BACKGROUND
Today marks my third appearance on the podium of Journalists, an exercise in which I give vent to the assertion that you have to join the drummers to be heard.

Six weeks ago, I was at The Post Express anniversary where I participated as the guest speaker in the first edition of its recently instituted annual lecture series. Then, I had taken on the issue of Transition Politics and Nigeria’s Search for Sustainable Democracy, a challenge which exposed me further to an emerging national apprehension at periodic elections.

Of course, it was a broad discourse, which produced for me many dimensions while I attempted to grasp the whole reason of tension over election 2003.

In fact, prior to that lecture at the MUSON Centre, Onikan Lagos, I had taken on the issue of The Press and Our New Democracy: The path not Trodden at the public lecture of the Nigeria Association of women Journalists (NAWOJ). It was, indeed, in my effort to pick the bits of what was my position at the lecture that I appreciated that much must have been left untreated in the interaction with the media in relation to our running democracy. It was not too difficult to appreciate the effect of this on our polity.

So, even when I finished my exercise with The Post Express, I had believed and I say rightly, now, that I had not finished with those fine points I consider vital and which must be lifted for our growth and development.

Besides the revelations I picked in the course of preparing my previous outings, I had long known that the media are the vehicles on which we travel to the national psyche.

Therefore, it was, literally, a welcome develop-ment, when a member of your council, the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Ibrahim Ibn Hameed, approached my staff for this particular outing.

Perhaps, Mr. Hameed had followed my previous outings and concluded that there must have been an angle left untouched. He seemed to be at the same level of thought with the state Executive Council of the NUJ, Kaduna which moved strongly to realise the project of today.

Initially, I did not consider seriously the pressure from Kaduna but my staff had maintained that the executive of the council was persistent. This was followed by repeated visits of the secretary of the council, Malam ldris Abdulrahman.

It could not have been that these journalists and leaders in the union had searched far and near to get the guest speaker. It couldn’t have been that my previous outings had sounded the most reasoned path to national rebirth. But indeed it is possible that there is a thirst for an expanding perspective which may give strength to the interest in admitting varied viewpoints. And if we accept that Nigeria is naturally of some healthy contend-ing views, you can now appreciate the position of journalists in seeking all views.

Of course, we know that journalists like angles to issues and mine, this time around, in Kaduna city, the ultimate capital of the vast Northern Nigeria, is just one probably billed for due appreciation at this time. It is in no way the ultimate view and it is even susceptible to the vagaries of subjectivity.

If therefore, I am right that I have been invited, to this great city with immense heritage, to contribute so as to bring in the other view, and to be seen to play my part in the national debate on the course of ship-of-state I say to you that I very much understand the burden of emerging to be observed by a section of Nigeria noted for its political dexterity and statecraft. I salute the audience and I make bold to say that now, the professionals in Kaduna are indeed living up to the admonition of the venerable Adamu Ciroma that “since journalists do not need visa to get to any part of Nigeria to get all views, then they must take the pains to get every angle of the issues represented in national debates.” Your own professional kind, Wilbur Schranm summed it up: “The people must be informed but all the angles must be explained.” Let the people be informed but explain all angles.

Indeed, I have a feeling of what it amounts to in standing before the behemoth called the Northern establishment. I am not taking it for granted that I am under the umbrella of journalists. As they call on me to ride their vehicle into the arena, I will at least attempt to give what is deserving of an objective mind.

In identifying with journalists, writers and national opinion moulders, I am only stating that I stand on the same podium with the fellows of the old school. We believe in the light; we believe in clarity and we cherish openness. For me, the book of Matthew chapter five, verse 16, says it all. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your father who is in Heaven.” The Holy Book: The Qur’an SURAH XXIV; 40 says: “…to whomsoever Allah does not give light, he has no light.” We can be sure that God Almighty has in His infinite mercies given us light and we must project it.

Certainly, most journalists, opinion moulders and leaders have long appreciated the admonition of God Almighty through the greatest books and that as in verse 15 of Mathew 5, “men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house”.

The great Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe made this the concept of his chain of newspapers; The West African pilot: “show the light and the people shall find their way”.

Well, in that regard, and particularly riding the crest of journalistic light, I arrive from Enugu the Coal City, the known city on the hills, to Kaduna, the great crocodile city to rub minds with you. Indeed, we are grateful to God Almighty that we have a system of government which encourages dialogue and which makes it mandatory for us to play to one another’s fancies even in the face of trials. Enugu and Kaduna have shared experiences.

