Editor’s note: In the fifty-five years of Nigeria’s political emancipation, many analysts have put divergent opinions forward to X-ray the nation’s performance in terms of political aspirations. At this point, it is highly imperative to evaluate how Nigeria has fared since 1960. Eustace Dunn, Naij.com’s senior editor, in this opinion article makes an analysis of how Nigeria’s independence, military and indigenous politicians destroyed her political system from the cradle.
Just like other African countries and some first-world countries, Nigeria is a by-product of political artificiality which has to a very large extent jeopardized the system of government and political activities culminating from cultural, religious, geopolitical and categorical diversities.
A brief reminiscence of the eventual independence
Retrospectively, the motion for Nigeria’s independence had first been proposed by a foremost anti-colonial and pro-democracy activist, Anthony Enahoro, who died about five years ago. When a neighbouring country, Ghana, was declared free in March 6, 1957, the likes of S.L. Akintola, Remi Fani-Kayode and Tafawa Balewa pressed further, hence the declaration in 1960.
In a ceremony that climaxed into the night of September 30, 1960, the British anthem, which was sung for the very last time, immediately ushered in the Nigerian national anthem for the first time at twelve midnight the next day, urging all compatriots to rise and celebrate the nation’s emancipation from colonialism.
Britain kept its own side of the bargain to grant the nation political autonomy. Thus, October 1 became the most significant day in the history of Nigerian politics, admitting the country into the league of independent nations.
At this point, many Nigerians saw the political freedom from the colonial masters as an escape route from the shackles of injustices and chains of discrimination with the hope that the country will grow rapidly politically, considering the fact that the country was now under indigenous control.
How elites bedeviled the political autonomy
Some elites had then pointed from a predictive judgement that the nation was not yet ripe in terms of political, economic and socio-cultural development to be able to take care of itself as greed and political domineeringness were lurking around the corner.
To a great mortification, the projection that the autonomous political adventure may be abrogated by these same indigenous bigwigs came to pass at the very juvenile stage of its inception. Greed came from the discovery of oil followed by parliamentary naivety which came from political desperations and power tussle.
Political elites became owners of oil wells to enrich their personal pockets. One of the greatest natural resources that was supposed to be blessing to the nation exacerbated the existence of Nigeria and oneness of her people.
Eventually, lawlessness, regional hostility and political instability at the early point of the nation’s parliamentary democracy paved way for military takeover six years later. A system that seemed to be bad became worse than ever as the men in uniform and boot swept off every corner of leadership into absolute military rule.
This reprehensible acquisitiveness and insatiable desire for wealth and power made four military power dogfight happen within a period of ten years. From Aguiyi Ironsi to Yakubu Gowon, Murtala Mohammed and Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria became politically dead and militarily awakened.
Suffice it to say that the same “prebendalism” which saturated the Nigerian political, nay, military rule also motivated one man, the late Odimegwu Ojukwu, to make a proposition for secession to form a republic of Biafra which never saw the light of day. This attempt to withdraw from an alliance with Nigeria was another impetuous move that finally stultified the nation’s economic, socio-cultural, political and geographical existence. Many died in the process. It became a history that created an indelible mark in the hearts of mostly those from eastern part of Nigeria with many men of great pen putting pen to paper to tell various sides of the civil war that lasted from 1967 to 1970.
The military created a sub-national ethnic gap which led to the civil war. The war crystallizes the leadership challenge as regards political development and stability. The identity-based civil war, just like the Chechneyan conflict in Russia (1994), made Nigeria contend with this cleavage which undermined the legitimacy of the citizenry (who becomes Biafran and Nigerian) and national integration.
Nigeria was indeed not ripe for the independence which Herbert Macaulay fought for as the country’s case still offers a cautionary tale of the excesses of military rule bolstered by extreme oppression, force, ethnic favouritism and discrimination.
