[size=14pt]Can Igbos Govern Their Own Nation-State?[/size]

SUNDAY, 09 SEPTEMBER 2007 18:52 WRITTEN BY OZODI THOMAS OSUJI


Lately, one of the questions that I have been pondering is whether Igbo people, as I know them to be, not as they present themselves as, can form a nation state and successfully govern it? This is a necessary question in light of the apparent wish by some of them to separate from Nigeria and form what they call Biafra. (As an aside it should be observed that those secessionists, apparently, are too lazy to even learn that the name Biafra derives from Portugal, is a village in Portugal and naming themselves after a Portuguese town is a sign that they are not true Africanists, are mentally colonized hence are not ready for self governance, yet. The first thing a person who seriously wants to govern himself does is define himself on his own terms, apart from other people, but the Biafrans, apparently, cannot define themselves apart from external others, in this case Europeans. This suggests that they are still suffering from Europe’s cultural imperialism.)

To predict an individual’s future behavior you look at his past behavior. We study history to understand how groups of human beings behaved in the past so as to understand how they would behave in the future. In this light what does the study of Igbo history teach us about their ability to govern themselves?

Before the white men came to Igbo land there was no unified Igbo nation-state. What existed were many Igbo towns each governing itself. Igbos in their towns had democracy of sorts. The various Igbo towns were not unified into an all Igbo polity. No Igbo warrior rose up and did what other warriors did: use force of arms and or political astuteness to unify his people into one nation.

Historically, what happens is that a strong man within a group rises up and organizes a following into a military force and employs it to unify those who are like him, those who speak the same language as him. Having united his people he, or subsequent leaders, may engage in foreign adventure by conquering neighboring groups and building an empire.

Originally, Greece was composed of independent towns but these, under foreign pressure, particularly from Persia, united into a Greek nation. Philip and his son, Alexander the Great, of Macedonia took things a little further: they conquered their neighbors and built an empire. A Latin tribe living on the banks of River Tiber were united into a group and began making wars against their neighbors and gradually developed the ability to conquer them and built the strongest empire, Rome, Europe had known. In the East the Mongols did the same; the Chinese, the Indians, and the Arabs did the same. In Africa, those Africans living in the Sahel region of West Africa, apparently, under pressure from marauding Islamic Arabs formed strong states and empires beginning with Ghana and morphing to Mali, Songhai, Bornu-Kanen and Hausa States. In the forested part of Africa some African nations emerged, such as the Benin Empire and the Oyo (Yoruba) Empire. Further south there were the Kongo Empire, Angola Empire, Buganda, and Zulu empires.

Most countries came into being by gradually evolving from a small unit into a larger unit; generally, this is done through military power. Alternatively, a foreign military power comes around and uses power to unite disparate groups into a country under its control. The British, actually, a handful of them, employed military force to unify the various tribes living in what is now called Nigeria into a country, and govern them for the interest of Britain. Nigeria, like most African countries, was formed for the good of foreign powers, not for the good of Nigerians. Britain ruled Nigeria not because she loved Nigerians but because she wanted to extract certain economic goods from Nigeria and enhance her political prestige in Europe.

Igbos, by themselves, did not form a united Igbo nation; it took a foreign power, in this case the British, to form them into a country. Without the British there would be no Igbo nation. Perhaps, eventually Igbos would have unified into an Igbo nation; given sufficient time everything is possible. But the question is why didn’t the Igbos by themselves form a nation state soon enough? Answering this question would elucidate the question that this essay is trying to answer: Can Igbos govern a large polity?

In British Nigeria it took a lot of doing for the British to subdue the Igbos. The Igbo knew town governance and did not like to be subjected to a larger polity. To run large polities, it is necessary to have money, money obtained largely through taxation. When the British attempted to tax Igbos the Igbos resented it, hence, the 1929 Aba Women’s riot.

Whereas from the perspective of anti colonial efforts that revolt may be looked at favorably but from the perspective of governance it showed that the Igbos did not understand the nature of governance. You cannot govern a modern polity without generating revenue and governments obtain revenue from taxation. You have to tax a people if you want to run a modern government. Nothing is as inevitable in modern life as taxes. Every citizen, if realistic, bargains on paying, at least, twenty percent of his annual income to taxes. The alternative to not paying taxes is to not have a modern state, to revert to living in the jungle, to being a savage. Civilization has it its price: taxes and living under the rule of law.