The uniqueness of both Kaduna and Enugu even in their near uniformity cannot be mistaken. Both were regional capitals and retain in their fullest, the entire indices of cities unfairly ascribed to the formal classifications as state capitals when indeed they are vastly cosmopolitan in social structure and polyglot in art, culture and form. Kaduna and Enugu still bear the combined vestiges of regional infrastructure but which are stripped of commensurate political and economic clout to live their nationalistic and middle intervention profile for the benefit of the emerging states and their capitals. Both are also the clear indicators of a failure of the nation to organise its phases in growth and development as they appear to be arrested in the process for the benefit of previous divisional capitals now turned state capitals. Kaduna and Enugu two capitals which must pay the pensions of the old regional staff, old state staff and even some national staff but which do not have the commensurate resource allocation to hold on to the their past so as to sustain the groups of the national heritage embodied in them for the continuity of the feeling of national oneness.

Without prejudice to the new state capitals, these two, Kaduna and Enugu, along with the others of like status, will one day seek the creative path for proper economic and political re-alignment for the benefit of the greater number. Today, we know that there is hardly any known and accomplished man in the old North who does not have a home in Kaduna. In the same vein, every citizen of the old East and to a great extent the old Mid West has a home in Enugu. Much same is the case for Ibadan of the old West. Today, we have to hold on to our political cradle and heritage.

Today, I salute the custodians of this city and their heritage. I make bold to say that this is one with exemplary profile in economic, social and political harmony running from the tradition of the legendary status of the great umbrella – Gamji – of which the most famous of the past custodians – Sir Ahmadu Bello – is identified. A city where Hon. Iyke Madu from the South East is graciously serving in the state House of Assembly on the graceful popular will of the Kaduna South constituency. In the outskirts of this capital, in the ancient city of Zaria, another Igbo man is noted as serving as a councillor. This is truly an umbrella – the great Gamji. So, he who built the city, he who holds it and he who lives it with faith shall be blessed of the creator, as said by the Nyanwezi clan of South Eastern Africa.

THE NIGERIA IDEA

For sometime now, I have reflected on the factors which could be put together to establish an inkling of the Nigeria Idea. I consider this an up-hill task and one which, relentlessly pursued, will give one a stiff challenge to be either objective or sentimental.

Delving into the various stages of our history and social evolution, I had thought that I would easily lay hands on the indicators, if not the clear definition, of the idea, the mode and the purpose for which we had embarked on this journey of nationhood. Strewn on the paths are clearly ascertainable evidences of economic, political and social adventure or misadventure, which in turn became missions before they matured into political causes. I now have the belief that the disorderly nature of these indicators and the seeming divergence of momentary opinion have misled many a nationalist into the agitation that Nigeria has hardly been defined and so could not continue the trip to national promises and hope.

Frankly, I have not set out in this discourse to begin to attempt to define Nigeria in its political, economic and social dimensions, any more than I wish to appreciate these national trends which have since fallen in place but which for lack of broader and universal appreciation, do not seem to have been picked by our teeming national opinion leaders.

Repeatedly, the state was virtually overwhelmed by the clamour of citizenry who hold the view that the national journey had been blown. In the same manner, the drive had gotten hard on what to call Nigeria, so as to classify “properly” the people and their resources.

Those who had taken too long on the path of ancient and modern history had held literally to the incoherent utterances and attitude of some previous players in the geopolitical and economic making of Nigeria. To that effect, many had viewed it and taken to heart the uninspiring claim that “Nigeria is a mere geographical expression”. Some had considered the snobbish statement of the bullish Daniel Ludwig, the invisible billionaire, who on hearing about the forestry potentials of the Eastern part, beemed in elation that ‘we will move in into Nigeria, make it our own and allow no other country to emerge which is not of the making of the American enterprise.” Of course, the statement and plot he made in 1964 were aborted by the 1966-1970 crisis of which great economic entrepreneurs at the global level did not find interesting.

In the same vein, the then dashing young major Leonard, had thundered that “I have no business here other than securing a territory for king, country (Great Britain) and God.” He was a British colonial officer operating along the Onitsha – Nsukka road where he had to subdue towns for British colonial interests.

Among those who had made efforts to appreciate the various stages in our history which produced our current social form and political profile, many have succumbed to the easy conclusion that because invaders like Leonard came without our permission and that the rugged Col. Fredrick Lugard had defied the already colourful and stately Sokoto sultanate, then it is now impossible to reach a cohesion along which a nation state could emerge. It was to the effect of that reasoning that some had come to argue that they, or is it their fathers, were not properly consulted before the state of Nigeria came to be. They now argue that a formal order of dialogue would be created to reenact the stages of contact and contract between our forefathers and the colonial arrivals in the late 19th century.

It is even possible that it is logical that many of our vocal citizenry can sustain the argument that most of the agreements reached, or the discussions held had been between unequal partners and are indeed outdated.

Relatedly, questions have arisen of our compatriots who sought to dislodge the colonial creations in their argument that Nigeria was a collection of nations, each capable of distinct sustenance but which had suffered forced inclusion and so must opt out.

