Former military president, Ibrahim Babangida, recently dismissed any thought of Nigeria breaking up, citing three settled issues about the nation. Regional Editor, Olawale Rasheed, examines the submission of the General and the consequent national reactions.

THE past few weeks opened up a very frank chapter in the nation‘s political life. With insurgency in the North, ethnic tension was simmering in the South. Secessionist talks were doing the rounds even from the most unusual of quarters.

The nation was virtually at a crossroads. A southern minority president faces a challenging duel from a faceless fundamentalist sect with confirmed international affiliations. Many were making far-reaching proposals touching on the continued existence of the nation as an indivisible entity. In fact, the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) has risen from the dead and the clamour for a Sovereign National Conference is resonating from across the federation. The usually reclusive North was also forced to join the fray, with some Arewa leaders declaring that the zone was not afraid of a national dialogue.

That was also the time the president, in a statesmanlike manner, laid out his strategy for containing the fundamentalist insurgency. Though rebuffed, the presidential offer of settlement talks to the insurgents was seen as a major step forward in the increasingly delicate security situation in the country. The rebuttal of peace talks come as southerners in the North continued to live in perpetual fear, while rumours of Hausa/Fulani emigration from the South are surfacing on a daily basis. Surprising enough, that was the time the Anambra State government also choose to evict Yoruba-Hausa cattle traders from a market in the state.

At a point, a map dividing the country into six or so separate countries was circulating, just as subterranean gossip about the future of the country was almost becoming a pastime on the social media. Even with the best of efforts by the administration and security agencies, divisive elements, bent on frustrating the democratic polity and structure, appeared to be gaining ground. It was at this point that an equally significant gathering took place in Abuja, where a former Head of State, General Ibrahim Babangida, delivered  groundbreaking national political diagnosis and conclusions about the state of the nation and certain indisputable truths from his antecedents and vantage
position as a former ruler of this great nation.

According to the former military president, “There is a doctrine known as the ‘’Doctrine of Nigeria’s Settled Issues’’ and nobody should attempt to tamper with them.  Number one, I don’t want any one of us to tamper with anything to do with Nigerian unity. Number two, the Republican Constitution is also a settled issue, more or less. Number three, the states are the federating units of this country and number four, we are a capitalist country. Anybody that wants to talk about this country must make sure that he doesn’t do anything that will disrupt these basic settled issues in our political life.

“Anyone that is talking about dismembering this country, you should not listen to him. If we see such things as ‘Christian South’ and ‘Muslim North’, we should disregard it. Even if such people say it, the media should ignore it because you know it is not the truth. So you should not even write it’,’ Babangida said.

The call by the ex-leader generated mixed reactions from many interest groups. While some are comfortable with the doctrine as espoused, others disputed any assumptions of anything about Nigeria unity being settled. To those who disagreed with the Minna General, nothing is sacrosanct about Nigerian unity, as the entity, to them, was a mistake committed by the colonialists. The collapse of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union was cited as a proof that anything could happen to the Nigerian nation. A former minister, Chief Femi Fani Kayode, was a strong holder of this line of thought.

Many are, however, of the view that Babangida was only repeating the thoughts of many top leaders and ordinary citizens across the country. In fact, that statement could as well have come from the likes of Generals Yakubu Gowon, Theophilus Danjuma, Olusegun Obasanjo and many other prominent national leaders. It could have been uttered by those who lost dear ones fighting to keep the nation one between 1967 to 1970. It may well be the view of veterans of that war, eager to save the nation from another round of human suffering in fresh conflicts.

The retired leader had not even said anything extraordinary, except for the coinage of the doctrine of settled issues. President Goodluck Jonathan had subsequently repeated that line of national indivisibility. Respected jurist, Karibe Whyte, also added his voice, asserting that the nation should remain one indivisible entity. What is more, a progressive soilder, Abubakar Umar, equally affirmed the reality of one Nigeria, hinting that pulling Nigeria apart was not a viable project. The establishment man-turned opposition activist, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, also added his voice to the one Nigeria campaign.

Reading Baban-gida‘s lines revealed even more underlying issues. The state may be imperfect, but the will to keep it one while undergoing reforms cannot be toyed with. The state, to keep its integrity, may sacrifice anything, not simply because it likes doing so, but because a lot of blood has been shed to reach this point. That the nation must remain one indivisible entity is linked to the line that “the labour of our heroes past shall never be in vain”.

Many cannot accept the idea of the will of the state outside the citizenry. The reasoning is that the voters decide what happens, and their will should drive the state. That conventional wisdom rules the world. But, in reality, forces rule the state that may be outside the control of the citizenry, the mandate givers, to the elected officials. That is the truth in Europe, North America and in almost all settled democracies. Irrespective of all theories of politics and democracy, the ruling elite exist in every nation and their will mostly supplants the will of voters, especially on such issues as integrity of the nation state. Abnormality, many analysts call it, but fact of existence it is all over the world.

Before taking on the General‘s three points postulations, experiences from other lands confirm certain realities about a nation state. The continental nation of India as at today has more than three active separatist insurgencies intensely operating and dating back to more than three decades ago. The killings are never relenting with frequent reprisal attacks happening between security agents and rebels. But the state of India had for long settled issues about its continental borders, leaving rooms for only reforms within the democratic structure. Similar realities are playing out in Phillpines, Indonesia, China, Turkey, Belgium and others.

The Babangida thesis starts with the question of national unity. First, how do you divide Nigeria? Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria? Six geo-political zones? Certain truths should be repeated. One, there are millions of indigenous Christians in Gombe, Bauchi, Kaduna, Yobe, Borno, all within the core North. The Middle Belt, extending to as far as Taraba and southern tip of Kebbi, has an admixture of Christians and Muslims, in addition to a complex mix of tribes and ethnic breeds who are, at times, arch rivals and antagonists.

For the Yoruba, the sub-ethnic distrust is not a lie. It is a fact of the South-West history. An Oodua State can be homogenous to a large extent, but its internal dynamics will soon manifest and internal competition and implosion may not be ruled out. What is more, the religious dimension to the inter-ethnic schism is growing with the sleepy Muslim population of Yorubaland rising and demanding for space and recognition.

The fate of the Niger-Delta is even more complex. From Edo/Ijaw rivalry over land to Itsekiri/Urobho war, that zone is not as homogenous as many are painting it. And for the Ndigbo, a divided Nigeria will amount to an economic disaster as Igbo multi-billion naira investments all over Nigeria will be in jeopardy. Even more serious is space constraints for Igbos in their homeland. Emerging clan bloodletting over land will assume a more serious dimension.

The implication of disintegration is wider and more disastrous for the polity than many are accepting. Such possibility portends dangers due to the complexity of the nation‘s ethno-religious configuration. More seriously, after a bloody civil war, thoughts of separation are seen in the power circles as anomalous and, at times, treasonable pursuit. As Babangida put it, there is truly nothing like Christian South and Muslim North.

The second issue in the Babangida thesis is federalism and the third is the Republican Constitution. Only a few dispute the need for federalism and a republican constitution. The main clamour from analysts is that the system deserves urgent reforms to effect true federalism. This push for reform Babangida himself had supported, citing the need for states to be strengthened alongside the line of evolution of responsibilities and funding to the lower levels of government.

A hint which many may not get from the Babangida thesis is that rather than Nigeria disintegrating, something must give way. What may give way is not stated. But it appears that the ability of the civilian leadership to keep the nation together will go a long way to determine the continuity or otherwise of the democratic system.