The Absence Of Historic Igbo Nationalism


Igbos did not have an Igbo wide nation-state before the advent of the British. With British Nigeria, Igbos, suffering from population pressure on their meager land, quickly spread to all parts of Nigeria (and, later, to other parts of West Africa, Africa and now the world). The Igbo began living among non-Igbos in Nigeria…among the Yoruba, the Beni, and the Hausa etc. These other people saw the Igbos as different from them. A people who do not speak your language are different from you. Thus, it came to pass that other Nigerians treated Igbos from Owerri, Mbaise, Ngwa, Umuahia, Okigwe, Orlu, Onitsha, Enugu, Ikwerri, Asaba and Agbo etc as the same people even though among themselves these people could not understand each other’s Igbo dialect.

The perception of them by other Nigerians as one people began the process of building a sense of nationhood in Igbos. Since no human being is inferior to others and no human being accepts derogatory statements from others those that Igbos put down resent them. It came to pass that every once in a while the resentment of Igbo arrogance spills over into killing of Igbos. Thus, Igbos have been killed in several parts of Nigeria. The killing of Igbos in other parts of Nigeria, unfortunate as it was increased the incipient sense of Igboness; Igbos began to feel that they are a separate people.

In 1967 Emeka Ojukwu, a colonel in the Nigerian army, took Igbos to war with the rest of Nigeria. That war increased Igbos sense of nationhood. Undergoing national emergencies, such as wars and other struggles where the people pull together for their mutual survival, engenders a sense of nationhood in them. All said, several colonial and post-colonial events enabled Igbos to develop what they historically lacked, a sense of nationhood. Nevertheless, Igbo sense of oneness is very fragile. In business they tend to do well as sole proprietors where they start their own businesses and run them as they see fit. They seldom do well in partnerships and certainly not in corporations. Every Igbo wants, as in the cliché that every American Indian wants to be a chief, to be his own boss and since in large-scale organizations there can be few bosses. The salient point, though, is that Igbos have not fully developed a sense of being a unified people. Many forces are helping them move to that end but the feeling is still incipient.

If Igbos were to separate from Nigeria and form a separated Republic of Alaigbo, let us dispense with the nonsense of Biafra, and call Igbos by their real name, Alaigbo, the chances are that they would revert to their traditional clan identities. It is conceivable for the Owerri to fight the Onitsha and the Onitsha fight the Owerri, Orlu, Okigwe, Umuahai, Ngwa, Ikwerri, and Agbor etc. This situation would replicate what is going on in Somalia. The Somalis speak one language and are technically one people. But prior to the coming of the white man to unify them they organized themselves pretty much as Igbos did: along clans. With the departure of the white man and a strong national force (the fall of Said Bare’s military dictatorship) the various Somali clans reverted to their historical status and warred with each other, and the result is that Somalia is today a jungle where there is no centralized government. I am afraid that Igbos may experience the same faith were they to rush into an independent nation-state.

In my judgment, what seems to be in the best interest of Igbos is for them to continue to stay in Nigeria and larger polities, such as a West African federation and, ultimately, an African federation. However, while in Nigeria, Igbos ought to work to restructure Nigeria’s constitution along the lines that I, and, eventually, Pronaco suggested. In various writings, I suggested that all Alaigbo, from Agbo to Igwe Ocha, from Arochukwu to Nsukka etc become one state in Nigeria. If all Alaigbo were a state the people would learn to see themselves as one people and learn to govern themselves as one people.

Historically, Igbos, unfortunately, like divisions and if you gave them the opportunity each Igbo clan would like to become a separated state. Every Igbo town would like to be a state, and this would replicate their traditional, pre-white man’s socio-political organization. Such small-scale social organization makes Igbos politically weak and certainly makes them vulnerable to external exploitation. Slavery was easily carried out in Alaigbo because of the chaotic social organizations of the Igbos. Since each town was its own state and since each town was too weak to organize an effective army, it really could not fight off slavers.

In the early 1600s the Aro, an Igbo clan, on the border with the Efik tribe, formed an unholy alliance with the Calabar, and agreed to supply the later with Igbo slaves (who the later sold to the Portuguese and other Europeans). The Aro hired mercenaries, such as the Abam, and these roamed Igbo land kidnapping men, women and children and selling them into slavery. It was only in 1902 that Frederick Lugard and his British-led West African Frontier Army (composed mostly of Hausa soldiers) stormed the long juju of Arochukwu and its counterpart at Umunoha and finally put a stop to slavery in Alaigbo. If Igbos had a unified state that could mount a powerful military it is doubtful that they would have been vulnerable to slave trade. Those Igbos clamoring for more states ought to bear this point in mind: small Igbo states make Igbos weak. Foreigners can exploit the various small Igbos states and that way keep them weak.