Loosely, and without a consideration of the implications, they have argued of the distinctiveness of about 250 ethnic groups, which by some estimation cannot find any meaning if they do not stand out as full-blown nations, spotting their clear, pre-colonial profiles. As their argument gathered storm, ethnic boundaries had broken, with new nationalities emerging and over 160,000 communities appearing as constituting the now claimed 350 ethnic nationalities.

The peak of this, as we now know, is the preponderance of ethnically based views and a tendency to bring a clash between nationalism and ethnicism or tribalism. Compatriots started out as nationalists and soon became ethnicists and ethnicists rather than reach out for more global participation receded further into the provinces.

Of course, as we know, there is a strong position that one illuminates on the other or taken the other way, the other diverges from the one. But unfortunately, for our modern society, we have seen that the unhealthy and inconsiderate application of the one or even of the other easily aborts the development of the one and so leads to an insular, chauvinistic and myopic agitator. This so far, has not given any fillip to our national growth and development. The consequences of this are not uncommon to us, as we have seen in the repeated deviations resulting from the less developed character of our erstwhile national leadership.

Also, because there appears to be a certain institutional cynicism about the present state, those who hold the view that there is no “Nigeria idea” contend that “without a name, without a form and without a destiny, it is like a listing, decapitated ship whose fatal confrontation with the storm is far established ahead of time”. Even the period of long military rule gave more credence to this view, causing a sweeping wave of frustration and desperation among the citizenry.

My audience and gentlemen of the press, I must say that these are fine arguments whose growing depth have so much to offer than the belief in some quarters that they are better left unsaid or that those who say them should be clubbered.

I do not believe that they should be unsaid or propagated without courage. But I hold the view, and very strongly too, that I have not been told where the national debate, besides what we are doing now, should formally recommence as a pre-arranged conference or where ongoing discussions should be abandoned. We may also need to ascertain why we cannot take up issues in our groupings as a prelude to obtaining group-accepted concept of Nigeria before we proceed to the national arena. Past discussions, we know, were held by our forebears and those agreements which had come, one or two, at a time, were reached in our individual and group interests as they re-inforced our peculiar inclusion in the vast Nigeria State. They are rather, a drive at overthrowing the system to alleviate the indeterminate personal interest even against the will of the greater number.

Quite unfortunately, the views on these, so vast as they were, are yet to be fully collated by historians. Now, I think I am at sea on what have to take priority ahead of the others. So if I may ask, do we wait to collate and ascertain which has to be tackled first? Or, do we pretend that Nigeria was never discussed and so move on and define it as it may suit this generation of social, economic and political actors/actresses?

Nevertheless, we are sure that by actions, inactions and acquiescence, we have all accepted the existence of our state – Nigeria. In it, many of us had negotiated roles, statuses, privileges and interests and had held on to the rights of the individual and groups, even as we ask for more. Why not let our sons and daughters meet in their villages, in our divisions, in the states and our zones, so that one day we can all meet in Abuja.

In the course of our modern history, riding the crest of nationalistic aspirations against colonial wave, we have evolved stages and points of national conduct and interaction and so have, at each interval, be it a year or two or a decade, improved on what we have. Each had enhanced the position of each component unit even as some would rather others stay behind while they advance in national privileges. Mind you, this ought to be the same as in one area producing the president or governor or local government chairman while the time of another may come sooner than later.

The journey of Nigeria, we must accept, had started out longer than we thought. It may even be argued that this trip kicked off at a time, which is now beyond our memory.

Many, I am aware, hold strongly to the claim that the Nigeria project started out on the eve of colonialism. Some even bring it forward as having taken off in 1914. Of course, those who hold such views have their strong reasons. There are reasons of common modern political antecedents as in institutionalisation of colonialism. Some think of the collective history, which commenced at amalgamation. Yet, some hold the view that one Nigeria State and idea started at independence.

By way of run-of-the-mill evaluation or existence, these could be right. But far beyond these times were easily identifiable trends, which had set out to create the same Nigeria, more or less, long before colonialism. Take for instance our own Lagos which came from Portuguese word for Lagoon. Before colonialism, it had already spotted a healthy multi-ethnic and cosmopolitan profile. There were Nupes, led by the Oshodi Tapa from the North; Binis led by the Idumotas, Idumagbos, Apongbos from the old Benin Empire in the mid west area; the Aworis led by the House of Docemos; the Sierra Leoneans; the Liberians; the Brazilians and the others who had set out to partake of the commerce of the age.

The then setting of Lagos was not by any conscious design of man more than it was in response to the pull of the needs of man in urgent search for economic, social and political emancipation and subsequently perpetuation. Of course, some as in the case of the Binis had arrived as conquerors. Some had arrived to breathe of freedom having been driven by the pernicious nature of their previous settings. In a way, even the citizens who can claim autoctuny had their relief at the arrival of these arrivals who blended in and gave the people their culture and their destiny the greater expression.

