Deaths and the Depersonalisation of a Nation
“WHAT COULD BEST EXPLAIN THIS CONDITION OF PUZZLING INDIFFERENCE, IS THE DISSOCIATIVE DISORDER CALLED DE PERSONAL IS AT ION. DE PERSONAL I SAT I ON, IS THE CONDITION IN WHICH ONE FEELS DETACHED OR ALIENATED FROM ONESELF. A SUFFERER MAY FEEL LIKE AN OBSERVER, EXPERIENCING HIMSELF OR THE WORLD, AS IF IN A DREAM OR MOVIE”
Introduction
The recent spike in general insecurity in Nigeria, and the seeming trivialisation by the Federal Government of the spate of killings by Fulani herdsmen in different parts of Nigeria, have long been predicted as the expected outcome of the fragile colonial threads with which the different ethnoreligious groups in pre-colonial Nigeria were strewn together, and the resultant faulty needlework of both our nationhood and security architecture.
For a nation that has existed for well over half a century in a technological age, the proper diagnosis of this internal malaise and the correct prescription to tackle the condition, ought to have already become a foregone conclusion but the Nigerian security situation continues to be a study in contradictions.
When the sanctity of human life and the primary purpose of Government to protect the fundamental freedoms of life, liberty and property, is considered in tandem with the gruesomeness and frequency with which lives are crushed in parts of Nigeria by Fulani herdsmen, the question which agitates the mind, is how the nation and successive governments, have managed to show unusual resistance against the expected consequences of such abdication of Government’s primal duty rooted in the social contract.
The expected outcome of such failure of government in its primary duty of the protection of fundamental freedoms, has been identified by social contract theorists to include change of government, resort to self- help, self-defence, civil disobedience, anarchy etc. The U.S. Declaration of Independence endorses such outcome thus:
“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”
Nigeria, though a near perfect example of the failure of government to secure those fundamental freedoms and enforce the sanctioning power of law against infractions, as seen in the recent killings in Benue and Plateau States, has continued, like Giffen goods, to show unusual resistance or resilience against the expected results of such failure.
Several reasons have been advanced, for the counter-intuitive resilience of a Government that has clearly failed in its socio-contractual obligation of security of lives and property, as shall be discussed shortly.
Distorted Social Contract
The fact that, the failure of most African Governments in their primary duty of protection of lives and property, has not attracted the consequences predicted by social contract theorists, has been recognised as an exception to the social contract. D.K. Leonard explains the reason for the exception thus:
The social contract in Africa, is not between the State and individuals alone, but by individuals with their communities, and by communities with the State. Of course, the African State in its contemporary configuration, ... was a colonial creation and thus, came into existence through force... The classical concept of the social contract leads us astray, in our attempts to provide human security, in conflict-ridden countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. It causes us to think of bonds of legitimacy, between the State and a citizenry of individuals. Instead, the foundational social contracts in Africa, are between families and their local authorities, and between communities and the larger State. Complicating these two contracts, are implicit bargains the State has with its military, and with the international community. In addition, the focus of the classical social contract on individuals, leads to a liberal set of values that steer us away from the core issues needing attention in African conflicts – the central role that contested land rights have in the local social contract, the relationship that communities (rather than individuals) have with the State, and the impact that the unstable loyalties of underfunded militaries.
Perhaps the best rationale for the clamour for restructuring in Nigeria, is the need for the renegotiation of the Nigerian context of the social contract, which was negotiated through some ulterior colonial self-interests and formulated with some unrealistic terms. The resultant effect of such distorted social contract, is a manifestation of anomalies such that ethnic loyalties are exalted above patriotism, and Government fails in its part of the contract, without facing the predicted consequences of such failure.
Protection Under The Law
The need for the protection of the fundamental freedoms of life, liberty and property, is perhaps the strongest basis for the social contract. Social contract simply explains Government as the product of the negotiated contract, whereby individuals in the state of nature, agreed to forfeit some of their freedoms, in exchange for Government’s protection of their fundamental freedoms of life, liberty and property, and the adequate provision of public goods and services.
