By Matthew Hassan Kukah
On February
24, this year, I delivered the convocation lecture for the University of Abuja ,
titled, Though Tribe and Tongue May Differ: Managing Diversity in Nigeria .
Drawing from Frost’s poem, The Road Not Taken, I came to the very sad
conclusion that coming to the critical point where two roads diverged, our
leaders have always avoided the road less travelled. The result is that
rather than make a difference, many of the leaders have continued to make the
same mistakes.
The cumulative effect litters the landscape
and goes by different names: corruption, underdevelopment, stagnation, decay,
etc. In the Lecture, I argued that: We have lacked the courage to take
some of the tough decisions that would have changed our country today. We found
the discipline and demands of equality enshrined in our democracy difficult to
uphold and therefore we opted to cohabit with feudalism. The result is that we
have constructed a rickety double decker identity vehicle whereby we inhabit one
section as citizens and another as subjects. Government has been unable to
secure the loyalty of its citizens who prefer to preserve their reverence and
loyalties to their local communities. The consequences of our lack of clear
choices now stare us in the face. We are unable to submit to a single loyalty
code. The elites steal from government and return home to feather the local
nest presided over by the local hegemon before whom they prostrate as favourite
sons and daughters adorned with feathers of recognition and appreciation.
No Nigerian leader has found the way to deal
constructively with both feudalism and religion and break from these
strangulating hegemons which have delayed our national integration. Both these
hegemons of feudalism and religion have become totems which people claim to
identify with when it is convenient for them to do so. Unless and until a
Nigerian leader confronts these twin institutions and defines and clarifies
their roles in society, common citizenship in *President Muhammadu Buhari and Bishop Mathew Hassan Kukah |
My intention in this presentation is to continue the exploration of themes that
have been at the centre of my research and reflections for the last thirty or
more years as a public intellectual. The questions are varied and complex, they
are vertical, horizontal, intersecting and counter penetrating. They seem
interconnected, yet dispersed, they both attract and repel. Look at a few of
them: Are we a country, a nation or a people and what is the significance of
and the difference between each of these nouns? Is national cohesion an
illusion? How do we fix Nigeria ?
How can this country work for us? Why do we love to hate our country with equal
passion? What needs to be done and who needs to do what? What and where are the
tools? Who will design or manufacture them? How do we end inequalities? How do
we find a balance between religion and politics? Can both ever serve the common
good? Can they do so together? The questions are legion.
The theme for today’s Conference according to
the convener, Professor Epiphany Azinge, is, Nigeria : In Search of a
Detribalized Race. It seems that Professor Azinge seeks to address some of
the issues that are also captured in the questions I have posed above. However,
I imagine he thinks that if we could produce a detribalised race, then we would
have found answers to all our complex problems and would safely be on our way
to El Dorado
where we would all live happily ever after! I am not here to dispute this
assumption, but to add my voice and to raise some even more serious questions.
Those who have read my articles or have heard
me speak will be familiar with the fact that I prefer to ask more questions
than provide answers. I believe that a chance to address an audience at any
time is a rare privilege and no one should take it lightly. It would be
dangerous to assume that one is on the podium because he or she is the most
informed about the issues. So, I see these events as opportunities to further
our collective search for meaning.
So, going forward, my questions are: What does
a detribalised race look like? What are the causes of detribalisation and how
do people get detribalised? What are the ingredients of detribalisation? In
fact, can there be such a thing as a totally ‘detribalised’ race or person? Who
writes the prescription and who administers the dosage? What are the obstacles
to detribalisation? Again the questions are many and finding answers to them
will now occupy our attention.
I am neither an Anthropologist nor a
Sociologist and might not have the precise definition of the concept of tribe.
However, as a social category, I see Tribe as a unit of organization that holds
together a community that shares a sense of common ancestry, history,
mythology, language and culture. These go on to produce feelings and bonds of
affinity. Tribalism on the other hand, is the operational instrumentalisation,
and unfortunately even manipulation, of that identity as a platform for
organisation and negotiation, or the application of that identity to secure
advantage for the group. Tribalism appropriates that identity, draws boundaries
and excludes other members from the privileges. When employed, it can become
the rallying cry, an ideology for war for the protection of the tribe or the
appropriation of resources to maintain the supremacy of the group.
Detribalisation, therefore, does not mean the
negation of tribal identity per se, but it means the negation of tribalism, the
abandonment of tribal loyalties and their substitution with what may be
perceived as higher goals of modernity. This last note stems from the premise
that tribalism is often associated with traditionalism which is often perceived
to be something static, established and unchangeable, and therefore in conflict
with modernity. The discussion on the relationship, oft times seen to be
conflictual, of African traditional cultures and modernity is one I will not go
into here but it is one on which there is a lot of research already done and on
which much more is needed.
However, for the purpose of today’s
conversation and our understanding of ‘detribalisation’ as the negation of
tribalism, the question is, what are the aggregate units of bad things that
would need to be abandoned for an aggregate of good things that can enable a
people to embrace the alternative as an appealing concept? We cannot answer the
question in isolation because the title of my paper suggests a second leg,
namely, what I refer to as Retribalisation which in effect would be the
alternative offered as the identity factor of the people (tribe).
