On May 30, officialdom in Nigeria, both at the federal and state levels in the South-east and a bit of South-south, were embarrassed by the successful sit-at-home order made by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and a faction of the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). If the concerned public officials have any sense of propriety, they would understudy why an order by the nascent Biafra groups that ordinarily should be an aberration, turned out a popular act.
They will ponder why majority of Igbos at home, particularly the trading class, who do not easily give up their daily market drudgery – in the earnest philosophical conviction that the next day would bring a better tiding – opted to sit at home, following an appeal by some young men, who were not born when Biafra was declared 50 years ago? Again, they will be besmirched that what they cannot achieve with all the public power and influence available to them, as ‘duly elected’ officials; these pseudo-populist leaders, without power influence, have been able to achieve it.
Obviously in panic, the South-east political leaders, epitomized by the House of Representatives’ members chose to test their own brand of populism, considering that populism has paid off for IPOB/MASOB leaders. The Reps last week, walked out of the Green Chambers in protest, after a bill to create a South East Development Commission, expectedly suffered a defeat, in the House. I have little doubt that the Representatives are more embarrassed by the success of the sit-at-home order, than failure to gain approval from the House, to move the bill beyond the second reading.
If the South-east Representatives were more reflective, they would have organised their walk-out around a bill that will have some redemption on their dented reputation as the authentic voices of their people. Perhaps a walk-out, if their colleagues refuses a bill for the devolution of more fiscal powers to states or for a return to the regionalism or for the creation of an extra state for the South-east would be more appreciated. Again a walk-out with their colleagues from the South-south, in defence of resource control, will resonate better.
Even an expanded walk-out, inclusive of the South-west and South-south legislators over fiscal federalism, would come closer to the agitation of the people of the South-east. But to work-out over a bill to gain a little extra share, from the dwindling corruption-infested national cake, when populist Biafra agitators are asking for dissolution of the nation, or in the least, devolution of power, is a non-starter if the competition is populism. Between a development commission that will be poorly funded, if ever, and the devolution of power to states to gift them a production economy, the people of South-east will choose the latter.
Furthermore, save for being an imitation of the reactionary North East Development Commission, itself modelled after the NDDC Act, which itself, is no more than a bribe, to the exploited oil-bearing states in the Niger Delta, the South-east legislators should know that such a bill cannot pass in a National Assembly heavily skewed against the South-east, with the least number of representatives among the zones. Again, with the South-east adroitly surviving marginalisation by the Nigerian state, when compared to the developmental index of the other benefiting regions, what compelling arguments have they presented to sway their colleagues?
But of course, the South-east legislators, albeit the South-east political leadership are not unmindful of their limitations in a federation rigged against their region. Most likely, the legislators were merely trying to save their political skin from the resurgent agitations for Biafra. But their challenge should not force them to take a jump with the hope that their colleagues would show some sympathy. What is urgently needed is a bipartisan South-east agreement on the minimum political interests of the region, which the people of the region will be enjoined to use their votes to enforce.
As things stand, the South-east politicians may be compelled to make the demands of Biafra agitators a campaign issue to win the popular vote in 2019. Until the last sit-at-home appeal, turned a success, many of the politicians in the South-east and their kin in Rivers and Delta states would have openly dismissed the Biafra agitators as rabble rousers. But not anymore. Going forward, the successful outing will embolden both the agitators and public office seekers to use Biafra as bait all in pursuit of power and influence.
But of course, while Nnamdi Kanu is entitled to enjoy the limelight that the successful sit-at-home has projected, he will soon realise, like Uwazurike of old MASSOB, the limits of demagoguery and populism, more so, in a convoluted wretched third-world country like Nigeria. He may have gained some soft power, but there is very little he can deliver to the ordinary folks who are increasingly beholden to him for the new Biafra. In the least, he is not in any position to bring any form of succour to their debilitating economic sufferings.
Unfortunately, President Muhammadu Buhari’s government has contributed a great deal to foist this faith accompli on the politics of the South-east, by its style of brashly excluding the region from this government. With the dispersal of information and knowledge cheaply and timeously, particularly through the social media, it has become extremely difficult to convince otherwise, the excitable young men and women from the South-east that the Nigerian nation-state really want the Igbos as part of the country. The immediate consequence is that potentially dangerous centres of power, are mutating in the region.
Whether the Buhari government gives a damn, is another matter altogether. But whether the government cares or not about the Biafra agitation and what it ricochets, the government has to face the reality of discontentment among a sizeable and vibrant part of its population. That is why the Buhari government, just like the South-east public power holders, should be embarrassed by the peaceful Biafra Remembrance Day, championed by IPOB/MASSOB. Considering Buhari’s hard stance in dealing with the Igbos for giving him inconsequential votes during the 2015 presidential election, he may find it difficult, to condescend to deal with the leadership of the agitators.
But eventually, the Nigerian state must either give the region its due in Nigeria to stave further conflagration of the country or prepare to deal with the likely implosion in the offing. If per chance, the Biafra Remembrance Day had turned violent with some people forcefully stopped from going about their business, the government would have justified its hard-line stance, that many people in the region do not support the agitation.
But alas, majority of Igbos have spoken loudly that they feel marginalised as Nigeria is presently configured. The answer to the mutating Nigeria crisis lies in making Nigeria a workable country, and that requires urgent political and economic reformation without further delay.