THE struggle for the right of nations to self-determination is not new to Africans. This could be traced to the struggle for decolonization since the 19th and 20th centuries. This was not without provoking robust debates among the concerned activists – nationalists and socialists alike on how to proceed towards independence.
The first debate by the traditionalist school of thought was to suggest that politics and governance should take the form of administration as it was in traditional African setting prior to colonial rule. This opinion was led by such nationalists as Senghor, Julius Nyerere and other scholars as Aimé Césaire.
Kwame Nkrumah led some others to canvass for the opposite that stress the need to approach governance from the advantageous position of what have been gained from capitalism despite its debilitating setbacks. The position could be likened with Leon Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. This stressed the need to progress from the position of what capitalism has contributed to humanity rather than rolling back to the African past as the starting point.
The traditionalist approach would amount to repeating the old mistakes made in the course of capitalist development while rejecting to learn necessary lessons from history of others that have passed through such path in the course of their own development.
It is trite to say that politics is accorded respect as agent of development and politicians are seen as means to achieve this end. How does one perceive the truism that right leadership with pedigree is hard to come by in the system right from the 1st and 2nd republics up to the present period, the 4th republic. This was how the federal government led by Alhaji Shehu Shagari was put on its toes by the opposition in the Senate even though the presidential system in place then and just like now has no provision for official opposition structure.
The former was not without making waves especially in theory. Nyerere attempts to put in practice what he advanced in theory by his Ujama experiment to institutionalize socialism from above with little or no capital (in a traditional setting). This did not get anywhere, although there were some local struggles for a more democratic and bottom up approach. This could best be compared with socialist utopians and utopianism of the 18th century. These were led by its triangular forefathers comprising Comte Saint Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen.
Close to the above debate was another on the issue of federalism that was waged on two fronts. First, the pan-Africanist group whose advocacy hinged on having a Union (Central) Government of Africa that included the entire African continent with all its countries. The progressive nationalists that held this position took for granted the existing states their legitimacy and authorities as a product of decolonization. This group carried the day prior to independence.
On attaining independence (and shortly before then), the centrifugal forces opposed to a central pan-African state gained ground. In its place some started advocating another variant of federalism, confederacy and separation as a system of governance eschewed in favour of ethnic politics.
The latest group had the support of colonists in various parts of Africa in order to situate their strategy of divide and rule in sustaining themselves in power. Such reactionary forces killed the pan-Africanist agenda that would have served the purpose of contending with imperialism and in achieving the goal of a strong socialist Africa. The scars emanating from such divisive tendency remained with us up to the present across Africa and wars have been waged in greater parts of the continent for this reason.
Such divisive tendency, it is observed, is strong in a country like Nigeria as elsewhere. The gradualist nationalists that later presided over governments in Nigeria at the centre and regions predominated and were opposed to the programme of pan-Africanism. Even though Nnamdi Azikwe politics started on such pedestal but it did not last. Hence the reason it is becoming difficult to agree in principle and practice to support a national leader that is considered being above ethnic influence.
Advocates of true federalism have largely become hypocrites in their advocacy that has little or nothing to do with structural imbalance. Recently (2019), Professor Banji Akintoye, a senator in the 2nd Republic, came out to say that a Yoruba group, Afenifere, which he represents stands for having one state including the whole Yoruba in Nigeria as a way out in the new restructuring order. This was unusual as Afenifere had a history of calling for more states in Yoruba to match with the number of states in the former northern region. The South-East group, Ohaneze Ndigbo, is also calling for an increase in the number of states in their region from five to six to match with that of other geopolitical zones. This was Northern Region that was being criticised hitherto for its overwhelming strength as it comprised 70 per cent of the country’s land mass and over 50 per cent of Nigeria’s population, but with 19 of the 36 states.
It was on the excuse of this kind of federalist ideology and arrangement that the imperialists used as a stepping stone to kill one of the forthright African nationalists in the person of Patrice Lumumba that stood for United Congo within a Union Government of Pan-Africanist State as opposed to the emergent federalist opposition in Congo. Advocates of federalism rarely meant what they are demanding as some of them have become opportunists that only raised this as booze words to attract attention to themselves in the face of competitive rivalry for political and economic interest whereby ethnicity is seen as barometer for negotiation.
