Igbo Net: Igbo Essay Series : Marginalization in Nigeria:the way out for Nd'Igbo by Prof. Samuel Ejikeme Okoye

Introduction:

The lgbo people (Nd’Igbo) have suffered a number of reverses in recent Nigerian history. To wit, they lost hundreds of thousands, and perhaps up to a million lives in the 1966 pogrom and their subsequent bid for a separate and independent state (Biafra) that culminated in a civil war and a defeat. They have also been economically emasculated after the civil war and subsequently marginalized not only in the Nigerian political arena but also in the public services, the armed forces, and the police. This article therefore addresses the measures that are needed to change lgbo fortunes.

The view taken in this paper is that Nd’Igbo, though a major ethnic group in Nigeria, are now unable to influence the military, bureaucratic, economic, and political aspects of Nigerian national life, to match the degree of their relative numerical strength. This is often attributed to the fact that Nd’Igbo are neither organised to act coherently as a people, nor have they defined for themselves what their group interests really are, as well as how to promote or realise those interests. It is suggested in this paper that the starting place for Nd’Igbo is to address the vexatious, if not controversial, issue of Igbo leadership.

The Leadership Question

Most Igbo persons will today concede that the now defunct lgbo (State) Union under the chairmanship of the late Chief Z.C. Obi of Nnewi marked the hey days of lgbo leadership in all its glory. However, there is some longstanding confusion about the nature of this leadership. The defunct lgbo Union (incidentally banned in 1966, by an lgbo - General Aguiyi Ironsi) had prominent leaders. But, those leaders were not political juggernauts in the ordinary sense. On the other hand, the NCNC (which attracted the majority of Igbo as adherents), had leaders who, although politically vigorous, could not deign to act or speak for the totality of Nd’Igbo because the NCNC was in reality not an lgbo party, nor was it meant to be one. There was thus an apparent, if not real, dichotomy between Igbo nationalism and Nigerian politics, which though "politically correct" was nevertheless inappropriate for the winner takes all paradigm of Nigerian politics.

The confusion was further compounded by a new class of Igbo leaders - the new breed traditional rulers and their chiefs. The fact is that with the exception of a few traditional rulers, most of the older so-called traditional rulers were colonial-created warrant chiefs with no ounce of "royal blood" in their veins. Since then, any "business magnate" and today even 4l9ers (or at least people of questionable sources of new wealth) can purchase chieftaincy title, doctorate degrees, or even a traditional rulership without much fuss. Such titles are perceived to have catapulted the holders to membership of what is now described as "lgbo leadership." It is therefore inevitable that the leadership question would continue to haunt Nd’Igbo as they try to recapture lost grounds in Nigerian national life while rebuilding lgboland from the ashes of their civil war defeat.

At the moment, there is an almost unhealthy jostling among individuals or groups for supremacy as leader or the pre-eminent group representing lgbo interests in Nigeria. This has been seen or interpreted by Nd’Igbo and other ethnic groups, as signs of cleavage or even disunity among Nd’Igbo. The effect of this is to undermine the political clout due to Nd’Igbo. As a response, Nd’Igbo have searched for, or are trying to create, what all Nd’Igbo will accept as a pan-lgbo Apex Organisation (e.g. Ohaneze), however with limited success. That has left the mass of Nd’Igbo in a state of frustration, despondency and even hopelessness.

What are Igbo interests: Short term and long term?

To be or not to be is the biggest political issue facing Nigeria today. No one can predict how the current political situation in Nigeria will pan out. Hence the long term agenda of Nd’Igbo will be difficult to define without knowing whether Nigerian ethnic nationalities will remain under a United Nigeria with a truly Federal polity; or whether Nigeria will resolve into a loose federation, or confederation, or break up into independent states entirely. However, a common Igbo agendum appropriate to all the possibilities above is that Nd’Igbo should empower themselves to decide and steer their future social and economic welfare.

