Abstract

Faced with the contest of perspectives regarding the birth of Nigeria and the conflicting notions surrounding the adequate or the accurate interventions towards the lingering northern Nigeria violence; this piece posits an exploratory attempt or approach for a sustainable transparent dialogue or common ground for a just peace and a sustainable peace irrespective of what appears to be an irreconcilable reality in the proposed national dialogue. A proactive integration of all forms of conflict mitigating interventions by all vested stakeholders and the openness of Nigerians to a seeming transformation as both process and product for understanding differences, would possibly lead to not only reduction of violence, but possible reconciliation. It is never easy but it is possible. This work unfolds the perspective that the presence of new approaches and innovations with perspectives would ignite the change, which an indigenous Nigeria needs, since such changes depend on results. Also, it is pertinent to affirm the fact that anything that supports reflective conversations among new and different parts of our ‘diverse’ nationhood is of utmost importance. Through this ‘risky’ process new information is gotten; new meanings develop and our nation grows in intelligence together with our national agency empowered in response to the social-construct structure, which Nigeria is anchored.

Introduction:

It is no doubt that the dynamics of inter and intra personal, ethnic and religious relationships in Nigeria have not been pleasant and encouraging. The tensions that exist among the diverse ethnic groups of over 250 have been channeled into so many dimensions of the national life[i]. Being structured into 4 major geographic regions, each of these does not find in the other, a common national identity but an indigenous identity, which is entirely tied to culture and language. The pre-colonial Nigeria was characterized by such irreconcilable difference that was probably neglected at the formation of an amalgamated Nigerian nation state, which today am sure Nigerians desire to renegotiate[ii].

Looking at history:

 The fact is that the pre-colonial Nigeria was uncompromisingly heterogeneous both in culture, tribe/language and organization (governance). Before the 1861 colonization of Nigeria organizationally, without any form of consultation of the diverse tribal segments, early states existed before 1800[iii]. All these states and societies were said to have their peculiar administrative structures and policies which relatively communicated with external factors or influences or challenges of time, ranging from economic, political, social, religious and educational. We must appreciate and recall the various stages of our nation’s birth amidst the fact of bitterness as many feel about it or about the fact that such a narrative would be regarded as a taboo not to be mentioned but live with.

What about the Colonial Nigeria? In 1851 Lagos was attacked, bombarded by British gunboats leading to the colonial rule. Historians call this, the annexation of Lagos[iv]. The British expelled Kosoko, the Lagos king, and installed Akintoye, whom they recognized as finally one in allegiance towards them. Ten years later in 1861 the British government declared Lagos a colony of Britain. This was the beginning of the formal rule of Nigeria by Britain. In 1914, Nigeria was united and in 1922 there was the Clifford Constitution to administer the Divide and Rule policy for Nigeria. A continued tension existed among the North, South and East as the new council formed by Clifford never favored the north. The North had only a numerical advantage while the South and East had educational advantage. In 1953, Federalism was fully entrenched in Nigeria.

In the search for our identity and in the quest to have our ‘common identity’ recognized, honored and respected, de-colonialization stage was ushered. This might be regarded as the maturation stage of human growth process, as it was the period of Nationalist movements and the regaining of Independence by Nigerians. Nigeria’s attainment of independence was a peaceful one, thereby implying that Nigerians had no radical quest for a national identity. Though scholarly presentation indicate thus:

“The early Nigerian resistance fighters fought hard to keep the Europeans away from dominating their lands. They did not believe that they required British ‘Protection’ to continue to live in the world. They wanted to be free to live their lives as they chose and enter into negotiations with any powers of their choice. After the imposition of British rule many people continued the resistance against foreign rule. The resistance was sometimes passive, sometimes diplomatic and constitutional and sometimes violent”[v]

Nigerians achieved political independence in 1960 though initially it was suggested for 1956. By this process, Nigerians could once again have control over their own country’s affairs. At this time of decolonization, the Nigerian educated elites and the traditional rulers began to share a common historical consciousness as it summed up to a shared vision of Nigerian dream. This nationalistic dream began to cut across ethnic, linguistic and cultural boundaries and to acquire the character of a struggle for justice, equity, cultural freedom and participation in government. It was a period of hope founded on transparency, trust and modesty.