Again, consider the profile of the old Kano – the great city state which had taken in as much sojourners and invaders as the great Lagos. For more than nine hundred years before British rule, it had run as an international city with outposts in many spots many of which are important Nigeria cities today. In it, there were Fulanis, there were Arabs, there were Kanuris, etc. It was such a polyglot city, full of the clashing deviations of modern-day cosmopolitan settings that it was regarded as no man’s land, with no man’s values by early religionists. This may have even accounted for why there was a great flow of spiritual literature in the city but there was hardly a drive to pursue religious secularity until it was started and pushed from the Holy City of Sokoto.

Down South, close on the heels of the same economic pull which lured Arabs, Hausas, Kanuris, Fulanis and the others to Kano, there was the pull to Ubulu and Okposi in the present Ebonyi State; Isiugwu in the present Enugu State and Ugwuele in the present Imo State. For centuries before colonialism, peoples of different ethnic stock which now constitute Nigeria had converged for the great salt pits in Okposi and Ubulu. They had also assembled for the foundaries at Ugwuele near the present day Okigwe and Isiugwu near the present day Enugu.

On the eve of colonialism, some shreds of correspondences showed the interest of a Bida Chief or King in the salt pits and the efforts to get across to the people who manned them. The same trace of correspondences showed that the great merchants in Kano were fully aware of the great pits and probably would have gotten there by one form of diplomacy, commerce and or conquest. The people down South themselves had also been quite curious of the horse riding culture of the North men and were disposed to giving something to gain the treasure.

These, indeed, were not the only pre-colonial cosmopolitan settings which had encompassed those who are today Nigerians but they served enough indication of the drive of our pre-colonial peoples to converge, any how, to form a nation, whether it was called Nigeria or anything.

Of course, I am not quickly running to the conclusion that with the pre-colonial interactions, across the Niger, the Benue and the Adamawa Mountains, then the issue of Nationhood and Nigeria Idea is settled. Please it is not. But this does not mean that the idea has not emerged and that we have yet to commence the national trip in realising our promises. We have, indeed.

The introduction of colonialism and the upsurge in nationalist agitation had their own impact on the move to bind and appreciate the Nigeria idea. Of course, it was a perilous stretch of struggles which probably produced its own kind of citizenry and set of national idea. Yet, it is possible that the sudden realisation of independence, without much of a fight or the much of turmoil which turn strangers into comrades, these fighters had quickly docked to seek that which elevate the self rather than the public.

This goes to strengthen the argument that Nigerian nationalism was abandoned in 1951 when the first offer of native participation in higher services was made.

Unlike in the Eastern and Southern Africa, nationalists easily got sucked into the colonial administration system and so abandoned the struggle. Elsewhere, nationalists had outrightly rejected offers of momentary job and so held on to the fight till the end. Some had even abandoned normal life and taken to stiff opposition to the colonial order. Robert Mugabe outrightly rejected every bit of assimilation and fought till the end. Samore Machel held on as a freedom fighter till the freedom and Sam Nujoma never accepted any agreement until his people took over the State. Even in later day struggle, Nelson Mandela, the icon of African independence struggle rejected every bit of assimilation, calling it a neo-colonial tendency which must be snubbed.

Actually, if you take into consideration the various stages of our nationalism, which are mainly three, you begin to wonder whether actual nationalism was long on this land.

Historians hold the view that what actually obtained before 1914 was the higher ideal called Africanism or continentalism. Then, agitators talked about African participation in governance. It did pervade the values then that even as late as 1922 when the first natives served in the Legislative Council in Lagos it never mattered where each native member came from.

The remnants of that continental feeling must have motivated Nnamdi Azikwe in propelling an Umoru Altine from deep North Sokoto to emerge as the first Mayor of Enugu in 1949. Anya Ebubedike, Maduagwu Moronu, Ibezim Obiajulu and others were to emerge as parliamentarians in the old western Region.

But subsequently, that high nationalism was upturned with the awareness shifting to the geographical area called Nigeria. That was the second stage, which further degenerated and ushered in the third phase of consciousness expressed in ethnicism.

As I stated earlier, it is not entirely wrong to express native consciousness but when such impedes nationalism, then you are sure to erect the platform for dysfunctional expressions. That, I can venture to say, had unfortunately been our trend since 1951, when the clamour shifted from nationalism for Nigeria to “nationalism for the western Region, Eastern Region and Northern Region.” In effect, regionalism which Nnamdi Azikiwe strongly opposed in his National Council of Nigeria citizens (NCNC), however took roots with us.

Gentlemen, my position is not in any way to diminish the achievement of our nationalists but in assessing the inherent tendencies and the speed with which our people embraced the mundane rather than the lofty. It is easy to begin to see so many of them as having abandoned nationalism long before independence. This attitude actually rebounded on the country and resulted in the political crisis of 1966 - 1970.

