Urhobo Historical Society
Culled from:
Nigerian
Tribune
Tue 14th
April, 2009
Wed. 15th
April, 2009
Letter
to General Yakubu
Gowon on Arewa's Vision of Nigeria
By Angelicus Onasanya,
Steve Ogbonmwan and Yemi
Oyeyemi
Dear
Retired General Yakubu Gowon:
We
write this letter in response to
a speech delivered recently on your behalf by Alhaji
M.D. Yusufu, at the second anniversary
seminar of the
Arewa Consultative Forum. It is our hope
that you
will view the contents with the utmost consideration they require and
deserve.
First,
Your Excellency, please note,
that of all the Nigerians who have had the privilege of serving Nigeria
as
heads of state, your tenure is generally regarded as the most favourable. Most Nigerians would readily agree
that your
regime was the most humane of all Nigeria’s military administrations.
Second,
you are the only living former head of state not known to be a
billionaire, and
that endears you to many Nigerians. And finally, most of us note with
gratitude
your unrelenting prayers for the welfare of Nigeria. For these reasons,
whatever you say about Nigeria deserves to be received and considered
with
utmost respect.
It is
for these reasons that very
many Nigerians feel very deeply about the opinion you expressed in the
speech
under reference to the effect that there are “four groups” trying to destabilise Nigeria, and that these are as
follows:
• “idealists who cannot wait to see a perfect
Nigeria … (who)
agitate for the cancellation of the 1999 Constitution on the premise
that there
is too much concentration of power and resources at the centre.
• those who want to see the country balkanised into small territories to be headed
by tribal
leaders... made up of demagogues and other anarchists who will sooner
take
Nigeria back to the chaos of the 18th century.
•those who desire the country’s break-up into “geopolitical
territories,
whereby big ethnic groups may swallow up small ones without a
challenge”.
• those who demand “a new constitution that
will allow
them keep 100 per cent of money derived from the sale of oil that is
extracted
within their territories.”
In short, Sir, your opinion of all
who challenge the status quo in Nigeria today is wholly negative. As
far as you
are concerned, all who challenge the status quo or who ask for a
serious look
at Nigeria as it is, are despicable elements who are simply impatient
with the
pace of Nigeria’s evolution, or are demagogues and anarchists whom no
system of
order can satisfy, or ethnic chauvinists who want their own large
ethnic groups
to dominate smaller ethnic groups or who simply do not want the
resources of
their own ethnic territories shared with the rest of Nigeria. While
there are,
without doubt, some persons who may answer to these characterisations,
we urge you most respectfully, Sir, to look deeper below the surface.
When you
do that, you will find that probably most of the persons who are
actively
asking for change for Nigeria, or who are intensely dissatisfied with
Nigeria
as it exists today, are motivated by very positive and commendable
purposes –
persons who, in your own words, seek “perfection”, perfection and
meaningful
order out of the near chaos that Nigeria now is. Such persons do not
deserve
opprobrium but acceptance and encouragement from all far-sighted
Nigerians.
Another Nigerian, Peter Ekeh, in a paper titled:
“Urhobo and the
Nigerian
federation: Whither Nigeria?” demonstrated a clear understanding of
the
realities of today’s Nigeria when he said: “It is an indication of the
stress
and turbulence of our times that Nigerians are everywhere re-examining
the
purpose of the Nigerian state and the relationships between their
ethnic groups
and the Nigerian federation. There has been no other occasion in our
history
when men and women, otherwise engaged in professions far removed from
politics
and public affairs, been so concerned of their ethnic groupings and
about the
purpose of their country’s political arrangements.”
The
truth, Sir, is that most
informed Nigerians, and very many friends of Nigeria in the world, are
intensely worried about the way Nigeria has turned out to be. That is
why
speeches, articles and even books about Nigeria’s future are being
churned out
increasingly today. And that is why the pages and editorial columns of
Nigerian
newspapers are continually littered with the evidence of the stress and
the
turbulence raging in the minds of thinking Nigerians concerning
Nigeria.
The
most important question, then,
is this: What are the roots of Nigeria’s very profound sicknesses –
Nigeria’s
intractable political instability, the intense criminality, fraud, and
violence
in Nigeria’s political processes, the political assassinations, the
all-pervasive and resolute corruption in the management of the nation’s
public
resources, the disregard for law, etc. There are some who would opine
that the
causes of these aberrations are simply human greed, the lack of
patriotic
leaders, or even a weakness in the make-up of the moral and societal
consciousness of Nigerians. This is tantamount to saying that, before
the
British came and favoured us with the
creation of
Nigeria, we were all morally, socially and politically depraved and
incapable
peoples, intrinsically unable to produce solid and respectable leaders
of men
or to manage orderly political entities.