Furthermore, Nd’Igbo should be able to enjoy the freedom, to develop and maximise their collective and individual potentials through unfettered access, use and exploitation of their God-given resources - human and material. Thus, they should be able to create opportunities for every lgbo son and daughter to develop their individual talents to the maximum extent possible for their own good and the general good of Nd’Igbo

Are Nd’Igbo justified in claiming to be marginalized?

Today, apart from the South West zone, people from practically every other zone in Nigeria claim to be marginalized. But what does it really mean to be marginalized?

Summarizing the definitions from a number of dictionaries, the word “marginalize” means “to treat someone or something as if they are not important.” It also means “to take or keep somebody away from the centre of action” Finally, it means” “to relegate someone or a group of people to a lower or outer edge of a community or society” Hence marginalisation by nature is relative, but nevertheless a perception that may or may not be based on objective reality. On their part, the Nd’Igbo as the loosing party of the Nigeria-Biafra War, interpret the totality of their treatment and experiences in the political and economic affairs in post-war Nigeria, as constituting crass marginalisation. In this regard, they point to the injustice of the patently unmotorable federal roads, lack of federal sponsored new electricity and potable water supplies projects, as well as lack of any substantial federal investments in the South East, and of course, the often minor or secondary leadership roles Nd’Igbo are assigned in the armed forces and police, the public services, and the three arms of the federal government.

But if one even concedes that the situation on the ground seems like actual marginalisation, the more important question is whether this marginalisation is deliberate, and if so by whom? The answer to the first part is a definite YES. But to answer the second part, one must go back to the Nigerian crisis of 1966-67. Just before the declaration of Biafra, General Gowon created a twelve state federal structure for Nigeria, not so much as his solution to the breakdown of the 1966 constitutional talks between the then four regions, nor because he was aiming for a more perfect federation, but essentially to pre-empt and weaken the break-away state of Biafra. It was a master stroke of a military strategy to isolate the Igbos from their other ethnic brothers in the old Eastern Region and thus make the demolition of Biafra a foregone conclusion.

Indeed, marginalisation actually started when Nd’Igbo (who on account of their large population in the East, where they were by far the dominant majority ethnic group), were suddenly relegated to only one out of the three states created by Gowon out of the old Eastern region, and by a stroke of the pen, Gown rewrote demography and made Igbos a minority in their region in which hitherto they were in overwhelming majority. Since then the Igbos have never been able to get out of this minority status or to get this injustice reversed and as more states and local governments were created across the country, Nd’Igbo of course got more states and local governments but the original demographic and political relativities of the 1963 census as well as the former four-region federal Nigeria were irretrievably lost. Indeed, according to the 1963 census, one out of every four Nigerian was an Igbo and if things were done equitably in Nigeria, Nd’Igbo should expect something like 25% representation in all federal institutions as well as 25% share of all states and local governments created after independence. This marginalisation became institutionalised when the principle of federal character was further enshrined in the Nigerian constitution.

Since proportional representation in all federal institutions was based on the number of states rather than population, this meant that after the creation of states, representation of Nd’Igbo in Nigerian federal institutions was guaranteed never to reflect the relative strength of their population but rather the number of states they were arbitrarily allocated, which itself even now fails woefully to reflect their numerical strength. Consequently Nd’Igbo have always been under represented in the federal executive council, the leadership of the federal bureaucracy, the armed forces and police, etc. Hence there are systemic, structural, and institutional elements to Igbo marginalisation in Nigeria, which is now so deep and pervasive that the only way to correct it is by way of a radical and extensive political restructuring through the much canvassed sovereign national conference of ethnic nationalities.

