In the 1980s—during my doctoral studies —there was a theory of peace and international relations that gained traction among some scholars in the discipline. It was paradoxically called the anarchist theory.
In its formal conception, the theory dates back to the late 19th century. Still, I associate it with Professor Chadwick Alger, who was the director of the Programme in World Relations at Ohio State University’s Mershon Centre.
I took a course in international organisations with him and he subsequently served as a non-departmental member of my doctoral committee. From both contexts, Professor Alger introduced me to a variety of theoretical perspectives that I might never have run into in my core discipline of international/mass communication. One of those perspectives is the anarchist theory.
There was something about Professor Alger that, in a sense, embodied the theory. Though an intellectual of the highest order, he also exuded a quite messianic air. He was very passionate about international peace. So, when he discussed the related theories— barely above whispers—it was as though he firmly believed that the written word could bring it about.
Like Marxism, the anarchist theory is idealistic. Its premise doesn’t reckon with some essence of human nature. In its simplest expression, the theory calls for complete individual freedom without the constraint of state or communal authority.
This also entails a borderless world, in which people may migrate to wherever they please. The conjecture is that this would result in the aggregation of like-minded people, thus eliminating the usual societal conflicts.
As theories go, anarchism is as elegant as Einstein’s E = MC2. Problem is that it is not nearly as practical. With material needs being so pivotal, people would mostly stampede to the proverbial gold mines. And so, there will be more shoving, shouting and cursing than ever before. Sooner than later, an authority would emerge to enforce some order.
The movement of people is much like that of air currents. Just as air flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure, people seek out places where life is more comfortable and promising. That explains the relocation of people from rural areas to urban centres as well as the illegal and often hazardous migration of people from Mexico to the US and from Africa to Europe.
So, the removal of borders would only lead to more conflicts and discontent.
Within nations, there are, of course, no boundaries as such. People are free to relocate as they please. That is before the COVID-19 lockdowns. There is a certain normalcy to the pattern.
In contrast, the influx of the almajirai into Southern Nigeria has been an anomaly. It is a case of hundreds of young men being steadily and stealthily dumped in Southern communities. In most cases, they were concealed among cows or food stuff and trucked from the North to the South.
Initially, the sudden appearance of the young men puzzled the Southern communities. With all the violence of Northern herdsmen as a backdrop, it was inevitable that they were feared to be terrorists in the making.
While that fear is unlikely to fully dissipate, it is now evident that the primary goal of the dumping is to get rid of the young men. Apparently, Northern governments can’t cope with the horde of children just released from the disbanded almajirai school system. And the way out is to export the problem to the South.
Southern governors are understandably repatriating the kids back to the North. And that is creating another tension between the regions.
Unfortunately, this has been the pattern in the past few years. The unloading of the almajirai children can fairly be described as another instance of the North turning to the South for solutions to its challenges.
The herder violence that has creeped southward from the Middle Belt is a most glaring example. So are the tensions arising from the cow “colony” or “settlement” and the Ruga proposal. This raises the question, is the North counting too much on the South?
There is an irony here that Nigerian Christians might relish. Muslim terrorists kidnap Christians (as in Chibok) and convert them to Islam. Here’s a reverse case where Muslim children are being dumped on largely Christian communities.
What if in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, Christians decide to salvage these children by providing them with housing, food and vocational training? Nigeria’s mega-churches could lead in this regard by building dormitory-style housing for the children and rehabilitating them.
But what if in the process, the children become Christians, how would northern Muslims react? With appreciation for the children’s rehabilitation or anger for their conversion? In all likelihood, it would be the latter.
In that case Northern leaders may become indignant enough to take responsibility for these children. It might also lead to value changes that keep people from parenting more children than they can raise. Any cultural value that results in the discardingof children like trash begs for immediate reform.
In Europe and North America, it would be criminal to dump animals the way the almajirai children are being discarded. Violators could face years in prison. As for treating children this way, that’s just out of the question.
At the minimum, Northern governors could have requested help from their Southern counterparts. In all likelihood, the answers would have been, “Sorry, but we can’t help you.” But then some states might have offered some assistance. And if none does, Northern governments would just have to bite the bullet themselves. Perhaps, the immensely rich Alhajis would step in to help the destitute almajirai. The worst-case scenario is what is happening now: the stealthy dumping of children.
It would be great if Southern states could bear the burden. Alas, though they are better off than their Northern counterparts, they are by no means affluent. Southerners are struggling too. And the region is also coping with the violence being wreaked by its unemployed youths.
Still, it is improbable that the South would so dump its children in the North. Northern leaders have to be aching to answer the question of why there is such a difference. So, if there is any silver-lining in the almajirai debacle, it is that the embarrassment might spur urgent transformation in the North.
END
Be the first to comment