Perhaps, it may be argued that getting harsh on these nationalists who did what they seemingly understood would amount to unnecessary attack but having drawn their experiences largely from the history of struggles of other nations, they ought to know what they were getting into. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, former leader of the free world and one of the framers of the constitution of the United States, “they who abandon the high ideal of nation for the benefit of provincial cubicles are as guilty as those who opposed the liberty of men”.

However, I have no doubt that greater damage lies in the awareness of this treachery and the attendant bitterness. It is assumed that we have a generation of more sophisticated men and women today than we had then. Moreover, their actions were indeed not entirely devoid of heroism as it was evident that as some battled, forging ahead to create the national Nigeria idea, some who were not there at the beginning moved in to take the seats in the “provincial cubicles” where they gratified themselves.

We are talking about the emergence of the state which could not name a street after the proper freedom fighters: Raji Abdallah, Mokwugo Okoye, MCK Ajuluchuku, Saidu Zungur and Abubakar Imam, and which did not fully sing the song of Aminu Kano and Increase Coker.

The abortion of true nationalism which in extension arrested the emerging Nigeria idea did not entirely end with the crusaders turned ethnicists. If those early fighters had abandoned the nation for their ethnic groups and provinces, the military who ruled for the 30 of 41 years of our independence had degenerated further from the ethnic to the individual. It was a practice which abandoned the national ideal and ethnic consciousness to the elevation of the person and his greed, even though it had pretended that it served ethnic interest.

In reality, as Michael Buchanan said in The High Society, "the ugliness of the man, the dark recesses of the invidious mind and the quick evil fingers have never shown more than in the being who thinks of self,” p.22(1951).

This was the stage we were in before May 29, 1999. The stage when the avalanche of selfishness broke on the nation and the Nigeria Idea, the regional/ethnic Idea and the Provincial Idea were killed and replaced with the base selfish acquisitionist individual.

A new epoch had to set in after May 29, 1999. This is the era of democracy and popular participation.

My guess on this analysis is that the current generation of Nigerian debaters had long missed the trend which produced this and had latched on to the ethnic sentiment as if they did not realise long ago that the soldiers who became Chiefs of State were no longer interested in any thing other than themselves, as individuals.

Frankly, I have always been amused at the attempt in standing up for soldiers on account of where they come from. It dawned on me that these people who waste their time supporting the army in their invasion of political power arena were only being duped in their sentiment since they had agenda quite far apart from those of soldiers. In the same vein, I marvel at our tendency to deride people of other ethnic groups just because some soldiers claim origin to the places. Is it not primitive for us to create types and classes on the basis of where one or his neighbour comes from when in reality the lure of the personal interest has long overshadowed that of the group. For instance, the generality of the North of Nigeria has been lampooned by many of us who are more vocal on account of some army generals coming from that part of the country.

While we engaged in this, we never stopped to evaluate so as to ascertain what creative patronage capable of sustaining the society had come from the soldier to his native village. This is not a matter of a big army-man deploying many electric transformers to his village when at the national level, the National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) is in ruins.

It is also not a matter of another big airforce man erecting a fuel pump station in his village when there is no electricity to pump it, no pipe line to pump fuel to the zone, no refinery to produce and no railway-track and wagons – to lift.

It also cannot be a matter of another big khaki man siting a university in his locality when the Nigeria nation was isolated and academics could not access books, Nigeria degrees were rejected for academic pursuit abroad and youth restlessness had turned students into cultists who butchered themselves.

So, as the North was blighted and the people groan for proper leadership we look at the surface of the gleaming life of self minded army officers who never cared for others, whether from the North or South.

These, for you, gentlemen, were the main phases: Africanism/continentalism, nationalism/Nigerian-ism, Ethnicism/tribalism and now individualism/ primitivism of self.

Having gone through these and conscious of the tragedy of a perverted course of a nation, isn’t it easy to now point our fingers at where the Nigeria Idea was aborted so to say?

I think we can. We actually made a wise move in 1999.

About 22 years ago in 1979, we concluded our first devastating stage in military usurpation of state power and entered the then democratic practice which arguably showed some sparks of national reawakening and cohesion. Individual and group rights of expression had begun to blossom and various forms of national resource allocation were attempted.

Granted that the return to military rule in 1983 had forced Nigeria back to the dark ages, and that the whole 16 years which ended in 1999 were marked by abysmal process in non-development, that landmark transition of 1999 ushered in a stage of the political evolution with promises to reinvent the glories of a nation.

No doubt, this stage and its promises could not have brought back the best of the good old days just in a few weeks. If the greater part of this generation has not lost it in the memory yet, it has offered a lot of hope and produced the social platform to grasp the society and pursue the desired transformation. And as we have to ride the crest of popular will, the avarice of the individual must give way. The chauvinism of the tribalist must succumb to a more universal preference while the values of the more accommodating and more global will triumph.

Fully aware of this, is it not then a massive wonder that the current stage of our political evolution is considered by some, as bungled ab initio, and so must be abandoned for an imagined process of negotiation?

