Boundaries of Nigerian nationality
By
The idea of a sovereign national conference and the consequential issues of self-determination that repeatedly and determinedly invade our political space are complex, compelling and unlikely to be wished away. The fears the notion induces are understandable, but must not be allowed to disable considered reflection. Such considerations must go beyond the myopic calls for a greater share of the national cake being championed by the various state executives, and locate the historical dynamic powering the drive for more representative governance.
Over the last 300 years, nationality and democracy (core and sometimes-conflicting components of self-government) have come into sharp relief and sought to make common cause. In the struggle for independence across the continent, calls for self-government were characterised by the interchangeability of nationalistic and democratic language, in which the struggle was couched. At various times throughout history, nationality and democracy have been soul mates, strange bedfellows and sometimes conflicting creeds.
In the 18th century nationalism and democracy coalesced to ignite the forebears of modern democratic governance, the French and American revolutions. The idea of the divine right of kings was superseded by the more egalitarian idea of the peoples' right to control their own destiny. This of course presupposed "the people" as a determinate and sovereign entity. That presumption has been the missing link in our numerous parodies of self government. It is a deficit that the idea of a national sovereign conference seeks to address.
Nationalism has had its peaks and troughs ñ at one and the same time a haven for the high-minded and a refuge for scoundrels. African nation-sates have declined the invitation to evolve that other political constructs have risen to, largely because of the political corruption of its ruling classes. Nations endure because they would have antecedents. Were they merely contemporary constructs they would have withered long ago. This assertion goes to the root of the issue of the boundaries of jurisdiction. Before there can be self-government, the self must itself be determinate.
Nigeria, is yet again attempting to "introduce" democracy without addressing the pre-existent questions of nationality. The failure to conclusively resolve the boundaries of Nigerian nationality, a political deficit as much as a jurisprudential one, has left the continued existence of the country exposed to the antics of political opportunities and extremists. The denial option, the President's preferred mode, is neither realistic nor responsible. The issue will require more than the occasional unimaginative sound bite, of recent a recurring means of shaping policy.
There can be no realistic reflection of the will of a people without there first existing a sovereign right of "the people" to determine their own affairs. The very existence of a nation presupposes a process of self-determination. For there to be a Nigeria, beyond the narrow and shifting limits of political convenience, the peoples of Nigeria must first have a voice, with which they can make their preference known. In other words the nationalistic aspirations of the nation's constituent elements must first be institutionalised. It is at this level, just beneath the reality of the nation-state, that we have failed to rise to the challenge of historical legitimacy.
Only a political neophyte would imagine that all he need do is assert the existence of a denuded mandate, which at best reflects a cumulative and collective sigh of a people long in the political wilderness. The President's claim to be the Protector of Last Resort of the people's will fails to respond to the imperative behind the calls for a sovereign national conference. Before he or anyone else can lay claims to the vox populi, the constituent elements of the nation, its varied people, must be heard. That is manifestly not the case.
An election process, hurriedly cobbled together by a military in retreat ought not to be a benchmark, let alone elevated to a sanctum it was not the voice of the people. It was a hatchet job and stands discredited. It does not bear the stamp of legitimacy that a mandate properly so-called requires. Granted, the President has no other leg to stand on, he needs to be reminded however, that fate more than the will of the people are his redemption.
The existence of a nation requires historical legitimacy. For multifarious nations like Nigeria who are by-products of imperial adventurism, the legitimacy quotient is doubly necessary. The dearth of historical legitimacy does not in and of itself invalidate the pursuit of meaningful nationhood, it does however place upon that odyssey peculiar burdens. Prominent among these is the requirement to determine the parameters of self-determination.
Are the common contemporary experiences and history of its varied peoples sufficient to determine the boundaries of a nation such as Nigeria? Democracy is too often presented in isolation as an all-purpose panacea able to resolve our nation's dialectics. We would do well to remind ourselves that democracy and nationality occupy distinct and different realms, which may or may not overlap, benignly. Nationality helps us to define what shall count as a people; only after that is democracy of value as a means by which such a people elect to govern themselves.
There is a centrifugal tendency for people within an enforced territorial jurisdiction to actively pursue their individual identities in ways that call into question the legitimacy and the very existence of the asserting authority. This tendency stands in contradistinction to a centripetal one from the suzerain, which denies those differences that call into question the limits of its jurisdiction. From derivation rights to the denial of offshore rights, it is those tendencies that are playing out on our political landscape.
We cannot expect to proceed to a sustainable democracy without first resolving the questions of self-determination inherent in our federalist aspirations. History is replete with examples, many of them blood-stained, of the folly of building on delusions.. The desire for meaningful self-identity has time and again been proved to be a historical fact, perilously denied.
The challenge that we must rise to is that of grasping the nettle of self-determination without abandoning the hope of co-existence. Time is not our friend and the choice before us is stark: a creeping supra-nationalism or a catatonic balkanisation. Muddling on is no option and will only serve to exacerbate the already deep fissures of an enforced and coercive juxtaposition. If we are to forget a just and equitable nation we must accept the imperative of reassessing the very legitimacy of our existing arrangement.
The desire for a sovereign national conference and the concomitant fear of one are equally well founded. The offending nomenclature can be looked at again without impairing the imperative for fundamental revisitation. A genuine process must be embarked upon however. This rather than a grand event may provide the route of least resistance. We shall be venturing into uncharted territory, go we must however. Today it is difficult, tomorrow, with more real and perceived injustices, it shall become more so.
Those that have profited and continue to profit from our distemper are understandably loathe to contemplate a more just disposition. Their voices are strong because they are the holders of political office and purveyors of political and commercial influence. We must not allow their avarice and their fear to paralyse us, preventing us from rising to the challenges of our generation.