By Usman Sarki
”Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people”, J. V. Stalin
The making of a community of people into a nation is an objective historical process that is conditioned by their coming together under circumstances of production of their material needs to survive and continue to maintain their cohesion. Thus, unity, uniformity and procreation are vital to this process if the “nation” is to remain as a unit and to evolve into a higher level of cultural and material development. In this sense, it is important that an understanding of the nation is predicated on the production of material necessities of life to enable its survival and growth, rather than on the affiliation of tribal, ethnic or racial identities only. The division and subdivision of nations into “majority” and “minority” should therefore, be placed within the roles that each performs in this cycle of production of the material needs of the nation, and the establishment of conditions for its growth and collective empowerment.
The casualness with which the issues of minorities and their places in the national configuration in Nigeria is being treated, calls for a robust intervention to challenge the emerging tendency now gaining some momentum around identity crisis, and ward off the looming confrontation around access to political power in the contemporary Nigerian milieu. It is of singular importance that this subject is discussed without the infusion of sentiments, irrationality, apologies, justifications, accommodations or obfuscations, in order to please any particular constituency or people. What should matter the most is the clear articulation of the argument and bringing about a definite understanding of the social relationships that have given rise to the perceived majority and minority dichotomies in Nigeria and the conflict of identities that this has engendered.
Flashback to what started playing out early in the day
Bourgeois democracy is essentially shallow in its grasp of social relationships and distinctions, thus tending in most cases, to provide superficial remedies to deeply rooted contradictions in the amalgamation of interests and convergence of viewpoints on the role of nationalities in national development. It is against this background that this essay is provided to elucidate further on the issue of “minorities” in Nigeria and to provide as near scientific framework as possible towards the discussion of this all-important subject. But to undertake this mission successfully will require the understanding of a few issues that are critical to the discourse and to arriving at a satisfactory premise.
First, the idea of the nation must be clearly explained, followed by the notion of the state and people, thus providing us the facility with which to locate the discussion on a firmer footing. The Marxian definition of a nation is a stable or settled community of people, that has a definite identity, contours and location. It can consist of one or several groups or communities of people that may be culturally distinct and diverse, but sharing the idea or belief of belonging to that particular entity that they call a nation. Therefore, a nation is defined not according to tribal or ethnic identities or affiliations, but by the common factors of history and the production of their material necessities that brought the people to live together under that appellation.
Hence, in the context of Nigeria today, the idea of a Kanuri nation for example, or a Yoruba nation, an Igala nation, a Tarok nation, an Itsekiri nation, a Tiv nation, a Karekare or Bolewa nation, a Kanakuru nation, a Marghi or Michika nation, a Bade nation, a Birom nation, a Hausa nation, an Ishan nation, a Kalabari nation, an Efik nation, a Babur/Bura nation, a Jarawa nation, an Igbo nation, an Idoma nation, a Nupe nation, a Fulani nation, an Igbira nation and so forth, is merely a fallacious simplification of the complex processes resulting in the coalescence of groups of people that have been brought together by the factors of history and most especially, by the necessities of material production of livelihoods, to remain together as a nation. This is simply because there is no evidence that any of the above-mentioned tribes, ethnic groups or others, is made out only of one strand of human beings who have not interacted or interbred with other communities of human beings to become what they are today.
In essence, there is no community today of tribes or ethnic “nationalities” anywhere that does not have a mixture of other tribes or human types in its composition. It is therefore; an unscientific effort to claim or attribute uniqueness to any group of people that considers itself as a tribe, ethnic group or a “nation”. There is no singularity in the make-up of any of us, therefore this sense of uniqueness must be dispelled as the deciding factor in the fabric of any tribe regardless of whether it is a majority or a minority tribe or ethnic group. It is in this sense that J. V. Stalin noted “… a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people”.
It is this stability of the community that gives it a common identity of time, space and history, without which it would never become a “nation”. Having a common means of communicating which is language, is the basic feature of a nation, but not necessarily that of a state. Therefore, the concept of state amalgamates different nations within its spatial compass each with distinct identities, locations, origins, cultures, customs as well as languages, to become part of a larger organic entity that serves their common needs of security, development and growth as it were. The roles of both majority and minority ethnic groups therefore, must be seen as participatory in the process of building the state and making it possible for the contribution of each to be factored into the commonwealth through production of the material and cultural needs of the communities and ultimately, of the entire state.
In this regard, states are finite in their duration and therefore; can be dissolved when their utility comes to an end, or a powerful and compelling reason such as conquest overtakes them. However, it is impossible to dissolve a nation composed of a people or community sharing a common history, culture and language unless through the utter destruction of its population. A nation can be both organic and political. The Hausa and Kanuri of Nigeria may speak the same language with their kith and kins across the borders in Cameroon, Niger or Chad, they nevertheless cannot be considered as belonging to one nation because the fact of political distinction has come between them in reality.
This goes for the Yoruba of Nigeria and Benin Republic, the Fulani of Nigeria and Cameroon and other tribes located in our border areas that share common languages with their kindreds across our national boundaries. Stalin noted the distinctions that different territories give rise to among nations of the same constitution. He rightly stated that “Difference of territory led to the formation of different nations. Thus, a common territory is one of the characteristic features of a nation”. Stalin however; went further to assert the fundamental point that a “Common territory does not by itself create a nation. This requires, in addition, an internal economic bond to weld the various parts of the nation into a single whole”. This then, is the most critical point in our discourse on the dialectical-materialist conception of the national minorities question in Nigeria.
