When leaders complain about lack of unity, they hardly point at any specific thing that militates against unity, apart from reference to ethnic and religious diversity
The conclusion to last week’s piece emphasises the tendency of political leaders—military and civilian—to construct unity as the real problem of Nigeria’s political democracy and economic development. Such leaders always fail to show why unity or the type of unity they seek is elusive almost sixty years after independence.
Admittedly, it is easy for myopic politicians to ignore manifestations of unease in political interactions of leaders from different cultural zones, without lapsing into rhetoric of unity as panacea to all problems. This elite notion of “Unity first or nothing after” is unlike the attitude of the average Nigerian on what ails the country. Apart from tension or violence between herdsmen and farmers, most citizens who are trying to make a living in urban and rural Nigeria relate generally to individuals from other ethnic or religious backgrounds without rancour or suspicion. For example, those selling agricultural produce from the North relate to their southern customers as mutual friends joined by unity of purpose, just as those selling automobile spare parts or medications show no hard feelings towards their customers, regardless of difference in ethnicity or faith. Such people usually find difficulty in comprehending what the issues are when they hear their political or religious leaders talk about unity as the problem of the country.
Apart from those in one form of political or cultural power, most Nigerians that one comes across on the street or in the market do not appear bothered by absence of unity or the effect of such absence on their relationships with people they do business with. When leaders complain about lack of unity, they hardly point at any specific thing that militates against unity, apart from reference to ethnic and religious diversity. Is this a way of saying ethnic and religious diversity is dangerous for the country or that there is a mechanism for obliterating such plurality? Is this also a coded way of suggesting that there is a normative culture and faith that others can disappear into, in pursuit of the unity needed to make the country peaceful and progressive? Our political leaders and their intellectuals are reluctant to proffer solutions to the problem that they perceive to frustrate since 1966 their efforts to bring development to the country.
So prevalent is the rhetoric of unity that even some of the most cerebral of the country’s cultural leaders repeat some of the refrains of the song of unity. For example, Professor Ango Abdullahi, Chairman of Northern Elders Forum, recently complained forcefully about the undue share of burden of unity heaped on northern region: The North appears as if it is the one that should carry the can for Nigeria’s unity and this is not acceptable anymore. If Nigeria is beneficial to all Nigerians, so be it, but Nigeria should not be kept while the North is being blackmailed and that Nigeria’s unity should be at the expense of the North. So, this is not acceptable anymore. So, the North is ready for dissolution, anytime.
Leaders from other regions often express similar fears. For example, Afenifere leaders spent most of the period of Jonathan’s administration to complain about marginalisation: Yoruba ministers were given soft appointments in relation to other nationalities; so-called federal roads that pass through the Yoruba region were neglected; etc. On their own side, Igbo cultural leaders complain regularly under the Buhari regime about marginalisation, just as Ijaws now do with gusto after the exit of Jonathan. Such complaints are referenced by pro-government pundits as indices of lack of unity. Is this a logical explanation of the problem? Is any trace of Identity Politics in a multiethnic and multi-religious society synonymous with opposition to unity by those who complain about perceived unfairness?
Ironically, those who whine about lack of unity are dismissive of any suggestion on re-engineering the country in a way to create a political culture of unity of purpose. In a polity driven by unity of purpose as distinct from unity per se (or uniformity on all matters?), various nationalities and faiths in the country would agree to a menu of goals they have come together to work towards, for the good of every individual, nationality, and faith in the union. Ban Ki-Moon once referred to this type of unity at a meeting of African Union: As I join all of you today, I see a vivid illustration of the unity of purpose that characterises this continent when it is at its best. It was that unity of purpose that drove your countries’ quest for independence. It was that unity of purpose that laid the foundations of your Union. It is that unity of purpose that is the key to Africa’s progress in the years ahead….But I also witnessed how, through unity of purpose, my country was able to transform itself from a traumatised nation with a non-existent economy, into a vibrant, productive society and a regional economic power. That unity of purpose brought together an unbeatable combination: the concerted and enduring assistance of the international community, and the courage and determination of the Korean people.
Political or cultural leaders who have preoccupied themselves with unity as a means of mobilising citizens, or better put, mobilising fellow elites to accept the seminal role of unity in the political, economic, and religious life of the country may need to borrow Ban Ki-Moon’s method of making a country or continent play a beneficial role in the life of all its citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religion. This means that current political leaders need to pay attention, in consultation with ordinary citizens, to identification of specific purposes that should bind Nigerians together. Instead of amplifying the search for unity or pontificating about indissolubility or indivisibility of the country, the new emphasis should be on advancing ideas on what Nigerians want to achieve for living in one big country, rather than on their leaders worrying from one electoral cycle to another about the fear of the country breaking into smaller units.
Such purposes are not hard to find; they exist in most successful countries of the world that many ordinary Nigerians risk their lives to enter: Korea, Brazil, Europe, India, South Africa, the Americas, and now China and even Russia. They include a polity and politicians committed to creating a culture of respect for human life and liberty, an economy that citizens can participate in without fear of prejudice, and a democracy that accepts the central role of equality, equity, justice, and tolerance for all cultural values and practices that do not threaten the humanity of anyone. Sincere commitment to these values create unity, rather than believing, as many of the country’s political leaders do, that none of these values can exist without unity.
For too long, political leaders have talked about the importance of unity, without demonstrating the discipline and flexibility required to create a conducive environment for unity to grow. For example, when citizens call for an audit or review of the way(s) the country is governed, leaders who are in power quickly dismiss such demands as capable of threatening the unity of the country. Given that citizens’ voice was muffled during decades of military dictatorship, there have been several calls for sovereign national conference to renew or reinvent the terms of the union or for creation of a people’s constitution that each citizen can relate to as reflecting his or her own view of a federation of many nationalities. But such demands have been dismissed since the beginning of the current post-military rule as demands for disintegration of the country. Refrains of indissolubility have been promoted by those in power to drown calls for re-engineering the country away from purposelessness.
Our political leaders need to stop playing the ostrich. The country is experiencing challenges that do not necessarily emanate from the psychology of the ethnic politician. The challenges are growing from a political complacency on the part of leaders who choose not to exert themselves mentally about how to save Nigeria for all its citizens. For decades, it was possible for leaders not to exert themselves in any way because oil money had made governing a nation relatively easy. It had also made it realistic for a huge central government to pretend to perform roles that are better performed by states and local governments. Now that oil seems to be losing its edge as a revenue earner, the vision needed to galvanise various components of the country to go back to a rational and realistic division of labour among tiers of government must not be avoided by those who relish saving a flawed political structure created by unelected rulers.
Even at the family level, the microcosm of the state, parents who choose to muzzle or muffle their children’s voices especially when such children seek to express their pains, may end up having themselves to blame.
