By Paul Nweke

Firstly, what is a State? A State, in my opinion can be defined as a Territorial location or expanse of land, that has a defined population, a

Government and has international sovereignty (that is the ability to conduct it’s internal affairs without external involvement or interference). Thus, the definite features of a State include: territory, population, government and sovereignty.

There are various theories for explaining the creation of the state. Some of them are: Divine theory, Social Contract theory, Force theory, etc.

Divine theory simply states that States originated from God. The moment He decided to create Man, the state was created. Another aspect of divine theory argues that, leaders of states are divinely appointed by God and resisting leaders is tantamount to resisting God. Holy books like the Bible, Quran, etc. are sources for the explanation of Divine theory of State creation.

Social contract theory suggests that states were created after people got fed up of living in the Hobbesian “state of nature” where life was solitary, nasty, brutish and short. So they came together to create a contract that would govern how man relates to man, and how communities would relate to communities and how some powers and functions of Man was delegated to institutions and agencies which later became arms and structures of the state. Thus, the State came to be Proponents of the Force theory, which posit that most states arose out of force.

This theory was used to explain the imperial conquest of those parts of the world known today as the Third World. During that period (between the 18th and 19th centuries), peoples were conquered, divided into colonies; some were later amalgamated (like Nigeria), and were subsequently granted flag independence to govern themselves. By this way, states were created.

There are other theories on the origin of the State; however, I think these theories would suffice for the rest of the write up, especially the force theory. So at this juncture, the lecture on theories of the state is suspended.

Obviously, Nigeria wasn’t created out of a social contract. Some may argue that Nigeria came by divine theory but there is no empirical evidence to support their stance. This leaves one theory open to explaining the creation of Nigeria – the Force theory. The current 250+ ethnic groups that make up this country never agreed to co-exist never signed up for one Nigeria. The former British colonial masters foisted it on us.

Thus, by every measure, the force theory is the ideal theory that depicts how the Nigerian State was created.

Our founding fathers aptly captured the scenario that led to the creation of the Nigerian state as nothing more than a reluctant union. For instance, Chief Awolowo, in 1947, referred to Nigeria as “a mere geographical expression” by which the people living in the country are called Nigerians simply “to distinguish those that live between the boundaries of Nigeria from those who do not”. In other words, Nigeria is an artificial force field, whereupon if you so fortunately or unfortunately happen to find yourself birthed within, you get a Nigerian tag, and that’s all.

It however, seemed as if late Sir Tafawa Balewa, was very much applying the force theory in explaining the emergence of Nigeria by the colonial misadventure when he in 1948, voiced out that: “Since 1914 the British Government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their backgrounds, in their religious beliefs and customs and do not show themselves any sign of willingness to unite… Nigerian unity is only a British intention for the country.”

Yet by 1960, this same Nigeria created out of force by the British departing colonial masters got nominal independence, and was handed over to the very leaders who had expressed their misgivings over the way Nigeria was created. And they did govern it the best way they could until all the booby traps and mines of the newly created State of Nigeria exploded in their faces, and the Pandora box of the forced marriage of Nigeria was opened in 1967 through the secession of the old Eastern Nigeria, under the name the Republic of Biafra, which eventually culminated to a civil war between the Nigerian State and the seceded Old Eastern Region. I don’t need to bore you on the details of the war, as we might all know how it ended. It was a very bitter war that no one prays to ever witness again.

From 1970 to date, one would have thought that the idea of breaking away from Nigeria would never arise again. But it would be purely naive to think so. Why? It’s simple. It’s all about the origin of the Nigerian State. It was a State created out of force, not out of social agreement and to repeat the words of the late first and only Prime minister Nigeria ever had in person of Sir Tafawa Balewa, the people who are called Nigerians “do not show themselves any sign of willingness to unite”. There you have it, the people are unwilling to unite, yet they must be forced to unite because the State called Nigeria was created out of force.

To my mind, the re-occurrence of the Biafra outcry is not just a sectional thing; it is the ghost of our collective past. It is the crying spirit, the muffled screams of the voice of liberation. It is a symbolic part of all of us that want a Nigeria, not this Nigeria that is created and sustained with force, but a Nigeria penned on a social contract and appended by the multitude of ethnic groups that make up this part of the world.

But if indeed, some feel that the Biafra outcry is a sectional nuisance and divisive annoyance, then there can only be one solution to it: a referendum for Igbos to determine if they want to stay in Nigeria or not.