“Because a nation is not an idea only of local extent, and individual momentary aggregation, but it is an idea of continuity, which extends in time as well as in numbers and in space”, John Buchan
The discourse around the minorities question in Nigeria can sometimes get emotional and therefore irrational. The idea of separation from the dominant or majority ethnic groups has frequently been advanced as a solution to the perceived disadvantageous situation of the minority groups in the country in the political and economic characterization of their access to opportunities. This is particularly more nuanced in the consideration of the composition of the Northern region of the country where the calls for separation has become vociferous in the context of the creation of a “Middle Belt” zone or region, specifically consisting of ethnic minorities and so-called “indigenous people” of the region. The agitation for separation of the Niger Delta region from Nigeria was also a burning issue once, whose rationale was centered around minority rights and resource control.
With regard to the “Middle Belt” issue, this is taken up a step further by the introduction of a religious undertone to it which seeks to separate the Christian population from its Muslim counterparts in the North. Thus, the minorities question has now been turned into a dispute or confrontation not only between the different ethnic groups and tribes in the North, but also between the two prevailing religious persuasions in the region. This heady mix of ethnicity and religion has provided the rationale and even the context for the advancement of political agendas such as the creation of more states and approaches to political party affiliations as evidenced by the preference shown to the Labour Party (LP) in the 2023 elections in various parts of the North driven by manifestly ethnic and religious sentiments.
A dialectical-materialist conception of the minorities question in Nigeria is critically needed to expand the vistas of the discourse and locate it in the context of inter-group relationships that are first and foremost, driven by the production of the means of sustenance of lives and of communities, as well as the historical contexts in which both the minority and majority societies in Nigeria evolved. All human relationships especially those of group and ethnic characters are shaped by material economic production processes, and attendant historical and political outcrops that define the characteristics of such groups and communities. These complex interactions cannot therefore; be reduced into simple factors of competition for political offices or government appointments for instance, thereby denigrating the importance of getting to the root of the problem and offering viable alternatives.
The solutions provided by a dialectical-materialist approach to the minorities question should be predicated on its scientific nature and location of the problems on concrete grounds rather than on ephemeral sentiments and other subjective premises. Thus, the idea of production and economic inter-relationships should appear paramount in the resolution of the contradictions between the minority and majority ethnic groups in Nigeria whereby the contribution of each segment to the material production and the well-being of the country should take precedence over any other consideration or factor.
The engagement of both categories or groups of Nigerians in the production of the means of their survival and the deepening of their economic advantages make for the smoothening of their relationships and the inevitability of their coming together in mutually reinforcing situations to rely on each other. We should begin this process by questioning the established notions of minorities and majorities in the first place, since there are no clear cut lines that distinguish these two categories of people. The notion of minority implies a situation of comparative disadvantage in the numbers of a particular people in a given situation. A minority in the larger national space can actually be a majority in a particular state or a local government area, thereby attracting the same disposition of discontent against it as it shows towards other larger groups in the national space.
Likewise, the members of the majority ethnic groups frequently find themselves as minorities in areas outside their natural enclaves, whereby they are subjected to the same treatment of marginalization and discrimination as their minority counterparts at the national level. Therefore, complaining about discrimination, marginalization and disadvantage in the larger national context must somehow also be applied to the state and local government settings, where the same sentiments are obtaining and similar grievances are expressed by the much smaller entities in those locations. Going by this reasoning, there can be no end to the majority and minority dichotomy unless a concrete and substantive remedy is found in the creation or propagation of new types of social relationships based on activities of production and consumption of the necessities of life in which processes all Nigerians regardless of their sizes, numbers, locations and other attributes, can meaningfully contribute and participate.
The basis of this approach is of course the realisation that no particular tribe or ethnic group is unique or more entitled than others in accessing the benefits provided by citizenship of this country. It must be accepted that both in principle and in actual fact, all Nigerians are deemed of the same position of privilege in their respective affiliations to the idea of the nation, and the consolidated approaches to the enjoyment of all entitlements and discharge of all responsibilities that have been availed to them or placed upon them by the nation’s constitution and other normative pillars.
The state as the final arbiter of the distinctions between and among Nigerian citizens on the basis of the provisions of the laws and the constitution, is the only entity that is capable of making such denominations among Nigerians, on the basis of spreading equality along the approved lines of the federal character principle for instance, or in the application of positive discrimination in situations of admission into schools, the police and the military and so forth, to create some sort of equilibrium between the majority and minority ethnic groups in the country. This character of the state transcends into the realm of economic management and the distribution of the national resources along the lines of needs and requirements, such as in the citing of projects, building of infrastructures, construction of amenities, employment of people, and investment in commercial and industrial ventures and other beneficial features of modern progress.
If all Nigerian ethnic groups can be made to participate in these processes meaningfully and transparently, and be given the opportunity to benefit from the economic advancements being made in the country evenly and prudently, then most of the causes of grievances and discontents will be made to disappear or at least to wane in proportion to the existing situation in the country. Ad hoc measures are always limited in their scope in dealing with entrenched situations especially in inter-communal relationships and the abridgment of social discontents. Long term measures are needed that would get to the root of the problem and address issues on sustained basis of application of both normative provisions and administrative remedies.
Governance therefore, is the key to the amelioration of all social problems especially those that are of consistently recurring natures such as the minorities question in Nigeria, that goes back to colonial times to which an attempt at resolution was made in 1957 with the establishment of the Willinks Commission. Postcolonial remedies were also attempted such as in the establishment of the Political Bureau by the Babangida government under Justice Cookey, whose report could be considered as relevant to this discourse.
Since the problem seems still to be with us and is gaining in momentum as political advantages are being sought in every way possible by various actors and stakeholders, it should be expected that the discontents around the minorities issues will be fanned into raging fires of political controversies any moment that the campaign season sets in with its attendant no-holds-barred and winner-takes-all character.
Ambassador Usman Sarki, the author, is a retired diplomat