But
people who hold such opinions
must ask themselves certain important questions. The Hausa people, long
before
the 19th century, created for themselves a number of splendid kingdoms,
and
their rulers ruled those kingdoms with dignity and poise. If they were
depraved
and incapable, how did they accomplish such things? In the course of
the 19th
century, the Fulani and Hausa peoples carried out a revolution that
produced a
larger, more inclusive polity, (a Caliphate), whose leaders promoted
knowledge,
excellence, commerce and pride. If they were depraved and incapable,
how could
they achieve such great things?
The Nupe
on the Middle Niger and the Tiv on the
Benue, though
not very large peoples today, were very strong peoples, each of whom
built a
strong kingdom and managed with distinction the trade, and the channels
of
trade, across its own river. In the forest country of the south, the
Yoruba
built one of the most advanced civilisations
of
tropical Africa, established well ordered and gorgeous kingdoms
throughout
their expansive territory, built walled towns and cities, and evolved
the
greatest urban civilisation in the thick
forests of
tropical Africa – all of which were already far advanced before the
first
European explorers came to the coast of West Africa in the 15th
century. The
Edo and related peoples had also established one of Africa’s most
prestigious
kingdoms before the fist Europeans came to the coasts of West Africa –
a
kingdom that, today, would have owned more territory and more
population than
each of Belgium, Portugal, and many other countries of Europe. Astride
the
Lower Niger and east of it, the Igbo people evolved supremely well
ordered
democracies and produced a civilisation
rich in art,
culture and commerce – and are today one of Africa’s most dynamic and
most modernising nations. Similar comments as
these are also true of the Ibibio, the Ijaw
(builders
of the city states of the Niger Delta), Urhobo, and many other small,
but
deservedly proud, nations in all parts of Nigeria. If these
peoples were
depraved and incapable, how did they achieve the orderly political
systems and
impressive civilisations that they
achieved?
No,
the true explanation for
Nigeria’s huge, stubborn, and perpetually worsening diseases is to be
found not
in any inherent flaws in us as peoples, but in circumstances created by
the
very existence of Nigeria itself. To understand that, one needs to look
at what
has happened, and what is happening, in
countries
similar to Nigeria in the world – countries comprising two or more
ethnic
nations. The apparently almighty Soviet Union perpetually suffered
serious
distractions from the desires of its many ethnic nations to manage
their own
affairs. Ultimately, in 1991, the Soviet Union splintered into many
countries –
15 in all, each of them an autonomous and independent nation state,
most of
them very small. The Czechs and Slovaks of Czechoslovakia had the
common sense
to terminate the complex problems of Czechoslovakia by breaking it up
peacefully – so that each now lives in its own small independent
country.
Yugoslavia, created in 1918, was one country riddled with subliminal
hostilities, corruption and instability. When two of the ethnic nations
of this
country announced their decisions to secede, the Serbs, who happened to
be
Yugoslavia’s largest ethnic nation, took up arms in order to prevent
the
breaking up of the country, but all they succeeded in doing was to
cause
horrendous violence and bloodshed, thereby attracting worldwide
condemnation.
In the end, each of the various ethnic nations of Yugoslavia did win
its own
small country – a total of seven countries, the smallest of which has a
population of only 864,000. The Walloons and the Flemings, the two
ethnic
nations of Belgium (a country created in 1831), have, in recent times,
been
constantly at loggerheads.
(To be continued tomorrow)
Following a troubled
election
in 2007, the Walloons and the Flemings seem now to be heading for
eventual
break up of Belgium into two countries. Great Britain entered the 20th
century
as a country of four ethnic nations – the English, Scots, Irish, and
Welsh. The
Irish broke off in the 1920s and created the independent Republic of
Ireland.
(The small province of Northern Ireland which was not allowed to go
with the
Republic of Ireland has remained a scene of terrible troubles since
then). Both
the Scots and Welsh are also agitating for independent countries of
their own, and
the Scots now seem to be near that goal. Spain comprises two ethnic
nations –
the Spaniards, and a smaller nation, the Basques. For many decades, the
Basques
have troubled and shaken Spain in an attempt to break off and have a
country of
their own. In Russia, one small ethnic nation, the Chechens of Chechnya
that
was not able to break off in the 1990s, and in Georgia, the small
people of
South Ossetia, are both fighting life-and-death struggles in order to
have tiny
independent countries of their own.