I have introduced the notion of
Retribalisation so as to create a balance in the concepts. By my lose
definition, it is an abandonment of the tent of detribalization and a return to
a new tribalisation. What it means therefore is the feeling that the promises
that were offered to make us abandon tribalism have not paid off and now the
individuals or groups realise that they were sold a counterfeit; thus we see
the quest for a return to the womb of tribalism. The interplay of these forces
is what we are confronted with today. I am not in a position to provide
answers, but my concern is to offer a few items on the menu and hope that all
of us can begin a process of debating these challenges, looking at the merit or
demerits of each of the issues.
The first question to ask is, what are the
factors that would lead to detribalisation? What are the incentives? In other
words, why would people trade one identity for the other? To attempt to answer
these questions, we need to look elsewhere, and here, game theories can help
illustrate what we mean.
Let us first take the economic and
philosophical concepts of what is called, incentive
compatibility or utility maximisation. The issue here is to enable us
examine what set of rules guide human behaviour. Given that the human person is
a utility maximizer, that is, we all prefer to play by the set of rules that
confer maximal benefit to us, how do we ensure that all participants achieve
benefits in any given situation where people seek advantage over one another?
Let us take some examples: Imagine that an airline tells passengers that
non-smokers and teetotalers will get the best seats and discounts, how will
smokers and drinkers react? Or, a bank advertises that men who do not abuse
their wives will be more liable to access loans, what will happen? Or, if the
Road Safety Corps decides that at the end of the year, any motorist who has not
had any driving accident will receive 50 liters of fuel for free, what impact will
this have on drivers? We can all respond to these issues differently, but the
truth is that each and every one of us will most likely be persuaded by
self-interest to act well. So, in the end, the Airlines and Banks will make
good business and will have helped people live healthier lives and have less
violent marriages, while the Road Safety Corps will all smile as
their jobs become easier and they see that human lives are being saved. In all,
both parties are happy. In the situations, no one has lost out; both sides feel
a sense of benefit.
These may be poor images, but I think they
speak to the issues that we are addressing. We must pose the central question
which will naturally be on the lips of all of us who are asked to detribalize:
What is in it for me? What do I gain? Who will reap the greater benefit? What
will the nation or the one asking me to detribalize offer me in return? When I
compare where I am with where I hope to be, I must have good reason to take the
leap.
The conclusion here is that first, the tribal
tent is my comfort zone because, in it, I am safe and secure. Members of my
tribe will fight to protect me and my family, they will offer me food and
shelter, among many other things. So, naturally, anyone who wants my loyalty or
wants me to abandon my tribal tent must offer me something better than what my
tribal tent is already offering me. It is a tradeoff.
Look at our situation in Africa
today. Why are our people emigrating and why are young people facing death on
the Atlantic Ocean rather than staying in
their home tents? Clearly, the home tent has proven to be rather treacherously
hostile to their quest for fulfillment.
I do not wish to put words into the mouths of
Nigerians who have emigrated abroad and made a new life there. However, I know
that many of our people who live abroad, and indeed many who live in cities far
from their native village, make very little reference to their ‘tribe’, and if
they do refer to it, it is only in a superfluous way. We cannot call them
‘detribalised’ but their reality and existence poses questions on the
importance of ‘tribe’ on their identity and way of life. For example, how does
one recognize many of our Nigerians who live abroad today? It is not by their
dress or even language. One who lives abroad, or indeed even in our large
cities here in Nigeria ,
might tell you one of the following:
The people here where I have settled have
accepted me and welcomed me with open arms.
I have found a spouse among them and built a family.
I have settled, my business is thriving, I feel safe and I am prospering
I have learnt the language and the culture of the people here.
The opportunities are huge and I do not feel discriminated against.
I am one of them and feel a sense of belonging.
I can see the result of my sweat.
I have named one of my childrenKaduna
or Ogoja.
I have made here my home
I eat their food, have adopted their culture
I cannot remember when last I went to my birthplace.
I have found a spouse among them and built a family.
I have settled, my business is thriving, I feel safe and I am prospering
I have learnt the language and the culture of the people here.
The opportunities are huge and I do not feel discriminated against.
I am one of them and feel a sense of belonging.
I can see the result of my sweat.
I have named one of my children
I have made here my home
I eat their food, have adopted their culture
I cannot remember when last I went to my birthplace.
But, there are more questions than answers. For example, when can we say a
person or a people is ’detribalized’? Can we ever say such a thing? If not,
what are the limits of being ‘tribalised’ and what are the implications of
being detribalized and retribalised? What circumstances lead people to retrace
their steps or consider sacrifices made toward detribalization a mistake? What
makes them withdraw their investment? There are many answers but we
could hazard as many guesses as possible and you are free to add your own.
Basically, all of this brings to the fore the way in which identity claims of
tribe and tribalism are to a very great extent determined by self-interest.
Perhaps one of the primary factors leading to
retribalisation is the perception of poor return on investment, inability to
find compatible incentives, a feeling of vulnerability, insecurity or even
betrayal. When a detribalised person realises that the environment they thought
was detribalised has betrayed them, they begin a process of retracing their
steps back home, back to the tribe that they had abandoned. They begin to feel a
sense of shame, resentment and betrayal and they embark on a conscious effort
of self-discovery. They realise the need to recover the identity they had been
lost or traded off. They develop a sense of urgency to return home. They may
suddenly become conscious of their traditional food, history, cultural norms
and forms which they had abandoned.
They begin to recover their identity by dress,
learning the language they had forgotten or abandoned. They could engage in a
newfound micro nationalism. Let us take a few examples:
*Bishop Kukah delivered this paper at a
conference organised by Professor Epiphany Azinge Foundation in Yar’Adua
Centre, Abuja .
No comments:
Post a Comment