By Olu Fasan
Nigeria is a product of two perverse rules. One is colonial rule; the other is military rule. Virtually everything that exists structurally in Nigeria today was either created by colonial rulers or military dictators. Nigeria’s very existence and name are colonial creations. Then, Nigeria’s Constitution, system of government – presidentialism – and governance structure – 36 states – are military impositions. Nigeria’s national anthem was colonial, then military, and now colonial again!
Look around you, nothing structural, even symbolic,
is a true reflection of the collective will, or choice, of the people of this
country.
The implication is that colonialism and military rule produced a captive people called “Nigerians” who have absolutely no direct input in the creation, name, structure and even symbols of the geographical entity they call their country.
“Nigerians” are like internally displaced people put
in a big tent by a dominant power and given a name, an attire and a song they
must sing. Sadly, owing to a phenomenon known as path dependency, Nigeria is
trapped in carriages of the past, and has refused to disembark and make the
critical path-switching decision to restructure and transform itself. That path
dependency, that atavism, drove Bola Tinubu, Nigeria’s arrogant and
idiosyncratic president, to corral the National Assembly to reintroduce the
colonial anthem last sung about 50 years ago.
Essentially, Tinubu and the
compliant National Assembly chose between two perversities and decided that
colonial vestiges are better than military vestiges. Furthermore, they took the
decision dripping with colonial and military mentalities. Under colonial and
military rules, Nigerians were treated as idiots who must take whatever was
handed down to them like medieval serfs. That’s exactly how Tinubu treated the
people of this country!
For the legitimacy of any
decision, process and substance matter. Even if a decision is right but the
process is flawed, it would lack legitimacy. Equally, if the process is right but
the substance is unfair, unjust or unreasonable, the decision would lack
legitimacy. And if a decision or a law lacks legitimacy – either process or
outcome legitimacy – citizens have a moral right to disobey it. Any lawyer who
disagrees must brush up their jurisprudence or familiarise themselves with
socio-legal studies, a field also known as Law and Society. Legitimacy matters.
So, let’s start with the process.
The old colonial anthem was
reintroduced within one week. The House of Representatives “debated” the bill
on May 23 and approved it the same day. The Senate passed the bill on May 28,
and Tinubu assented to it on May 29. For something as significant as a national
anthem, you would think changing it would be subject to a process of citizen
participation. Alas, Tinubu changed the anthem with something akin to the
military fashion that General Olusegun Obasanjo changed the colonial anthem in
1978 as his regime prepared to hand over power to a civilian administration.
Tinubu said changing the
national anthem was his “priority”, never mind that it wasn’t the priority of
most Nigerians. But why was it Tinubu’s priority? Well, he said in one
interview before the election that the colonial anthem “describes us better”
because “we are one and one Nigeria.” But this is problematic for two reasons:
one is hypocrisy, the other is autocracy.
Take the hypocrisy. In 1997, while in self-exile fleeing the Abacha regime, Tinubu granted an interview to ThisDay, which the newspaper published with the headline: “I don’t believe in one Nigeria – Tinubu.” So, when Tinubu was hounded by Abacha, he disavowed Nigeria’s unity, but once power was within his reach, he changed his tune.
Today, millions of Nigerians, dehumanised by economic hardship, are going
through far worse than Tinubu endured under Abacha, yet they still aver
Nigeria’s oneness: they still believe in one Nigeria. Elsewhere, Tinubu would
first apologise for his “I don’t-believe-in-one-Nigeria” comment before
mouthing a sanctimonious platitude: “We are one and one Nigeria”.
Then, the autocracy. Even if
switching to the colonial anthem was Tinubu’s priority, must he force it on
Nigerians without consultation? Where is his mandate? If the presidential
election was a referendum on Tinubu’s idea, it was overwhelmingly rejected by
Nigerians. Only 37 per cent of the electorate voted for him, a whopping 63 per
cent rejected him!
In South Africa’s recent election, President Cyril
Ramaphosa’s ANC secured only 40.2 per cent of the vote. He is now forming a
Government of National Unity. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP won
only 37 per cent of the vote. He is forming a coalition government. But in
Nigeria, thanks to a perverse constitution and a crooked presidential system,
both military impositions, Tinubu won only 37 per cent, yet he’s ruling
autocratically without consensus, simply because an obsequious National
Assembly is at his beck and call.
Chief Obafemi Awolowo published
his book The People’s Republic in 1968. The use of the two words – “People” and
“Republic” – together was deliberate. Republicanism is about the people. In a
republic, political power and authority are rooted in the people. Nigeria is
called a “republic”, but it’s absolutely not.
In their book, Nigeria: What Everyone Needs to Know,
John Campbell and Matthew Page said that “politics is an elite game largely
played without reference to the Nigerian people.” Dr Segun Aganga made the same
point in his book Reclaiming the Jewel
of Africa, describing Nigeria as “more a government by the political class,
of the political class, for the political class”. That captures exactly how
Tinubu and the rubberstamping National Assembly foisted the old colonial anthem
on Nigerians. Thus, the decision lacks process legitimacy.
But what about the substance? Someone said the colonial anthem would encourage young Nigerians “to be more committed to the ideals of nationhood”, another said it “will cement us together.” What utter claptraps! The anthem did not stop the civil war, and the idea that millions of jobless and oppressed youths would be more committed to the ideals of nationhood simply because of the empty words of an anthem is hairbrained.
Now, what’s even the meaning of
“Nigeria”? Encyclopedia Britannica described Flora Shaw, later Lugard, as “a
staunch advocate of imperialism.” So, she named this country “Nigeria” without
affection. She coined the name from “Niger”, Latin for “dark”. A white man
called Africa the “Dark Continent”; for Flora Shaw, “Nigeria” meant a “dark”
country. That puts “Nigeria we hail thee”
in a different light. Where is Nigeria’s national pride when it owes its
creation, name and anthem to imperialists? Which raises a broader question: Who
are the true owners of “Nigeria”?
*Dr. Fasan is a commentator on public issues
No comments:
Post a Comment