See the disaster going on in Anambra state. It seems that the people of Anambra don’t seem capable of accepting a government; it seems that each man wants to be the government, the governor, legislature and judiciary, and the result is total chaos in that unfortunate state. The powers that be in Nigeria would be foolish not to exploit these peoples seeming inability to unite and no doubt they are stoking the fire of disunity in Anambra. Machiavelli advises a "divide and conquer" policy towards ones enemies and since these people already enjoy division why not take advantage of it so as to rule them? In my judgment, as currently constituted, Igbos seem unable to govern themselves in large polities. The Igbo is used to being his own boss. Igbos, as I see them, tend to do well as individual stars.

During wars solders use the threat of killing people to get them to do what the leaders want done. During the Biafran war, the accidental leader of the Igbos, Emeka Ojukwu (accidental because he was not elected by the Igbos, he was appointed by Major General Aguiyi Ironsi, the head of the military junta at Lagos) used force to get Igbos to follow him. In peace his dictatorial character would have made him unelectable. Ojukwu is not a leader who uses persuasion to get people to embrace his point of view and follow them; rather, he expresses pedestrian views, the views of a rich dim wit, and expects folks to accept them and feels angry if they refuse to kowtow to them.

The fact of the matter is that whereas people are fearful and you can intimidate them to going along with you, in the long run such leadership styles fail. Sooner or later, fearful persons attempt to overcome their fears and would fight those who rule them by intimidation. White men, for example, used force and intimidation to rule fearful black men in the Americas. As black men overcome the fears that bound them to slavery and second class citizenship white men would have to share power with them and re-negotiate the basis of governance or risk been overthrown by the angry blacks. Four hundred years of intimidation is just about all the white man can get away with; white domination of the black man is over, for black men now have the intellectual wherewithal to jostle for power share.

For our present purposes, Igbos attempt to intimidate folk into going along with them; this leadership by intimidation would not work, for one thing as a people Igbos are powerless and do not have the military power to cow any one into going along with their often childish schemes. It is in their best interests to learn negotiation and persuasion skills and try to get others to see their points of views rather than think that they can cow them. If Igbos were more knowledgeable of the art of persuasion, diplomacy and tactfulness they probably would have persuaded many countries to recognize their ill-fated Biafra enterprise. Instead, they assumed that other people would see their points of view and embrace them. Poor chaps; in international relations nations do what serves their national interests, not what helps you. Nobody cared if all Igbos died from kwashiorkor, what mattered to other nations was what was in it for them if they supported Biafra? International relationships are not a sentimental business whereby others supported you because you desire support. This point should be remembered by the would be Biafrans: why should the West support them? What do they have for the West? They must always remember that the oil desired by the West is not in Alaigbo, but mostly Ijaw land. Ojukwu and his fellow rebels had a big F in diplomatic skills.

The Desire To Actualize Of Biafra


What shall we make of the so-called movement for the actualization of Biafra? Not much. It is sort of a boys club; it is an organization formed by youth who were not part of the Biafra experience. They seem to have nostalgia for Biafra; to them Biafra seem their peoples one moment of glory in the sun. They look at that war as a historic struggle of good and evil and they are the good. Since, as they look back in their history they do not see anything that they can take pride from (their history was not written down before the white man came along), so they look unto the Biafran war as glorious and look at the leader of that war, Emeka Ojukwu, as a great warrior.

A great warrior, indeed; when the war was lost, like a coward, Ojukwu fled the country he had led to war, he fled to go save his hide. This is contrary to what is expected of generals; generals are expected to not abandon their soldiers in the battlefield, to accept their enemy’s punishment, including death, rather than abandon their troops.

The Biafran war lasted less than three years, only thirty months. In the annals of people’s struggle for independence three years is nothing. Such struggles often last decades. So why didn’t the defeated Biafrans disappear into the forest and launch a guerrilla warfare? Why were they in a hurry to return to other parts of Nigeria, the places they were supposedly killed at? Why did their desire for independence quickly flame out (and kept alive on the Internet by Biafra internet warriors, not actual warriors)?

Power concedes nothing; if you want something from those in power you have to fight for it and they would only give it to you when you defeat them in the struggle for power. Biafrans lost the war and currently talk about their need for independence and talk as if Nigerians would willingly allow them to separate from Nigeria. This is childish expectation. If you truly want independence you return to the jungle and fight for it.

