It is not uncommon to hear some Nigerians eulogize and attach to Nnamdi Azikiwe accolades of a Nationalist especially in contrast with his political contemporaries and equals whom Zik's admirers do label tribal and ethnocentric jingoists for the positions they took as regards how the foundation of Nigeria should be laid especially as it concerns the structure of government.
While the likes of Tafawa Balewa, Awolowo, Anthony Enahoro and Ahmadu Bello reportedly spoke in favour of a centrifugal/strictly federal structure characterised by a loose federation where each and every ethnic nationality is as much as possible allowed a high degree of administrative autonomy free from undue intrusion and interference from other nationalities coupled with a visible degree of territorial self expression, Zik is reported to have, in assuming himself a nationalist, favoured a centrifugal/unitary republic characterised by an overwhelmignly strong centre and very weak peripheral units in an atmosphere of total disregard for ethnic differences and cultural variations. He defended his acclaimed nationalistic position with a slogan he invented.........."One-Nigeria".... as a euphemism for his unitary system which was rather unpopular among majority of Nigerians back then and up till today.

However posterity has proven Zik wrong today and vindicated his opponents as the infusion of unitary system into Nigeria beginning with Ironsi (probably inspired by Zik in pursuit of a nationalist agenda as his admirers claim) and its being taken to the highest irritating levels by Gowon (in his quest to cage Ojukwu) and by his military successors (in their lust after oil wealth and also to criminally free up the SS' huge oil revenue to all parts of Nigeria to loot and plunder) has ruined Nigeria so much that even the foot soldiers of Zik and Zikism still alive now have become the loudest voices in the clamour for a return to true federalism.....the same centrifugal structure Zik inspired them to hate and reject with a passion initially on the grounds that it promoted ethnic jingoism over oneness/nationalism as conceived of by Zik. Thanks to hindsight and experience which they say is the best teacher.
However, a more detailed analysis and scrutiny of the total person of Zik seriously questions the nationalistic credentials frequently showered on him by his admirers.
First and foremost let me define the term nationalist with examples so that I have a reference point against which to make my deductions.
A nationalist is someone who believes in FREEDOM for the people of his country be it freedom from external powers of colonialism or freedom from internal domination and Neo-colonialism by their own fellow-country men.
For the first kind of freedom, Mandela and George Washington stand as a good examples of nationalists as they both spent a greater part of their lives fighting off external colonial forces occupying their lands. For the second form, Abraham Lincoln stands out as a quintessence as he , despite being white himself, lived and died trying to free Black Americans from their domineering fellow white Americans. Nationalism has no other dimension than these two above.
Coming back to Zik: none, absolutely NONE, of his actions or words reflected a genuine desire to free Africans from whites or to free them from one another's domination.
First and foremost Zik is quoted as saying he did not mind paying the ultimate price in his quest to see the decolonization of Africa thus the end of the imperialists' exploitation of Africans and for him to see Nigeria survive and remain one and eternally united country. On the surface this sounds convincingly nationalistic. But a closer analysis reveals a fraudulent contradiction in the sense that the same imperialists (whom he wanted chased out of Africa for the crime of exploiting Africa) created, as a tool for that very exploitation of Africa's resources, the same Nigeria he was ready to die to preserve. What sense does it make to resist a movement for the crime of exploitation and yet at the same time be ready to die for the preservation of the exploitative instruments invented by that very movement? The only logical explanation for such contradictory position is that Zik wanted the whites out but wanted their tool (Nigeria) left intact for he himself and his people to use in furthering a new round of exploitation of fellow Africans and fellow Nigerians. That is not a quality of a genuine nationalist. Did George Washighton seek to preserve any vestige of the British Monarchical style of government after he and his army had sent Britain off America's soil? In fact after the revolution George Washighton dismantled all Britain's idea of how America should be organized and governed. But Zik's case was the direct opposite. Any wonder why he so much wanted 'one Nigeria' despite all indications pointing to the contrary? In fact why could Zik, in order to demonstrate genuine anti-colonial and pan-Africanist disposition credited him, not simply champion a crusade for a complete cancelation of all the exploitative boundaries previously drawn by the colonial masters all over Africa with the view to drawing new ones which would reflect the true natural boundaries among Africans as regards their ethnicities, languages, cultural compatibility and other parameters so that the daily bloodshed currently happening all over Africa might have been forestalled?
