It is the season of restructuring. So, we may as well start defining that elixir, in all of its possible ramifications, including ethnic federalism.
On July 29, exactly 50 years after his supreme heroism, the cream of the Yoruba gathered at Ibadan, their political capital, to extol Col. Adekunle Fajuyi.
Fajuyi, with his Supreme Commander and Nigeria’s first military Head of State, Gen. Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi, was felled during the July counter-coup of 1966.
But Prof. Niyi Osundare, guest lecturer and globally acclaimed poet, argued that despite Fajuyi’s acclaimed heroism, he has not morphed — and may never morph — into a pan-Nigeria hero.
Reason? Nigeria’s hero chamber — no thanks to radically differing values — bubbles with anti-heroes!
“Tribal considerations,” the erudite scholar rued, ”continue to trump national imperatives; and a dreadful vice on the national stage may be an enviable virtue at the tribal level.”
Indeed! Obafemi Awolowo was clearly the greatest thinker and doer of his generation — if not, as yet, contemporary Nigeria.
Yet, outside the Southwest, where he is revered, next only to Oduduwa, the Yoruba progenitor, many regard him as an “arch-tribalist”.
Sani Abacha, in contrast, was perhaps the most venal Nigerian soldier that ever lived. Yet, no less than two public institutions, in his area of the country, continue to be named after him, Abacha loot be damned!
Beside Awo and Abacha, Nigeria has a rather long chain of hero-villians (heroes within, villains outside): Sir Ahmadu Bello, former premier of Northern Region (revered in the North but reviled outside, as avatar of systematic northern domination), and Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu (Biafra rebel leader and unadulterated Igbo hero but sniggered at outside). Somewhat, Olusegun Obasanjo, achieves the opposite (scorned by his native Yoruba, but acclaimed by others, especially in the North).
Perhaps only Nnamdi Azikiwe kept some national affection outside his Igbo nativity. But then, Zik sought to be a nationalist without a nation.
So, he may well have ended a plastic historic figure, for he appeared the least developmentally impactful, among the first three regional premiers — when compared with Awo (West); and the Sardauna (North).
“The likes of Adekunle Fajuyi are not recognized as national heroes,” Prof. Osundare told his audience, “because there is yet no ‘nation’ to be a hero in or of.”
But could it have been otherwise? The Yoruba beatification of Fajuyi issues from their Omoluabi credo. How can Nigeria fit into that, when their appears no pan-Nigeria Omoluabi equivalent?
But from contemporary history to contemporary present. A lot of bile has been expended on President Muhammadu Buhari’s alleged “northernisation” of key appointments. The president may well be guilty as charged.
Still, such skewing is hardly novel. When President Jonathan was there, the pendulum of favour swung to his native South-South, and catchment South East. But Ripples can’t remember the beneficiaries back then scream and foam in the mouth about “injustice” — the injustice that favoured them!
Under the brief Umaru Yar’ Adua Presidency, the locus of power was clearly northern.
Again, only Obasanjo ran against the grain. But then, he appears the acclaimed master of shadow over substance. As perception-correct as his appointments were, that his presidency laid the foundation for the present mess shows how suspect the substance was.
Still, even under Obasanjo, the Yoruba jaunty cap assumed the symbolic moniker of “power shift”! Even to the uppity Yoruba, vicarious power, even via a prodigal son, was not quite bitter!
Besides, before you hurry to smite Muhammadu Buhari as an irredeemable “northern tribalist”, do an ethnic analysis of the staff of the Vice President and the ministers. The result might just be revealing! You can call it ethnic-driven. But the principals may well counter it is trust-driven!
This ethnic core captures Nigeria’s stark reality. Though some plastic “nationalists” would scoff it is septic, coming up with a counter antiseptic would appear beyond the ken of their cosmetic laboratory!
With this clear ethnic-driven symbolism of power, therefore, it is unclear which trumps which: the sense of outrage over the “injustice” of appointments; or the sense of bitter envy from the howling — the howling that would rather be the happy beneficiaries, “injustice” be damned!
The ethnic locus of these bitter criticisms shows some sociological Freudian slip, of a country wilfully living in denial. But that denial cannot wish away the ethnic compass.
Indeed, with hardly any consciousness of “Nigerianness” (except perhaps in sports, when the national team is winning, as the Dream Team VI, against all odds, did against Japan, in the ongoing Rio Olympics), the basis of thinking, appointment-making and protest, over felt injustices, would appear ethnic!
So, Nigeria’s continuing crisis of nationhood is simply the crisis of injustices, which the ethnics mete out to one another.
That would continue, so long as the tribe continues to drive federal power (no matter what the Constitution says) in a consumptive federalism, in which the capture of federal power could mean an ethnic capture, wholesale, of Nigeria’s resources.
But that can change, if the tribe — no evil sociological tag, ab initio — becomes the driver of Nigeria’s productive federalism. That means transferring Nigeria’s rich resources to the care of the locals.
Ay, the locals are eminently entitled to eat. But before they do, they must drive their resources with a frenzy, ingraining the basic ethos that there is no easy money. Isn’t that more refreshing than the present salivating after a central dole?
Besides, other things being equal, that should boost pan-Nigeria wealth in real terms. Fierce but positive regional competition, as it was in the 1st Republic, would only increase that harvest.
Imagine! Everyone leveraging on their native traits, using the local tongue to galvanize selves to stupendous productivity; and local mores, taboos and strictures to own public economic assets and banish graft and corruption, even with the all-too-demonized tribe acting as fulcrum!
Eldorado? Not quite. But it would be a new breath, of economic rebirth — and perhaps a tactical tribal retreat to launch a new national ethos of mutual respect, hard work and shared values in productive federalism! No part of Nigeria is, after all, so useless it cannot take care of itself.
That again brings the matter right back to Fajuyi, and the crisis of Nigerian national heroes and anti-heroes.
The Yoruba Omoluabi credo (which Prof. Osundare coined as ‘Omoluabiism’) — selfless, considerate, honourable and heroic — made Fajuyi to opt for heroic death, instead of shameful life, while confronting the mutineers that killed his guest and supreme commander.
Still, the Yoruba have no monopoly of virtues. So, every ethnic group in the Nigerian federation can boast of traits it could deploy for own development. That is the exciting promise of ethnic federalism.
For too long, the tribe has been a key factor in Nigerian underdevelopment. But the same tribe can be turned into a driver of progress and development.
Federalism, structured on ethnic groupings and cultural contiguity, may well be the elixir. That was what Awo pushed more than 50 years ago — and it would appear equally, if not more, valid today.
