Of Tribes, Radicals and Mantras

In his work entitled Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, the Marxist Literary Critic, Raymond Williams, observes as follows: “Every word I have included (in the volume) has at some time, in the course of some argument, virtually forced itself on my attention because of the problems of its meaning seemed inextricably bound up with the problems it was being used to discuss.”

In the book, the Welch scholar illuminates on the origins of over 100 words while he takes the reader through the trajectories of their meanings over time within the context of culture and society. Although the approach of Williams was essentially cultural, it is worth noting that the changes in the meanings are politically and ideologically loaded.

If Williams were to conduct his research in today’s Nigeria, he would probably be interested in how the meanings of some words are changing almost imperceptibly. These words which could be veritable candidates for Williams’ Keywords include “tribe,” “radical” and “mantra.” The cultural, political and sociological implications of the meanings of these words ought to interest our cultural theorists and social scientists. Doubtless, these problematic words are used to discuss serious problems of the Nigerian politics, economy and society.

Perhaps the most sociologically problematic word used in everyday conversation in Nigeria is the word “tribe.” It is often assumed to be complimentary when you openly acknowledge a Nigerian as “detribalised.” Meanwhile, no one bothers to tell us if the person being praised was ever “tribalised” before the process of “detribalisation” allegedly began. In official documents, provisions are still made in 2017 for Nigerians to indicate their “tribes.” When you make statements to the police, you are asked to indicate your ‘tribe.” People proudly introduce themselves as belonging to the tribes of Ijaw, Igbo, Tiv or Fulani tribes. Here we are sometimes talking of nationalities of tens of millions of people! Commentators seem united in proclaiming “tribalism” as a major problem of Nigeria. So to achieve national integration, our leaders should be “detribalised” in exercising powers, so goes the advocacy. The word “tribe” is used by people who are seemingly oblivious of the derogatory import of that sociological category.

Yet, eminent political scientist, Okwudiba Nnoli, has thoroughly dealt with the misnomer that is called “tribe” in the Nigeria’s political language in his seminal book entitled Ethnic Politics in Nigeria. According to Nnoli, it is utter misuse of words to be talking of “tribes” in modern Nigeria. What we have in Nigeria are ethnic groups, nationalities (and some even now talk of nations!) and certainly not tribes. The colonialists pejoratively refer to the “natives” as belonging to numerous tribes. And 57 years after independence, members of the elite have uncritically adopted this insulting label fit only for those who lived in primitive societies. Members of a tribe might not even be aware of the existence of other tribes a few kilometres away in the primitive society. Indubitably, none of the over 250 ethnic groups in Nigeria should be referred to as a tribe.

On another note, it has almost become a dangerous thing to do in some quarters for one to introduce himself or herself as a “radical.” In the ideological dimension of the “war against terrorism,” the West has almost equated radicalism with the religious claims of terrorists. So we hear of “radical Islamists” and the attempts to “de-radicalise” those of them in custody in places such as the American detention camp in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The word radical originated from the Latin word radicalis meaning “root,” hence, the botanical word for the root of a plant is “radicle.” So a radical is a thinker who goes to the “root” of the problem in his analysis. A radical believes that you cannot solve a problem without going the fundaments of the issues. The radical criticism of the conservative and liberals is that they avoid these fundaments in philosophical terms. There was a time when an economist could be introduced as radical, without anyone raising eyebrows, to distinguish him from his professional colleague who holds conservative or liberal views about policies. It was common place to introduce the late Dr. Bala Usman, in his days, the media as the “radical historian of the the Ahamadu Bello University.” That could be an etymologically correct thing to say years ago, but today it might be a politically dangerously thing to do because of the meaning now associated with the word “radical.” You might unwittingly be provoking the authorities to arrest the scholar and “de-radicalise” him.

The third word in this instalment on changing meanings of words is “mantra.” Its origins are traced to Hinduism and Buddhism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “mantra” as “a word or sound repeated to aid concentration in meditation.” The dictionary also defines it as “a statement or slogan repeated frequently.” However, when used in political polemics, the word “mantra” is hardly complimentary. It is often used to dismiss the arguments of the other party in a heated debate. That is when mantra is used to mean a statement often repeated without deep thoughts attached to it or sincerity of purpose for that matter.

In Nigeria, the meaning seems to be quite different. Stalwarts of the All Progressives Congress (APC), the party in power and chieftains Peoples Democratic party (PDP), the main party in opposition, refer to the policies of the federal government as “mantras.” For instance, it is understandable if Governor Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti State dismisses the anti-corruption policy of the Buhari administration as a mere “mantra.” But there is something problematic when Information Minister Lai Mohammed talks gleefully of “the anti-corruption mantra of this government.”