Secondly; at a point in our history the colonial masters created the Western, Eastern and Northern Regions in response to their occupants' agitation for self government which was rather aimed granting each people freedom from one another and thereby forestalling a situation whereby one group would try to rule over and dominate another. But Zik who had his own region clearly carved out for him to rule decided to seek to rule another region..... a situation whereby one region already ruling itself wanted to capture another region and dominate it by using the deceit of unity and oneness to deny them freedom to rule themselves. Why did Zik not start that kind of charity and oneness from home by first making a Westerner or Northerner the premier of his own Eastern Region before going out to seek to practicalize that oneness outside? If he was actually convinced that such was good for Nigeria then he should have proven it by using his own Eastern Region as the experimentation ground first. Therefore a man who lived in pursuit of a dream he knew was tantamount to internal curtailment of the freedom of other fellows' self-government was definitely not a nationalist but a sectionalist with hidden agenda.
Thirdly; Zik schooled in the US. But before leaving Nigeria he had read it in Government textbooks that federalism is the only workable structure of governance for a multi-ethnic society like Nigeria. And on getting to the US, a multi-ethnic country just like Nigeria, he actually saw true federalism on ground fostering a peaceful atmosphere and genuine unity among the huge ethnic diversity, and yielding rapid development towards making the US a super power. But after six years of observing the benefits of federalism in an ethnically diverse USA, Zik returned to an equally diverse Nigeria to recommend and preach unitary system in the name of 'One-Nigeria'. Was that an indication that Zik was genuinely committed to rapid development and equity in Nigeria or that he had another evil plot in mind? Did Zik hear anyone preach 'One-America" while he schooled there? Or did Zik see any evidence that the practice of federalism in the US promoted ethnic loyalty over genuine national unity? Fourthly; Zik read Anthropology which is a discipline that studies the evolution of human cultures, traditions and value system with the view to understanding cultural differences and managing them properly to forestall a clash of cultures and its resultant bloodshed. To this end, it is a basic principle of Anthropology that the only way for peoples of diverse and even opposing cultures, opposing beliefs and ambivalent value systems is for laws and structures to be put in place to limit and control cross interactions and that they mutually understand and respect one another's cultures, beliefs and values however awkward they may appear to one another. These are the very basics and ingredients of federalism. But the Zik, who knew this as an anthropologist, returned to Nigeria to advocate a unitary system that would de-emphasize cultural differences in the name of unity and 'one-Nigeria'. He labeled as tribalists those who espoused these principles of federalism. Was that an indication that Zik was genuinely committed to peaceful co-existence among the various Nigerian tribes? In fact it is reported that Zik once met Ahmadu Bello and said, "Let us forget our cultural differences and move on" while the latter responded saying, "No no no, you don't move on by Ignoring you differences. I am a Northern Muslim while you are a Southern Christian, it is only when we understand our differences and respect them that there can truly be unity for us to move on or else you will cause bloodshed if you ignore differences. Clearly Ahmadu Bello who read mere Secretarial Studies had, by mere intuition, a better appreciation and grasp of anthropology principles than the Zik who wasted five years studying it and failed to apply the knowledge in his reasoning. Education is different from literacy. And Education is ttechnically defined as any process which an individual undergoes to become useful to himself and the society. Zik was only literate but not Educated because as knowledge of Anthropology was not usefully used to the benefit of his Nigerian Society. University courses are meant to be read and the knowledge gained therein invoked and applied in solving societal problems. But Zik was not prepared to apply his knowledge to help Nigeria prevent blood shed and clashes of culture which are now very frequent in Nigeria. Such a person can't be a nationalist. He was rather a fraud which befell Nigeria.

Lastly Zik is reported to have deprecated attempts to include secession clause in our constitution on the excuse that it was inimical to a united, strong and indivisible "One-Nigeria". What a myopia! That clause was meant to give to any region which later felt cheated or marginalized the constitutional right to exit the union through simple referendum without a single bloodshed or any firing of bullet. The clause was secondarily intended to instill in all Nigeria's rulers the fear of the consequences of misgovernance. Had Zik cooperated that clause would have been included in our constitution and Nigeria would not have been this misgoverned till today. With such a clause Balewa would not have misgoverned to attract the Jan 1966 coup which permanently set the stage for Nigeria's retrogression till date, and eventually no region would have actually sought to seceed from a well governed Nigeria. Aburi Accord would not have been as issue let alone lead to war.
So why would a man who rejected such a clause aimed at creating a disciplined and focused leadership be rendered accolades of nationalism? What is the nationalist spirit in a man who denied everyone the freedom to seceed in case of misgovernance, reckless abuse of power, and victimization by the governing class? National unity achieved at the cost of national freedom is not genuine unity. A man who believed in surrendering freedom on the alter of unity can't be a genuine nationalist as only free men can actually unite with one another. There is no unity among prisoners and men in captivity no matter how they so pretend.