Globally, all security laws of nations, are fundamentally rooted in Government’s primal pursuit of the protection of the fundamental freedoms. In fact, according to John Locke, when Government ceases to fulfil this purpose, that Government has lost its right to remain in power. In the case of AMINU TANKO v THE STATE SC. 53/2008, ADEREMI J.S.C. pronounced on this fundamental duty of Government thus:
“The basis of any government, under the Constitution, is primarily, to provide security and ensure the welfare of the people. Any social malaise, or act or behaviour of any person or body capable of threatening the wellbeing of the citizenry, must be legislated against, and in so doing, all the three arms of the government must ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the Constitution...This submission is further reinforced by the provisions of Section 318 of the Constitution. See 14(2) (b) of the said Constitution provides: ''The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government."
The aftermath of the world war II and the gruesome pogrom of certain races and ethno-religious groups, led to the adoption of a number of international laws, treaties and declarations, to ensure the protection and preservation of lives, liberties and properties of all human beings, especially the vulnerable. Articles 1 and 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 for the protection of the fundamental freedoms of all people provides:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood...Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
Article 4 of the African Charter on Human Rights, which has been ratified by the Nigerian Government provides:
“Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect
for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right”
The Nigerian Constitution, 1999 appreciates this ideal, and endorses it in Section 14(2)(b) thus:
“the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government...”
Further, the Nigerian Constitution makes provision for the fundamental rights of Nigerians. Section 33 and 34 of the Constitution provides:
Every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria.
The widespread criticism of the government in the wake of the Benue and Plateau States attacks, seem to be predicated on the puzzling indifference and trivialisation with which these killings and deaths, have been treated by the Government. It appears that the nation has contracted a certain dissociative neurosis, that numbs its soul to these killings, which can be characterised as crimes against humanity. Article 7 (1) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, describes Crime against humanity as:
“... any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack . . . (f) Torture; (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”
A key factor in determining if violence against any person is a crime against humanity, is if the act committed against the victims is widespread or systematic. Widespread acts are committed on a large scale, rather than on an isolated basis. Systematic acts are committed in an organised and methodical manner.
As the videos from the recent Plateau State attacks became viral online, it could not have been lost on anyone, having regard to the above definition, that the acts are far worse than crimes against humanity. Yet, the soul of the nation is soon gone adrift as though nothing happened, without a “never again” strategy to prevent reoccurrences.
Predicted Outcomes
The certainty of the assertion that there are no “never again” strategies to prevent the reoccurrence of these attacks, is derived from the fact that the present violent attacks have long been predicted as a probable consequence of the very fragile and faulty needlework of our nationhood, which was crafted along the fault lines of ethno- religious allegiances and loyalties.
For instance, as far back as 1986, ever before the Plateau crisis erupted in the hitherto very peaceful Plateau State, the American Directorate of Intelligence had, in a now declassified report, predicted the possible outcome of clashes between ethnic and regional groups in Nigeria. It stated:
“The demographic composition ..., along with intense regional loyalties for ethnic homelands, explain in part the nature of the present regional and ethnic divisiveness, and give indications that these rivalries are likely to intensify in the future. Given the pressure building from declining oil revenues and a shrinking economy, religious and ethnic strife could intensify, unless the Government is seen as even handed and meticulously neutral...with fewer resources to pass on, the central government will find it increasingly difficult to avert open conflict between the various groups.”
The outbreak of violence in Benue and Plateau States, and other parts of Nigeria 20-30 years after those reports, is therefore, indicative of the failure or inability of Government, to meld a unified nation out of the fragmented foundational problems long diagnosed by the intelligence agencies of other climes.
Another variant of the predicted outcome, is the perception that heinous crimes can be committed without consequences, depending on the perpetrator’s connections. There is therefore, the perception that Government is incapable of providing redress for wrongs, and that illegal actions go unpunished.
If the physical lack of health care facilities in Nigeria to tackle terminal illnesses, is indicative of Government’s lack of ability to diagnose our internal security malaise and proffer and apply prescriptions, then we could at least attempt an adoption of the diagnosis proffered by other countries, or adopt the security and legal solutions of countries that have made progress from similar experiences.