Perhaps, we may go back in history to fully grasp our current positions in the on going debate on national form and mission. On the eve of the full inception of colonial rule, our forefathers had demanded of the invading forces to “please” abandon the imperialist causes and leave. They had subsequently offered serious resistance even though they were overpowered but they had followed suit to demand a participation in what the colonial masters had come to do.

At the birth of nationalism, they had bluntly demanded a participation in governance and this had culminated in a long struggle. The results of this were the various reforms, which produced native participation in governance – from a mere four African membership in the Legislative House in 1922 to about 451 Federal legislators in 1999. And from the single uncompromising Lord Luggard in 1914 to 36 state governors and our own Mr. President in 2001 – today.

No doubt, early nationalists had believed that the distortion of their primordial societies could be rectified if they held power. They felt that at least a participation in the directing of affairs was assured. The same way, those courageous journalists, nationalists and human rights crusaders who fought the military and rolled back the retrogressive regimes had built on a hope. One, that if they had a hand in the making of their government, then, they would embark on restoring their society through operation of due constitutional rules. They never hinted of any intention of tearing down the same society one way or the other for another experience in military pillaging and predatory.

One had hoped that those who fought a war and have victory on their lap should celebrate their trophy. They are not expected to begin to act in ways, which give them away as lacking in the wisdom to enjoy their prize.

Journalists, a section of whose national body constitutes our hosts today, are usually good students of history. It is not yet lost to them the various battles they fought, the many loses in material and men (and women too) and the sweet victories that follow good efforts and luck. It must be fresh in their memories that the survival of the second republic and the fate, which befell it, had a lot to do with their immediate, as well as long term reaction to the then political trends.

So the promises of our democracy, the hope of erecting a more acceptable Nigeria idea, and the dangers of riding the mere surface of our dilemma actually constitute the challenge of the press.

Can The Press Wake Up, Now?

But each time I take a look at the press, and I am caused to relate that awesome institution to factors of our national life, I normally reach back in time to the historic duty they represent. Conceptually viewed, we are talking about purveyors who have to pick the bits of society and hand them back to the people. We talk about the challenge to be clear, to be fair, to be objective and to be educative. Then, I ask how far have the professionals discharged themselves.

So, today, what is in contention is not just the ability to hold dear those things which were gained and which would lead to a better society. They are how we can pass the depth of our political history across so as to build greater vigilance among those who are cynical and unresponsive. And who else is equipped to do this? Ultimately, the press!

In the course of my previous discussions, I have come to realize that the national media, in the group and individual pursuit, have the key to the sustenance of the nations interest in development. As I noted elsewhere, it was the press, which, defying all odds, held the torch to battle the military warship and their attendant usurpist disposition. But what appears baffling is the tendency of the same media, and the same generation of editors, to quickly revert to the exercise in clamour to subvert the new, democratic and universally accepted order of popular will and a more decent society.

Perhaps, many of you may wonder why I have taken this track, seeming alarmist and ordinarily worried. Yes, it pains that the society is being dragged to abandon its natural track of phasing to embrace once again the bad and the ugly. If you grasp the indiscretion exhibited by our opinion moulders, many of whom were great crusaders for constitutional order you will appreciate the quantum of damage being done to the psyche of the society.

Earlier, I had canvassed that we must be ready to explain the whole angles. Today, I tell you that you must deeply analyse the history before you cast your headlines and shake the town. I throw this challenge because I am aware that you are reminded of Winston Churchill’s words: “The farther back we look, the further front we see.” Look back but also take in the whole angles – that is our position.

Of course, editors are at liberty to cast their headlines and use the stories of their reporters at headquarters and states. But isn’t it essential that they realize that the new values they build could be brought to ruins in a few days if they fail to exercise adequate restraint. The society they snatched from the military was a badly deformed one, which needs time for recuperation and wholesomeness.

Yes, editors may be right in screaming that all is not well. We all know that all was never well. They can even raise hell about the tendency of Nigerians to attempt to retain the vestiges of unaccountable and disorderly society of the military but they cannot remove the fact that they must have, and hold on to, their society before they can reform it.

Of course, the editors cannot be mistaken if they urge a revisit of the social contract of which the elite have violated. They have the professional duty to scream but I believe that they ought to raise the issues of some blatant social deviations which I think have further widened the gulf between the rich and the poor. We now have two societies with a far apart dividing line. A society of pomp and pompous wealth marching side by side with one of squalid deprivations and lack of hope.

Actually, it is the rage of the abnormality of this setting that the question of The Nigeria Idea becomes imperative. By the pre-colonial concept, we were collections in interaction with one another. The colonial institution had only used the inter-play of words of a lady journalist, Elizabeth Shaw, later Lady Lugard, to build on the geographical position of the Niger area to get a name.

Perhaps, because of the manner this name was created, from the Niger Area, many seem to deride the state, her form and the seemingly unclear destiny. However, many of these have no idea how the names of their respective villages and their inhabitants came about.

