Marginalisation and Religion

By

Crispin Oduobuk

crispinoduobuk@gmail.com

It is necessary to accept, not just in the intellect but in the heart, that that other being out there is as important as you are.

—From a debate in The Economist published in December 1990

No matter what faith we adhere to—or fail to adhere to for that matter—there is a golden rule to guide us all in our dealings with others at whatever level we find ourselves. For in the end it all boils down to the question, "What if it was you at the other end?" And we should never forget that life has a way of regularly putting us right at that other end.

It may sound superstitious to some but one's position is that if you treat someone unfairly today, whether at work, play, love or whatever, very often you find yourself wearing that shoe sooner or later. And then you get to know just how it pinches!

Is this Karma or mere coincidence? What does it matter so long as we recognise that there is a correlation between what we sow and what we reap? Many of us—again either through faith or the lack of it—clearly recognise this link. As such, it is unfortunate that our nation is one of double-speak where plain-speak is needed, shamefully sealed lips where screams are required and jingoistic posturing where level-headed leadership should reign. Today particularly, do we really need advising that just as we did in the past, we are once again sowing terrible seeds?

Meanwhile, our general grasp of issues appears to be less woolly today than it was in the past. Sadly though, almost the exact opposite also seems true. We sometimes behave like we are jet-set medieval thinkers. Picture a clear pool that easily becomes muddied. This admittedly somewhat simplistic paradox has nonetheless been brought to the fore recently by the issue of marginalisation of Muslims with particular regards to representation at the on-going National Political Reform Conference and institutions of state in general.

It seems there may be some who, due to their understanding of the past or their personal experiences, are revelling rather vengefully over this matter. And, of course, for others, there's always the gallery to play to. One is not saying there are no lessons to be learned from the past. But just what lessons are we learning? Sound appraisals of the past should point to the light at the end of the tunnel. If the critique leaves us still groping in the dark, or elongating a blame cycle, we should throw out the critique and the critic. Well, okay, may be not the critic. But definitely the critique, for its blindness—especially when that sightlessness stems from an emotional inability to heal past wounds—cannot lead us to any heights.

It might sound naïve but I think in our collective interest we should all be rebelling against the marginalisation of any person or group. It simply could be you at the receiving end tomorrow. Therein lies the reason why one is saddened by the reality that, rather than tackle today's issues with an eye on bettering tomorrow, some who really should know better are holding up acts from the past as evidence(s) of rights or wrongs that demand or warrant retribution or atonement. At this juncture we're in dangerous territory and must all tread carefully. Already it is a sad commentary on the level of our national discourse that we're endlessly embroiled in these issues of simple fairness. That is basically what it is all about or should be—uncomplicated fairness, period. But the devil literally breathes in every seemingly uncomplicated matter, doesn't he?

In the specific case of Professor Ishaq Oloyede's elevation to co-secretary of the national conference, some have hailed his appointment as a 'win' for Muslims while others have seen more to complain about in the situation than to celebrate. While it is true that one man's meat may indeed poison another, a variance of opinion is merely the surface of this issue.

For the avoidance of doubt, let this be crystal clear: It is not fair that Muslims are not fairly represented at the national conference even if one goes by President Obasanjo's 50/50 reading of the Muslim/Christian split in the nation's population. At the same time, it is also not fair that only the president seems to be getting all the blame for this. He, after all, is one man, albeit a very powerful one. But he works with advisers and very senior aides that ought to also answer for any misrepresentation or under representation of their constituency.

Notwithstanding that, it is even worse that there seems to be a fairly widely held perception among some vocal Muslim leaders that the topmost echelon of the political leadership of this country has deliberately created this situation to foist a long-term reign of inequity on Muslims. As a Christian, I tremble at the consequences of such an unchristian manoeuvre, if indeed it is true, for there is a Christian exhortation that explicitly commands, "Love thy neighbour as thyself!"

Whether the charge is true or not, the situation already seems bad enough. It gets no better when one reflects on the reality that truth is relative and oftentimes perception by itself is enough to ensure damages that would be difficult to reverse. And in the volatile matter of religion, caution and pragmatism are elements the lack of which encourage conflagration.

This explains why inasmuch as one agrees with Sanusi Lamido Sanusi that the elite on both sides (Christian and Muslim) exploit religion to secure personal patronage and privilege, one is of the view that it is better to at least make an honest attempt at balancing this volatile element of our lives, than to pursue what is at best a dubious meritocracy that may leave us with nothing of merit since those that claim to love us more than we love ourselves are hell-bent on using that parameter to foster disaffection in the polity. One says this knowing full well that some would misunderstand the substance either inadvertently or deliberately. Yet it must be reiterated that for better or worse—and regardless of the argument against the enthronement of the unscientific element therein—religion is a major part of our lives and we simply cannot wish it away.

And though we may be jet-set medieval thinkers, neither craftiness nor opportunism from any quarter should be allowed to dabble with the sensitivity required to harmonise the religious mix in any forum such as the national conference or other spheres of national life for that matter. Whether the original idea was conceived out of mischief or the subsequent dissent gimmicky and suspect on some counts, the principle and spirit of federal character should prevail. And it's not enough to make that requirement of others but not ourselves. One appreciates that some of us, trapped as we are in a cerebral diarrhoeic paradox, are unfortunately befuddled by the seeming ping-pong being orchestrated by members of the same self-serving group. But where is the solution to this problem if not in general equity?

This is why the near total lack of interest in this matter by my Christian brethren disturbs me very much. I'm no conspiracy theorist but it is well known that the privileged in all corners of the earth tend to band together and manipulate issues and events to portray themselves as being concerned with their people's welfare while they actually rob the populace blind. As such, it is plausible pre-arrangement precluded the sort of principled engagement one would expect in this circumstance.

On the other hand, it is equally possible that the deployment of certain choice concepts or that serenading whoever cares (or does not care) about the issue in cadences with ultra-emotive baggage by the self-same elite may be responsible for this unpalatable plot of silence. This is even more possible because, as already stated, we know they wine and dine together at a level where religion is just but one of many tools to them. And yet, sadly, in pursuing their personal objectives, they would so callously endanger the rest of us either through their vexing silence or equally troubling utterances.

In countering the peril some would gladly thrust us into, we all have to recognise that there is more to this than the eye can readily discern. And as my colleague Adagbo Onoja would say, we have to intellectualise this issue so that it neither remains the exclusive preserve of a quietly scheming lot or provocative would-be gadflies—all working in tandem against our collective interests in any case—nor allow the matter to descend to the street level where the sad paradox of conflicting and easily manipulated levels of awareness would turn the matter to another thing entirely.

As for me, let me restate here what I have often said to my colleagues: It is not in my long-term strategic interest as a Christian for Muslims to be marginalised at any level in this country. At the same time, it certainly cannot be in my interest at any rate for my Christian brethren to be marginalised. (On a lighter note, Onoja complains that nobody cares about the marginalisation of animists. Well, my brother, let it go on record that I'm speaking up for them as well!)

The task now is to exorcise the devil from the details of a fundamentally straightforward matter such as making sure Oduobuk, Onoja, Oloyede and Sanusi are all fairly represented, using the federal character principle, wherever a need for such representation may arise. We need not be perpetually entangled in crises of marginalisation. Yet we need to keep talking so that we can keep working on a balancing act that is of great importance to the wellbeing of this country.

In conclusion, one would like to leave matters in the heart of this ancient but gilded idea that is clearly for all times: let us do unto others as we would have others do unto us!

Oduobuk is the Group Literary Editor of the Trust papers