Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

These days, as he routinely expresses glaringly undemocratic views, General Olusegun Obasanjo (GCFR) effortlessly betrays a curious desire to induce very dangerous perturbations into Nigeria’s fragile peace, with his brazen resort to rudimentary "divide-and-rule" tactics, and naked propaganda. General Olusegun Obasanjo (GCFR) is diverting the attention of Nigerians, while searching rather desperately for new allies to form a coalition in support of his self-perpetuation gambit, through a phoney, and sterile diatribe, so-called "offshore-onshore dichotomy". It is hardly surprising to discover that ethnic lobbies are fairly active behind the scenes, nowadays. It all makes far more sense when you find out that Nigeria’s current divorce from optimality is closely associated with ethnocentric factors.

A brief peep into the history of ethnic conflicts in Nigeria reveals that, right from the very early days of post-Lugardian Nigeria, the bastions of tribalism as a political philosophy, have specialised in linking ulterior political motives with primordial interests, in order to exploit, and subsequently abuse them to the limit. Tribalism is a very singular political ideology, aimed at perfecting the transformation of local conflicts, tragedies, and human suffering into parochial political gains. Ironically, for good, or for bad, among several other negative attributes, political tribalism and ethnocentricity uniquely characterise General Obasanjo’s presidency.

It will be recalled that in the colonial era, Chief Jeremiah Obafemi Awolowo (SAN), the first and most renowned Nigerian ethnic superhero, and proponent of the philosophy of political tribalism, illustrated this method. According to Chief Awolowo, tribalism was politically correct, as long as it fitted into the larger British colonial agenda of "regionalism", or "self-rule", or "self-determination". Indeed, Chief Obafemi Awolowo himself travelled across Nigeria, promising full collaboration and support for various ethnic lobbies, in exchange for the creation of their own states. This very basic motivation to associate with the disparate ethnic groups and power peddlers nationwide has been an evident factor throughout the history of post-colonial politics in Nigeria.

Somehow, the proponents of tribal politics in Nigeria always volunteer to serve the interests of any of the leading indigenous colonial power blocs, particularly the unelected feudal politicians, so-called "traditional rulers", "royal fathers", and "elders". This tendency to join forces with cliques of unelected geriatrics and other younger local superheroes, has led to a heated debate concerning the meaningful independence, utility, and optimality of political tribalism as an ideology. Since the bastions of ethnocentric politics painstakingly package themselves as devoted servants of larger internal quasi-colonial interests, it is not clear whether they make any pretensions to political autonomy.

For over thirty-five years now, since the unconstitutional creation of states in Nigeria by military fiat, this very question has turned into a nagging national headache. Since various Nigerian military juntas tenaciously rationalised their arbitrary partitioning of the country as their antidote to certain perceived centrifugal tendencies within their comprehension of a supposedly federal, united, and/or indivisible sovereign state of Nigeria, it is clear that most of the crucial developments in political tribalism in Nigeria were in fact influenced by major national tragedies, crises, and/or disasters. Since states typically associate their fates with those of the dominant ethnic entities, there is a growing concern among proponents of the philosophy of political tribalism regarding the independence and autonomy of decision-making among the disparate groups within Nigeria.

Such concerns are well justified. Throughout Nigeria, we can detect different cases of obvious conflict between the constituent states, and their respective sources of indigenous colonial hegemony. From time to time, some states fail to comply with the prevailing indigenous superpower. Such conflicts invariably led to a civil war in 1967, and the resultant negative paradigms of internal hegemonies nationwide, to date. Moreover, frequently, states got themselves into frontal conflicts with the central government. Until now, it has been the states that had to bow, and eventually to accept the very unpalatable dictates of the so-called "federal might" of central government.

Somehow, this time around, things look a bit different. After over forty-two (42) years of independence from direct British colonial rule, Nigeria is slowly, but steadily becoming a remote colony of an apparently far greater virtual state called, "Aso Rock", or "The Villa", or simply, "Abuja": a nebulous and very innocuous sub-component of the Nigerian Establishment, located in the fertile imaginations of short-changed, hungry, and angry Nigerians with short-memories. Incidentally, if you try to locate it on your map, you will probably need an electron microscope. For the very first time, it now looks as if it is "Abuja", the supreme power base of Nigeria, which should be worried. It now looks as if ethnic lobbies actually control Nigerian domestic and foreign politics. This time around, it is "Abuja" that is about to lose its "sovereignty".

