April 19, 1997.
Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu’s call on the Ibos to produce the
next President of Nigeria by all means even if it means, to
use his words, ‘stealing the position’ has something of the
theatrical in it and would not, I hope, be taken by Easterners
as a royal directive from the Ezeigbo.
If Chief Ojukwu had been a Southern minorities’ leader, I
would have understood the call because that region is the only
one, out of the six presidential zones, that has never, in the 37
years of this country’s self-rule, produced a Nigerian Head of
State. It would be more viable, in my opinion, for Easterners to
concentrate on raising their share of States from the present
comparatively low five to six (so that they could, at least, have
the same number of senators as other regions) rather than lay
undue emphasis on who produces the next President and who
does not. The next President would be produced by one of the
five political parties, not by a tribal bloc.
The importance that elites from the three major ethnic groups
often place on where a President comes from is, I think,
misguided. And it is based on an even more misguided
assumption that their areas stand to enjoy special benefits
from producing the Chief Executive of the nation. In reality, it is
not so, even in a military dictatorship.
What special privileges had the Middle Belt when General
Yakubu Gowon was in power? What special privileges had the
so-called core North when General Mohammadu Buhari was
there? And of what special benefit was General Olusegun
Obasanjo’s rule to the so-called volatile West, which remained
volatile and in opposition even under him?
The truth is that the intervening and balancing structures of
the Federal Government prevent any winner-takes-all drama
from successfully enacting itself. It is natural for human beings
to have selfish or clannish desires and for them to maneuver to
satisfy these. But between these desires and their
actualization lie the moderating apparatus of the Constitution,
the Parliament, the Judiciary, the Ministers and sheer civility. If
we want to be sincere with ourselves, there is hardly any
Nigerian leader that we can describe as having been
successfully sectional. Much of the feeling of sectional
domination is psychological and arises from factors such as
latent dislike, irrational fear and stubborn pride.
Those Nigerians who attach undue importance to where our
leaders come from rely on their deftness at creating very
strong myths of sectional domination in order to authenticate
their unfounded suspicions. Produce the concrete evidence of a
balance in cabinet and key Federal appointments and they
would be quick to point out to you that most of the children of
their grandfathers in those positions are mouthpieces.
Personally, I refuse to believe that some natural selection or
genetic engineering process has made it possible for
grandfathers from a particular region of the world to continually
clone out mouthpieces while other grandfathers are busy
giving birth to proper human children.
Produce the concrete evidence of election results where
Nigerians again and again vote for candidates from areas other
than theirs and they would be quick to point out that such
results are influenced by bribes and do not reflect the “deepest
yearnings” of their people. If the people I call my people long
more for fifty naira notes than for being ruled by someone who
speaks our grandmother’s tongue, shouldn’t I have the
decency and common sense to simply shut up?
Not them. They would even go to the bigoted end of putting it
to you, usually very strongly, that you cannot, in fact, believe
what you are preaching (that is, the federal and non-sectional
nature of Nigeria). You are expected to know without logical
evidence that there is gross sectional domination in Nigeria.
Every important position occupied by your section is supposed
to be intelligently understood by you to be insignificant.
Prejudice is more than just a powerful emotion. Prejudice is a
consuming passion, a possessing spirit that takes away the
willpower to differentiate between fact and opinion. The
prejudice, the conclusion, produces the premise, instead of the
other way round. It is more fruitful to argue with ones
television than to argue with a prejudiced person.
The reality discernible from voting patterns and public opinion
is that the ordinary Nigerian, whether in the North, West,
Middle Belt or Southern Belt, cares very little who
democratically or militarily rules the place, as long as he is
guaranteed good life and stability. A time should come soon
when we, as a people, would see what is obvious to us as
good government and have the momentous boldness to cry,
‘Hold it! This is what we have always wanted and nothing
more.’
Emphasis in the third world ought to be on redemptive sacrifice
and programmatic development not on where a President
comes from and other such wasteful and interminable
arguments. It is not democratic arguments that have lifted the
Asian tigers to where they are today. We must resist and forgo
the leisurely pastimes of developed Western societies, if
Nigeria is to become truly great. At present, our squabbles are
providing excellent theatre for a mischievous Western
audience.
