Some Nigerians have argued that the best way forward for the crisis-ridden country is to convene a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) of all ethnocultural and interest groups in the polity to draw up an article of understanding for our collective future. Protagonists of the SNC obviously believe that unless this option is followed, Nigeria will probably remain adrift or even collapse as a nation state. But Nigeria is so awkward an entity that things don’t always play out as expected. With the type of crises that rocked the newly independent Nigeria in the first few years of self-rule, many political gurus could easily have predicted that the country would disintegrate soon after the secession of Biafra. Well, Nigeria teetered at the brink of the precipice throughout the brutal 30-month civil war and somehow emerged a battered but still united country. Military politicians, through the abolition of parliamentary system and creation of dozens of states, radically transformed national governance in a far-reaching and irreversible manner. Nigerians, including Ndiigbo, find themselves at the crossroads of history where we must make some tough choices on the way forward.

The influence of foreign rule, which led to the type of societal governance that we have at present, left its ripples all across the land and amongst all the cultural groups that comprise Nigeria. Although Ndiigbo existed as a distinct ethnocultural group in pre-colonial era, there never was an Igbo nation state that was run in the fashion of its modern-day variety. The day-to-day reality that confronted the Enugu-Ezike man, for example, had more to do with his northern neighbours of South Benue than with his ethno-linguistic cousins in Arochukwu. It is presently presumed that, at least within the context of Nigeria, Ndiigbo ought to be regarded as one monolithic ethnocultural and political group. May be so. But such a presumption could be found wanting when one begins to consider the nitty-gritty of what it takes to build a functional modern nation state out of present Igbo society. Without a historical precedent as a guide, the task of building such an Igbo nation state may not be any less challenging as that of Nigeria as a whole. Politics entails continuous management of conflicting interests. Intra-Igbo conflicts, which may have been submerged because of a larger Igbo collective interest in Nigeria, may become unearthed when one is dealing specifically with Ndiigbo alone. Anyone who is seriously searching for the best way forward for Ndiigbo in today’s world ought to bear these facts in mind.

At the intellectual level, there are two easily identifiable opinion groups on the political future of Ndiigbo. One group wishes to see an immediate termination of Igbo participation in the Nigerian state and the founding of an Igbo nation state. This group would like to adopt the name "Biafra" to represent such an Igbo state. Within this group, there is no consensus opinion yet on how to bring such a state into existence. The more vocal faction of this group feels that Igbo statehood can be attained simply be declaring its existence and then proceeding to actualize it through the implementation of functions of the nation state through nonviolent means. This thought process appears to be buttressed by the expectation that Ndiigbo would welcome a chance to aspire for an independent existence instead of enduring the litany of horrors that have characterized Igbo experience in the Nigerian state. Continual civil unrests in Nigeria, mostly outside the Igbo heartland, always invariably led to loss of Igbo lives and properties. There is a genuine fear that Ndiigbo may indeed not be wanted as part of Nigeria, at least, not as equal citizens. Marginalization of Ndiigbo and the introduction of Moslem Sharia legal code in some Northern states are given as clear indications that Ndiigbo and other non-Moslems are not wanted in some parts of Nigeria.

The less vocal faction of this group, which also roots for the founding of an Igbo nation state, would prefer a more confrontational approach toward the attainment of its objective. This opinion group sees potential success in reviving the secessionist struggle that was ended with the surrender of Biafra at the end of the Civil War. The group feels that the large expatriate population of Ndiigbo in Europe and Americas is in better stance now to muster the needed support for a successful secession of an independent Igbo nation out of Nigeria. Seeing the Hausa/Fulani core North as the domineering imperial force that must be defeated in order to guarantee the actualization of its dream, this group schemes to form alliances with the Middle Belt and other interested parties in a bid to break the Arewa grip on Nigeria. This more militant faction is not as enthused in playing the Moslem/Christian dichotomy as the more pacifist MASSOB. For tactical reasons, the line of demarcation between the two factions’ approaches has been blurred by expediency of providing a unified front for the tottering pro-Biafran movement.

On the other side of the coin are the so-called "One Nigerians". Within this group, there are diverse shades of opinions about the future of Ndiigbo in Nigeria. One faction foresees an autonomous Igbo state within or outside the framework of the Nigerian federation. The difference between this and the pro-Biafra group is the timing for attainment of an independent Igbo nation state. This group sees a successful establishment of an autonomous Igbo administrative unit as a necessary precursor to the eventual emergence of an independent Igbo nation state. This group also feels that if the process of establishing autonomy for Ndiigbo within Nigeria can adequately address the key problems at stake, then the need to complete a separation from the federation may have been assuaged. This faction of "One Nigerians" predicts an imminent convocation of an SNC which will enable the nationalities, including Ndiigbo, to expedite their various agenda for autonomy, either within a united country or as independent nation states emerging out of a disintegrated Nigeria. This group is inclined to model its strategies after the Yoruba paradigm which reportedly already has a national charter and constitution that shall provide the basis for founding the Oduduwa nation state. Founding an Igbo-dominated political party, as a tool for representing Igbo interest nationally, is consistent with this faction’s stance.