The idea that the practitioners of political tribalism have taken over Nigeria might sound bizarre in the first instance, but this kind of strange scenario does happen. For example, nobody would be surprised to hear that during different phases of the British Empire, the world was governed by a very close clique of "Eton graduates", and the Rhodes Scholars of Oxford University. In the United States of America, the Jewish lobby, the Skull and Bones Fraternity of Yale University, and the Italian mafia have been universally accepted as very powerful. Sometimes, even great empires may be controlled by seemingly marginal groups.

We have to acknowledge that this is also the case with Nigeria. Nigerian domestic and foreign policies are now dictated by very marginal cabals of ethnic chauvinists. Good news for the virtual reality called "Abuja". Quite an amazing achievement for a bunch of unelected geriatric influence peddlers, and their younger trainees. But is it good news for Nigerians? Is it good news for Nigeria?

The modern history of Zionism provides Nigerians with diverse examples of great empires that were deluded into believing that a coalition with the Jewish state of Israel would serve their "enlightened self- interests". In the long run, such thinking proved to be fatally inelegant, perverse, and even disastrous. The most famous one is probably the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It was in the midst of the First World War, when the then British Foreign Minister announced that the British Empire would support the transformation of Palestine into a "national home for the Jewish people". At that time, there were less than 60,000 Jews in Palestine, living peacefully among 600,000 Arabs. What led the British Empire to such a strange declaration? What led Britain, the world’s leading superpower at the time, to commit itself to such a misadventure, based on the support of an insignificant ethno-religious group that was less than 10% of the entire population of Palestine?

If there had been some kind of deep colonial, strategic, or any other rationale behind the Balfour Declaration, they proved to be very misleading. Soon, Jews from all over the world flooded Palestine. Native Palestinians started to show their severe dissatisfaction. Conflict became inevitable. When Britain tried to repair the damage caused by the Balfour Declaration, it was already too late. Jewish right wing terrorist and paramilitary resistance taught the British colonial forces a lesson in brutality. From a British perspective, their alliance with Zionism turned into a nightmare. Barely two (2) years after the Second World War, Zionism (Jewish ethnocentricity, founded on religious chauvinism) pushed the British out of Palestine. A very similar pattern of regrettable naiveté led Britain and France, both decaying empires, to join forces with Israel, in the Suez operation of 1956.

In 1956, following the nationalisation of the Suez Canal Company by the Egyptian government, both France and Britain desperately sought for a military opportunity that would revert control over the Suez Canal to them. Obviously, Israel was not a part of that conflict. However, as an "obedient servant" of European colonialism, Israel, as usual, offered its military assistance for aggression, as long as the French and British aggressors promised to inflict maximum pain on its Arab neighbours. Consequently, the Suez operation was launched with an Israeli Defence Force attack on 29 October 1956. Two days later, both Britain and France joined the party. The operation provoked an outraged response from the United States of America to the aggressive Anglo-Franco-Israeli coalition.

Less than ten days after the Suez operation started, Israel bowed obediently to American pressure, and announced its immediate and unconditional withdrawal from the Sinai Desert. For Britain and France, that unsuccessful affair symbolised the end of their colonial might. More than anything else, the Suez operation indicated the loss of European influence in the Middle East. Again, from a colonial frame of reference, for both Britain and France, their association with Zionism was suicidal, or at best, counter-productive.

The Europeans learnt their lesson. They became very sceptical about ethnocentric political manoeuvres thereafter. At the same time, we must admit that Nigerians have not learned their lessons yet. Nigerians have not yet seen that a coalition with the flag bearers of political tribalism puts them at grave risk. It is very paradoxical that Nigerians fail to associate the never-ending gory episodes of premeditated ethnic cleansing, religious intolerance, sporadic system over-heating, and stage-managed mayhem, with the emerging unwitting ascendancy of the philosophy of political tribalism. We assume that the reason Nigerians fail to acknowledge such a straightforward correlation can only be due to the fact that tribal lobbies have managed to systematically overwhelm the key sources that control Nigerian public opinion in culture, in the media, in industry, in commerce, and in finance.

Wonders shall never end! It is absolutely unbelievable that General (High Chief) Olusegun Obasanjo (GCFR), the President, Commander-in-Chief, and Honourable Minister of Petroleum Resources of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, OPEC’s fifth (5^th) largest producer of crude oil, and the most corrupt nation in Africa, had to go out of his way to beg, cajole, appease, and convince a conclave of unelected influence peddlers and clout merchants, the so-called Kano Elders’ Forum, that he was, as it were, in a benign state of mental disequilibrium (i.e. He dey kámpé) when he "accidentally" appeared to have taken sides with the Niger Delta region, in their inordinate desire for the so-called "abrogation" of the so-called "offshore-onshore dichotomy" of petroleum resource control, and revenue derivation. It is very apparent that the so-called Kano Elders’ Forum enjoys General Obasanjo’s reverence, adoration, and respect, including his implicit trepidation of their damage potential.

