drtayooke@gmail.com
It is difficult to recount how many times we have all come across the saying that so-and-so is a “detribalised” Nigerian. It fills me with such revulsion and utter bewilderment each time it brushes through my ears. I have never come across a phrase so reified, and so widely embraced as a mark of respect by the political elite in this country, yet, so devoid of substance. People should find it infuriating that someone is pointing them out as a “detribalised” Nigerian; it is an insult to the intelligence.
What finally lit the fuse for the pushback in this write-up was the report of the so-called “leaders of the Igbo-speaking community” in Lagos, last week, urging Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives’ Congress, to contest the 2023 presidential election on account of being a “detribalised” Nigerian. Casting aside the motive behind their public endorsement of Tinubu, it is the premise upon which it was based that many people would find stomach-churning. No doubt, it was meant as an accolade, and a feather in Tinubu’s cap. The phrase is regularly bandied about in conference halls, seminar papers, campaign speeches and at evening dinner speeches, aimed at individuals of his ilk. The person about whom it is said is supposed to feel a kind of elation and contentment at such a public tribute to their devotion to the welfare of others. Such persons are equally as befuddled as the people uttering the meaningless phrase, I am afraid. ‘Tribal’ loyalty is a natural human phenomenon that is present in everyone, everywhere; Asia, Africa, America, China, Europe, football pitches, cricket matches, you name it. Tribal(ism) is another kettle of fish.
The “Igbo leaders” urging Tinubu to contest the 2023 Presidency were unwittingly insulting his person by describing him as a “detribalised” Nigerian. Let us consider the etymology (and political usage) of the word ‘tribe’. Tribe is a sense of (primordial) belonging to a small group of community with shared goals and aspirations. You would spare no effort in proclaiming the group over and above all others. This is mostly felt in the domain of sports. Imagine the tribal loyalties owed to the “Dallas Cowboys”, “New England Patriots” “Chicago Bears” “Tampa Bay Buccaneers” etc, in American ‘football’. Similarly, in European football, giant clubs such as Barcelona, Juventus, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Arsenal, Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea etc enjoy world-wide tribal loyalties. See, how many fans of these clubs go into ‘battle’ inside “beer parlours” around Nigeria when ‘their teams’ are playing, and how they cheer them on sometimes violently, as opposed to a rival team. Nigerians have been known to shed blood defending the honour of ‘their’ cherished European clubs on match-days, several thousand miles away from the pitch where the games are being played by stupendously rich stars with absolutely no knowledge of, or interest in the existence of their local Nigerian fans. That is what tribal loyalty feels like. It is an unrequited love.
Moreover, ‘tribal’ loyalty can also be seen within political parties, and other small social groups. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. ‘Tribe’ is not, in essence, synonymous with Nigerian, or African, or Igbo, Yoruba, or Hausa. It is used as a stand-alone concept. Tribal(ism) came into prominence in African political lexicon with the arrival of European colonial masters. They had arrived on African soil convinced of the superiority of their own civilisation and their pre-destined mission to civilise the African, away from what they believed was their barbarism and ‘primitive’ living. The reality, however, was that African nations (not states) had existed in their fully developed forms prior to the European colonial adventure. The Carthage, Malians, Songhai, Nok, Ashanti, Benin, Oyo, Kanem Bornu etc, exhibited the attributes of empires similar to those of the great Europeans. These empires had begun to dissolve into nations in Nigeria vis: Hausa, Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo, etc, when the European entered the shores of Nigeria. Alarmed at what they encountered as an equal, if not superior civilisation staring them in the face, they opted to re-brand the newfound nations ‘tribes’ in order to justify their warped theory of racial superiority and their odious civilising mission. The ‘tribe’ appellation was drummed into the ears of our forefathers long enough that they too began to reflect on each other as ‘tribes’. On account of that, the anti-colonial resistance could no longer be waged on the justifiable platform of nationalism. It was dissolved into tribalism, and savage attacks in the European-inspired history books. That made their own political conquest a ‘just’ cause in the eyes of the European Christian Missionaries that followed them. From their own history, they knew how potent nationalism could be as opposed to tribalism. This, in a nutshell, was how African nationalist leaders became known and reviled as “tribalists”, bringing them to utter ridicule in the eyes of the people. Question. At what point was Tinubu ever a “tribalist”, who has now become “detribalised”? At what point was “tribalism” ever appropriate to describe his politics or that of any of his forefathers?
A “detribalised” Nigerian has become loaded in contemporary political parlance. It is meant to refer to a person who does not think or feel for any particular Nigerian nationalities. Nigeria is a conglomerate of nationalities, not tribes. The Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, for instance, are nations in their own rights, bigger and more developed than many present-day European nations in fact. (See, “Nigeria: ‘Tribalism’ and the nationality question” The PUNCH, November 17, 2020). Listen carefully, anyone who says his politics precludes proclamation of his “Igboness”, “Yorubaness”, or “Hausaness” is not fit to lead, as that would amount to naked bid for power.
There is nothing incompatible with being a patriotic Nigerian and exhibiting pride in Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa etc, at the same time. Charity, they say, begins at home. A “detribalised” Nigerian exists only as a figment of somebody’s imagination. It is really an invitation to repudiate (indeed, apologise) for one’s sense of belonging. Part of the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.)’s electoral appeal is that he is a passionate northern politician. It is also true that he is a passionate Nigerian as well. What is wrong with that? The two positions are not mutually exclusive or, are they? To be a passionate northern, eastern or western politician is not to be confused for a position of ‘tribe’, from which the person must become “detribalised”.
For a governor to appoint people across the ethnic divides into his cabinet does not make him a “detribalised” Nigerian; it makes him a people-focused politician, and a statesman. Above all, it makes him a patriotic Nigerian. In fact, such an act is the height of patriotism, not detribalisation. In the final analysis, Nigerian politicians should not be compelled to disavow their sense of belonging, locally, in order to become accepted nationally. This point was made abundantly clear, on the eve of independence, in a poignant (and still pertinent) conversation between Nnamdi Azikiwe (Igbo), and Ahmadu Bello (Hausa-Fulani). “Let us forget our differences”, Azikiwe had urged. “Oh no, let us not forget our differences; let us recognise them”, Bello retorted.
New Yorkers are as proud of the state of New York, as they are of America as a country. The same could be said for Texas, California, Florida, Alaska etc. Azikiwe, who studied and taught in America for a while before coming back to play politics at home, should have known better. A Nigerian national identity cannot be forged in a vacuum, in the absence of strong regional affiliations. It will, and must be forged in spite of those affiliations. Nigeria has a lingering issue with nationalism; not tribalism. The question must be resolved through an open and honest dialogue, not by superimposition.
END
Be the first to comment