If it is a regional thing, then the best approach to putting paid attention to the Biafra issue that keeps resurfacing over almost five decades of the death of the ill fated Biafra republic, and it’s ghost which is still haunting Nigeria is to get the Southeastern people to vote YES or NO to the question of whether they want to remain in Nigeria.

To suggest that the only means of resolving any issue in Nigeria is through the use of force is a fatal mistake. In Nigeria, we always believe the use of force is the only way to get things done. This was the way the colonial masters taught us for the time being while we were yet their colonial slaves and servants. It has become the colonial mentality of our public servants and political office holders. That’s why even as our leaders claimed to be democratically elected, they use the sheer brutish force of the State to whip us the masses in line, and get things done.

Even among Nigerian masses, unless you’re a “gra-gra” person, you can’t make headway in the jungle of struggles and hustles. Force is the Almighty formula used to get things done in this part of the world. That was why for years, the government engaged the Niger Delta militants in a war without an ending, until the Yaradua administration thought it was better to talk instead of fight. And there was relative peace in the Niger Delta. Then came Boko Haram and their clamour for an Islamic state. If men could see the future, I’m sure the then government would have preferred to engage in discussions with the progenitor of the group for a peaceful resolution than apply force and kill him, thinking force is the only way to go.

In today’s world of combating terrorism and insurgency as well as resolving international impasse, the approach now is the use of “Smart Power”, which includes both soft power and hard power. Soft power includes using talks and every peaceful means of Conflict resolution while hard power is the use of guns and bombs to solve problems.

Having seen how the application of force alone couldn’t solve the Boko Haram problem, rather it exacerbated it, I think it is high time the Government starts adopting soft power as an approach with hard power as last resort in solving issues in Nigeria, such as the Biafra issue.

With the emergence of Radio Biafra pioneered by Nnamdi Kanu, which has become a huge thorn in the flesh of the Nigerian State, I expect the State to employ all it’s instruments of force in dealing with this threat. My fear is that in war, nothing is more harmful than propaganda. Propaganda can do more damage than bullets and bombs. And sometimes bullets and bombs can work in favour of the propaganda machine it was meant to destroy and even end up awaken a bigger monster.

If the use of force could have crushed the Biafra idea, it would have been dead in 1970. This is 2015, yet the apparition of Biafra is still hovering over the country Nigeria. It is like the spirit of a dead man that has possessed another man to torment him. Even when some folks say Biafra is dead, you know they don’t believe it in their hearts because if they do, they wouldn’t be so offended at the mention of the name Biafra.

In the final analysis, the ghost of Biafra will keep haunting Nigeria because Nigeria itself is a creation that fuels the very thing that causes rebellion. It is a creation of force, and thus, must be ruled by force and sustained by force. And force begets resistance. It is a simple law of nature. The only way to put an end to this matter is to recreate a new Nigeria based on social contract, or allow the southeastern people do a referendum if you feel Nigeria’s problem is a regional thing…

As for me, I support one Nigeria, but not this Nigeria where every one would like to pretend that we don’t have a problem with the way the State was created, but a Nigeria based on social contract, a Nigeria where there won’t be any question as to the willingness of all the ethnic groups to live as one.

Source: The FCT Post - http://www.fctpost.com/2015/08/23/nigerian-state-use-force-solving-inherent-problems-will-answer-biafra-recurring-question/

Useless thread.

For the singular fact that the Igbos hinged the survival of Biafra on my region, the south-south for survival if Bifara come into being which I strongly believe will never see the of d day is very bad. because if u ask me again and again, I will tell u again and again that Biafra died with Ojukwu and was equally buried in the same grave with Ojukwu too. All we see and hear today are rantings here and there. Does Nnamdi KANU look like somebody who want to experience one night in dark prison or confinement as we have been seeing, hearing and reading about some freedom fighters like late Nelson Mandela of south Africa?

size40:
[s]For the singular fact that the Igbos hinged the survival of Biafra on my region, the south-south for survival if Bifara come into being which I strongly believe will never see the of d day is very bad. because if u ask me again and again, I will tell u again and again that Biafra died with Ojukwu and was equally buried in the same grave with Ojukwu too. All we see and hear today are rantings here and there. Does Nnamdi KANU look like somebody who want to experience one night in dark prison or confinement as we have been seeing, hearing and reading about some freedom fighters like late Nelson Mandela of south Africa?[/s]

Yoruba fool!