Opinion: Motion without movement: How did we get here? (1)

By Isaac Chii Nwaogwugwu

The human collective that our dear nature placed in a particular geographical surface either by birth or migration moulds and remoulds itself through cultural integration, religion, education and law.

The system of governance, mechanism of social and economic infrastructure, civil and military defence, trade, immigration policy, diplomacy and foreign policy, currency and coinage, transport and travel, treaties and agreements are also the other vital areas where such people also try to define their common ground.

Through birth, the collective assumes similarities in orientations that make it imperative for them to be regarded as kit and kin that settle as homogeneous and congruent villages, communities and towns that may be bound together as a nation.

Unguarded migration and or forced occupation, imposition of rule or treaties introduce elements of heterogeneity to the group.

This will invariably sow the seed of amorphous behavioural tendencies.

The nation becomes welded or wedded in the convergent and divergent waves of coexistence which could be exploited for growth and development or be allowed to wallow, weirded out and be consumed by the very essence of existence.

The indigenous people may be supplanted after showing some resistance to the usually superior force of immigrants whose ways always differed sharply from the ways of the host communities who were mostly at the receiving end of their visitors’ brutality.

This was the case in both the Northern and Southern America with the arrival of the Europeans in the 14th and 15th centuries.

This was also what happened in Australia and New Zealand with the advent of the British and pockets of Irish citizens in the late 18th century.

The Mughals, the Mongolians and the Europeans caused similar effects in central and southern Asia in 14th to 17th centuries.

The movement of Arabs to the Northern region of Africa in the 7th century could also be seen in this light as well as the colonisation of Africa by the Europeans in the 15th century.

In all these cases there were struggles and fights of different types to gain cohesion and dominion.

There were wars of culture, wars of religion, wars of governance, wars of resource control, wars of language and wars of life style.

The territory of Nigeria of today was part of such wars. What we call Nigeria today is an amalgam of rich, diverse and autonomous kingdoms and communities of over two hundred and fifty ethnic nationalities.

The Songhai empire that flourished between 15th and 16th centuries included the territories that form the modernday Nigeria.

The famous Oyo empire founded at the dawn of the 15th century, the Kingdom of Nri which existed as far back as the 11th century, the Benin Kingdom founded in the 12th century, the Nupe kingdom which existed in the 15th century and several other highly rated ancient empires and kingdoms fall within this polity referred to as Nigeria today.

They all had sophisticated organs of administration and formidable defence architecture that marvelled European and Arab invaders.

But gradually, one after the other they were all conquered and by 1914 Britain brought some of its own shares of the Berlin conference (Westafrika-Konferenz) of 1884 into one governance structure under the controversial Amalgamation of the Southern and Northern protectorates.

That exercise was championed by Lord Lugard who gladly gave his girlfriend the rare opportunity of christening the newly formed nation.

She called it Nigeria. Political and economic history of the colonial Nigeria reveals that the nation was indeed, generously endowed with natural resources that littered across its length and breadth as well as a unique assembly of human beings that were hungry of embracing the culture, education and lifestyle of their colonial masters.

Thus, within a very short time the nation could boast of high calibre of administrative, professional and technical staff who the British could use locally in its frameworks of administration and thereby relieving the imperialists of the responsibility of importing lower and middle manpower for their assignments.

At independence in 1960 Nigeria had already joined the league of highly prosperous countries along with Korea, Singapore, Hon Kong and Indonesia among others. Our economy grew faster than those of many European and Asian countries while development kept a close pace to it.

We were definitely not in the same league with most countries of sub-Sahara Africa or Asia. There was disproportionate positive response from the agricultural sector vis-à-vis capital commitment.

The infant industrial sector showed signs of good foundation. The socio-economic infrastructure was good and compared favourably (and better in some cases) with other countries that were similarly placed. Our civil service had human face and services were delivered efficiently and effectively.

The military was the military and the police were the police and they played their roles proudly as required by edicts, conventions and practice.

Politics and politicking were sporting activities characterised by a good measure of fairness and with some degrees of conscience and patriotism.

Our first generation universities were world class institutions and their products highly rated globally.

Teachers and academics were respected as custodians of knowledge and philosophy.

The family, religious and basic educational institutions were beds of value and discipline that moulded characters and produced good citizens while traders, business men and women were guided by high morals and truthfulness.

Government contractors and Public Works Departments displayed a high degree of honesty and operated largely within the ambient of the law and available resources.

There was law and order and both the citizens and the state knew what their responsibilities were.

The Nigerian brand of federalism (along with India’s) was regarded as the best example of emerging federalism in the whole world.

The Nigerian (federal) constitution was initially complemented by three regional constitutions: the constitution of Eastern region, the constitution of the Western region and the constitution of Northern region.

When Mid-Western region was created in 1963 it also had its own constitution which was drafted in line with the earlier three regional constitutions. The four regions were largely independent in local and regional matters.

The assignment problem was carefully designed to ensure that the centripetal and centrifugal forces were brought to harmony with a clear intention of building a prosperous country where unity was expected to exist in diversity.

The regions easily passed any test of viability in terms of spatial jurisdiction, fiscal capacity, framework of administration and manpower requirement.

They explored their respective areas of strength as they got involved in healthy and cooperative competition and in the process showed clear manifestations of what is now regarded as cooperative federalism. It was a workable model.

It was a model that worked. It was a model that moved Nigeria ahead of its peers. Switzerland, of course remains one of the oldest variants of decentralised system of governance.

Australia and USA were regarded as the advanced models of federalism while Germany and Canada were in the intermediate group. India and Nigeria were always captured as emerging federal countries.

These were the seven countries that were referenced in discussions revolving around functional federalism.

That is the place which our brand of federal arrangement belonged. It was the Nigerian model that the United Arab Emirate borrowed in 1970 and domesticated the same to its own advantage.

That is what has given rise to that country that has become the envy of the rest of the world.

READ ALSO: No law stopping cross-border movements – FG

That was the picture until the crisis in the Western region sprang its ugly head and then the coup, the mutiny, the rebellion and chain of events that culminated in the infamous Biafran revolution and Nigerian civil war.

The war ended. And the government pronounced it a misadventure and said that there was neither a victor nor a vanquished.

But the events that have occurred thereafter show that whereas there may not have been a victor all have been apparently vanquished.

We have indeed, been all vanquished as the nation remains in a highly spirited motion without movement.

Yet we keep asking the question for which the answers are readily availed on our lips: How did we get here?