What excuses do we have in changing from presidential system to parliamentary again as being canvassed by some politicians? The fact remains that the early change from parliamentary to presidential system was necessitated by the abuse of the system resulting to crisis and political instability. This undemocratic way of the politicians abusing the present system is a confirmation that the politicians should look elsewhere for reason of the failure of the present system in place just like that of the past. The individualistic tendency as part of the system geared towards satisfying the interest of the rich at the expense of the poor is a contributory factor along this direction. It then means that the source of the problem is broad to include socio-economic factor than being claimed by the political actors.
It is trite to say that politics is accorded respect as agent of development and politicians are seen as means to achieve this end. How does one perceive the truism that right leadership with pedigree is hard to come by in the system right from the 1st and 2nd republics up to the present period, the 4th republic. This was how the federal government led by Alhaji Shehu Shagari was put on its toes by the opposition in the Senate even though the presidential system in place then and just like now has no provision for official opposition structure.
The presidential system was whole heartedly supported by the Nigerian ruling elite of that era as it was their initiative; only to turn round calling for a return to the earlier abandoned cabinet/parliamentary system and for it to be dumped into the dustbin of history. This school of thought have forgotten that such system as being practiced in UK is based on a unitary and unwritten constitution as against the system in place in USA. Are these not some of the reasons they voted for presidential system of government over the parliamentary system of government?
What excuses do we have in changing from presidential system to parliamentary again as being canvassed by some politicians? The fact remains that the early change from parliamentary to presidential system was necessitated by the abuse of the system resulting to crisis and political instability. This undemocratic way of the politicians abusing the present system is a confirmation that the politicians should look elsewhere for reason of the failure of the present system in place just like that of the past. The individualistic tendency as part of the system geared towards satisfying the interest of the rich at the expense of the poor is a contributory factor along this direction. It then means that the source of the problem is broad to include socio-economic factor than being claimed by the political actors.
One more question that would need to be addressed is in the area of what is the motivating factor of the advocates of the so-called separatist groups and their likes, federalist (true) or the advocates of restructuring? Apart from the Tivs, Beroms and Atyap (Southern Kaduna) from the north and Ogonis, Uhrobo, Ijaw, Kalabari, together with other Niger Delta groups from the minority ethnic groups in Nigeria that have been fighting against exploitation, oppression and environmental degradation subjected to by the majority groups dominating the political space. All other groups that fall within the majority ethnic groups could hardly justify their penchant for fighting for their rights to self-determination; as they belong to that set of groups dominating others. This was the case in the north, east and west where the minority ethnic groups were marginalised under the 1954 federalist constitution.
Worse still the major ethnic groups are the ones making the loudest noise calling for outright secession or true federalism as a way of wanting to get a greater share of the national resources, in the course of their competitive political rivalry among the majority ethnic groups that composed the country. This category of federalists hardly reckon with the interest of the less privileged minority groups in the country as they are also interested parties in sharing the same resources too.
One common characteristic about the federalists associated with the majority ethnic groups is that they are the ones that want strong state, region, confederacy, or total separation while causing the central government to be weak or non-existent. The Igbos, for instance, have always had alliances with any government in power at the centre since the 1st Republic up to the Goodluck Jonathan-led government. So President Buhari is the only exception in not romancing with the Igbo that were used to this kind of marriage of convenience since they did not deem it necessary to support him.
It is not fortuitous that Nnamdi Azikwe said earlier in the 2nd Republic that he was a willing bride for any party at the centre. Not a few people would want to take the agitation for marginalisation from Igbo serious for such reason of the history of political opportunism by some of their leaders in contemporary Nigerian politics.
The determining factor in identifying who is really justified in claiming the rights of the nations to self-determination is that group(s) that is (are) at the receiving end of exploitation, oppression and marginalisation. This position is anchored on the fact that the working masses and the poor across Africa are the most marginalised and they need more support in their struggle against the oppressors and exploiters more than anybody else. Such position could be extended to the oppressed nations in struggle fighting for their emancipation and not as the case we are having it in Nigeria where people are fighting in order to duplicate oppression and exploitation in their own separated enclave.
It is only through socialism that the issue of national oppression can be fully addressed as it would be difficult under capitalism that in no little way inflamed nationalism as a result of injustice thrown up by the system of exploitation and oppression that it superintend. So secession if allowed under capitalist regime will not amount to anything good as the poor working people that found themselves in such new geopolitical formations will still suffer as they did in the past. Nevertheless, this could assuage the psychological appetite of the agitators and other peoples of the new states or nations.
To be continued…
Comrade Olamosu, National Secretary of Socialist Labour, made this presentation at a meeting of the Oyo State branch of Alliance on Surviving Covid-19 and Beyond (ASCAB) recently.
