www.ooduapathfinder.com

By adminadmin on July 11, 2014

Are we “ready”? That is a question that is asked generally within the self-determination movement in Yorubaland. The question becomes more relevant when viewed against the backdrop of Jonathan’s National Conference and the failure of “True Federalism”; a failure that was expected, without a back-up plan, even with such expectation. On September 8, 2013, “ooduapathfinder” published an article on the Nigeria’s version of the “Philadelphia Conference” that formalized the United States, alerting readers of what Jonathan may do with his own Conference, and explored the similarities with what Joseph Kabila was doing in the Congo. (The article is republished in today’s Message section.)
By and large, “ooduapathfinder” is neither disappointed nor surprised in the outcome of Jonathan’s Conference. It merely brings forth the need to address certain issues related to our quest for Autonomy and Self-determination. Thus, the importance of the question: are we “ready”?
The context of the question is usually limited within the scope of “militancy”, either of the Niger Delta variety or now, the North East which, on its own, has now metamorphosed into terrorism in its absolute sense. Thus, “readiness” is defined within the parameters of an external praxis and therefore becomes limited by it.
For us in Africa, the quest for self-determination or autonomy is a reflection of the contradictions within the post-colonial state, hence any form of “readiness” must exploit such contradictions to its own advantage. Limiting such “readiness” to what the “other” is doing is to fail ab initio; for the “other”, in this instance, the Niger Delta “militants”, on the one hand, predicated their quest on their ability to control the center, hence, in spite of demanding autonomy or self-determination; they are also contented in ensuring the continuity in office of their “son”, which has now led to their Conference delegates acceding to solutions contrary to their famed agitations via “militancy”. On the other hand, the Boko Haram terrorists “readied” themselves for the complete Islamization of Nigeria which means both of these “readiness” are predicated on access to power at the center, by whatever means this could be achieved.
But can we say the same for Yorubaland? “ooduapathfinder” does not believe, from all indications, that the Yoruba quest for self-determination or even “True Federalism” is dependent or predicated upon access to or control of the Center which translates into our state of “readiness” not being conditioned by not only the “other” as in Niger Delta or Boko Haram but also in our understanding of the contradictions of the post-colonial state as it relates to our expectation.
Yoruba self-determination has always been undermined by Yoruba Quislings who waste no time in forging alliances with the center, voluntarily or involuntarily; also known as “mainstreaming”, precisely to ensure the political dominance of the land by that center and by implication, truncate any move towards Autonomy. Whereas, in the “other”, their political activities and projections are in sync with what the center proposes, the only exception being when a struggle for dominance becomes imperative between and among them. There is thus some form of unity of purpose between the self-determination/autonomy movement and the political elite since both are in pursuit of accessing power at the center.
The opposite is the case in Yorubaland, where, invariably, the self-determination movement usually finds itself in opposite direction from the political elite of whatever coloration, most especially the “mainstreaming” variety; in spite of which the movement is reduced to being “shock troopers” with no say in developing political strategy.
The battle for autonomy/self-determination is half lost when a strategy is not developed in accordance with its own reality, thus not having an existential praxis of its own but a sort of clone of the “other” since it is defined by it.
Debates are thus limited to a capacity to be as active as this “other” without which the ability of proponents of a redefinition are then accused of not being “ready”. And because of this, those making the accusation accept anything as a solution, even if such things draw the land further away from autonomy.
Thus, when some Yoruba delegates to Jonathan’s National Conference embrace the notion of states being given the chance to create “economic cooperation” zones and celebrate such as the best that could be achieved in present circumstances, such delegates fail to recognize that they had to accept such positions only because they had boxed themselves into a corner, ab initio, by the assumption that they are not “ready” simply because they were/are unable to act as the Niger Delta “militants” thus unable to generate alternative parameters, for they are lost in the paradigm created by the center and its “other” hence unable to create its own parameters whose contest with the center will be the battle ground for solution. And this is besides the fact that the same Niger Delta that is deemed “ready” also found itself jettisoning its advocacy only to accept what is placed before them as a fait accompli. So then, what is the import of such “readiness”?
