FEATURE ARTICLE

By Rotimi Sankore  (EMAIL) Tuesday, October 2, 2001

Nigeria: The nation state and patriotism

“It is impossible to build something on nothing” once wrote Segun Sango, the pro-democracy socialist activist and Chair of the Lagos Chapter of the ‘unregistered’ National Conscience Party. Whether one agrees with his politics or not, the infallibility of the statement lies in its self-evident truth. No where is this statement truer, than on the question of Nigeria, the nation state and patriotism. But as K.O Mbadiwe the old school politician once said, “let us begin from the beginning”. ndependence Day celebrations in most countries often come with lots of flag waving and official calls for patriotism. Some countries have never been colonised in the formal sense of the word and therefore have no such dates. Nevertheless, even where Independence Day does not exist, the nation state has found it necessary to invent national day celebrations to fill the gap. In most cases, the state actually invents a day or series of days when it can invoke the spirit of nationalism and rally everyone behind the flag. These are the days when the state traditionally demands that its citizen’s file past salute and show loyalty to the symbols and embodiment of state. These are also days when the state makes a show of power of its military strength and air power. If it were possible to drag battle ships and aircraft carriers from the seas to the parade ground, the state would do it. The state historically finds it necessary to show the ‘world’ that its citizens and in particular its armed forces are loyal and that it can defend itself from aggression from without - and within. In the final analysis, the armed forces are after all the cudgels of the state to beat internal insolence into its place, repel foreign aggression and show both that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of heretics and external aggressors. Historians often bore us by reminding us that in the days before the modern state, anyone that controlled the largest or strongest armed band of men laid down the law. Some have not noticed that in most if not all the parts of the world not much has changed. In this respect, history has stood still. This is the basis of many political concepts - of dictatorship within national boundaries and on the world stage of super power politics. In many ways, the essence of the state and of the control of the levers and instruments of power is that might is right. But in a genuine democracy, this should and cannot be the case. The state - in as much as such an entity exists and governs, should only do so on the basis of a mandate of its people. If a government does not have the peoples mandate, it is illegitimate. If it is illegitimate, it should be and can be challenged. There is no room for the concept of absolute power in a democracy. Absolute power demands absolute loyalty and criminalises democratic rights especially, the right of dissent. In other words, a government or state cannot demand patriotism and loyalty. It has to earn it and it can only do so by meeting some or all the expectations of its citizens. But what exactly is patriotism? What generates patriotism? More importantly who is a patriot and who is not? And in the case of Nigeria, what has led to the general prevalence of lack of patriotism? The concept of patriotism is based on the nation state and loyalty to it. The existence of a nation state or of nationality in turn suggests a state of oneness, of equality if not indivisibility. Traditionally, nations were built on the basis that they are composed of peoples that share a common origin, culture, tradition and sometimes language, which could form the basis of national identity. This, is certainly not the case with Nigeria. The same applies to many countries ‘developed’ and ‘underdeveloped’ – Canada, Belgium, Spain, Cameroon, Rwanda, the Balkan region – Bosnia, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Kosovo. Even peaceful and neutral Switzerland is not homogenous and the United Kingdom is not as united as its government would like it to be. The concept of the homogenous state disappeared long ago. The vast areas that came under the influence of Egyptian civilisation, or were overrun by the Roman Empire and the armies of Alexander the great; the unification of twenty five Germanic states by Otto Von Bismarck in the 1800’s; colonial meddling in Africa and Europe and the artificial creation of nightmares such as Rwanda and Northern Ireland; the unification of the Republics that formed the former Soviet Union– and the artificial creation of the geographical entity known as Nigeria. All these show the different ways in which the homogeneity of states has been affected. In some instances, different peoples have been successfully merged into ‘oneness’ by language or culture sometimes through the process of assimilation – sometimes not. But while it is not possible for every individual village or town to exist as a viable state, they can only co-exist successfully on the basis of equitable partnership and social justice. It is therefore clear, that the nation state, national identity and patriotism cannot be built on the crude pillars of