Separatism in Nigeria: Buhari must avoid the Spanish response
President Buhari is angry. Very angry! But he is both angry and determined. His adamantine spirit is extremely high. He is threatening fire and brimstone. But who are his bugbears? Who have so pushed the president’s buttons that he would use the nuclear option? Well, they are the separatists, who, in Buhari’s view, are threatening Nigeria’s unity, calling for its dismemberment.
But the president’s anger is misplaced! There is no credible or realistic plot anywhere in Nigeria to break up the country. Separatist advocacy by some aggrieved, rabble-rousing youths, whose approach represents the fringe rather than the mainstream of political agitation, does not constitute a clear and present danger to Nigeria’s existence. However, experience tells us that a belligerent or disproportionate response to such inchoate separatist campaigns could be catastrophically counter-productive, provoking a conflagration.
Yet President Buhari is determined to use force to fight a phenomenon – separatism – that has been spreading, more aggressively, across even the West. Indeed, the mere advocacy of separatism in Nigeria irritates Buhari. In his Independence Day broadcast, he vowed: “We cannot and will not allow such advocacy”. Earlier, in his fiery address to the country in August, after returning from a long medical vacation, the president said those who “dare to question” (note: questioning alone is a hanging offence!) the collective existence of Nigeria“crossed our national red lines”. He ordered the military to “fight and destroy relentlessly” separatist agitators, whom he grouped among “terrorists and criminals”, adding: “We shall tackle them all”.
In that Independence Day address, President Buhari invoked memories of the Nigeria-Biafra war. He rebuked Igbo leaders who “do not warn their hot-headed youths what the country went through” during the war. Of course, the speech betrays the president’s failure to grasp the lessons of political history. He keeps referring to the civil war, but civil wars don’t unite a country, only political settlement does. After most civil wars in history – the American civil war, the English civil war, etc – there was a negotiated political settlement. Unfortunately, Nigeria’s civil war ended without a political settlement, and so the issues that caused it linger on!
For President Buhari, though, the sceptre of a civil war or military action should be enough to deter every agitation for self-determination in Nigeria. And he is doing his best to raise that sceptre. Recently, the president told soldiers in Maiduguri, when he visited the anti-insurgency troops in the North-East, that if Nigeria breaks up, “nobody will take another general to lead his country”. Why was Buhari stressing his military background? It’s difficult to imagine a president with a legal or medical background saying that if he failed, nobody would ever elect a lawyer or a medical doctor as president again? But Buhari’s military background matters to him in his role as a civilian president. After all, that’s the main experience he brings to the job as Nigeria’s president, which is why, unsurprisingly, his reflex response to most issues is militaristic.
But the president’s statement is ominous and should concern us for its wider implications. Buhari sees himself as a proud member of the world’s military fraternity. Surely, being a general, and given the military pride at stake, if Nigeria’s unity is threatened under his watch, he would feel duty-bound to do what military leaders, whether in khaki or civilian uniform, do to keep their country together. Just to mention a few: General Tito did it in the former Yugoslavia; General Franco did it in Spain; so did General Pinochet in Chile. They bludgeoned their country to “unity”. Political negotiations were not for them: soldiers don’t negotiate; only bloody civilians do! As a military dictator, Buhari was very much in that mould; as a civilian president, he hasn’t changed very much!
Sadly, President Buhari can now draw inspiration from a supposedly democratic Western country. I mean, what can we say about the Spanish government’s brutal response to the recent independence referendum by Catalonia, one of Spain’s regions? The pictures, seen around the world, of Spanish military police firing rubber bullets at Catalan voters, beating and leaving hundreds of people bloodied, are not the images one would associate with a Western country when people are trying to exercise a right of self-determination. There are, however, parallels between Spain’s violent approach and Buhari’s “Operation Python Dance” military clampdown on the South-East. There are also parallels between Spain’s belligerent behaviour and President Paul Biya’s recent military crackdown on separatist movements in the English-speaking regions of Cameroon, where at least 17 people died!
But Spain historically has more in common with developing countries, particularly Nigeria, than Western countries. Until the late 1970s, just over 40 years ago, Spain was under military rule, led by the dictator General Francisco Franco. Many Western commentators have argued that the Spanish government’s brutal response to the Catalan referendum shows that modern Spain has not shaken off its authoritarian past. Similarly, Nigeria today, despite “democratic rule”, is still under the spell of militarism; the country is militarised, with heavily-armed soldiers everywhere on the streets! But there is another worrying similarity between Spain and Nigeria. President Buhari’s government constantly says that “Nigeria’s unity is indissoluble”. That is the same language used in the 1978 Spanish constitution, which commits itself to the “indissoluble unity” of the Spanish nation.
Of course, in the modern era, a country should only be held together by consent, not by violence or force. Indeed, as one commentator put it, “democratic countries that want to stay united have to be willing to accept the possibility of divorce”. But once a government declares that its country’s unity is indissoluble, it would feel justified to use force, rather than negotiations and consent, to keep the country together. By contrast, Britain and Canada allowed independence referendums, but used argument and compromise to defeat the separatists. For instance, in 2014, Scotland voted to stay within the UK by 55-45%; in 1995, Quebec voted to stay in Canada by just 50.58%. These were the results of powerful arguments for and against separation, and the separatists lost in the ballot box.
The Spanish government took a different approach. Instead of attempting to persuade and win the argument, it wanted to keep the country together by bludgeoning the Catalan separatists. It backfired catastrophically. Before the referendum, a small majority of Catalans opposed independence. But after seeing the Spanish government’s heavy-handed response, many changed their minds. One journalist wrote: “As the rubber bullets flew, my friend changed from NO to YES”. In the end, 90% voted for independence! Although the vote may not lead to independence, the Catalans have won a moral victory.
Sadly, that’s what President Buhari’s autocratic approach to political restructuring could trigger: a growing support for separatism in Nigeria. One newspaper summarised the outcome of Yoruba leaders’ conference last month as follows: “Let’s restructure or we have Oduduwa Republic”.
Buhari’s reflex response would, of course, be: “How dare you question Nigeria’s unity. The military will fight and destroy you relentlessly”, as he said in his August speech. But military action won’t quench the embers of separatism in Nigeria, only a political settlement and restructuring will. However, such a political solution requires political leadership. As one writer brilliantly put it, “A leader should be the sun around which all the planets circle in an ordered political universe”. Unfortunately, President Buhari is not that kind of leader. He says he won’t implement the report of the Jonathan administration’s National Conference, yet he won’t set up his own constitutional conference. Instead, he is passing the buck to the National and State Assemblies when, as president, the process of political change should be initiated and led by him.
Yet, if President Buhari really cares about Nigeria’s unity, he must provide political leadership and vision. He must engage, consult and inspire across the country. He must stop using the military against unarmed political agitators. As we’ve seen in Spain, that can be counter-productive.Above all, he must recognise the imperative of political restructuring, and lead the process to create a new political and constitutional settlement for Nigeria.
Olu Fasan