The new progressive government at the centre has reason to worry about souring ethnic relations. Indeed, since the beginning of the British experiment that assembled disparate entities and tossed them into what was meant to be a melting pot of cultures, embers of sectional fires have never been completely extinguished. While the founding fathers tried to manage the crises with varying degrees of success, managing was all they were able to do.
The politics of the centre has been the most potent force in the crisis of ethnic nationalities since before independence. It was the fear of domination by the southern nationalities that informed the northern resistance against early national independence. And our embarrassing inability to have an accurate national census since 1960 is traceable to the fear on the part of every nationality of being disadvantaged in the distribution of amenities and positions.
The politics of ethnic nationality is the reason for the dearth of national leaders. For no matter how charismatic and effective a leader is, once sectional lens are focused on him or her, the charm disappears. Charisma to one section is repulsion to others. In the twinkling of an eye, leaders follow their followers back to sectional shells. Water finds its level and a nation in the making falls back to the worship of old idols.
In the name of unity, we have indulged in national self-deception for far too long. When will we realise that we are not moving forward in the journey of nationhood?
That journey began more than 55 years ago if we include the common national struggle for independence. Ironically, it was that struggle that exposed the fault lines in the structure of the future nation. The original and erroneous conception of the emerging nation as a tripod elided its multiple component parts with little or no provision for the minority nations. On their part, Hausa-Fulani, Igbo, and Yoruba nationalities saw themselves as rivals for the central throne.
Among the majority nationalities, the Yoruba stood out for the principles they espoused. From the Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM) to the Constitutional Conferences, the position of the Yoruba leadership was unambiguous. The 1953 Action Group motion for independence, just two years after its inauguration as a political party, was the hallmark of its advocacy of freedom for all, life more abundant. But it was also the major source of its troubles.
Losing the federal elections in 1959 did not appear to slow down the Action Group. Carrying its convictions to the centre, it pressed for progressive policies and challenged policies at variance with its avowed ideals of good governance. The Yoruba loved their leaders and their place in the country even when they did not control the centre. Then there was crisis of leadership and things fell apart. The centre finally succeeded in slowing down the west and decimating its leadership. But it was the entire country that collapsed under the weight of the conspiracy.
Still mindful of its place in history, Yoruba leadership tried its best to avert the war. Colonel Adekunle Fajuyi demonstrated the Yoruba ethics of Omoluabi when he chose to be killed along with his host so nobody could insinuate that the Yoruba had a hand in the conspiracy. During the war, the Yoruba preserved old friendships as best as they could under the circumstance, faithfully discharging the moral obligation to protect Igbo property. None of these gestures mattered to hate mongers and empire builders. It was as if the Yoruba were the chief culprits.
Between 1978 and 1983, the campaign strategy of the National Party of Nigeria was to impugn the integrity of Chief Obafemi Awolowo. They demonised him, branding him as Igbo and Fulani hater. Of course, his Yoruba adversaries, in the minority in Yorubaland, supplied the gasoline that fueled the fire of hatred.
The annulment of the 1993 presidential election was the final straw in ethnic nationality relations. While the Yoruba saw it as a deliberate effort to frustrate them from leadership of the Federal Government, other groups cheered on the military government. Relationship grew worse during the terror years of General Abacha such that even those Yoruba who were opposed to the progressive ideology of Chief Awolowo came round to condemn the high-handedness of the military hierarchy and their sponsors.
The government of General Obasanjo was an equal opportunity dictatorship in democratic garb and credible Yoruba leadership did not see it as their own. Indeed, many mainstream Yoruba organisations distanced themselves from the government. Recall Obasanjo’s mockery of the rule of law in his treatment of Lagos State’s local government funds.
I have travelled this historical route to make an observation regarding where we are now. In the last few weeks, two tendencies in Yorubaland have raised issues bordering on relationship with other nationalities in Yorubaland. Typically, the Yoruba do not have problems wherever they live in other parts of the country. As strong believers in the relativity of cultures, they would rather be Romans when they dwell in Rome. They do not go anywhere to upset the proverbial applecart. Unfortunately, others are not as respectful of host communities and their traditions.
Before I discuss the specific cases, however, it is important to make a general philosophical observation with a question. In the unavoidable case of culture conflict in a federally-structured democracy, how is it to be resolved?
I assume that in such a structured democracy, there are clearly defined constitutional mandates that provide for certain conduct. Thus, killing an innocent citizen is a crime and there is punishment upon conviction. No matter where one resides, this is upheld as the law of the land.
By the same token, however, there are customs and traditions and each constituent group or culture has its peculiar idiosyncrasies which it guards jealously. In a well-constituted federal republic, there would be provision for according due respect to such customs and traditions, provided that they do not contravene the provisions of the laws of the greater republic. A traditional customary law cannot conflict with the law against killing an innocent person.
A true federal system makes adequate provision for cultural autonomy in a democracy simply because, as the sum total of the beliefs and values of a people that make them who they are, they would certainly want to protect and promote their culture even when they become a part of a political state. As elements of a culture, language, religion, beliefs, arts and values are, therefore, expected to be under the auspices of the people. To the extent that this is not the case, the struggle of cultural autonomy is warranted and legitimate.
In our corner of the world, the struggle was intense in the years leading to national flag independence. It was the struggle between unitarism and federalism. Since federalism won in the end, customs and traditions came under the auspices of regional and later, state governments. That was why each region had a House of Chiefs and on the executive side, a Minister of Culture and Tourism. The House of Chiefs was the custodian of tradition and culture, including the preservation and promotion of the institution of monarchy. The traditional ruler in Yorubaland is “alase ekeji orisa” (authority second only to the gods).
For the foregoing reason, and due to the fact that there are traditional rules and guidelines for the various cultural mandates in Yorubaland, only those with the authority of tradition are allowed to carry them out. In common Yoruba parlance, we must perform the task as specified so that the outcome is as desired. Where there is a conflict between the specification and the performance, there is bound to be avoidable chaos. When it affects tradition, the chaos could be spiritual and catastrophic.
Indigenes with a good understanding of tradition are, therefore, eager to protect their communities from any untoward outcomes of missteps. It is also their moral obligation to warn sojourners and visitors in their midst against flouting tradition and customs. More importantly, no matter how it appears to visitors, a people’s culture is their essence. Therefore, any conflict of culture must be resolved in favour of the host community.
(To be continued)
NATION
END
Be the first to comment