Indeed, if the other Nigerian ethnic groups wanted to be clever they would just concede the presidency in 2007 to the Igbos, knowing full well that such a president will have very little room to manoeuvre since his powers are already circumscribed by the provisions of the constitution, not to speak of the constraints of Igbo sense of equity and fair play. Nd’Igbo will then soon learn to their utter consternation and frustration that without changing the constitutional/political system, any changes they may wish to make to their present lot will only be temporary and cosmetic. Hence of all the ethnic groups, Nd’Igbo are probably among the ones to gain the most from any political restructuring of the Nigerian polity, while the Hausa/Fulani which up till now have enjoyed an inordinately unfair share of the Nigerian cake (on the basis of questionable and contested superior census figures and their erstwhile domination of the armed forces) have much to loose, and that is why until recently they have, at best, been lukewarm to any talk about political restructuring of Nigeria, but instead chose to hide behind the façade of the so called “One North”

What Nd’Igbo can do to overcome Marginalisation

It seems that Nd’Igbo have pinned all hopes of emerging from their marginalisation status on their hope of producing a Nigerian president of Igbo extraction in 2007. This is their Plan A. But what is their Plan B? What about the inclinations of other ethnic nationalities, will they cooperate? And why should they cooperate? As already indicated above, Igbo marginalisation today is real, as well as being all of systemic, structural, institutional, extensive, and deep , and it is this marginalisation that spawns the divergent stance of MASSOB. For that reason, changing the political captain, be it one of Igbo extraction, on the Nigerian boat is unlikely to provide immediate succour or more importantly, a permanent solution to Igbo marginalisation.

Of course, it is possible that a president of Igbo extraction may do what President Obasanjo has refused to do; namely, to convene a dialogue of ethnic nationalities that will agree on terms of their future co-existence, which ultimately will be codified into a new constitution of the people. But if this is their motivating intention, Nd’Igbo are yet to articulate it clearly. But it is also clear that this may well be the best agenda for an Igbo presidency that could be both sold to, and bought by other ethnic groups, particularly those in the south-west, south-south, and perhaps the middle belt. This naturally calls into question the issue of not only Igbo leadership but perhaps equally importantly, Igbo followership.

The view proffered here is that considering their enduring republican temperament and tendencies, the modern leadership of Nd’Igbo should not be based on (possibly), a charismatic single leader (like Awolowo or Sardauna, since Azikiwe was strictly not an Igbo leader). This means that Nd’Igbo should not base their leadership choices on a personality cult. Present realities dictate that they base their choice in favour of a collective leadership - albeit a small group. However it is important for Nd’Igbo to appreciate that both for leaders and followers alike, the matrix of action is rooted in ethnic beliefs. Indeed all behaviours are sponsored by beliefs. In this regard, most individuals try to change things by focusing on behaviours. So everyone is running around trying to figure out what they can do in terms of changing behaviour.

On the other hand, revolutionaries in societies have always sought to change things by the power of thought, not action, because they know that thought produces action, and that to get a person thinking in a certain way is to get that person to act in the desired way. The crucial point being that any action is based on belief. Consequently Nd’Igbo cannot make any long term changes in their fortunes without first addressing the fundamental beliefs-system that underlie their group behaviours. In this regard, nearly every Igbo youth as well as a large part of Igbo adult population today believes strongly in two important ideas:

First, that every Igbo man or woman in present day Nigeria is on his/her own and dare not expect any help or support from their ethnic group or any other quarter, including the state. Second, “to make it in life” and to achieve success and importance in today’s Nigeria, one must have money at all costs. It is these two core beliefs arising from civil war defeat, often underscored through the subtle indoctrination of home made films and video movies (among others), that have largely led to the falling Igbo male enrolments in educational institutions, particularly in the tertiary levels. It also accounts for the new phenomenon or tendency of social indiscipline and anarchy among Nd’Igbo. It is also the driving impetus for the new phenomenon of political godfatherism and the disparate approach to national partisan politics by Nd’Igbo. All preachments to Igbo youths about the importance of higher education appear to fall on deaf ears. Unfortunately, this approach fails to recognise that the fastest way of changing the behaviour of a person is to give that person the belief that supports the desired action/behaviour and can sponsor it. Of course before the civil war, Nd’Igbo believed strongly in industry, hard work, and education (rather than money) as the tool for social upward movement and personal economic progress, to the extent that communities will even raise funds to jointly sponsor their sons to acquire the “golden fleece..” In colonial Nigeria where merit and excellence held sway, Nd’Igbo were thus able to bridge the generational lead of the Yorubas in education very quickly.

