that says Nigeria is a country of people with too much irreconcilable difference to be a united nation, historical and sociological evidences suggests otherwise. The peoples of Nigeria long before the British amalgamation of 1914 shared deep and close cultural, linguistic and traditional ties within a common geographic area extending beyond the borders of modern Nigeria into Benin, Niger, Cameroun and Chad republics. A mostly mono racial [Black] people, the various ethnic groups, tribes and kingdoms of pre-colonial Nigeria have interacted through diplomacy, trade and war fare, which served to integrate the peoples of Nigeria long before independence. There was a pre-existing traditional citizenship system in pre-colonial Nigeria, which allowed for the seamless assimilation and integration of individuals, families and communities wherever they chose to reside within Nigeria of old. If diversity is to be measured in term of the racial composition of a geographic entity, then a mono racial Nigeria hardly qualifies to described as a diverse country. Nigeria is best described as plural country because the various ethnic groupings such as Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Ijaw, Nupe, Igala, Tiv, Kanuri etc., are simply a plurality of the same one big Black African linguist and cultural family.
While by no means justifying colonialism, it is important to state that some of the greatest nation’s in the world were once colonies of a superior power. Great Britain, Nigeria’s colonial master was once a Roman colony between 43 and 410 AD. And like the Black mono racial peoples of Nigeria, mono racial White Britain was a plurality of ethnicities. Sir George Goldie who played the biggest role in the formation of modern Nigeria was Scottish just as Flora Shaw, the British essayist whose suggestion was the name ‘’Nigeria’’ was of Irish ancestry. At the time of amalgamation of the protectorates of the North and South of Nigeria into one entity in 1914, the British crown was seating on the head of King George V an ethnic German who was the grandson of Queen Victoria by her consort, Prince Albert of Germany through their son King Edward VII. Just as Nigeria’s founding fathers variously identified as Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa so were their colonial masters individually identifiable by their ethno-geographic ancestry. The difference was the ability of their colonial masters to rise above primitively rigid territorial identification by adopting the common national identity of their shared geographical reality of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As no nation is truly blessed by abundance of human and natural resources, the British were united in their concerted effort to shore up the wealth of their nation through the acquisition of overseas territories to expand trade and investment for the economic benefit of their homeland. This is precisely the greatest lesson we the people of Nigeria failed to learn from our colonial experience.
One of the biggest lessons not learnt from history is that the unity of Nigeria is a condition that must precede its socio-economic development. There has to be a united, strong, and cohesive Nigerian nation of patriotic citizens for any structure or system to yield the promise of shared prosperity. Nigeria’s problem of disunity was caused by a primitive political consciousness that weaponised our plurality as irreconcilable diversities. Nigeria’s case is not so much about the absence of unity in diversity but more about the presence of division in oneness. And to solve this pertinent problem of disunity, a higher political consciousness that recognises our oneness would have to be evolved from a self-enlightened realization by all Nigerians that indeed we are one people.
The problem of the disunity of Nigeria and its peoples was not caused by nature but politics and it will require a deliberate political process backed up by a purposeful administrative procedure to transform the country of Nigeria into a nation of Nigeria. As long as Nigerians continue to allow themselves to be divided along ethno-geographic fault lines, they would have granted an irrevocable power of attorney to their leaders to continue to divide and misrule them in perpetuity. Therefore, guided by the self-enlightened realization that Nigeria is not really a diverse country of irreconcilably different ethno-geographic groupings but only a plurality of ethnic groups within a broad mono racial family of peoples with shared historic, geographical, cultural and traditional proximity, which predates the British incursion into continental Africa, the first step towards the redemption of Nigeria from a country of micro ethnic nationalities into a nation of citizens is to reconfigure the structure of Nigeria’s federating units away from ethno-geographic enclaves into geo-economic centres of plurality of Nigerians through the evolution of a deliberately inclusive political process that is backed by a purposeful administrative procedure that elevates state of residency over state of origin in order to overcome the cancer of identity politics of ethnicity and religion.
A reconfiguration of Nigeria’s federating units away from ethno-graphic fiefdoms into geo-economic centres of excellent plurality management will shift the paradigm of Nigeria’s democratic leadership recruitment process from a political culture that is driven by primordial sentiments of ethnicity and religion into one that driven by pragmatic economic ideas, competence and expertise. If Nigeria is to attain a democratically elected political leadership that is morally upright and equipped with the right value system that is required to stir the country on a path of National Development, where peace, justice and prosperity reigns, a paradigm shift from identity politics with state patronage to a privileged to a broad based political process that will deliver good governance for all as reward. Until Nigeria evolves into a nation where a Nigerian can be Igbo and Kano, Hausa and Anambra, Yoruba and Sokoto, Kanuri and Bayelsa, Ijaw and Borno, where the principles of fairness, justice, equity and democratic citizenship reigns supreme, the giant of Africa will remain perpetually trapped at the bottom of the pyramid of human societal development, where life is nasty, brutish and short.
