Nigeria’s unity is negotiable: Don’t take it for granted

In the current febrile climate in Nigeria, with ethnic tensions so palpable and the frailty of Nigeria’s unity so exposed, it is difficult to move away from the subject of political restructuring. And so this week I want to return to that theme and challenge the complacency at the heart of Nigeria’s leaders’ assumptions about the unity of this country. President Buhari once said that “Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable”. And, recently, Acting President Yemi Osinbajo echoed the same sentiment by saying that “Nigeria is indissoluble”. Of course, as statements of hopes and wishes, it’s difficult to fault them. But as statements of certitude, they bother on complacency. A country cannot decree unity; it must cultivate and nurture it.

Yet, given the Buhari government’s antipathy to political restructuring, which even General Ibrahim Babangida, the former military dictator, recently advocated, one must question the rationale behind the president and the acting president’s confident assertions about Nigeria’s unity. The only way the government can ensure Nigeria’s unity without a negotiated political settlement is to use the coercive power of the state to enforce it. Indeed, recently, the military issued a statement vowing to protect the lives and properties of Nigerians anywhere in the country in light of the threat by the Arewa youths to eject the Igbo from the North. Surely, if a country has to use its armed forces, not to fight external aggression, but to ensure its internal unity, it is paying a heavy price for that unity. But a forced unity is not unity, and can’t be sustained. After all, as the Bible says in Amos 3:3, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

History also tells us that no country is indissoluble, especially if it’s a political invention rather than a natural or organic creation. A state is usually a legal or political construct, while a nation often emerges organically, and, as such, there is a difference between statehood and nationhood. A nation, the equivalent of “polis” in ancient Greece, is a culturally similar or homogenous entity, with a common or shared culture, language and history. But a state, or what you might call “res publica” or commonwealth in ancient Roman, is a legal or political jurisdiction covering culturally different or heterogeneous entities. As the ancient Greek and ancient Roman experiences show, it is easier to keep a nation together than to maintain unity within a state consisting of heterogeneous nations.

Now, the easiest way to understand the challenges of a country is to look at how it was created and how it has evolved. And here there are similarities and differences between Britain and Nigeria from which we can draw lessons. Both are political inventions. They are states consisting of nations, and their heterogeneity produces internal tensions. But how have they been addressing these tensions?

Take the United Kingdom first. Before the UK was created, the four nations that now constitute it – England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland – were independent, with separate and distinct cultures, languages and histories. The UK emerged after England, the dominant nation, conquered and assimilated Wales, colonised Ireland and entered into a treaty with Scotland under the 1707 Act of Union. Well, truth is, it’s difficult to maintain unity in a heterogeneous state, and so it’s not surprising there have been tensions among the diverse nations that make up the UK.

In the 2014 independence referendum, Scotland voted by 55 to 45% to stay in the UK. But the fact that 45% of the voters voted to leave the UK was significant. Since the Brexit vote in June last year, Scotland’s governing party, the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP), has been pushing for a second independence referendum. This may take place in a few years’ time. Given that there is no legal limit to how many times Scotland could hold an independence referendum, there is a possibility that, depending on the moods of the Scottish people in future, based on whether they are happy in the UK, Scotland might at some point in the future vote to leave the UK. The same is true for Northern Ireland, which might also vote to leave the UK and join the Republic of Ireland. Thus, although every British prime minister would want to keep the UK together, no one can categorically say that the country is indissoluble or that its unity is not negotiable!

But what is remarkable is how successive British governments have addressed concerns that could trigger the break-up of the country. They have not tried to impose “unity” or pretend that all is well; rather they have recognised the challenges and responded to them by devolving more and more powers to the nations and regions. It is, as one British minister calls it, a “devolution revolution”. For instance, since 1973, there have been eleven referendums held in the UK, and the majority of them have been about the devolution. In 1997, substantial powers were devolved to Scotland and Wales, and in 1998 to Northern Ireland after the Good Friday Agreement. It is widely expected that post-Brexit, some of the powers the UK repatriates from the EU would be devolved to the nations and regions, and not centralised in Westminster. Truth is, in a multi-nation country, powers must be devolved rather than centralised to avoid creating tensions and encouraging separatist forces.

But what about Nigeria? Well, in terms of its creation, Nigeria even has a worse birth defect than Britain. Nigeria exists only because of the political merger (indeed, a forced marriage) of the Yoruba, the Igbo, the Hausa/Fulani, and the other ethnic groups. Before George Goldie used “Maxim guns” to beat all the ethnic nationalities into total surrender from the late 1880s, and later created the Northern and Southern protectorates, there was nothing called Nigeria. It was after Goldie transferred the two protectorates to the British government in 1900 that Fredrick Lugard later merged them together into one in 1914 and called the political invention Nigeria.

Now, unlike the UK, which emerged after England conquered Wales, colonised Ireland and signed a treaty with Scotland, Nigeria did not emerge from internal conquest or agreement. The major ethnic nationalities, Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa/Fulani, did not conquer, colonise or sign a treaty with each other to form Nigeria. Here then is the point. If Britain, which emerged from some form of conquest or agreement, is still struggling with its union, why would Nigeria not struggle with its own union of fiercely independent, proud and self-conscious nations, which did come together from the conquest of, or agreement with, each other, but because of a forced union imposed from outside? The only way you can perfect such a flawed union, with such a birth defect, is through subsequent negotiations and political settlements among the constituent nations.

Nigerian leaders are quick to say that the creation of Nigeria by Lord Lugard was an act of God. But the Christians among them should remember that Israel was God’s own creation. Yet, it later split into two nations, Israel and Judah, not just because of sins but also because of disunity, tribal discord and political unrest.

So, what is my point? Well, it is that Nigeria’s unity is too fragile to be taken for granted. I see the efforts that the British government is making all the time to strengthen its union of over 300 years through constant constitutional and political settlements to devolve powers and make its constituent nations happy. By contrast, Nigeria was brought together by military force, through the power of the “Maxim guns”, and, sadly, it is being kept together by fear of military action, not by negotiations, concessions and consensus. A country that can’t jaw-jaw will war-war. Nigeria needs a political settlement, and must be restructured. It is dangerous complacency for any leader to ignore these imperatives and simply assert that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable. You can’t impose unity; you must cultivate and nurture it!

Olu Fasan