Issues Other Than The Third Term: Nigeria, Ethnic Identity And National Integration (3)

By

Prince Charles Dickson

Jos, Plateau Nigeria

 

This is the concluding part of a three series part in which I had tried to examine the tripartite problem of Nigeria. Under the umbrella of Structure and System, Constitutional Changes and Reviews and now finally the question of ethnic identity and national integrationas matters t hat are really bedeviling the nation, other than the noise of movement without motion towards 2007.

 

Individuals and groups can and often do maintain multiple social and political levels, but this essay deals with these levels from the ethnic factor in relation to national integration. Within the context of this concluding essay, ethnicity is defined as association of people bound together by felt ties of kinship or congruity. If there is any issue that should be of intense argument and debate rather than the shadow c alled third term and the 2007 journey, then it is the ethnic group question as it relates to national integration.

 

Ethnicity or ethnic affiliation refers to the identification of members within the group, it constitutes one of the most common expressions of ‘primordial attachments’ stemming from the ‘givens’ of social existence that seem to have ‘an ineffable’ and at times over powering coerciveness in and of themselves.

 

My definition of ethnicity indicates that ties are conscious or felt, purposely emphasizing the subjective nature of ethnic affiliation.. Attempts to delineate objective characteristics of ethnic groups, like common descent, cultural or linguistic homogeneity, limit the application of the term. However, not all ethnic groups share similar objective characteristics because the phrase “ethnic group” encompasses many different types of association ranging from a small patrilineage of a couple of thousand persons to a people of millions like the Hausa, Ibos and Yorubas as against the Jarawas or Komas.

 

The relative nature of such concepts as common as descent and cultural and linguistic similarity also militates against an attempt to impute special characters to ethnic groups. Ethnic affiliation is self –defined in the sense that members of the group rather than outsiders draw its boundaries. However the Nigerian experience is exactly the opposite as most times it is the outsider that draws the boundaries without recourse to all the factors variable and otherwise. They forget or chose to ignore that certain factors like common dialect may be shared by two communities, which perceive themselves to be members of separate ethnic groups which is the peculiar case in Nigeria. So the struggle and fight for power has been based on a wrong premise, because for example the objective existence of minor variations in dialect or culture cannot by itself indicate whether communities will perceive these differences as establishing an ethnic boundary.

 

Seven out of the ten “geoboundaries” in the nation today are political rather than clear cut ethnic group boundaries and from another perspective creating clear cut boundaries on the lines of ethnic affiliation will result in a higgledy-piggledy picture of confusion. Consequently the competition among various political referents for allegiance is an all or nothing proposition. A question I ask is at what stage and under what circumstances does an individual or group consciously or unconsciously adopt a particular identity and when is such for national integration and otherwise. Because most times ethnic identity is no more incompatible with national loyalty than any other obvious attachments-class, locality, occupational group, or ideological fellowship-and is no less legitimate than any of them.

 

Furthermore, when members of an ethnic group share genuine needs and common trends, which is not the case in our political systems. There is no reason to consider that actions on the basis of one ethnic identity are any less modern than those that follow an economic rational. So the argument lies in rational self-interest and emotional response and traditional pattern of action.

 

Quite a number of ethnic based essays and discourses have stressed the compatibility between parochial attachments and national integration is a problem. This I discovered is because of the search for equilibrium between ethnic political sentiments and national political system and structure of governance and provisions catered for by the constitution in tackling matters based on common values of all ethnic groups that make up the nation. The argument again being that the absence of such ethnic competition as we have in the country today often results from a low degree of political consciousness or the prevalence of a non-participant political culture.

 

Ethnicity and nationality, or primordial and civic sentiments are not fundamentally different but we have not explored it positively, but nationality is simply an extension and more inclusive variation of ethnicity.

 

The Nigeria political system, as it existed prior to the first coup in January 1966, comprised one of the worst alternatives for political integration. The Independence constitution in Nigeria strengthened the regions at the expense of the central level and thereby limited the relevance of national identity for most participants, today however the opposite is obtainable, we still lack a constitution where the operators have a system and structure that allows for all ethnic groups to function autonomously without many points of conflict due to an overbearing center.

 

One link that has permeated these essay series is that our problem partly stems from whether political operation and eventual political acculturation can occur between ethnic groups whose attitudes towards political participation, governmental authority, change and the social structure are diametrically opposed. That also provides for why some of us argue that disintegration does not offer a conclusive answer.

 

Unless there is political cooperation that leads to the evolution of a shared political culture, or at least to some agreement about the fundamental rules which the political system will operate, a stable nation will not develop. History offers inspiration for hope as well as reason for despair.

 

Ethnic identity as a contingent phenomenon often adopts itself in accordance with the political opportunities offered by a specific environment. As political arenas become larger in scope and more heterogeneous, ethnic identification adjusts by becoming more inclusive. Hence the emergence of multiple allegiance. Conditions under which political participation occurs usually will determine which of these identities will become the salient ones.

 

General cultural homogeniz ation or structural assimilation do not seem to be prerequisites for national integration. Political cooperation can cement ties between diverse cultural groups sufficiently to foster a political cum national integration. Although in most cases as we have now amongst the South-South, South-East, South West and Middle Belt, the factor is political expediency not national integration, we pray they can develop into stable emotional connotation. Such that we can have a pragmatic participant political system that can reach across such traditionally diverse people as Nigeria is a question only the f uture can answer conclusively

 

Contrary to many other assumptions, our diverse ethnic identity cannot deter national and political integration. The role and strength of ethnic identities depends on the same factors that determine the salience of political identities in particular political arenas. For most part, ethnic groups operate as social welfare organs or as ordering media to facilitate political competition and cooperation. While ethic associations may reinforce primary identities, this strengthening of paro chial ties does not preclude the establishment of more inclusive networks of loyalty. In other words and final analysis we have a situation whereby our ethnic identity in a politically misbalanced system, disorganized structure, and with a today-tomorrow constitution, we can ourselves promote compromise and accommodation as well as confrontation. May Almighty show us His Mercies and Grace.