Nigeria: One hundred years on

2014 is set to be a memorable year featuring three major events. The world cup will be staged in Brazil later in the year during which Nigerians would have the opportunity once again to rally behind the national team, the Super Eagles, in another fit of fleeting patriotism. This year also marks the centenary of the beginning of the World War I ‘’the war to end all wars’’ in 1914. Hundreds of thousands of troops from former British colonies including Nigeria fought and died in the name of the British Empire but their noble sacrifices have been largely airbrushed out of British imperial history.

By sheer coincidence, 1914 was also the year of amalgamation of northern and southern Nigeria into one unified administration by Sir Frederick Lugard. While the federal government has made plans to celebrate the centenary, it ought to be more an occasion for sober reflection and soul searching than celebrations.

Given our turbulent history the key questions that should concentrate our minds wonderfully are: where do we go from here? and what is to be done?, especially at a time when the country is facing the biggest threat to its existence since the civil war as a result of the raging insurgency ravaging the North East.

Amalgamation was no doubt a significant milestone in colonial state formation but left us with an amalgam of disparate, divided and, sometimes, desperate ethnic groups; but that is not unique to Nigeria. Many countries in the world are in a similar position and are getting on with their lives. Of course we should continue to find meaningful ways of narrowing our differences such as having a national dialogue, but we should not underestimate the ties that have bound us together long before colonial rule and since then. President Obama once said: ‘’We can choose to define ourselves by our differences and give in to suspicion and mistrust. Or we can choose to do the hard work of forging common ground and commit ourselves to the steady pursuit of progress’’.

The colonial authorities didn’t do nation building, nor should we have expected them to, since divide and rule was the stock in trade of British colonizers.

Even then the successor state, like the colonial authorities, hasn’t succeeded in forging a nation. Governments have been immune to playing divide and rule in order to promote selfish interests while professing their commitment to national unity.

The third stanza of Nigeria’s first national anthem, a better reflection of Nigeria than the current one, had the following lines: “O God of all creation grant this our one request. Help us to build a nation where no one is oppressed…’’ Having outsourced the task of nation building to God, as is often the case in Nigeria successive governments did little to promote national unity. Instead, by commission or omission they accentuated the fault lines of ethnic and religious conflicts resulting in instability and arrested development.

Take creation of states for instance. After the twelve states initially created by the Gowon administration in response to the exigencies of the time, subsequent decisions to create more states were self–serving; some states were even created to satisfy the whims of powerful generals. The states have had little impact on development. Instead of bringing development nearer to the people, in most states they brought federally collected oil revenues closer to the local state elites and poverty nearer to the people.

An unintended consequence of the creation of states is to further divide Nigerians by introducing another cleavage called stateism into the system. Nigeria is more divided today than it’s ever been with some ethnic groups threatening to go their separate ways, more out of frustration than conviction.

Much has been made of the notion that Nigeria is a ‘’ mere geographical expression’’, but, as geographical expressions go, the country that emerged from colonial rule had relatively impressive vital statistics. For all the flaws of colonial state formation, Nigeria is perhaps lucky in a sense, to turn out the way it did with a vast expanse of territory, a sizeable and diverse population and natural resources to boot; factors that we often deploy to buttress our claims to African leadership.

We need not look further than our immediate neighbourhood to see that we didn’t do badly. Niger and Chad, two of our immediate neighbours are bigger than Nigeria by landmass but with much smaller populations sand mostly semi- arid countries with no direct access to the sea, with all the challenges that landlocked countries face. Despite the legal fiction of sovereign equality of all states in the international system, God is on the side of big battalions.

Those who believe that the power structure in the country is too skewed in favour of the federal government suggest that the solution to marginalization and alienation lies in devolving power and finances to the lower tiers of government thereby cutting the federal government down to size, so to speak. But devolving more powers to the states is no guarantee, given that governance at the state level is generally nothing to write home about, with the imperious manner in which governors run their states like their personal fiefdoms.

Others argue that it is bad governance that is responsible for the country’s problems of underdevelopment and instability not the structure of the country. We can tinker as much as we want with the structure of the country as the creation of states has shown, but, unless it throws up the right people to do the right things it will be in vain.

Since the restoration of democracy the county has over the years become more of a kleptocracy than a democracy given the incessant reports of colossal amounts of public funds squandered and embezzled with impunity reigning supreme.

Nigerians are increasingly questioning the point of the current democratic dispensation making no significant difference to their lives. The fledgling democracy we practice is what one African academic termed ‘’choiceless democracy’’ where citizens go to the polls periodically but end up voting without choosing as a result of rigged elections.

Having muddled through many crises including a civil war in our hundred year history we shouldn’t be lulled into a false sense of complacency by tempting fate.

Not even developed and well governed countries with a much longer history of nationhood, are immune to separatist tendencies. Take the UK our former colonial power for instance. After more than 300 years of union between England and Scotland, the UK is facing the danger of unravelling. Notwithstanding devolution of powers to the Scottish parliament following decades of agitation for self –determination, the Scots are due to vote in September 18 this year on whether to remain part of the UK or not, raising the spectre of the United Kingdom becoming a Divided Kingdom.

If the Scots vote for independence it is almost certainly going to embolden and stiffen the resolve of Nigerian ‘separatists’ who would seize upon it to press their case. However, unlike the British government, one thing is for sure, no government worth its salt would allow Nigerians to vote in a referendum that could lead to the dissolution of the country.

Some mischief makers even alleged that the amalgamation of 1914 was meant to be for 100 years, that it expired on January 1, 2014 and Nigeria must revert to the status quo ante like an expired product that had passed its ‘sell-by’ date.

In spite of all the challenges Nigeria is facing, the country is still considered as having the potential to become an economic power if it can overcome the obstacles hindering its progress. Nigeria has been touted as one of four countries consisting of Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey (MINT) as the next emerging economies to watch with high growth potential. However, without good governance and responsible leadership all the prognoses for a brighter future for Nigeria would not be realized.

Dr Oyewumi is a member of the Editorial Board of Daily Trust