We are witnessing tragic manifestations of compromised foundations. Religion and ethnicity are this nation’s master fault lines. They determine what leaders see and do despite hypocritical denials. With a handful of exceptions, leaders live and breathe sectarianism and sectionalism. As for the exceptions, they only exhibit surface-deep pan-Nigerian credentials.
Theirs is even more sordid than the commitment of sectarians and sectionalists to some entity beyond themselves. These are absolute egoists using the forum of politics for personal gains. Therefore, they will align with anyone across religious and ethnic divides, provided something is in it for them. But where there is no common commitment to an ideology that transcends self-interest, a virulent competition of self-interests ensues without the possibility of reconciliation.
With a mixture of sectarianism, sectionalism, and egoism as the materials upon which the nation was founded, the inevitable conflict in their interaction leads ineluctably to a breach of the foundation, and ultimate weakening of the edifice. Absent necessary repair at the most basic level, the nation will continue to slouch toward structural collapse. But because the tendencies that are tethered to sectarian, sectional, and egoistic interests are each fighting for domination so they can impose on others, they are unconcerned about the looming destruction of the whole.
Consider this illustration. The battle for economic survival on the one hand, and the preservation of a way of life on the other hand, need not conflict because one does not harm the other. For an Okeogun farmer, tilling the ground is both a means of economic survival and a way of life. He could move from hoe and cutlass subsistence farming to tractor and fertilizer commercial farming. He could go into partnership with friends and family members in cooperative association for production and/or marketing purposes.
Through such ventures, they could bring more land into production by buying from others. With this, the two objectives of economic survival and preservation of a way of life are advanced. Government may help in various ways: extensions services, including education about best practices, improved seedlings and fertilizer at affordable cost, coordination of cooperative societies, farm settlements and agricultural research institutes.
Notice here that no one is an unwilling partner in the furtherance of our farmer’s interest and he has not encroached on the interest of others. With his original subsistence farm, and his advancement to commercial farming, he has refrained from harming the interest of others.
Now compare another economic venture and its potentials for furthering interest and avoiding conflict with the interest of others. The herdsman also has an interest in economic survival and preservation of a way of life. He starts with a few heads of cattle. He lives in a settlement on the edge of town and he moves his cattle around the area for pasture and water. In the evenings, he returns to his settlement. Provided he restrains his cattle from encroaching on farmland and thus jeopardizing the farmer’s interest in economic survival and preservation of his own way of life, there is no conflict.
That has been the case in the interaction between farmers and herdsmen in Okeogun from the 1940s to the turn of the century. Suddenly, farmlands were deliberately invaded by cattle. In dry season, bushes around farmlands were set on fire so fresh pasture can sprout as soon as the first rains fell. The frequency of these breaches in interaction with conflicts in the interests of both parties for economic survival and cultural preservation cannot but lead to serious conflicts. How could these be handled?
Just like farmers, the interest of herdsmen in economic survival and cultural preservation could be handled with strategic political-economic thinking. As the herdsman acquires more cattle warranting the need for greater access to pasture, he needs more land under his control. For better economy of scale, he could enter into partnership with other herdsmen to form cooperative herdsmen association to purchase land and ranch their cattle.
As with farmers, government could provide extension services, including training in breeding techniques, supply of new breeds, and production of feed at subsidized prices. Thus, a way of life is being preserved and the economic interest of the herdsman is being promoted. Besides, these objectives are being realized for both groups without the threat of a perennial conflict. Why has this potentially effective solution not being canvassed?
The sectarians, sectionalists, and egoists have all been busy with the politics of domination to the detriment of harmonious accommodation. And as they advance their self-interests, the foundation is further compromised and the edifice threatened.
The disease of sectarianism, sectionalism, and egoism has also afflicted the political party, and here, the pursuit of self-interest self-contradictorily jeopardizes itself. This affected the fortunes of People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the last general elections when many of its leadership decamped as nPDP.
To be sure, having ruled the nation for sixteen years, PDP was already experiencing the onset of diminishing returns and the electorate was ready for change. APC rode on the disenchantment of the people. But there is no denying the help it received from nPDP.
Politics is a game of numbers and it is interest that motivates politicians. But, like the rest of us, politicians have differing ideas of what their interests are and the best way to pursue them. For a few, the fundamental interest is the pursuit of the common good, the outcome of which they expect to promote their own self-interest too. Such a group will dedicatedly develop an agenda of national cohesion which mobilizes the entire population for progress.
Others see their interest in the promotion of sectional and sectarian agenda for which they become local champions. As their minions look up to them for protection and promotion, the larger task of national advancement is truncated.
For others yet, it is what they can materially acquire at the shortest possible time that matters to them. Eyi teye je leye n gbe fo. The philosophy of immediate gratification is not the monopoly of any one group or party. It has become the symbol of political affiliation and no leader can claim to be immune. What this does, however, is limit the potentials for national advancement as individuals and groups, without an enduring allegiance to the common good, jump from one ship to another in search of a larger catch from the political ocean. nPDP has just vividly illustrated this tendency.
Consider the fact that four years after its decamping from PDP to APC, this group still self-identifies as nPDP. This self-identification suggests a failure of group synergy with APC, thus ensuring a destructive factionalization. This is in spite of the positions of critical importance that some of its members occupy in the various branches of government, including the National Assembly.
Two points need to be noted here. First, as hinted earlier, nPDP is just the latest manifestation of a tendency that is ingrained in our system, which focuses on the fairness of distribution rather than the task of production. We are least concerned with the production of the proverbial national cake, only with its distribution, with everyone jostling for the most share.
Second, this sharing mindset jeopardizes the common interest in the stability of the system, which further threatens the foundation, and with it, the entire structure. With the case of farmers that I started with, assume that a group of cooperative farmers only indulge in sharing whatever they make with no saving or reinvesting. Their venture cannot prosper and they’ll soon hit the rock of debt and bankruptcy. The same fate awaits a nation of only sharers and no producers.
On the other hand, however, the reality of our predilection for sharing is that those who feel left out have good reasons to complain and to take whatever action they deem necessary for them to not lose out in the political activity of possessive individualism. We are guilty of hypocrisy if we fail to call out other groups, including legacy parties, such CPC and ANPP, which use the political power at their disposal at the federal and state levels, to look after the interests of “loyalists” to the chagrin of others.