By Amin Buba Dibal
The basic idea of a nation broadly refers to a large group of people with a common origin, culture, and history who are conscious of their independence and status of citizenship. However, the founding of nation-states in post-colonial Africa had no concern for such specificities of culture and history as criteria for nation-state creation. Thus, the expanse of lands and peoples were amalgamated to form countries like Nigeria and other colonized territories as the era of colonialism closed in largely the mid-20th century. Nigeria as many other nations thus became a heterogenous society of cultures and faith.
The conception of the idea of a nation has evolved over time especially in terms of structure and citizenship, from the great civilizations, empires, and kingdoms to modern nation-states. Largely, modern states are more multi-cultural and with greater participation of its diverse people in governance processes and improved equal citizenship status. It is obvious, that the make-up of early societies in the model of civilizations or monogenous societies made it easier for the people to mutually coexist based on shared culture and values as others were legitimately considered second-class citizens.
Nigeria has been struggling to have a society where the cohesion of its people could be referred to as positively mutual because of its inability to sufficiently manage its diversity of ethnicity, culture, and faith. In other climes, we have seen the nature of other societies, especially of the western world which are emulated in many respects that have succeeded in having their nations stand on broad social tripods of common humanity, prosperity, and liberty despite their diversities. This is not to say other modern countries have no challenge of managing diversity, but the context of Nigeria is of worrying progression as it threatens the fragile social stability of the nation.
At the peripheral level, Nigerians are urbane people, welcoming with a high sense of humor in the course of social interaction within and across ethnic and religious lines and with foreigners alike. Along this, Nigerians were considered the most optimistic and happiest people on earth based on a 2011 Gallup poll despite poverty and corruption. However, the state of genuine social cohesion among the people is deeply fragile, suspicious with malevolent perceptions along divides, negative attitudes, and expressions cloaked in conquering spirit especially when interest is at stake. It also manifests in the course of social interaction in institutions and public life with dangerous patterns of even sacrificing merit, truth, and common good for the vested inclinations of faith, tribe, and region practiced at a very wide level.
A historical origin of the challenge of Nigeria to being a more socially cohesive state began more marked in 1954 during the struggles for self-determination when the nation between the south and north divides could not agree with the timing around independence.
This was followed by the killings of the January 1966 coup d’etat, counter-coup, and the Civil War that followed between 1966-1970. After these experiences, political transitions and the misguided growth of “religious nationalism” in ways that have seen religion burst its banks from an agent of individual transformation then overflow to positively benefit the entire society to a motivator of malevolence, the weapon of division, and also a tool for the inordinate pursuit of self-actualization even at the detriment of societal cohesion as inspired by political and other social elites. The path we are now as discussed cannot form a basis for a genuine cohesive society.
Nigerians actively collaborate at the individual level more fairly, basically in the transactional sphere when especially is sustained by mutual interest as in business or in the common theft of the national cake when it is in public service. Other forms of social interaction adding some value to cohesion are as exemplified by tasks in communities for a common good, festivity, cultural activities, and emotional solidarity in cases of bereavement or harm to a community as a whole.
In a “high” society, cohesion is stronger among the elites may be due to self-awareness, education, and common interest, but when interacting vertically with the “lower” part of society which is largely interest-based, the ethics to make sacred broad social cohesion is ignored to serve interests, most of which sets people against themselves, especially in the democratic dispensation. Factors that further fuel disunity and weakens the already fragile cohesion are insensitivity to religious sympathy, abuse of free expression especially on social media, perceived ethnic colonization, and forms of religious expression.
In light of globalization, emerging discourse around the future of nationalization-states and postulations of cosmopolitan theories which foresee an even more connected world that no longer requires nation states, identity, and even nations are fast declining with the connectedness of technology and a common passion for people’s solidarity based on a fair idea of a society for mutual coexistence.
The desire could be ambitious but it centrally suggests the idea of common humanity and in our case a common Nigeria at least. This is particularly significant because of the enormous benefits to stability it produces for society.