All this changed after the civil war in 1970. Hence to reverse the marginalisation that Nd’Igbo now experience, they must first put their house in order, before requiring any other action from their compatriots. The first stage is to solve the Igbo problem at the level of core-beliefs, since fundamentally, one cannot solve problems at the level of behaviour. In other words Nd’Igbo must first seek to change beliefs not behaviours. And after beliefs are changed, behaviours will be found to change by themselves. The reality being that one can take whatever action one wishes to alter someone else’s behaviour or to stop it, but unless one alters the beliefs that produced such behaviour, one will stop nothing and alter nothing.

Indeed, one can alter a belief in at least two ways -- either by enlarging old beliefs or by changing them completely. But one must do one or the other otherwise one will not alter behaviour but merely interrupt it. Luckily for Nd’Igbo, they already have on the ground, a number of powerful tools for moulding and changing their belief system, especially that of the youths. The first tool of course is the educational system, and since primary and secondary education are concurrent matters in the constitution, nothing stops state and local governments from making the study of Igbo culture and values compulsory in their schools. The second method involves the use of the churches. Since Nd’Igbo are predominantly Christians, the churches have a crucial role to play in laying the foundations for, and promoting new Igbo core-beliefs. Another method involves the use of the nuclear and extended family systems and of course village and town unions, which were the driving engines used to mobilize Nd’Igbo in the hey days of the Chief Z C Obi-led Igbo State Union.

It is suggested that such Igbo organisations as Ohaneze and Aka Ikenga, etc, will play a crucial mobilizing and uniting role in this campaign. That Nd’Igbo are ready and willing to be mobilized was amply demonstrated by a recent very successful nation-wide sit at home protest action of Nd’Igbo, organized by MASSOB leadership. As regards the enlarged and new core-beliefs-system that Nd’Igbo need to embrace, they may be summarized as follows:

The age-old belief that every Igbo person is his brother’s keeper. And therefore the Igbo mantra should be “ what I do for me, I will do for my brother, and what I can’t do to myself I will not do to my brother”

Rekindling of the age-old belief in self-help at both the individual and group levels.

The renewed belief in the twin concept of Njikoka and Igwebuike, that is to say, “nothing can surpass united group action” and “the power of unity in group action“.

The importance of skills acquisition through education (especially in the sciences and technology) coupled with individual and group self help, industry and hard work as the only sure ticket to prosperity and social progress as well as Igbo economic empowerment.

The acknowledgement that all Igbos originating in the South -East states as well as those from Delta and Rivers states are brothers and sisters. And the ancillary acceptance of the minority ethnic nationalities in the South-South states as their ethnic cousins through inter-marriage, etc.

The acknowledgement that barring the use of the barrels of a gun, the sure route to political power in the modern world is through financial power. Consequently Nd’Igbo must strive to become big players in the financial game and in the Nigerian economy.

The importance of Igbo political office holders, particularly those positioned in Igbo states to serve with probity, equity and inclusiveness on the one hand, and on the other, for Nd’Igbo to hold their political office holders to account for all their deeds and misdeeds.

All the above should, of course, be supported by the various initiatives for moving the Igbo nation forward as suggested during the recent “ Igbo leadership retreat 2004” in Asaba, under the auspices of Aka Ikenga and Ohaneze.

The conundrum of the Igbo quest for the Nigerian presidency in 2007

Nd’Igbo have for sometime now cried themselves hoarse on the fact that, based on the principle of equity and fairness, it is their turn to produce a president come 2007. Many fair-minded Nigerians will readily concede that the validity of their claim is beyond reproach or dispute. However, a number of Nigerians feel uneasy about the turn-by-turn approach to choosing a president for Nigeria; they would prefer a system based on merit. There are of course other contenders to the post. The Northern governors and the Arewa Consultative forum (ACF) have based their claim on an informal and probably unrecorded intra-party gentleman’s agreement that the presidency should “return” to the North after Obasanjo’s South-West would have enjoyed their two terms on the job. The South-South on the other hand note with dismay that although their zone is the goose that lays Nigeria’s golden egg, they have not had any opportunity at all to run the country.

