|
New Page 14
The case for Igbo presidency in 2007
FRED ONYEOZIRI
JUSTICE,
fairness, equity, and democracy are the basic properties that sustain the
stability of political systems. Nigeria cannot be an exception to this rule.
Therefore, Nigeria will be guilty of not practicing these political virtues, she
will, in fact, be exposing herself to the risk of chronic instability, if
Ndigbo are denied the presidency in 2007. There are many reasons why
Ndigbo are the most deserving of the presidency in 2007.
Historically, the Nigerian federation was
constructed on the basis of the three core component units of North, East, and
West. The North has controlled the apex national leadership of this country for
some thirty-three years, and by 2007, the West would have controlled the same
for twelve years. The East has been denied this chance except for some paltry
six months in 1966. Therefore, as the West gives up control of national
leadership in 2007, there is no other place that power can go to that is
consistent with fairness and equity except the East. Any thing to the contrary
would be an overdramatisation of inequality and injustice, the type that has led
to the break up of nation states in some other parts of the world.
In other words, to exclude a key component
of a federation from equal participation in the decision structure of that
federation is to threaten the stability of that federation. No one wants to
belong to a federation which continuously denies him or her equal participation
in determining the destiny of that federation.
Even if we were not historically minded
and were thinking only of the contemporary times, the South East and the
South-South are the only geo-political zones that have not controlled the apex
national leadership. The North-West zone has had it for twelve years (under
Murtala Mohammed, Shehu Shagari, Muhammadu Buhari and Sani Abacha); the North
East has had it for eight years (under Tafawa Balewa 1957-1966); and the North
Central has had it for a whopping eighteen years (under Gowon, Babangida, and
Abdulsalami). In short, all the geopolitical zones in the geographical North of
the country have had turns producing the top leadership of this country. The
South West zone would be having this apex control for twelve years by 2007 (Obasanjo
I, Shonekan, and Obasanjo II).
No fair mind would argue that power should
swing back to any of the Northern zones that have already had more than their
fair share when the South-East and South-South have not had even one chance.
After all, the democracy we all express commitment to is about equality and
fairness.
As between the South East and South-South,
I am sure the South-South will be willing to concede primacy to their senior
brother of the South East for the simple reason that in our African culture, to
pass over the senior brother to give to the junior is to sow discord and
instability in the family. The natural order is to award to the senior first
before the junior.
When the Civil War ended in 1970 Ndigbo
were promised reintegration into the national polity under the "No Victor,
no Vanquished" slogan. But all the persons who have presided over the national
leadership since then have failed to achieve the promised reintegration of
Ndigbo into the national polity. The result of this failure is that
Ndigbo have been permanently left in a state of psychological alienation
from the Nigerian nation-state. It is the marginalisation and alienation
resulting from this failure to integrate Ndigbo that has ignited the
MASSOB phenomenon. In other words, MASSOB is a radical reaction to decades of
insensitivity of successive Nigerian leadership to Ndigbo into the
national power structure. This seeming MASSOB radicalism should be handled with
wisdom lest it gets out of control and creates a permanent risk to the stability
of the Nigerian nation state. It will be irresponsible of conventional Igbo
leadership to allow this to happen because that would amount to wasting a nation
state which Ndigbo have sacrificed so much to help build. Therefore,
Ndigbo have to assert their equal right and entitlement to the rulership of
this country in 2007 so as to achieve that reintegration that previous
leaderships in this country have failed to do and also save the country the
trauma of another fundamental threat to our national sovereignty.
In 2007, Ndigbo will take up the
mantle of leadership of this country not only because it is squarely their
indisputable turn and right but also because there is need to effect that
reintegration of the Nigerian polity which previous leaderships have failed to
achieve. Igbo presidency in 2007 not only promises to be a counter to the
radicalism and threat of MASSOB but also would stand in a gap for all other
marginalised claimants on the Nigerian nation-state. Igbo presidency in 2007
will give hope to every other marginalised group that justice is being restored
to the Nigerian system and that this new sense of justice will get around to
all.
Of all the nationalities in Nigeria,
Ndigbo have suffered and sacrificed most for Nigeria. Their blood has been
shed more than any other on the altar of Nigerian unity and federation. That
Ndigbo have continued to demonstrate faith in the Nigerian project in spite
of the indignities visited on them make them easily the most patriotic group in
Nigeria. This is why they are everywhere in Nigeria as the second largest group
after whoever claims to be the "indigene" of the place. This creates in
Ndigbo a commitment to the Nigerian project that is not surpassed by any
other nationality group in the land.
Because Ndigbo have suffered and
sacrificed most in Nigeria, a national leadership provided by them would exert
itself most to protect the integrity of the Nigerian State, not necessarily by
force but by responsive public policies and inaugurating a regime of national
citizenship.
An Igbo president must be voted in 2007.
This is not because Ndigbo want it but because it is in the overall
interest of the Nigerian nation to do this. Daring Ndigbo on this matter
is hardly a rational approach to the problem of equitable rule in Nigeria.
Recent history all over the world has shown that power hegemony and power
imbalance are out of date as basis for achieving stability of political systems.
Such unhealthy strategies are not only shortlived; they also prove very costly
to the systems that practice them. Political stability and progress have come to
rest more on justice and democracy. Therefore, those others who insist on
spitting fire on this matter and who still believe in domination are by that
fact demonstrating their lack of patriotism and commitment to the national and
public interest.
If democracy is still the name of the game
we are playing, especially democracy not of the majoritarian variety but of the
consociational type, which is more germane to the multi-ethnic character of our
political order, then Igbo presidency in 2007 will be the first real dividend of
democracy not only for Ndigbo but also for the entire Nigerian polity.
Finally, Igbo presidency in 2007 will
liberate Ndigbo from their state of psychological alienation and cause
them to release their entrepreneurial spirit and energy to give Nigeria a
quantum leap in her developmental efforts. Can a Nigeria that badly needs all
hands to be on deck in the race for development and globalisation afford to lose
Igbo drive, Igbo energy and Igbo ingenuity? Can Nigeria afford to continue to
allow those who want power for their personal or group aggrandizement and
authoritarian day dreams continue to stall the national contribution of a core
component of this federation? 2007 will more positively and qualitatively couple
Igbo dynamism to the engine of Nigerian growth and development. Who wants to
stop this, for what purpose and in whose interest?
•Onyeoziri teaches Political Science at the University of
Ibadan.
|