However, we don’t need to always go the collectivist way in the form of typically subscribing to all forms of globalization, but we need to have at least a nation that is cohesive with a shared understanding and consensus that are socially sustainable. What have people that have chosen to set themselves against each other had to show about their societies in terms of peace and progress?
The current homogenous nature of Nigeria is indispensable, it’s a reality we ought to learn to positively live with. Other societies that have failed to realize the need for a social consensus in managing their diversity and work for a cohesive reality have suffered consequences like in Rwanda, Ireland, and Sudan, which led to the secession and the founding of the Republic of South Sudan.
To deny the fact of our state of weakening cohesion or tagged it as an alarmist call is denying reality by the virtue of two examples: Jos and Kaduna cities, epicenters of the manifestation of our weakening social cohesion, they have already both become cities polarized along religious lines with Muslim North and Christian South in both cases. The weakening cohesion also manifests in celebrating mediocre cases of inclusion or cohesion amongst ourselves, so for example it is a remarkable thing worth noting to say I am from the East and I have a friend from the North and vice-versa.
The Nigerian state has succeeded in having constitutional and administrative frameworks to enhance national cohesion and integration in institutions such as the Federal Character Act, the national youth service, and the zoning of positions to accommodate the diversity of the nation. But there is the need for complementary efforts from a multi-faceted approach with the genuine commitment given the current reality and ever increasing in terms of weakening of our cohesion as a people despite the provisions.
We do not need to give credence to the postulations of for example Samuel Huntington in his book, “Clash of Civilizations” where is it suggested that after the Cold War (1989), “people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-cold war world”.
To turn the tide, first, we need to create a noble and common consensus on how we want to improve our cohesion as a people and open the opportunity for the stability & prosperity of our nation. The consensus should be around issues that serve as sources of threat to our cohesion, triggers of disunity, and how we manage such issues in our society. Tacit elite consensus actually exists in Nigeria but sadly it’s been around class or interest preservation, unpatriotic, and self-interest issues. The common consensus for us in Nigeria could for example takes after the spirit of The Charter for Compassion.
The Charter for Compassion is a compendium of ideal statements for common humanity that drew from the compassionate principles of all religions of the world, Christianity and Islam inclusive. The Charter thus urges the peoples and religions of the world to embrace the core value of compassion in their interactions given the diversity of faiths and backgrounds in the world.
The charter is now in more than 30 languages, has enrolled 311 communities in 45 countries in its Compassionate Communities campaign, and has partnered with more than 1,300 organizations to spread the Charter’s message of compassion in 10 sectors: the arts, business, education, environment, healthcare, peace, religion/spirituality/interfaith, science & research, social sciences and restorative justice. Some of the cardinal provisions of the charter are as follows:
“The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical, and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and put another there, and to honor the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect”.
“It is also necessary for both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others – even our enemies – is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion”.
“We, therefore, call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the center of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred, or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions, and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings, even those regarded as enemies”.
“We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous, and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological, and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensable to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community”.
Second, there is a need for investment by political, religious, traditional, opinion leaders and the media in their spheres of authority in changing perceptions, narratives, and interpretations of how Nigerians should relate to themselves. This should first be from an ideological perspective, which forms the structure of thought, perception, and action. The engagement should challenge the subjective judgments and interpretation of reality from the prism of ethnicity, religion, and region in which Nigerians see things.
Third, the elite in Nigeria needs to work on changing the trust deficit with the people, to reverse it would involve investment in confidence building. Trust is important because there is a connection between trust and result-oriented leadership in terms of influencing behavioral change.
A united and cohesive Nigeria we should all aspire, sacrifice and work for is that which serves the interest of our commonwealth, counters exclusion, and marginalization creates a sense of belonging, enhances trust, and guarantees Nigeria’s equality of opportunities to thrive based on their commitments.