Could it be the case that Biafrans are not willing to fight for what they believe and are just noisemakers? Could it be that they believe that if they make Nigerians feel guilty for killing their people that Nigerians would let them go? Nigerians would not feel guilty for they do not see themselves as the evil ones.On the contrary, other Nigerians see them as the guilty ones; they blame Igbo arrogance for Igbos problems. Nigeria is not going to let Biafra go out of guilt. Only Biafrans fighting for what they say they want would give them what they say they want, so, why don’t they fight for it? Why haven’t the Biafrans put their money where their mouths are?

During the Biafran war itself those that brought the war, the big boys, hid out in rear positions and forced poor children, some as young as fourteen years old, to fight the war for them. Those people were cowards who talked big and got a war going then got others, those who they intimidated to fight it for them. Those bastards hid their children from fighting. (Folk called Biafran soldiers abo ahihia, refuse to be thrown away.) I do not believe that Igbos are yet willing to place their lives in jeopardy for larger courses. I see them mostly struggling for personal goals but seldom for larger communal goals. If you listened to them you would think that when the bullets begin to fly that they would stand and fight. No, they would run and talk fools into fighting their wars for them.

If these people want to separate so badly I say let them exchange their business suits for military clothes and fight, fight for ten, twenty, thirty years or however long it takes to realize their dream. Then they would come across as heroic men, not mere noisemakers. (The Biafra Internet Brigade are hiding out in North America and talking volubly about war but when war comes the cowards would hide and have only the children of poor Igbos to fight it for them; these people are bloody cowards, they are contemptible and despicable; if you want a war go fight it by yourself. I am not a pacifist, I am not against all wars; I am for just wars.)

Does all these mean that all Igbos should not be given leadership and managerial positions in Nigeria? Not at all. I have seen a few Igbos who possess all the traits expected in good leaders. They are usually the quiet ones, those that have taken the time to analyze themselves and understood themselves; as Socrates observed, an unexamined life is not worth living; when we examine, analyze, our lives we see a whole lot of things that need improvement. Those with examined lives, understanding that they are imperfect, do not go about verbally abusing other imperfect human beings; instead they seek ways to improve all of our lives. There are Igbos who can rule Nigeria and other modern organizations but they are very few. There are some Igbos who understand that a leader is a servant of those he leads; that he articulates their aspirations and helps them realize them, that he is not there to lord it over them, to get them to worship his inflated ego. Such leaders understand that all people are the same, equal and one and work for what serves our mutual self interests.

Projection Or Objectivity?

A person who wrote the type of things I have written about Igbos, a group that one nominally belongs to can be said to be talking about what he sees in his self, deny and or dissociate from and project out. Am I projecting out some things I see in me to Igbos? In the nature of things you cannot rule this entirely out. Nevertheless, the question is whether what I see in these people is observable by other persons, or not? I submit that any person who has been close to Igbos have seen the traits I described as inhering in them. In as much as there is inter observer agreement my observation seems accurate. If you disagree with me then disprove me.

A cursory reading of this essay may lead one to conclude that since it appears that I doubt the Igbos ability to govern themselves that as an Igbo I doubt my own ability to govern polities. In other words that the writing reflects deep loss of confidence in myself hence in my people. As it were, it would seem to suggest that I want other people to rule us, those who are allegedly better than us.

In the Americas colonized Negroes sometime feel so emasculated by their inferior social status that they doubt their ability to do the right thing and believe that only their white masters have the ability to do the right thing for them, rule them. The problem with this assessment of the issue is that I do not recognize external others as better than us. If I were to tell you what I think of white folks you would not believe that a human being would have such a low opinion of his fellow human beings. Regarding other African groups, if the Igbos, an admittedly hardworking group are seen in negative light you can only imagine how one sees them. Let us just say that I do not elevate other groups above Igbos and myself.

I do not expect other groups to rule Igbos. I am just seeking ways to make sure that Igbos rule themselves properly. By showing what is wrong with their manner of doing things my goal is to improve their doing those things. It is in governing that one learns the art of governing. If you want to develop leadership skills you have to put yourself in leadership positions. You cannot become a leader unless you actually lead people. Igbos, Africans must govern themselves and from so doing learn how to govern themselves well.

Conclusion


In 1957 Ghana became the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence. Since then all black African countries have gained independence from European rule. Fifty years of self-rule has resulted in collapsed economies all over Africa. Nowhere in Africa is the country well managed. So why is this the case? At first we blamed our former colonial masters for scheming to do us in. But in time some of us learned that only children blame others for their woes. When one points two accusatory fingers at other persons three point right back at one reminding one that though others contribute to ones fate that one is more responsible for it than other people.