language, religion and culture alone. This raises the question of expectations of citizens and of ideals. Is it possible for a nation to demand or expect patriotism if it is unable or incapable of meeting the expectations of it citizens for the basic needs of life: food, shelter, education, healthcare, employment and social justice. The American State for instance is able to demand and expect loyalty from its citizens, mostly on the basis of the strength of its economy and the constitutional ideals it professes to uphold. Its internal market which exists more or less on a continental scale, the markets provided by its neighbours such as Mexico, and the world domination of American multinationals ensures a market of hundreds of millions and prosperity for its industries and people – at least until economic recession threatens the American dream. On the other hand, smaller countries such as Cuba even though they have a different interpretation of the concepts of democracy, freedom and liberty, and lack the economic might and ‘prosperity’ of their bigger neighbour, are able to rally and inspire their citizens on the basis of revolutionary ideals and the provision of basic needs such as free education and health etc. On the basis of its educational and health achievements, Cuba has been able to export doctors, consistently outpoint a significant number of industrialised countries in the Olympics and in the past even intervene militarily [on the basis of subsidies from the soviet union] in places such as Southern Africa to support the anti apartheid struggle or in the Angolan civil war. It has also been possible for nations and governments to inspire or demand patriotism on the basis of nationalism. Nationalism is after all the ideology of fascism and totalitarianism, of the Nazis, the right wing National Front of the UK and the Afrikaner National Party of South Africa which institutionalised and was based on apartheid exploitation. But there is another side to nationalism, the nationalist movements for independence in Africa, Asia and even in modern times the ethnic nationalism of oppressed minorities or of political parties such as the Scottish Nationalist Party which is not satisfied with a devolved Scottish parliament and wants full National status for Scotland. Within one context, nationalism oppresses people and in another ‘liberates’ the oppressed. In simple terms, patriotism cannot be demanded, be expected or be built on nothing. A nation or government, which cannot meet the expectations of its citizens or inspire them with ideals whether good or bad, cannot expect loyalty or sacrifices from its citizens. But there is yet another side to the matter. What is the real moral and ethical worth of patriotism? History has shown us that the interpretation of patriotism is subjective. Dictators incarcerate democrats on charges of unpatriotism. It is therefore possible even if illogical for despotism to demand patriotism. Racism has been equated with patriotism. Dogmatism can demand patriotism. Even Nazism was built in part on fanatical nationalist patriotism. The former Soviet Union suppressed ‘unpatriotic’ dissenters and the US government through its “Un-American activities committee”, conducted the McCarthy witch-hunts against communists both real and imagined. In other words it is possible to be both idiotic and patriotic at the same time. In these days of the Supra State – smaller regional formations such as ECOWAS and continental ones such as the European Union and the fledgling African Union one may also ask what is the true meaning of patriotism to the nation state. Is patriotism for instance the little Englander mentality of British conservatives that “will never consider joining Europe” and will “defend the pound” against the incursions of the Euro partly on the alleged basis that the European Union and the Euro are projects of the German federalists who want to accomplish by economic means what they could not do by means of two world wars i.e. conquer ‘Great Britain’. There are many other questions to be asked of the future of the concept of the nation state. On the basis of migration, the United States for instance has been transformed into a vastly multicultural society. The terms Chinese American, Arab American, Japanese American and so forth would have seemed impossible a hundred years ago even to Italian or Irish immigrants. The attacks on the US have questioned the loyalty and patriotism of Arab, Muslim Americans and anyone that remotely resembles the terrorists. This also happened with the Japanese and German Americans during world war two. What about the economic impact of globalisation and the rise of multinationals some of which are more powerful than governments and which many employees will place before their nations. Or of Ideology and religion which also enjoy more loyalty than nation states. All these to varying degrees make a mockery of the inevitability of concept of patriotism to the nation state. For now however, the nation state is the dominant universal basis of human organisation. It plays a pivotal role in commerce, world politics, and even sport. On this basis, many states will be able to demand a measure of loyalty. Somehow, the idea