Op you can say all the negative things about the owelle of onitsha but he still remains one of the greatest nationalists africa has ever produced. Zik is one man who I know believed in Nigeria more than any politician living or dead because of zik the north is still part of nigeria every student of history knows that there will be no Nigeria if zik had entered into an alliance with awo during the 1959 parliamentary election zik stood to gain a lot if that alliance succeeded. If zik had not defected to the Nigerian side in 1969 biafra will still be in existence by now please don't try twisting history because of your hatred for zik

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvI2AeK-dxc

You have not addressed the issues raised in the post.

sharonbaron:
Op you can say all the negative things about the owelle of onitsha but he still remains one of the greatest nationalists africa has ever produced. Zik is one man who I know believed in Nigeria more than any politician living or dead because of zik the north is still part of nigeria every student of history knows that there will be Nigeria if zik had entered into an alliance with awo during the 1959 parliamentary election zik stood to gain a lot if that alliance succeeded. If zik had not defected to the Nigerian side in 1969 biafra will still be in existence by now please don't try twisting history because of your hatred for zik

If Zik made the North remain part of Nigeria, then Zik sowed the seeds of our problems as far as Zik's brothers still believe and insist that the North, which they derogatorily refer to as Arewanistan, is Nigeria's problems.
However, the North is not really our problem. The facts in the post make it clear that Zik knew what was supposed to be the best for Nigeria but a dubious hidden agenda made him prefer a dubious system that entrenched the mediocrity, injustice, looting, misgovernance, unrest, bloodshed, genocides, etc that have come to be our lot today. It is only in Nigeria people defend such a character based on ethnic identity. In a serious country such a person who deliberately advocated for a system he knew was evil would be blacklisted.
Your glorification of Zik for preserving Nigeria by forming alliance with the North in 1960 as well as defeting to the Nigerian side during Biafra War betray your lack og grasp of the crux of the post which is that a sincere anti-colonial crusader should not have sought to preserve the Nigeria created by the very colonial masters as a tool to exploit Africans as he (Zik) himself claimed.
However, remember he later turned around to form the UPGA alliance with the same Awolowo. That means he later was working for the dismemberment of Nigeria according to your logic. Also your logic suggests that he was working to dismember Nigeria as at the time he first stayed on the Biafran side at the initial stages of the war. So what makes him a nationalist then?

Deadlytruth:


If Zik made the North remain part of Nigeria, then Zik sowed the seeds of our problems as far as Zik's brothers still believe and insist that the North, which they derogatorily refer to as Arewanistan, is Nigeria's problems.
However, the North is not really our problem. The facts in the post make it clear that Zik knew what was supposed to be the best for Nigeria but a dubious hidden agenda made him prefer a dubious system that entrenched the mediocrity, injustice, looting, misgovernance, unrest, bloodshed, genocides, etc that have come to be our lot today. It is only in Nigeria people defend such a character based on ethnic identity. In a serious country such a person who deliberately advocated for a system he knew was evil would be blacklisted.
Your glorification of Zik for preserving Nigeria by forming alliance with the North in 1960 as well as defeting to the Nigerian side during Biafra War betray your lack og grasp of the crux of the post which is that a sincere anti-colonial crusader should not have sought to preserve the Nigeria created by the very colonial masters as a tool to exploit Africans as he (Zik) himself claimed.
However, remember he later turned around to form the UPGA alliance with the same Awolowo. That means he later was working for the dismemberment of Nigeria according to your logic. Also your logic suggests that he was working to dismember Nigeria as at the time he first stayed on the Biafran side at the initial stages of the war. So what makes him a nationalist then?

Upga alliance was formed by dr michael okpara premier of eastern nigeria and dauda adegbanro leader of the action group. zik ceased to be an active member of the ncnc when he became the governor general. On the nigerian biafran war I will recommend you read books on the war there you will understand ziks role in resolving the war. On the issue of unitary system which you mentioned have you bothered to ask yourself whether zik had ulterior motives while advocating for unitary system was it not in line with what I earlier said about his belief in one Nigeria. Before we criticize our national heroes let's try putting ourselves in their shoes let's ask our selves what they had in mind when they took most of these decisions which have turned out disastrous in modern day Nigeria. Finally I am an advocate of federalism I believe in a system where every part of the country will leArn to sustain itself and not relying on abuja every end of the month

A nation without heros