“Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no ‘Nigerians’ in the same sense as there are ‘English’, ‘Welsh, or ‘French.’ The word ‘Nigerian’ is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria from those who do not.”
Perhaps no other statement encapsulates our crisis of national self-doubt like this verdict issued by the late politician, Obafemi Awolowo in 1947 in his book, Path to Nigerian Freedom. Over decades, it has been quoted, often inaccurately, by pundits and politicians with the force of holy writ. Awolowo saw the nascent Nigerian nation as an existential struggle between an artificial geo-political reality imposed by British colonialists and more natural ethnic nations. He believed in the primacy of ethnic communities and in their inherently superior legitimacy to the colonial contraption of the nation-state. In his hierarchy of identities, primordial ethnicity came first.
There were also nationalists like Nnamdi Azikiwe and Adegoke Adelabu who declared in 1952: “Tribes must die, ethnic groupings fade away and sectional interests submerged and sacrificed, in order that a nation, vigorous, virile and transcendental may arise.” Of course, it is ethnic chauvinism rather than ethnicity that should die but Adelabu saw Nigeria as the transcendent entity. The struggle to clarify national purpose and identity and synergise the gifts of diversity remains a contentious theme.
Awolowo’s assertion is often cited by polemicists who deride Nigeria as unfeasible and even illegitimate because she was conceived by imperial violence rather than the consensus of her ethnic communities. This argument is untenable. Every nation necessarily emerges into history as a geographical expression. Nigeria’s colonial provenance is not unique. Nations have always evolved through wars, peace treaties and negotiations. Europe was a mosaic of ethnic communities until the violent rise of the nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries. Thereafter many people began to primarily identify themselves by nationality rather than by ethnicity in a shift that was usually coerced rather than freely chosen.
Believing that linguistic, ethnic and racial homogeneity are the best foundations for nationhood, Awolowo suggested that the French identity is a homogenous ethnic identity. He was wrong. It took substantial carnage for Normandy, Corsica, Brittany and Gascony to become part of France. As the French political theorist Ernest Renan observed, “Unity is always achieved brutally.”
Ethnicity as the requirement for nationhood is a dubious proposition. The fact is that less than ten percent of the world’s countries are ethnically homogeneous. Ethnic boundaries frequently do not coincide with those of sovereign states. There are scarcely any territorial spaces that are ethnically exclusive. If Africa’s over 2,000 ethnic communities had been made nation-states, they would have become economically unviable, warring fiefdoms with undersized territories and populations rendering them externally and internally insecure.
Nigeria’s size and population have long been recognised as readily setting her apart for a role of strategic pre-eminence in Africa and the world at large. In 1959, while addressing the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured people (NAACP) in New York, Nnamdi Azikiwe offered his vision of Nigeria. “It will be, by a very large margin, the biggest state in Africa,” he said. “It will be no vassal state depending for its existence on the sufferance of other powers. It will formulate its foreign policy in its national interest, but it will not be neutral on any issue, which affects either the destiny of peoples of African descent anywhere on this planet or the peace of the world. Sustained by its connection with the democratic world, and powerful through the number of its inhabitants and the extent of its resources, Nigeria will be a country of consequence, and, I am convinced, a force in world affairs.”
Nigeria may well be Africa’s last chance of producing a powerful nation-state, for no other country so avidly embodies the continent’s potential. The scholar Samuel Huntington proposed that on account of its size, resources and location, Nigeria should be Africa’s “core state” – a powerful nation which maintains order.
Renan stressed that race, language, and religious affinity were in themselves insufficient to create a nation, which he described as a “spiritual principle”, “a moral consciousness” and “a great solidarity.” Ethnic homogeneity cannot indemnify society against conflict. Somalia, the world’s poster child of failed strife-prone nationhood, has only one ethnic group, the Somali, only one language and is one hundred percent Islamic. South Sudan, which only recently celebrated its divorce from Sudan is now embroiled in inter-ethnic conflict within its borders.
Back home, we need only look at ethnically homogeneous states to establish conclusively that ethnic homogeneity is not a predictor of peace, social justice or smart governance.
Ngwodo, a writer and consultant, sent in this piece from Jos, Plateau State. He can be reached at [email protected]