Identity, Political Ethics and Parochialism: A Response to Fatima Suleman's Rejoinder to Sanusi Lamido

By

Emma Sunday Ozoemena I

ggdyp031@ybb.ne.jp

 

I would be honoured to use your medium, my beloved Gamji.com, to respond to a newly published essay (also on Gamji) which I believe, fully misunderstands the original author on the topic and issue above, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, which bordered on identity. I am always looking forward everyday to reading Nigerians expressing themselves which ever way they choose to do it. Thanks for the opportunity given to many, and special thanks, if mine makes it.

 

Reading through this rejoinder (by Fatimah Suleyman) to the original essay by Sanusi Lamido (Identity, Political ethics and Parochialism...),fully reminds me why I hate rejoinders in the first place.  One is that they hardly ever do justice to the original article in terms of basic conception and understanding. Two, is that action and reaction may be always opposite, but they are truly, hardly equal. And three, which concerns me more, is that we, tend to expose our prejudice  to particular aspects, of the essay ,and then make a big leap to confuse it with the whole of the essay. In other words, the part, for our blind convenience, amounts to the whole.

       

Mr. Fatimah ( sorry, if you are a chief)  I am sorry to say, has very little understanding of the topic  of discussion. It is not for nothing that the words: IDENTITY, POLITICAL ETHICS AND PAROCHIALISM  appear in the topic. In Mr. Fatimah's response, the title could have been any other words. Sanusi dealt with the issue of identity,  Fatimah dealt with the issue of ego. And where Sanusi discussed politics, Fatimah talked religion. Where he discussed parochialism ,Fatimah talked racism. These things are hardly the same .Reading in-between the lines exposes this clearly, and I can't go any further.

    

Fatimah's concept of Identity, is according to him "what you believe and profess". This is fatly wrong. It is parochial, and an insignificant part of identity. We may not agree on the definition, but  I must disagree on the limitation.

 

In the personal note I sent to Sanusi Lamido, which included a discomfort with a part of his essay, I made a brief point that for me the word "identity" is confusing. And I preferred the word "individuality". The people like Fatimah is part of the reason why I am uncomfortable with identity as a socio-political vocabulary, In the social or political train, it denotes the opposite of what it really is. Identity is basically that which makes one unique, and different from every other .It is the melting pot between matter and form in so far as it distinguishes and separates from all else. It is nothing to do with appearance in the ephemeral sense. Appearance is relevant to identity only to the  extent that it truly is a part of the substance irrespective of perception. It is that which differentiates something from everything else. Unfortunately when we go into politics, it becomes that which makes us same, to the exclusion of those we choose to exclude. In other words identity goes only as far as we want it to go. It  then depends on our interests to define itself. This is where people like Ja'far take over

   

On the issue of Ja'far's biography, I only wish to point out that, like everyone else, our background is very relevant in shaping our views and what Germans call "weltangschauung". We bring it where ever we go. How appropriate it is in referencing our likes and dislikes may well depend on situations. And since Ja'far attacked Sanusi's identity (who he is), and not his views, his response must be up in the air.

   

Ja'far may be "learned" in Islam, depending on the Islamic definition of it, but is he  learned in the act of government and politics.I say this because, Government and politics involve dealing with the different and divergent interests which actually or perceptually, are different from ours. Going by Ja'far and Fatimah's conception of identity, government is impossible, because those other identities are different from ours and so we cannot deal with them. Here, there is but one conclusion. Ja'far and co must lead Muslims only to the extent that they encounter others or other "identities" at which point others with broader knowledge should logically take over. Identity, therefore, is not sufficient  for any group of people, since in order to progress they need to venture beyond their own identity or cocoon. People like Ja'far, therefore, be they Muslim or Christian, Igbo or Fulani, Yoruba or Hausa  are incapable of leading politically. The issue of Political ethics should take off from here, but I rather not go.

   

Sanusi's point as I read it, is not whether Ja'far memorizes his Koran off head, but rather of him overstepping his acclaimed (self or Fatimah) area of expertise, in this case religion; and  using it to pass judgments on individuals' psychology, social integration, political issues and indeed, their own identity which is as subjective as it gets. Such a public judgment will border on arrogance  and the abuse of  microphone or public address system. I think that those who cloak themselves in religion should not pontificate on philosophy

   

And did I get it right? Fatimah criticizes Sanusi for being knowledgeable in philosophy, and using it to defend himself, yet in the next paragraph he contends that "we are talking intellectual here (sic), meaning he should not debase to biography( Ja'far's). Mom's soup tastes best isn't it?

  

Fatimah contends that Ja'far promotes unity among Muslims (Muslim unity). If this is true, then he is doing it by  choice , I assume.  But how come he condemns Sanusi for promoting national awareness (national unity)? If unity is the underlined word, which is more important ; one who tries to unite a part of the whole or one who tries to unite the whole?

   

If Ja'far is more knowledgeable on a part than Sanusi (contestable), he must admit that those who work on the whole have at least more on-the-work experience on it. If the whole is at war, it is not possible for a part to be at peace. The one is possible only within the other. Often, the whole is even more than the sum of its parts. It is clear that Fatimah does not understand or chose not to deal with the subject matter to which he joined issues: That of identity (read parochialism) in the contest of political ethics. This is a re-phrase. It boils down to being fair to others while you pursue your own (temporal) ends. Fatimah should take another look.

   

Sanusi is not an outcast as Fatimah wrote. Sanusi has established himself as  an icon. His rare ability to marshal out his points in a coherent manner, to weld the pen and paper (read keyboard) like an arrow, to combine his love of his religion and people with the understanding of other sections of the nation is rare even among other ethnicities. I wish he were from my tribe to challenge the self appointed ego maniacs pocketing the fruits of the people's labour and blocking common progress. Many young Nigerians outside the country are consoled to know there  are still people of conscience left even if a few. And please, ask Ja'far Adam if you see him, if  there is such a thing as national identity.

 

Emma Sunday Ozoemena I