At the United Nations, this reality has become fairly well understood.
And that
is why in September 2007, the General Assembly of the United Nations
adopted a
resolution entitled “Declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples”
by
indigenous peoples”, the United Nations means ethnic nations that are
members
of larger countries. In its preamble, the resolution states as follows:
“- - - the Charter
of the
United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural
Rights, as well as the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, affirm
the
fundamental importance of the right of self-determination of all
peoples, by
virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely
pursue
their economic, social and cultural independence.”
As far as the countries of Africa are concerned, clear and unambiguous
demands
and agitations for separate countries are still rare. And the reasons
are
obvious. First, the African countries are still quite young – being
generally
about 50 years in existence. Second, most of the ethnic nations of
Africa are
very small – so small that many can not
yet envision
themselves as constituting separate independent countries.
As a result, every
African
country is buffeted and battered by political turmoil, sordid
corruption,
wrong-headed attempts by some nations to dominate others, rigged and
violently
protested elections, lawlessness, pogroms, ethnic cleansing, genocide,
etc. But
all these are bound to change, and the confused and indefinable storms
will
give way to clear visions and demands. The peoples of Africa are
becoming more
and more literate and educated; and the immaturity and lack of
confidence will
gradually evaporate. Already, in Nigeria, where some of the provinces
rank
among the most literate in Africa, the desire for separate independent
countries is becoming unmistakable. Naturally, it is difficult for
those of us
who would want to preserve Nigeria to contemplate, but there is no way
we can
avoid the situation whereby increasing numbers of the Igbo, Yoruba,
Hausa-Fulani, Edo and related peoples, Kanuri and related peoples, Nupe, Tiv, Ijaw,
Ibibio, as well as combinations of neighbouring
small
peoples, will seek separation of their peoples from Nigeria in order to
have
countries of their own. Again, there is nothing bad or wicked or
condemnable
about that and those of us who oppose such outcomes only need to work
hard for
what we believe to be more meaningful and peaceful change.
Of course, the tortuous political and moral mess of Nigeria tends to
serve, for
now, as the immediate major provocator of
such views
and the rising agitations for separation. For many whom education has
elevated
to membership of the wider community of the world, it can be sometimes
unpleasant these days to be identified as a Nigerian. But the deeper,
ethnic
nationalist, causes are also affirming themselves. Even if Nigeria were
much
better run, the ethnic nationalist factor will still advance itself.
Throughout
the 20th century, Great Britain has been one of the richest, most
powerful, and
proudest countries in our world, and yet the ethnic nations in it have
wanted
to break away from it. The same is true of Spain, Belgium, Canada, etc.
The
expansion of agitations for the dissolution of Nigeria seems
inevitable,
regardless.
Your Excellency, we urge you to see this whole matter from one further
perspective. Trying to heal Nigeria’s diseases with a Nigerian wand has
never
worked, and it will never work. Military regime after military regime
thought
that the way to solve Nigeria’s problems was to pursue a centralizing, unificatory and integrationist path. Well, they
succeeded
in centralising and integrating, but that
made the
problems of Nigeria enormously worse.
Needless to say, the solution is not more centralisation,
or the fostering of more, or other, super-powerful political groupings.
The
solution is to restore control to the people – to empower the people to
nurture
again a leadership that is produced by the people and that serves the
people.
And there is no other way to accomplish this than by empowering each
ethnic
nation to call out its traditional ethical norms and laws and cultural
influence for the guidance of its own affairs. There is no other
conceivable
way to get it done.
Your Excellency, is this growing demand what you were reacting to and
castigating in your statement when you spoke of “idealists who cannot
wait to
see a “perfect Nigeria,” and who “agitate for the cancellation of the
1999
Constitution on the premise that there was too much concentration of
power and
resources at the centre”? Is this what you were referring to and
demonizing as
the voices of “demagogues and other anarchists who will sooner take
Nigeria
back to the chaos of the 18th century”, who want “to see the country
balkanized
into small territories to be headed by tribal leaders”, who “desire the
country’s break-up into “geopolitical territories, whereby big ethnic
groups
may swallow up small ones without a challenge”, and who are “asking for
a new
constitution that will allow them keep 100 per cent of money derived
from the
sale of oil that is extracted within their territories”?We really must
urge
you, Your Excellency, to rethink these sentiments.