But sincerely, while I consider it the unchallengable right of all to raise questions, I hold the view that the trouble does not lie in the name and form as to the inability of the elite to fulfil their own part of the social contract. Such, if genuinely pursued will close the embarrassing gap between the rich and the poor. If we evaluate our society from the viewpoint of the great thinker, Mokwugo Okoye, have we then “any justification for the existence of extreme affluence side by side with unpardonable squalor.”

I had expected that by now in Nigeria, the national media would have exploded the deceptive tendencies of the national elite in ignoring this social divide. Have we not noted yet that this has led to the confusion of the poor while the rich is quite focused and mobile in his drive to corner more wealth.

For too long, the media had played into the hands of the elite who used first, ethnicity and later selfishness to ride to positions of reckoning. It has been a surprise to me that journalists have not seriously unmasked the very elite whose duplicity of character is quite confusing. Today he is all for an idea, tomorrow, he rejects it

Gentlemen, I admonish you so that the press cannot continue to be pulled by the nose. As they say for the good old media days, “you must take it with a pinch of salt”. I do not know whether this has been abandoned but I marvel at the ease with which the media is caused to deviate from the national ethos, projects and destiny, just for the fancy of a certain character.

In fact, it can be argued that the disgraceful inability of the elite to fulfil the social contract and close the gap between the rich and poor is a direct result of the failure of the media to sift the views and actions and lift those which are noble while the trash goes to its known home – the trash can.

As I said elsewhere, the media, which fought the military and ushered in the new era must go through its own re-orientation and transition. If this is not done, the media will certainly remain the pawn as in being used to ignore those which are fundamental for those which are unrealistic but merely manipulated to quench the greed of a few.

Conscious of our recent past and with eyes fixed on the national destiny, the media cannot continue to be used to bring about a national apprehension on the fate of the state. If we respond to the level of sophistication of our media, isn’t it then absurd that we have always, sooner than later, joined in pursuit of those personal agenda we rarely know. Those who lead us into such narrow interests make us susceptible to the charge of Abiola Irele when he accused our elite of causing the society to “…cast romantic glances at the past which can no longer be operative for us…” rather than the “…openness to future – of its implications for ourselves and the world.” This part is the trick applied by the elite when they mask their intentions and get us hooked on ethnic agenda which serve very narrow, personal interests.

In fact, if indeed the media must take up their duty in establishing the Nigeria Idea and the nation’s interest therein, then it must build up the courage to tow the path to true diffusion of national feeling and commitment to the state. Granted that we now have a democracy and a lot to show for the past two years of representative, popular governance, it is evident that the entire system has not been democratised.

Whereas we can say that the presidency, the national assembly, offices of state governors, local government chairmen and even the appointee ministers and commissioners are democratized and are seriously pretending to be full blown institutions of people - oriented governance, we still need not go too far to find out that the greater number of the people have not come to grips with what it is all about.

Many state governors have indeed discharged their duties and acquitted themselves just as the presidency has, in most parts of the country, set the society on the path of recovery. Some local governments have followed the path of honour. Yet, in the face of the previous total destruction, the total obliteration of the middle class and the national confusion, the down trodden has been largely ignored.

Beyond the gleaming and stately offices of high functionaries, the masses have yet to understand what is going on and how they can pick the bits of it. Their state of hopelessness and the tendency to look up to others for their elevation have caused them to become tools in the hands of the elite who, in turn, ride the media wave to super stardom.

I have no intention whatsoever to seek to diminish the interest of the media on the more visible personalities of our time. In fact, I cannot, since I know that the “personality makes the news”. Actually, I seek to invite our leaders and practitioners to seek to analyse the Nigeria idea and relate same to the nation’s interest in democracy. This translates to the admonition of Gerald Gohler in his works; Institutions in political theory…(1996), that it is no democracy if it is not a “…form which represents the basic orientations and aspirations of a society, through the national media.” But I am not certain if our leadership elite understands that the basic aspiration is to lift the greater number of our people who are poor and have no hope. That, I consider the Nigeria idea, in a way. Indeed, I may not be alone in the view.

By way of gaining a bearing, we may ask: what idea of Nigeria had the child whose family got roasted in a kerosene explosion right in the family kitchen? What about the family of the girl who was electrocuted when she unknowingly stepped on live-wire, in the broad day light, in the neighourhood she was born and raised? What about the family whose former breadwinner collapsed and died as he queued for days to get his rightfully craved pensions. These were the norms rather than the exception in the days of military regime but the reverse has set in for the democracy at play now.

Gentlemen, I have not set out to begin to build new theories on socio-political organization but I have this sneaking suspicion that Nigeria whose idea is being manipulated by the elite is too remote to the simple citizenry. Many have tried to grasp this through the study of the clamour for physical and fiscal restructuring; many had thought that it would be sorted out with more states and local government areas. And yet many had believed that outright excision would produce an eldorado. But quite unfortunately, and gravely so too, few – just about few – have considered the basic social and political organisation of Nigerians which are to the cradle – our basic settlements.

