Avoiding The Descent To Anarchy

Avoiding The Descent To Anarchy

Onyedikachi Edeh argues that government must be open minded about all suggestions, including a restructured federation

Nigeria has been a struggling giant. A giant because it is the most populous black nation as well as the most economically capitalized (measured in GDP) black nation. It is struggling because it has not been able to attain a reasonable fraction of its potential. In this piece, I seek to interrogate the current agitations threatening the continued existence of the Nigerian Republic. Some of the questions raised are: Are these agitations justified and what are the realities fuelling them? Are these agitations capable of plunging the country into some bloody clashes or even a full-blown war? Should such unthinkable consequence be avoided and how?

Nigerian history dates back at least to the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Regions of the country in 1914 by the colonial administration. That is however not the problem. The real problem has been the pattern of political relations amongst the constituents since the pre-independence nationalist protagonists who had foregrounded the differences amongst the numerous ethno-cultural units to the detriment of a true nationalist philosophy. One of the historic misadventure of these ethno-nationalist attitudes was the unfortunate civil war of 1967 to 1970. Let me highlight some of the factors that made that war inevitable:

One, in January 1966, there was a military coup d’état which toppled the civilian regime of the time and introduced military rule in Nigeria. Because of its outcome, this coup was labeled an “Igbo Coup,” a label which proved very costly for the nation.

Two, in July, 1966, there was another military coup but this time it was clearly a coup against the Igbos. The coup consumed prominent Igbo officers in the military and brought to power General Yakubu Gowon as the new Head of State. General Gowon was however unable to curtail the massive killing of Igbo officers in various military barracks in the country.

Three, in September, 1966 there was massive killing of the civilian Igbos in major commercial cities in the north. Four, in January, 1967, there was the Aburi meeting between Gowon and Ojukwu but Gowon jettisoned all the agreements reached in that meeting.

Five, in May, 1967, Ojukwu declared the Republic of Biafra apparently in protest to the inhumanity of the North-dominated Nigerian government against the Igbos. Six, in July, 1967 the war broke out as the Nigerian government sought to prevent the secession of the Igbo-dominated Eastern Region (the Biafra) from the Nigerian union.
What is the relevance of the foregoing to the present discuss? one may ask. I am worried that we might be walking the same path that led to that valley of death in 1967. We might be repeating the error of history which if not checked might take us to another avoidable disaster. According to Fredrick Forsyth in his book “The Biafra Story,” “Biafra was a mistake; it should and need never have happened,” and I will add there should never be a repeat.

Various groups today are singing the song of secession. From Boko Haram and Arewa in North to Oduduwa in the West and to Biafra in the East. One thing common to all these agitations is that they all represent a protest against the status quo. In the case of the Igbos, they feel aggrieved that the error of the civil war (which was by all reasonable standard a national aggression directed at the Igbos) was not sufficiently redressed. They have continued to feel excluded from the national scheme of things where it appears as if certain areas of national life have been declared a “No Igbo Zone”.

What is of paramount importance is not necessarily the reasons or justifications for these agitations, but how the government respond to and deal with these agitations and the agitators. For good or for bad, Biafra as a concept has entered into our national vocabulary and the mere use of the word should not be seen as a treasonable felony. The concept shares some connotative affinity with “Oduduwa” and “Arewa” but evokes more hatred and reprehension than these two; why? The government must first of all deal with this semantic bias before it can objectively address the issue.

The Nigerian government as a benevolent father must learn to love all its citizens irrespective of their ethnic affinity. Such love would naturally dictate that in dealing with these agitators, the first approach should not be to unleash full military might against them. Force should only be used as the last option especially when all other efforts is manifestly seen to have failed.

It is squarely at the doorstep of the government to do everything humanly possible to avoid a descent to anarchy. Gowon is an ex-Head of State just as Goodluck Jonathan is an ex-president. Between the two, however, every objective mind will give more credit to Jonathan as a national hero than Gowon because Jonathan averted a catastrophic outcome in 2015 when he conceded defeat and handed over to his political opponent. He had declared that his personal ambition was not worth anyone’s blood. If Gowon had adopted such liberal mindset in 1966/67, perhaps that pogrom might have been avoided.

Open mindedness would allow the government consider the merit of all the available alternatives including a restructured federation without shutting out any option. It will allow government to go into a genuine national dialogue aimed at finding pragmatic solutions to the problems fuelling these agitations. It will allow government aggregate all genuine suggestions irrespective of where they are coming from and objectively analyze them for merit and relevance. Open mindedness would allow the government to take a closer look atthe Constitution of Nigeria, which is the grundnorm with a view to making it an instrument of peace and nation-building rather than an instrument of repression and oppression. Above all, the government must act very fast to arrest the mounting tension in the polity.
–– Edeh wrote from Abuja.

Related Articles