In trying to understand why African countries do not seem to do the right thing I decided to examine my own ethnic group, the Igbos, and understand them as they are, not as they present themselves to others. I decided to go beneath the mask and know whom these people are. In several writings I have focused on the Igbos. I am trying to understand them, which really means understand me, for one must understand ones group if one is to understand ones self. For example, I am very competitive and do not accept being second to any other person. In trying to understand why I have that trait I learned that it is rooted in Igbo competitiveness. Igbos compete and reward only successful persons and either ignore or shame losers. Thus most Igbos are afraid of becoming losers least they are socially rejected and or shamed. The individual’s behavior is rooted in his group’s culture; the shibboleth of individualism is exaggerated.

My goal in this particular essay is to see if there is anything in Igbos background that disposes them to be unable to govern themselves? I believe the answer is affirmative and have posited those probable causes here. I do not know that they are always true but they seem true to me. Let us have a discourse on why Africans seem unable to govern themselves. I believe that members of other African ethnic groups ought to do what I did, do some soul searching and see if there is something in their background that impedes their self-governance. It is time we behaved like adults and stopped blaming the West for our poverty and inability to get anything right. Of course the West does play a role in our situation but let us for a while focus on what roles we play in that situation. When we improve our house and become strong we shall call the West’s bluff. I say, first, let us understand what we did to us before we worry about what other people did to us.

There are prerequisites for governing a modern polity, skills like law, political science, public administration, economics, finance, accoutering and management. The average person who aspires to governing his polity can learn these skills at universities. On the other hand, there are intangible skills that though aspects of them can be taught their core cannot be taught. Leadership can be taught but to be a leader one must have an intangible quality: total identification with the people one wants to lead, acute awareness of their needs, articulation of those needs and doing whatever it takes to help satisfy those needs. Leaders work twenty four-seven for their people and do so selflessly. I doubt that selflessness and total commitment to public service can be taught, though we must try.

My experience is that we have the capacity to learn the superficial aspects of leadership but lack the awareness of the psychological component of it: dedication to social service. We tend to seek public office for narcissistic reasons. We see public office as offering our prestige in the people’s eyes and want to obtain that prestige. We want to be perceived as the most important persons in their world, and public office gives us that neurotic feeling. We seldom ask themselves, "What am I seeking office for?" True leaders do not seek office for prestige but because of what they want to accomplish through such offices.

I think that we have to figure out a way to teach ourselves to seek public office for public service, to become selfless and commit to serving the people not because we seek fame and wealth but because we want to be useful to people. (Plato talked about how to train philosopher kings in The Republic). The egotist is in hell, in a prison of his own making, but does not know it. To be egoless, love and serve people, is to approximate heaven. (I have covered these issues in my more metaphysical writing.)

With a lot of efforts by the end of the twenty first century, perhaps, we shall produce persons who are capable of the type of leadership that I am talking about; in the present one has no illusions about them: they seek political office for what is in it for them. This is not a cynical view, but one based on cool-headed observation. Igbos successfully governed themselves in their traditional society but, so far, have not done a good job of governing themselves in the new political dispensation they find themselves. Ultimately, we will learn to successfully govern our selves in the modern world.


Ozodi Thomas Osuji PhD

achi4u: the answer is NO,i will hire aboki to come and govern us.

CHESSBOARD: Stop asking stu.pid questions....Gowon was 29 yrs when he become Nigerian President. When we become a Nation, Old politicians will be relegated and young and modern IBOS will take over

CHESSBOARD: Def this Osuji of a guy must be an "OSU"...... for your information OSU means slaves

Dede1:



Bros, Gowon was 32 when he [size=18pt]usurper[/size] power in 1966. You can do the math.

Dede1:


He is an “OSU” and wanted his people to forget about the rites only performed by certain person such as him, Ozodi Thomas Osuji, but his people refused. Instead the people demanded the narcissist, Ozodi Thomas Osuji, to come to the village and perform the rites. Since then he has lied, fabricated all sort of nonsensical craps against Ndigbo and refused to come home.

Musiwa,,:
Why not. Rivers state is populated by Igbo people. And has an igbo governor.

dayokanu:

ECOMOG soldiers are around take cover!!!!


Bros na wa for this your rocket launcher ooo. You wan take Yinglish wound us for hia?

Which one is Usurper power? Were you trying to say "Osuofia" or "Last supper"