Arguably, the local government areas, even in their proliferation have proven to be largely distant from the communities. Sometimes they are farther than the states and Federal government. To that effect, the bulk of the citizenry has operated as mere on lookers and had wished a discontinuity of the state.

After I reflected on the arguments and feelings, I had reached the conclusion that the real concept of the state will be the grasping of the modern values which underline democracy. Democratisation as it may be taken down the grassroots will invent a major and healthy meaning of the state for the people and further enhance the Nigeria Idea. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the media to hold the elite to the duty of good governance. Leaders must appreciate the admonition of Laudell-Mills and Serageldin (1992) in their work Governance and The External Factor. They say that “good governance depends on the extent to which government commits to …improving the public welfare, respond to the needs of its citizens, and deliver public services, able to create an enabling environment for productive activities, and equitable in its conduct.”

The days are gone, and for good, when “it was in the interest of the system to keep the masses ignorant and wretched so that they could be controlled and exploited more easily.” Days were gone when the poke-nosing paramount chiefs in the dusty villages in the outskirts of Enugu were unchallengable. When arrogant Baale in blighted communities near Ibadan and the dagaci and mai ungwar in decrepit settlements near Kaduna bully the people without any person calling them to order. The media and public opinion have since ensured that the modern day Czar does not emerge.

Yet, such did not bring about a concise plan among the leadership to seek to perpetuate the community concept and ease the pressure on the system. It was in our drive to grasp this and find a solution that we evolved the Community County Council (CCC) or the County Development Council (CDC) scheme in Enugu State. The idea of this is that each community in the state sets up a semblance of basic administration made up of the councilor of the ward, the president of the town union, representatives of youth organizations, the clergy, educational institutions, the women group and villages in the community. They are mandated to initiate a project, which will be taken up 50 percent by the state government, 25 per cent by the local government and the rest contributed in the form of labour, land and others by the community.

We believe that a well treated bucket of water which is collected from a good bore hole and a health center which is properly staffed and stocked with requisite drugs constitute a better Nigeria Idea to the helpless citizenry than a big conference table in Abuja or a well appointed office of a burly functionary.

Gentlemen, I have taken this indirect route to consider the topic in review not that I cherish to avoid the expected position but to throw my own challenge to journalists on the reality of their state. If in 1994, the incumbent president of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo stated that: “Nigeria is a country perpetually potentially great, almost permanently in crisis, regularly threatened with disintegration, prolongingly plundered and mismanaged, forever talking about democracy but retreating from democracy,” then we know that the question of the Nigeria Idea this time can be scary.

Yet, the fact that it is scary is no reason to flee or jump ship. It is my opinion that Nigeria has crossed the bad spot. We have successfully transited from military to civil rule and we have started on the journey to total democratisation. This is why it is apt now to raise the question of Nigeria Idea. We have to answer the question whether we are seeking the Nigeria Idea as it existed in the military rule or the Nigeria Idea as we seek to achieve later. Consequently, we must appreciate the transient nature of the moment which is largely temporary and yet to be defined.

If our journalists know this and are prepared to sustain the nation’s interest in our democracy then they must appreciate the depth of the gulf between the two eras. They must understand that the present time can be comfortably called a “time between” in which all hands must be on deck to create the enabling environment for the next main phase – greater democracy – in which a proper conceptualization will make better impact.

This is the period of interlude when Nigeria has to be prepared for its eventual stride to greatness.

In setting up the Community County Council (CCC) scheme we believe we have started out on this for the benefit of our people and as an exemplar for fellow citizens across the country.

Today, as we leave the great city of Kaduna, for our home, Enugu, let us resolve that our light of democracy shall continue to shine and dim no more!

To God be the glory.


REFERENCES

1. Ojiako, O.James: Nigeria: Yesterday, Today and ... African Educational Publishers Nig. Ltd; Onitsha: 1981.

2. Ajayi, Ade F.K.: The National Question in Historical Perspective; Guardian Lecture; Fifth Edition, Lagos: 1992.

3. Joseph, Richard A.: Democracy and Prebendal Politics in Nigeria; Spectrum Books Limited; Ibadan: 1991.

4. Tohrike Tarsile Qur’an Inc.: The Qur’an; Abiola Bookshop Press Ltd, yaba Lagos: 1990.

5. Adedeji, Ayo (editor): People-Centred Democracy in Nigeria?; HEB, Ibadan, 2000.

6. Landell-Mill and Serageldin: Governance and The External Factor; World Bank Annual Conference, Washington DC: 1991.

7. Afigbo, Adiele: Ropes of sand; A study in Igbo History, Enugu: Nwamife Press Ltd, 1979.