The rehearsed talking points of Government officials since the killings, has been to quickly state that Nigeria is not the first to experience this spate of violence, without acknowledging that some of the countries referred to, have long resolved their crises. Rwanda is a clear example. Unfortunately, these incidences continue to reoccur unabated, as the nation pivots to the next news circle as though unaffected by the bloodletting.
The Depersonalisation of a Nation
It was Norman Cousins who once said, "Death is not the ultimate tragedy of life. The ultimate tragedy is depersonalisations-- dying in an alien and sterile area, separated from the spiritual nourishment that comes from being able to reach out to a loving hand, separated from the desire to experience the things that make life worth living, separated from hope."
As the news of the Plateau massacre filtered in with viral videos, and Government responded to the killings, the tragedy which agitated the mind was not only what was lost in terms of human lives and their sacredly held dreams now denied, but also what we have lost as a nation, in terms of compassion, conscience and consciousness. What could best explain this condition of puzzling indifference, is the dissociative disorder called depersonalisation.
Depersonalisation, is the condition in which one feels detached or alienated from oneself. A sufferer may feel like an observer experiencing himself or the world, as if in a dream or movie. The disorder consists of experiencing the world as strange, altered or unreal.
When the qualities and instincts that make all people alike, and that distinguish man from other species like conscience, compassion and consciousness become lacking in a nation, such that too many lives are heinously destroyed, and national life continues as if nothing happened, then we might properly describe that nation as depersonalised.
Depersonalisation, like other dissociative disorders, is often triggered by intense stress or a traumatic event -- such as war, abuse, accidents, disasters, or extreme violence. Perhaps years of military abuses, wanton destruction of lives, and the extreme poverty and stress of living in Nigeria, has occasioned that condition of national depersonalisation, such that human life is now equated with cows.
Some have argued that when the British created Nigeria in 1914, it did not bequeath Nigeria with a soul, and that the present security challenges and the indifference exhibited by Nigerians and their Government, is because Nigeria has always been soulless. One would rather posit to the contrary, that what seems like the absence of a national soul, cannot be properly construed as the failure of the British to bequeath a soul to Nigeria, but rather, a depersonalisation process from years of abuses and traumatic conditioning. The collective passion and zeal that got us independence, cannot be cursorily discarded as soullessness. What could have happened is that, somewhere along the path and process, Nigeria lost her soul and became depersonalised.
Possible Resort to Self Help and Self Defence?
The present Government, has been accused of compromise, condonation, trivialisation and cold indifference, having regard to its stance in respect of the present killings. The evidence adduced for such accusations, are indeed, compelling. Consequently, there are calls by senior citizens, for people in the conflict areas to defend themselves. Those calls, more than reinforces the throes of a nation that has failed in its primary duty of the protection of lives and property.
It is posited that, the resilience the nation and its Government has manifested against predicted outcomes of failure of Government in its constitutional duty of protection of lives and property, has elastic limits. When that resilience is overstretched, two things are likely to happen, an immediate resort to self-help, or the aspiration for change of the Government concerned. While the former will portend disastrous consequences for the rule of law, the latter might well be within the exercise of the rights of citizens, as constitutionally guaranteed. A clear example of such outcome, is the ouster of the People Democratic Party Government, that recklessly overstretched its16 years of uncommon resilience beyond elastic limits.
The All Progressive Congress might well borrow a leaf of wisdom, and end the present heinous killings being an existential challenge that threatens the stability of the country. The Government needs to wake up, to this fierce urgency of our collective now!
Richard Abdulahi, Legal Practitioner, Lagos
“THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT, HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF COMPROMISE, CONDONATION, TRIVIALISATION AND COLD INDIFFERENCE, HAVING REGARD TO ITS STANCE IN RESPECT OF THE PRESENT KILLINGS. THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED FOR SUCH ACCUSATIONS, ARE INDEED, COMPELLING”