OVERCOMING THE ETHNIC DIVIDE By Yemi Obideyi

Attempts at solving the ethnic issue bedeviling Nigeria dated back to the pre-independence era. At its take-off in 1914, it was obvious the regions merged together by the British Colonial Administration under Lord Lugard, were at different levels of civilization and social evolution.

Besides, the three major ethnic groups in the merged territories of the Northern and Southern Protectorates known as Nigeria, differed markedly in culture, perspective, socio-political temperament, character and aspiration.

Unarguably, the factors mentioned above preponderantly, accounted for variation in the level of success achieved by the British colonial policies across the nation between 1914 and 1955.

Among other initiatives, creation of the Nigerian Council in 1916 by Sir Fredrick Lugard to bring together representatives of the North and South with a view to bridging the gap created by ethnic cleavages could not achieve the goal. Efforts by the British Governor-General of Nigeria after Lugard, Hugh Clifford, , between 1919 and 1925 to integrate ethnic groups equally ended in vain.

       

Between 1914 and 1959, a period of 45 years, Nigeria had little or no inter-ethnic clashes under the administration of Britain.

From 1960 to 2005, another period of 45years, with Nigerians administering Nigeria, ethnic based social unrest had rocked all segments of the nation. A civil war of three years recorded massive killings and horrible experiences on both sides.

A year before the war broke out in 1967, Nigeria played host to two military coups that pitched indigenes of one ethnic group against the other(s) within the Nigerian Army. 

ETHNIC IMBROGLIO

Again, between 1985 and 2005 alone, intra and inter-ethnic confrontations were recorded in North East, South East, North Central, South West and North Western regions of the nation.

Obviously, both the Military (or unitary) and political party-based civil governments had not been able to free the country from ethnic consciousness and debacle. In fact, they inadvertently promoted this albatross so much so that it had weighed heavily in form and conduct on all administration till date.

Thus for over four decades and under various experimentation with numerous policies on how to tackle ethnic palaver, various governments had failed woefully in this regard.

Some of the policies undertaken by previous governments in Nigeria to address this socio-political cankerworm include- Federal character, quota system, multiplication of local government, creation of two national political parties, states creation (from three regions to 12 states, then 19, 21 and now 36 states).

Other policy initiatives are, formation of National Youth Service Corps (NYSC); Federal Unity Schools; formation of Government of National Unity; Party Coalition; adoption of Parliamentary System of Government; Presidential System; Relocation of Federal Capital; multiple Constitutional Conferences etcetera.

All these policies failed probably because they lacked sufficiently in the foundation, orientation, character and appeal required to tame this scourge known as ethnocentrism.  Again, they appear as a crop of tactics aimed at tackling the effects of ethnic consciousness as against dealing with the issue itself from the roots.

Findings equally revealed that any government or position founded or occupied on the principle of ethnic bias or balancing within a nation, cannot in essence, contain or eradicate this socio-political anathema (ethnicity). Instead, it would consciously or unconsciously exacerbate it.

In Nigeria, composition of state governments in all the regions, usually, stimulates or heightens ethnocentric chauvinism. Each ethnic group divides further into smaller units whenever a state governor or commissioner is to be elected or selected. The society is plunged into unending definition of filial ties. By so doing, governors and state functionaries merely see themselves as standing in for an ethnic group within a larger one. Unfortunately for the system and its people, ethnicity knows no end. It contracts and expands with the imagination of its advocate.

One danger embedded in ethnicity is that it gives ample room for those elected or appointed on its platform to divert state resources for personal aggrandizement. Whenever agitation arises, the public office holder merely appeases some of “his own” people and mobilizes them against any opposition or critics. By and large, the ethnic groups are always pitched one against the other, whereas merits are sidelined and readily sacrificed.

In itself, ethnic consciousness is antithetical to the spirit of nationhood, universal appeal and purpose of mankind. No nation is peopled or inhabited wholly by members of a singular family yet all nations or countries emanated from one source or descent.

 

ODDS AGAINST GOVERNORSHIP

In Nigeria, state governorship position had always constituted a setback to the advancement of patriotism and commitment to nationhood. A nation struggling to integrate its ethnic elements with one arm, should not with another, encourage divisiveness. The New Nigeria therefore, does not need a state governor.

State governorship position splits the headship of government and consequently throws citizens into confusion on which to identify with. A Nigerian who hails from a state in the south would not and cannot be integrated in a northern state where he is based. This has been the experience with Nigerians over the years. Among other reasons, the position of a state governor in this nation is viewed as a symbol of ethnic superiority, impressive political exploits and supremacy of sorts.

The resultant confusion over citizenship or identity inevitably impairs loyalty and nationhood. Under such a situation, nation- building becomes impossible due largely to fragmentation of will power, alienation and segregation. For one who hails from a Southern State but is settled in a state in the North, which state governor will he identify with? Where is his interest protected? As at today, Nigerians from southern states are employed as temporary or casual teachers in schools in northern states. 

A nation like Nigeria where sentiment and attachment to ethnic nationalities are very pronounced, multiple identities would breed multiple pursuits and direction.

THE WAY OUT IN LIBERTOCRACY

By shifting focus to universal appeal of man kind using needs as common denominator, Libertocracy diverts attention from “what divides us” to “what unites us” as a people, a nation and humans.

Under Libertocracy, government is constituted on the basis of the professions or legitimate occupations in a country. In other words, government is based on the areas of need of the people as against their state or place of origin. A teacher, farmer, nurse, and civil engineer belong to the Assemblies of Education, Agriculture, Health, and Housing respectively.

This system of government reckons with the place of residence or settlement as the bona-fide state of each member of the society. By this, emphasis is shifted to the place of relevance for individuals and guarantees a level playing field for all. This therefore renders the position of a state governor irrelevant more so to give room for corporate planning of all segments of the nation to serve the interest of all professions or legitimate occupations accordingly.

Also, for an ethnically heterogeneous society like Nigeria, national planning and development would be better coordinated and enhanced without state governors. First, there would be room for sufficient harmonization and articulation of national policies of government at all levels.

The federal ministers would be free to interface with the needs of the populace directly and across the country.

It will become easier to assess the impact of government and lessen bureaucratic bottleneck.

Wastage of resources would be curtailed by streamlining positions hitherto duplicated at national and state levels. For instance, the Nigerian federal government parades two ministers each for Agriculture, Environment, Education, Information, Finance etcetera, and so the 36 states of the federation appoint a commissioner each in all these portfolios. To which category of citizens would the federal ministers be responsive if each state has commissioners over the same function?

Additionally, the state’s governorship position does not represent any particular area of need of the people. The people’s needs are clearly revealed in the portfolio of each minister and there is no justification to duplicate positions and waste resources there to. 

As commonplace as the scourge of corruption is in the country, no state governor is bold enough to set up statutory organs with which to deal with this social malaise right under their noses. Currently, Nigeria is ranked 135^th out of 176 most corrupt nations in the world. The report by Transparency International showed that the nation has been growing in official and non-official corrupt practices. The federal government agency against corruption, Economic and Financial Crime Commission had indicted almost all state governors that served in office between 1999 and 2007.      

Some of the properties procured with stolen states’ fund by some of the ex-governors were confiscated on the orders of Nigerian courts. One or two former governors are currently serving jail terms abroad having been convicted for money laundering and corruption related offences over there. Going by the Nigerian experience, it can safely be said that to eradicate state governorship position is to reduce corruption by a substantial proportion and end the era of ethnic hegemony and individualism.