With this, “readiness” becomes not a function of armed interrogation of the post colonial state, by itself, but in recognizing the political context of that state and exploiting it for either its own collapse or recognition of our right to self-determination with or without violence, without which “readiness” simply becomes an enterprise on its own.
Such context manifests, at this time, when the post colonial state embarks on a journey of adjusting itself to its own contradictions, as in the case of this Jonathan Conference-NASS Constitutional Amendment-2014/2015 General elections, all within Boko Haram’s terrorism matrix.
To do this requires our understanding of the nature of the post colonial state as it pertains to Yorubaland from which relevant strategies and tactics would be developed. What we have had so far are mere reactions to initiatives from the center which we now try to respond to; such response are not even based on our own praxis but on our ability to effectively manipulate whatever system is put in place leading to a struggle for dominance within Yorubaland between actual and perpetual representatives of the center and those who want to distance themselves even while retaining a relationship with the rest of the country.
The post colonial state was imposed by the colonial power based on the internal characteristics of its own historical development, where the State could not but be the embodiment of those characteristics that ensured the emergence and dominance of a ruling class developed out of its own economic dominance of its own society, necessitating the existence of such a State for its own protection and continuous existence.
Its own type of State cannot therefore be simply transferred to the colony or else it would not be a colony. Hence, a new type of State had to be defined for the colony even while inculcating it with aspects of its own paradigm which are carried out more in the breach in the post colonial state. That is why, in the post colonial State, the “rule of law” exist as an aberration. That is why the enforcers of State power in the mother country, the Police, Armed Forces and other security apparatus would respect their citizens, as it were, while the post colonial equivalent would not, even as they were initially trained by the mother country.
The fundamental weakness of the post colonial state therefore rest on this “birth defect”, which is why such a state runs into conflict every time—a situation which is often referred to as “instability”; a recurring decimal in all post colonial states.
When Pax Britannica was imposed on Yorubaland, all of the efforts of our leaders like Samuel Johnson in securing an armistice among the Yoruba which would have ended up in defining a State apparatus, was thrown into the dustbin and replaced with the colonially inspired State.
The Samuel Johnsons wanted a Yoruba Nation State under the leadership of the Alaafin with the military might of Ibadan serving as the security apparatus. Whatever may be said of the Samuel Johnson attempt, the fact was that their “readiness” was conditioned not only by the circumstances of war in Yorubaland but also by their interactions and relationships with colonial forces.
This was the background to Egbe Omo Oduduwa’s attempts at replicating same, this time under direct colonial rule. In spite of this, the organization’s “readiness” was not conditioned by what the “other” is doing or not doing but by what Awo saw as a political necessity for a multi-cultural and multi-national entity, hence the earnest beginnings of the Federalist quest.
This brief excursion into our history is only to show that both instances took their initiatives from what they perceived as the central weakness of colonization—the attempt to create a Nation State for its own purposes on the ashes of our own processes and they proceeded from there, with their own strategies; for what they offered were in direct opposition to what colonialism offered, especially the definition of the emerging Nation State, hence it was a sort of competition between the two extremes.
While Johnson failed, Awo succeeded. Bottom line being that their state of “readiness” was not conditioned by copying the “other” but by being rooted in their own history, not simply as an account of the past but as part of a process of becoming, which, if applied today, would prevent us from seeing our “readiness” through the lenses of the “other” which “ooduapathfinder” believes will also engender confidence in our ability.
Now that we are in the de facto post colonial state, with all sorts of water having passed under the bridge, this self-determination-seeking generation cannot afford to be limited in its understanding of the problem via defining “readiness” as a function of an ability or inability to engage in some form of “militancy”—lest, as we have seen with the Niger Delta, it becomes an end in itself. The form would have been substituted for the essence. And that is a sure recipe for failure.