National Unity and Values Re-Orientation: A Minister’s Clarion Call to Save Nigeria (2)
By Arthur-Martins Aginam, PhD
In part 1 of this essay, I lauded the Honourable Minister of Information and National Orientation, Alhaji Mohammed Idris for his avowed commitment to drive national unity and values orientation in Nigeria; which I stressed is foundational to the Nigerian project without which not much else can be achieved. I also underscored the need for a rigorous interrogation of previous programs on national unity and values reorientation to better understand why they were not particularly successful in order not to repeat mistakes of the past. Further, I linked the decline in patriotism among Nigerians, which the Minister rightly bemoaned, to decades of bad governance which has alienated citizens from government; a badly broken trust that only transparent governance and people-oriented programs can gradually restore. I ended the essay with a promise to use Part 2 to address the intricacies of national unity in Nigeria which again, is inextricably tied to effective political governance or lack thereof. However, that will now be in the third and final part as I primarily want to use this second part to underscore the fact that diversity is not peculiar to Nigeria and should therefore not be a death sentence on our dear country.
All too often, Nigerians speak of lack of national unity in inevitable terms; as an albatross of sorts around the country’s neck given her very diverse configuration. Permit me to enter a quick caveat here in according Nigeria a female identity. This is in recognition of the persisting gendered debate which the pre-eminent novelist and great man of letters, Chinua Achebe aptly captured in his 2008 lecture to mark the Silver Jubilee of the Guardian Newspaper. Titled- What does Nigeria Mean to Me? Achebe noted- Our 1960 national anthem, given to us as a parting gift by a British housewife in England, had called Nigeria “our sovereign motherland’. The current anthem, put together by a committee of Nigerian intellectuals and actually worse than the first one, invokes the father image. But it has occurred to me that Nigeria is neither my mother nor my father. Nigeria is a child. Gifted, enormously talented, prodigiously endowed, and incredibly wayward.”
While some may object to the incredibly wayward tag, Achebe had, in his inimitable prose, articulated the frustrations of most Nigerians over the country’s continuing failure, decades after independence, to fulfil her immense potentials despite being supremely gifted, enormously talented and prodigiously endowed.
As previously observed, lack of national unity is not only ubiquitous in discourses about Nigeria, but also often cast in inevitable terms. Pessimists of the Nigerian project persistently refer to the 1914 mistake- the amalgamation of the Protectorates of Southern and Northern Nigeria as the root cause of the country’s unity challenges; the original sin, to use a Christian metaphor. They also often cite, sometimes out of context, Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s remark in his 1947 book Path to Nigerian Freedom- that Nigeria is not a nation, but a geographic expression. Without boring the reader with arcane academic discourses of nationhood, it is necessary to stress that most nation-states began as geographic expressions of amorphous boundaries with the founding fathers establishing the ideals on the basis of which that imaginary would be actualized.
The nation-state as an imaginary, which overtime, is built into peoples’ consciousness, is the core thesis of political theorist Benedict Anderson in his seminal book- Imagined Communities.
It therefore should be reiterated that all nation-states are relatively complex and diverse, either in their original configuration as is the case with Nigeria or overtime due to factors like sustained immigration as exemplified by both the United States of America and Canada. Aside from the influx of immigrants, it is worth noting that the original owners of both lands (Native Americans and the First Nations in Canada) were neither given the recognition they deserved at the conception of both countries nor are they duly recognized even today.
Thus, every country, albeit to varying degrees, is characterized by diversity; be it race, ethnicity, culture, language, religion, political ideology, among others, often in their combination.
Let’s use the United States of America (USA) as an example, arguably the greatest nation on earth, the shinning city on the hill- to use the biblical metaphor that President Ronald Reagan popularized. The U.S.A was basically a product of war. The American Revolution, also called the U.S. War of Independence, was an epic political and military campaign waged between 1775- 1783 by 13 of Britain’s North American colonies; primarily over taxes without representation, which led to the Declaration of Independence by the USA in 1776. The British wanted to increase taxes and make the colonies pay for their defence, which the colonists rejected insisting that only their own popular assemblies, not the British Parliament, had the right to levy taxes. Roughly, 86 years later (1860-1864), came the American Civil War which pitted the USA against 11 Southern States that seceded from the Union to form the Confederate States of America.
The Civil War was primarily a result of decades of disagreement over the institution of slavery, even as there were other secondary issues around taxes. Following the defeat of the Confederate States in the Civil War, they were readmitted to the Unites States and slavery was abolished nationwide.
The urgent need to address the fallouts of the war, especially the political, economic and social inequities of slavery brought about the period of Reconstruction (1865-77), which led to significant political changes, including constitutional amendments that transformed the federal system and redefined American citizenship.
There were also soft power initiatives like Abraham Lincoln’s construction of interstate highways and the establishment of Grant Colleges to foster regional interactions to enable people to experience first-hand the humanity of others who they had previously demonized. These were bold and visionary efforts to manage diversity and conflicts associated with it rather than simply throw hands up in the air in utter resignation. As work in progress, even today, America like many countries, remains intensely divided on the basis of race, ethnicity and particularly political ideology- with all the culture wars it engenders. For example, you have the Red (Republican) versus Blue (Democrat) divide which has become even more toxic in the past two decades. Who would have thought that the most improbable election of Barack Obama (the skinny kid with a funny name) as first U.S. President of black extraction will be followed by Donald Trump, a race-baiting bigot full of noxious political rhetoric? The legendary American Rock and Roll star Bruce Springsteen likened the American project to working on a dream while more centrist American presidents talk of striving for that more perfect union.
Even at conception in 1776, the founding fathers of America acknowledged their differences and adopted the Motto- El Pluribus Unum- Out of Many, One, which sounds very similar with key phrases of Nigeria’s first national anthem- Though Tongue and Tribe May Differ, in Brotherhood we Stand.
Similarly, Canada- America’s northern neighbour has been grappling with its own diversity challenges, which is most embodied in the separatist agitation of Quebecois- the French speaking part of the country. Between the late 1960s and early 1970s, the agitation occasionally became violent. However, through constitutional initiatives such as the failed Meech Lake Accord of 1987 and the Clarity Act of 2000, along with sustained outreach to and engagement with the Province, support for separation has considerably waned.
Further, sustained migration over the past several decades have radically changed the demographics of U.S., Canada and other liberal democratic countries, particularly in Europe which are now discussed in Multicultural terms, or what political theorist Will Kymlicka calls Multicultural Citizenship. In this respect, two distinct approaches to managing diversity abound- the Melting Pot and the Salad Bowl metaphors. While the Melting Pot strives to integrate diverse cultures into one culture in the image of the dominant culture; the Salad Bowl approach recognizes the distinctiveness of groups even within a cultural mosaic such that Tomato, Carrot or Lettuce can all enter the Salad Bowl and each will still be clearly recognizable. Both the Melting Pot and Salad Bowl approaches have relative merits and speak to recognizing and deliberately managing diversity such that it engenders cohesion rather than drive conflicts.
The broader point being made is the fact that a country is relatively peaceful is not the absence of diversity and the conflicts that sometimes go with it; rather, it is their effective management which is the acid test of adroit political leadership.
Therefore, Nigeria’s well known complexity which has already led to a brutal civil war and continuing ethnic and religious tensions around the country should not be a death sentence on the potentials of national unity for our dear country. America also fought a civil war and has continued to manage its differences as many other countries. And so should we.
NB: In Part 3 and final part of this trilogy, I plan to discuss the intricacies of national unity in the context of Nigeria.
