1914—Lugard’s mistake?
Geo-politically, the Nigerian nationality is no different from other African states that emerged through a result of the colonisation process of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, Nigeria has a peculiar—and possibly, humourous—feature of being a national entity invented solely for the ease of the British administration. This was the amalgamation of two British protectorates and one colony: the Northern Protectorate of Nigeria, the Southern Protectorate of Nigeria, and the Colony of Lagos. These protectorates were distinct sociopolitical entities whose only common factor were their many differences from each other. Nevertheless, these two entities form the basis for the country as it is today. But, is there really a nation called Nigeria? And what are the implications of its existence?
The components of a Nation
Since it seems that the Nigerian “nation” is neither an evolution of a people, nor is it a shared migration, or communal settlement, but an amalgamation of people who have nothing in common except a shared name, it stands to reason that we investigate Nigeria’s claim to being a nation. This is relevant for a lot of reasons, the most important of which is the relationship between a nation (as a state) and Law—both international and domestic. Under classic international law, only states had personality in the international legal system and for an entity to lay claim to being a state, there were characteristics it had to feature. Also, it had to be recognised as such by other states. This recognition gives the entity a certain measure of élan which capacitated it to conclude and enter treaties with other states.
However, this legalistic prescription of what makes an entity a state merely reflects positivist and natural law ideologies; and not necessarily the “true” situation. For example, Somalia may be a state in the legalistic sense, but not in the functional sense. Therefore, a proper examination of statehood goes beyond the façade of international law requirements, and examines the claim to statehood from totally different perspectives. In the case of Nigeria, to understand if a national consciousness really exists, we need to distinguish between the individuals, the ethnic groups themselves, the administrative divisions (referred to as “States”), and finally the geographical national entity.
Tribes and states
As is common in African society, individuals tend to associate themselves with their ethnic groups more rapidly than with any other political community. Ethnic groups are distinguished by their culture, which, in the words of Lasswell and McDougal, refers to “any distinctive and stable pattern of community values and institutions”. However, since the erosion of traditional values and the concretisation of the western style of government—independent of traditional institutions—it seems that emphasis of statehood has shifted from the ethnicities to the wider (if artificial) political idea of a nation. Therefore, Nigerian law does not recognise ethnicity—and nobody is asked to fill an official form asking for “Tribe” anymore.
However, the national entity, in turn, thrusts the responsibility of social solidarity to the hastily and sometimes, shabbily, created administrative entities—Lagos State, Kano State, Delta State —that cut across ethnic lines. Gradually, the law shifted focus to the person’s administrative entity—their state of origin—and this replaced the individual’s ethnic origin. And so, today, ethnic origin has been taken over by state of origin—and individuals from the same ethnicity cherish the sanctity of their respective administrative states, much more than their common ethnicities—the case of Ekiti and Ondo states, being a very good example.
Can we, however, conclude that the Nigerian nation is a mere fiction, and that true political solidarity exists only within these administrative states? The answer is negative. There are those who advocate for a Sovereign National Conference solely for the purpose of abolishing the national structure and instituting separate sovereign states along ethnic lines. This view cannot be supported from a sociological point of view since, as stated above, there has been an almost imperceptible, but fundamental shift from ethnic lines to administrative state lines in both social and political consciousness. For example, people do not only clamour for a public official from their ethnicity today—but will also ask for one from their state.
The Nigeria we created
So, where then is the Nigerian “nation” consciousness, if it is neither in the administrative states nor in the ethnic groups? The submitted position is that the Nigerian consciousness is still national—however, it is not based on a constitutional “will of the people” or any other social contract. The nation of Nigeria exists, paradoxically, through the forceful union of its component groups for over 100 years, as well as the shared shock of civil war, military rule, political instability and economic trauma. Nigeria, today, is a creation of time and trauma.
We cannot pinpoint the exact time this Nigeria was birthed, but we can be certain it truly exists.Nigeria exists, not by virtue of its amalgamation or constitutional document, but by virtue of the shared experience of its constituent components over a period of time. This is the same way a class of students is built over time, and they graduate as a single entity and not just as disparate individuals sharing one building.
Thus, if “Nigeria” is a creation of the process of time and not a mere colonial handover, then it is time for the basic document—the Constitution—and the laws to begin to shed their colonial foundation and focus more on realigning their philosophy with that of the average modern Nigerian that has developed with time.
Punch
END
Be the first to comment