of a stateless world like interplanetary travel appears to be a concept for the distant future. Except of course for many that have their origins in failed states that have collapsed in anarchy and constitute the majority of the world’s refugees. The danger for Nigeria is that it appears that there is an increasing fear that the nation is drifting – that the government cannot say with any certainty that it has a coherent plan for its future. We have seen the debacle of an otherwise educated Minister promising to eradicate power failure without understanding that it is not possible unless a country actually manufactures its own transformers. Already, more Nigerians live in other parts of the world than any other African nation and many are desperate to leave uncertainty for uncertainty. And this is not just a function of its size and population. Economic decline means that there is no safety net – that people are also beginning to conclude that they cannot be ‘slack’ and must be ‘sharp’ – even if it means criminal activity. Control of the levers of state has become intertwined with control of state resources and of survival. Many who cannot see them selves ever “getting there” under the “present dispensation” are beginning to retreat into ethnic and religious enclaves. Maybe if they have their own country things may better? Those who are “in power” don’t want to be “foolish” and are busy maximising their own “opportunity.” It has now become us versus them – Christians versus Muslims – Yoruba's versus Hausa's and so forth – some one must be to blame. Battles are breaking out everywhere on the basis of nothing in particular but against the background of economic despair, desperation and frustration. Tension breaks into violence at the slightest provocation. As always, the rise of militias and vigilante squads is a strong indicator that a state is loosing its grip on reality – that people are beginning to take the law into their own hands – and regressing into barbarism. In simple terms, Nigeria appears to be heading in the direction of a failed state. Without a shadow of doubt, a failed state of a hundred and twenty million people will dwarf all the humanitarian disasters seen so far in Africa. The indicators are already visible. When the leadership of a country begins to mumble consistently about low key celebrations for independence day, it is more often than not, a sign that there is nothing to celebrate and that the state may be loosing confidence in itself. It also means that officials of the state are too embarrassed to demand or expect loyalty and patriotism – face to face. Soon, television broadcasts will become the main route of communicating with the nation, which may well have no electricity to watch television. This will conveniently avoid the possibility of “unpatriotic” elements embarrassing officials at parades. Political instability and military incursion are two sides of the same coin and although the nation has lost its appetite for coups, more frustration may soon lead to magazine stories in a year or two of “rumblings in the army” and some may start wishing for a radical young officers coup – “to kill all of them and sanitise the place.” Such nonsense will solve nothing. The key to Nigeria’s future lies in a political blood transfusion – an injection of a new political dispensation and ideas that can inspire hope. But this will not happen unless the old guard gives way, recognises the need for the political playing field to be levelled – and for official government registration of political parties to end. Most of the present crop of politicians have been in power for forty years – even in conjunction with military regimes. If some younger politicians have managed to squeeze through, it is because some of the older guards have died and people have to occupy the seats. Nigeria has a lot to learn from countries such as Indonesia and South Africa in which over fifty political parties contest elections representing a diverse range of interests and peoples. This has not led to the end of those countries. The future of the entity called Nigeria can only be guaranteed on the basis of the existence of a multitude of political parties representing various interests. The De Klerk regime in South Africa for example, did not give way to multi-party democracy because he was a nice man. They did so because he and some others saw clearly that to hold on indefinitely, would be plunge the country in to civil war and possible destruction. If political parties representing new or alternate ideas or even minorities do not participate in the next elections on the basis of genuine multi-party democracy, it is likely that for millions, there will be no basis for loyalty or patriotism to the nation state presently known as Nigeria. It cannot even be ruled out, that the Nigerian State may subsequently disintegrate and there may never be another election. The reality, for many faced with economic and political frustration, is that there can be no loyalty or patriotism to a failed state. As was said at the beginning, it is impossible, to build something on nothing. Surely forty-one years of “independence” and drifting in the political wind is enough to learn this lesson.