Now, who is going to protect Nigerians from these strange gathering of unelected "elders", and other local superheroes that directly influence the President of Nigeria? While we take our time to answer this crucial question, we might as well stretch our imagination by contemplating the following:

On reflection, it must be terrifying to note that such a tiny lobby in Kano is so excited to push the rest of Nigeria into endless brutal conflict and confrontation. Do Nigerians really need all this wahala?

Unlike Generals Gowon, Babangida, Buhari, and Abubakar, or the Arewa Consultative Forum, or the Kano Elders’ Forum, or Afenifere, or Ohaneze, and/or The Patriots, all of who unabashedly give their gratuitous advice to Nigerian Presidents and potentates alike, we have no illusions that any suggestions we make would be read, much less heeded by anyone entrenched in autocratic power.

Certainly, both the Presidency and the National Assembly receive thousands of messages daily, and cannot possibly read them all, much less tally the positions they represent. We often see that the actions of our President, Governors, federal and state legislators, Local Government Chairpersons, and Councillors do not necessarily reflect the majority wishes of the Nigerian electorate. We also can see that the so-called mainstream media, particularly those of the so-called "Lagos-Ibadan Axis", and the "Abuja-Kaduna Axis", slant the news to delude the Nigerian public, and that their opinions do not necessarily reflect popular thought.

By understating the pent up opprobrium in the Niger Delta region, by the non-reporting or obscure placement of unfavourable news about grassroots discontent, and the use of misleading captions, the Nigerian media serve their sponsors, not the Nigerian public. These are the self-same people who helped the current officeholders gain power, and they do not brook criticism of their patronage. What we are therefore left to hope is that our musings may become part of a groundswell that encourages the silent, the uncommitted, or the disaffected to try to make a difference. It is either that, or a complete retreat from society.

At this juncture, let us make an exceptional effort to put on a positive face, and come up with some workable suggestions. The reason we mention this is that, each time we reach for something positive to say about Nigeria, we intuitively come up with a statement that begins with "don’t": For example, Don’t send soldiers to dissenting Nigerian communities, particularly in the Niger Delta region, at the drop of a hat, without due clearance from the National Assembly; Don’t take away the basic human rights of Nigerians and still pretend that you are running a "nascent" democracy; Don’t continue aiding and abetting repressive, and unrepresentative feudal regimes, disguised as "traditional rulers", "elders", or "royal fathers; Don’t start flexing your non-existent military muscle like a schoolboy bully, gunning for a pre-emptive war in Bakassi", clandestine or otherwise; Don’t fly around the world on endless presidential joy rides, pretending to be attracting phantom investors to Nigeria; Don’t engage in self-recycling or self-perpetuation, using the hoodwink of "divine mandate"; Don’t continue making enemies for Nigeria, who will in turn make the world unsafe for Nigerians.

The underlying heresy that is obvious in the thinking of most Nigerians is the notion that criticising General Obasanjo’s government is unpatriotic. To the contrary, what we find to be unpatriotic, and undemocratic is the over 127 silly and frivolous presidential air travels across the planet, the bastardisation of the Nigerian Constitution, executive corruption, the rape of the environment of the oil-endowed Niger Delta region with impunity, the enrichment of special interests, the march to a militaristic society, founded on the principles of predatory autocracy, and the general lack of remorse or simple decency in handling the brutalised collective psyche of Nigerians with reasonable compassion, even after the rampage of Odi, and Zakim-Bia, the explosions at the Ikeja Cantonment, and the "Miss World 2002" fiasco that resulted in the death of over 200 victims of ethnic cleansing in Kaduna recently.

Consequently, we have arrived at a proper frame of mind to say something positive: Something that does not start with the negative injunction, "DON’T". Here goes:

There you are! Just as we resisted the temptation of throwing a rotten tomato or a vulture’s egg at the face of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, when he appeared on our television screens, in his last boring state broadcast, we have now also successfully resisted descending into deep depression and negativity, induced by the prevailing climate of political tribalism.

Hopefully, our source of anger will evaporate completely by mid day, on Thursday, 29 May 2003, when Nigerians can truly celebrate the beginning of a happy new era, as they recover from four (4) painful years of predatory autocracy, skilfully spiced with political tribalism, under His Imperial Excellency, OBJ, after his programmed exit to Otta, or better still, on his permanent self-exile to Fiji Islands, as agreed, and signed in the pact of 1998.

Happy New Era in advance (i.e. post-Thursday, 29 May 2003), when democracy will finally cease to be "nascent" in Nigeria.