How independence crippled ethnic unity and national development
The concept of nationalism was hinged on a concrete definition as a patriotic feeling which brings an oppressed but related people together to demand for freedom. It is a core devotion to one’s nation and the consciousness that brings about the idea of co-existence. It is the loyalty and the spirit of togetherness geared towards promoting national culture and interest as against those of the oppressors.
When the movement succeeded in achieving these goals, the same greed shattered every effort injected prior to the emancipation. People became loyal to regions instead of the defined nation. Militias sprang up into sectional violent militant group to agitate for a freedom out of the freedom already given.
The independence opened the eyes of people to actually see that even though the Northern and Southern protectorates were amalgamated, they were different people. That is why an Igbo man had to come up with the idea that he was a Biafran.
If everyone who clinched on political power observed this national unity and development instead of embezzlements and personal gratification, Nigeria would have been a world tourist centre. Right from the inception of indigenous government, everything spoilt. Independence paved way for the scramble for wealth by predator elites who dominated the political scene. From the Nnamdi Azikiwes of this world to the Tafawa Balewas and the likes, exploitation and corruption gained their taproots. The worse became when the military now decided to grant power to democratically elected president in 1979, Shehu Shagari. By this time, the ideology of nationalism was thrown into the trash.
During this period, the political system was not able to accommodate diversity in the task of national governance. It is on record that the legacy which Britain left, coupled with the military junta and the divergent populace, led to a great challenge in the Shagari-led administration. However, in a bid to redress this, Muhammadu Buhari came in with his fight against corruption and ended up violating human rights.
Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha milked the nation to a standstill. The unpronounced stealing was the less than a year period of Abdulsalami Abubakar. All these happened as a result of selfish interest in the nation’s treasury. And this is how independence crippled Nigerian politics.
Monetization of political offices at the expense of democracy
Big political players have shown over the years that democracy has no other plans than one: to serve the interests of the selected few who continually have their way at the expense of the collective will and interests of the people. In this democratic dispensation, the legislative arm has successfully turned the hallowed chambers to money-making venture.
The National Assembly has a lot of senators, and House of Representatives’ has a lot of members who have been there for years without at least proposing a motion or a bill. All they do is wait for allowance. It is this money factor that shows that, when investigations are embarked on, money changes hands and the case gets closed.
This “prebendalism” brought the concept of democracy being a government of the people, for the people and by the people, to zero functionality.
Independence of a nation can only work when its people expunge self-enrichment and hatred for one another based simply on the fact that the people are of different ethnicity. Democracy can only work when there are the right people to help uphold its essence.
At fifty-five years, Nigeria has come a long way with a lot of promises from presidents, especially since 1999, and failures to fulfill such pacts. Achieving democratic stability could take up to a century or more. There is no sign as to whether the country will get there any time soon.
Nigerian leaders are hereby admonished to wholeheartedly embrace the features of integrity, probity and high standard of self-discipline as expected by the citizenry. They, as a matter of fact, must be saturated in national patriotism and neutrality in order to have firm grip of the development of Nigeria and also better the lots of all.
Nigerians demand credible, responsible and people-oriented leadership. The citizenry will be relaxed if the leaders do away with old habits of corrupt practices which over time impeded the nation from getting to the list of developed nations. When this is done, Nigeria will be a better place.
The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily represent the editorial policy of Naij.com.
Your own opinion articles are welcome at info@naij.com — drop an email telling us what you want to write about and why. More details in Naij.com’s step-by-step guide for guest contributors.
We’re ready to trade your news for our money: submit news and photo reports from your area using our Citizen Journalism App.
Contact us if you have any feedback, suggestions, complaints or compliments. We are also available on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to Naij.com Opinion page!
The post 55 Years On: How Nigeria’s Independence, Military Crippled Indigenous Politics appeared first on Nigeria News today & Breaking news | Read on NAIJ.COM.
55 Years On: How Nigeria’s Independence, Military Crippled Indigenous Politics