For Nd’Igbo, an unstated reason for their claim to the presidency is that with their man on the saddle they hope to begin the arduous task of righting some of the wrongs of their marginalisation and in the process achieve a feeling of truly belonging to the Nigerian fold. In this regard, Nd’Igbo will surely be encouraged by the recent support and endorsement of their claim by no less a person than General Yakubu Gowon, a former head of state and current Chairman of the ACF Board of Trusties. It is indeed an idea whose time has come as well as a very significant development considering that it was Gowon himself who was the ultimate author of Igbo marginalisation. This support had been presaged by the support of other prominent Nigerians, including Chief Anthony Enahoro, Alhaji Wada Nas, and Dr. Fasehun. Above all, Gowon’s support is a thunderbolt of a signal (for emulation) to Generals Obasanjo, Buhari, Babangida, Adisa, Marwa, VP Atiku Abubakar, Chiefs Audu Ogbe, Awoniyi, Adesanya as well as to the Afenifere, ACF, OPC, the Patriots, and indeed all lovers of fair play and equity in Nigeria.

Nevertheless, Nd’Igbo must however appreciate that political power is not easily surrendered or handed over on a platter of gold. Whether Nd’Igbo recognise it or not, they have put the Nigerian presidency in 2007 in a sellers’ market. So the question Nd’Igbo must now address is what do they propose to offer to other ethnic nationalities, particularly those from the South-South, in return for being allowed to produce the next president come 2007? In other words, what is it in a presidency of Igbo extraction that will encourage the rest of the country to embrace Igbo claims? Clearly electioneering promises such as Obasanjo’s 2003 election promise to dualise the Onitsha-Owerri road will not wash as most election promises are kept more in the breach than in the observance. It is suggested that currently the only viable promise that Nd’Igbo can make is to convince all Nigerians that a Nigerian president of Igbo extraction must be seen as a prelude to a joint project of all Nigerians to establish the necessary political and economic structures that will enable Nigeria transit to a sustainable, prosperous, equitable and just polity that will guarantee peace and progress to every Nigerian groups and individuals alike.

At the end of the day there is really only one sensible way to go about this project, and that is the widely canvassed and supported constitutional conference of the 330 or so ethnic nationalities that make up Nigeria. A supreme agenda and indeed the first act of a Nigerian presidency of Igbo extraction will therefore be to organise and convene such a conference while pledging that decisions of such a conference will not be tampered with by the government of the day, but must be subjected for the approval of the Nigerian people through a free and fair referendum.

Conclusion

This article has been about marginalisation in Nigeria with particular reference to Nd’Igbo. What has emerged from the discussion above is that first and foremost, marginalisation of any group in Nigeria is but a symptom of an underlying political malaise. In the case of Nd’Igbo, their marginalisation is like a Nigerian political sore thumb that sticks out and goes back almost to the beginnings of independent Nigeria. By 1964/65, Nigeria was already in deep political crisis, which the military failed to address through their January 1966 coup and subsequent coups and counter coups. The failure of the 1967 Aburi peace conference of Gowon’s Supreme Military Council was an unfortunate precursor to the declaration of Biafra and the 1967-70 civil war. By opting out of Nigeria after suffering the pogrom and being pushed to the wall, the then Eastern region made it easy for Gowon to put the final nail on the coffin of Igbo marginalisation.

The rest they say is history. As it happens, marginalisation has become both a reality and a metaphor for the festering political problems that must be addressed if Nigeria is ever to realise its huge economic and political potentials and indeed survive as a country. It is suggested that a well-intentioned and programmed Igbo presidency will provide an opportunity for Nigeria to resume her onward political development where it was left off since 1963. And finally, for Nd’Igbo (and by extension, for all Nigerian ethnic nationalities), the only meaningful pay-off of having the presidency conceded to them in 2007, (assuming their appropriate use of it as indicated above), is not so much the overnight righting of the wrongs of marginalisation of yesteryears, as much as the provision of a level playing ground in which they have a fighting chance of improving their lot in the coming years.