Many Nigerians are already displaying naïve patriotism that is blind to the new global governance ethic which enjoins each nation to respect the human rights of its citizens;
It is gratifying that one of the points made by President Jonathan on the occasion of the federal government’s Democracy Day is his commitment “to continue to partner with the civilised world to confront international terrorism and every other challenges with patriotic zeal and determination.” The president is certainly not alone; he must be echoing the determination of many Nigerians that the coming of foreign powers to Nigeria must be put to strategic advantage for the peoples of Nigeria.
Not since 1960 has Nigeria had the blessing or misfortune of serving as host to international powers being referred to in President Jonathan’s speech as partners from the civilised world. In its infancy as a state-nation, Nigeria was even so ‘patriotic’ to the effect that it rejected offer of a Defence Pact from its colonial master, Great Britain. Just about fifty years later, the world’s hegemon, the United States, the creator of Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Britain’s colleague in the scramble for and partition of Africa, France, China that was not a power when Nigeria became independent, are all here to help Nigeria solve its daunting security problems.
Many Nigerians are already displaying naïve patriotism that is blind to the new global governance ethic which enjoins each nation to respect the human rights of its citizens; prevent its citizens from falling into the pit of poverty; and promote citizens’ life, property, and happiness. What such Nigerians are invoking is the spirit of patriotism that was in vogue in the middle of the twentieth century when Nigeria was born. In those days, it did not matter how uncaring or effete a country’s governors were, leaders of other countries had no right to intervene in what was considered religiously as a country’s internal affairs. Nobody at that time ever thought that the world would advance from enclaves of power captured by strongmen through rigged elections or military takeovers to the point when democracy, especially freedom for all, would become the reference point for countries that require respect from the international community.
When formal globalisation as an economic system emerged, several dictators thought it would stop at encouraging trade across nations without insisting on any global ethical framework to make such economic interaction across borders mandatory on member states. But with the coming of UN Millennium Declaration, leaders of all countries in the organisation signed on to a document that enjoins them to accept “a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level,” with all member countries accepting the duty to all the world’s people, especially the most vulnerable and, in particular, the children of the world, to whom the future belongs.”
Many Nigerians have started to think aloud about the mess their country is in. Some people are already blaming President Jonathan for throwing the country’s doors open to international powers, saying that he is encouraging the United States that predicted the fall of the country by 2015 to come and do the job of undertakers while others say that the United Kingdom has come principally to protect the interest of those to whom it handed Nigeria in 1960. France’s presence is being interpreted as one to ensure that the colonial project is not dismantled overnight by the United States and China, two countries that did not ‘sacrifice’ to create the colonies that morphed into neo-colonies all over Africa. On the other hand, many Nigerians are castigating Jonathan for waiting too long to ask for help from those who have the wherewithal to help save a country from its own internal afflictions that help sustain its failed-state status and are thus capable of bringing an end to its status as Africa’s largest multinational state. Both groups also claim to be ‘patriotic’ Nigerians. Still, many others are saying that the international powers now in the country to save it from destruction by Boko Haram should be given no more than three months to complete their assignment and leave the country to its ‘patriotic’ owners.
Even though citizens are not privy to the internal workings of Jonathan’s government that encouraged him to finally accept the offer of special assistance from U.S., U.K., France, China, and Israel, it is not unlikely that Jonathan must have re-read the contents of the Millennium Declaration and its demand on heads of state or government to recognise the need to protect vulnerable citizens, such as the 200 Chibok girls kidnapped by the country’s most intolerant and vicious Islamic terrorist sect or hundreds of innocent citizens gunned down or destroyed by bombs in Nyanya, Borno, or Jos. We should leave the assessment of Jonathan’s decision to welcome many of the world’s military powers to the shores of Nigeria to professional historians and pay attention to how the country can take strategic advantage of the presence of these countries at a time that its security appears to be in shambles.
If this country seriously needs to stay together as one, it certainly needs to look beyond nineteenth-century notion of statehood. It needs to recognise that the problem threatening its unity is not just Boko Haram. Without doubt, the violence being perpetrated by Boko Haram makes it the most fiendish of Nigeria’s challenges; however, there are other challenges that are being swept under the mat by those who have benefited (or still benefit) from governance of the country since 1960. With a terrorist group that successfully attacks army barracks with rocket launchers, armoured cars, and keeps hundreds of school girls captivity for over thirty days, it should not surprise genuinely patriotic citizens that the curtain of the play of the Nigeria project is about to close.
Anyone quick to cite the issue of puncturing of Nigeria’s pride to support calls for withdrawal of Western powers from the country’s shores must be overlooking the fact that Nigeria had lost its pride long ago. It is not in any way one of the countries on any of the positive lists of states that are meeting the demands of good governance. While Jonathan may be the leader under whose charge Nigeria deteriorates to an abysmal level, it is honest for all of us to admit that he is not the major author of the myriad problems that threaten the country’s peace and stability. Nigeria’s problems derive from decades of a manipulative political culture that privileges a section of the country over others. The root of Boko Haram and other forms of criminality including compulsive corruption in the country cannot be divorced from a political structure that imposes internal imperialism in the name of national unity or uniformity on a nation-space that requires respect for diversity.
A time that two of the countries that colonised most of Africa and created most of the countries with the continent’s serious political and cultural problems choose to come to Nigeria to chase out Boko Haram and rid the country of the scourge of international terrorism is a good time for the world’s hegemon, the United States, to confer with various vested interest groups recruited to fight terrorism on how to support Africa’s political structures and institutions for the benefit of its citizens, not just its leaders. Getting rid of Boko Haram may not be enough to bring peace, stability, and development to Nigeria. Assisting Nigeria to come to terms with the requirements of sustaining a multiethnic and multi-religious country and thus provide a conducive environment for sustainable democracy and development may, in the long run, be more important than just driving out the violent Islamic sect.
Regardless of the primary reason for Western powers to come to save Nigeria from Boko Haram, being here may be a rare opportunity for genuine friends of Nigeria to give teeth to the UN’s Millennium Declaration on meeting the special needs of Africa: “supporting the consolidation of democracy in Africa and assisting Africans in their struggle for lasting peace, poverty eradication and sustainable development, thereby bringing Africa into the mainstream of the world economy.”