The majority of "One Nigeria" campers see the future of Ndiigbo to be coterminous with that of the Nigeria state. The historical role that they played in nation building, failure of the Biafran secession during the Civil War and current wide dispersion of Ndiigbo through the length and breadth of Nigeria make it imperative that Ndiigbo must find the ways to fulfill their dreams within the context of a united country. The overwhelming majority of the Igbo political elite belong to this shade of "One Nigerians". Simply put, this faction of "One Nigerians" appear to be following the instincts and attitudes of the average Igbo who has opted to embrace the Nigerian experiment again wholeheartedly at the conclusion of the Civil War. Some do wonder aloud whether Ndiigbo really understand what this choice could affect their destiny as a people. It is obviously patronizing for anyone to assert that the average Igbo is globally ignorant of what his real interests in life are. Decision to implement the "Enyimba Doctrine" is a telltale sign that the overwhelming majority of Ndiigbo are determined to enforce their vision of Nigeria just like other rival ethnocultural interest groups. One can actually assert that Ndiigbo have opted to do what comes to them naturally and are currently perfecting the means to ensure that no single competing interest group in Nigeria can compel them to opt for an involuntary retreat.

As we ruminate over the various options that Ndiigbo face in today’s Nigeria, Igbo pundits must not lose sight of the fact that the final arbiter in making political choices for Ndiigbo is the average Igbo at the grassroots level. The perceptions and resultant actions of the grassroots Igbo population has determined and will surely continue to shape the politics of Ndiigbo within either the context a united Nigeria or an independent Igbo nation state. We have an unusual situation where those who harbor passionate views on future political options for Ndiigbo are very remote from the realities that confront grassroots Igbo population on daily basis. Some of the most opinionated ones clearly lack the raw facts and experience that can enable them to meaningfully package the presentation of their viewpoints to reflect the interests of the majority at grassroots level. Some Igbo opinion leaders residing overseas rely solely on media reports of the situation at home. Without firsthand knowledge of the concerns and mood of the people at grassroots level, some pundits tend to become entrenched in their positions, without concern for the feasibility of their viewpoints in real life.

The most important thing for Ndiigbo to understand is that the problems we face today are not unique to us as a people. A careful survey of all the interest groups in Nigeria would clearly show that many more entities in the country are equally grappling with similar options that confront them. The ongoing debate on Igbo destiny is a healthy one. Within the realm of politics, differences of opinions, when they exist, should not be misconstrued. It is chilling for a fellow Igbo to see the other, who happens to have a slight difference of opinion on a single issue, as an "Igbophobe", whatever that is supposed to mean. We must first accept the fact that the average Igbo, within our indigenous cultural context, is unique as his "Chi". One’s thoughts, as long as they are not easily transformed into actions that contravene the norms of society at large, are always tolerated in Igbo culture. Political discourse can bring out the best or the worst in a people. Mature political thinkers, however, do understand that success or failure of their ideas depends more on how they resonate with the target audience, which is the electorate in a democracy. It is actually a manifestation of incompetence and immaturity for political pundits to jump at each other’s throats as the means to assure supremacy of their respective viewpoints. It is grassroots acceptability of expressed positions that matters at the end of the day, not the ability to assault and denigrate purveyors of rival viewpoints.

The whole spectrum of views on future political options for Ndiigbo are intrinsically legitimate and ought to be seen as positions taken by compatriots who genuinely have the best interest of Ndiigbo at heart. Viability of each stance depends on how its proponents have packaged their viewpoints to dovetail with the general aspirations of our people. When it becomes apparent that any particular viewpoint is not resonating with Ndiigbo as expected, we should not panic or become despondent. Let that experience motivate us into a rethink of our positions. It takes wisdom and strength of character to accept one’s deficiencies when they exist because one can then utilize the experience for better preparation in future endeavors. The debate on future choices for Ndiigbo cannot be detached completely from what pertains at present. Those who wish to influence their fellow Igbo with their ideas must, first of all, be willing to listen to the average Igbo and try to understand what informs his day-to-day decisions. It is clear to see that some Igbo political pundits are so sure of the correctness of their positions on issues that they have no qualms in casting aspersions on whoever is reluctant to tow their line. I am beginning to wonder whether such manifestation of intolerance is not a means to compensate for or mask some type of personal or group inadequacy.

As we all know, Ndiigbo are widely dispersed through the length and breadth of Nigeria doing what they do best; seeking the means to ensure their survival as individuals and as a people. There is no doubt that all is not well with the way our people are perceived and treated outside the confines of Igbo heartland. Should that stop us or force us into an involuntary retreat? Most of our people would respond with a resounding no. The bitter fact is that the overwhelming majority of Ndiigbo have found themselves operating within the orbit of "One Nigeria", mostly by choice. There are obvious risks involved with this option. Some concerned fellow Igbo genuinely feel that there are safer ways for Ndiigbo to pursue their survival needs with less exposure to the hazards that are prevalent in present Nigeria. Those who truly believe that they have something new and different to propose to Ndiigbo must understand that their task is destined to be an uphill one because they will be trying to change the status quo. Change, even though it can bring some good to a people, is usually resisted because of a natural reluctance to abandon the known for the unknown. Those who foresee an El Dorado for Ndiigbo in the near future should first think their designs through and then devise strategies to sell their ideas to the average Igbo. Anything less will be futile.

October 2001