Current dynamics and Transformational opportunities:

Our current socio-political and economic scenario is another revelation of an ulcerated skin. The fact that politics, governance and religion are intertwined and twisted by political players makes inter and intra ethnic relationships more complicated than imagined. Political parties have become glorified or secularized religious and ethnic groups. Names of political parties and their philosophies have become more sectarian and divide oriented. It becomes inevitably the case for concern, when political campaigns/rallies become the preaching spaces for religious concepts and the memoranda of parties are interpreted or translated religious doctrines. The nationalistic spirit and interest of the heroes past are long forgotten for self-aligned ones. The pattern of Nigerian political economy is therefore characterized by, instability, conflicting social, religious, regional and ethnic interest; and a preoccupation with distribution of resources, rather than creation of wealth. Worthy of note is the fact that the problem of Nigerian economy is that of over dependence on oil. The neglect of the economy on agriculture, the problem of external borrowing, misappropriation of funds, corruption or indiscipline, low productivity in all sectors, the problem of external dependence, low quality education; the problem of inflationary trend; the problem of instability, unemployment, smuggling, the problem of privatization, violent conflicts, the problem of rural poverty and urban misery; which have all been said to accrue from the nature of Nigerian state and Federalism having in mind its analytical description[vi]; Also, the fact that there has been biased or unguided exercise of autonomy by state governments[vii], should be a prioritized item for discussion as the phenomenon has led to resource conflict and the quest for power control as well.

The glorification of corruption in the national life of the ‘Giant of Africa’ has given rise to uncountable discomforts, one of which is ethnic militia group formations[viii] that threaten not only democracy but also our unity. This phenomenon points to the principle of sub-nationalism, and the effects of these groups have left the country in a pulsated mode as it increases tensions and brews the uncertainty of our unity as Nigerians. The puzzle at this juncture is whether a justification for such sub-nationalistic attitudes be encouraged or the threatened national unity be protected by abusing the human rights of expression. The defense of a cause that violates human rights is certainly in itself not an applauded cause.

Amidst the existential intrinsic differences, which are perceived in the ‘amalgamated entity’ called Nigeria, is the commonality that becomes a transforming ingredient to a rebranded and renewed identity. The human dignity model[ix] of conflict transformation and resolution, which is being championed by Donna Hicks in her work ‘Dignity’,[x] should be made incarnate through an engaged pedagogy process in all levels of the systemic society. All forms of interventions to be designed and implemented, whether humanitarian assistance and development, human security, protection and early warning, psychosocial trauma and healing, distributive, transitional and restorative kinds of Justice, all forms of analysis, strategies and skills together with leadership which is very critical to the issues of conflicts and development[xi]; should be in my perspective, integrative spaces in which the human dignity model would be adopted or included.

This work does not in any way make a case for such inclusion but the fact that the principles of ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ should be foundational in the peacebuilding field, and most likely visualized as a possible process for the repositioning of the principles for which our nation was founded. I would then not escape from the perspective that there might be endless chaos and impending fragility to the Nigerian context when all regions and groups together with individuals do not see the necessity to honor and respect the ‘inherent worth’ and ‘birth right’[xii] of the other, regarding other variables like religion, geography, language etc as no longer preferences to the aforementioned model. Inescapable is the reality of misguided insinuations by some elder statesmen and biased stakeholders like the recent interview that Alhaji Isa Kaita (a former governor of Kaduna State, north of Nigeria, a prominent member of Arewa Consultative Forum and a founder member of People’s Democratic Party) granted to TELL Magazine, Vol. 41 on October 16^th, 2013.[xiii] I am of the view that when the worth of the human person or human dignity is made primal to all forms of national principles, them there is an adhesive cohesion.

Nigeria needs to creatively use existing communication and problem solving mechanisms or develop new mechanisms in order to respond to post complex or existing violent situations. These mechanisms should also be proactive in nature. Our leadership should as much be trained (in principled and integrative leadership theory and skills) in comparison to the resources that are sunk into the training of trainers, as much as numerous facilitation programs embarked by so many non-governmental organizations. This paper evokes the reaction that transparent and true partnerships should be established between civil society actors, non-governmental organizations, government’s officials or nation states and international actors (such as the UN, INGOs and Funders). National functionaries should deeply be engaged and empowered as much as the other stakeholders.

The search for the ‘seeming’ locally generated intervention to the many challenges of Nigeria’s multi dimensional reality of existence has among so many things, led to wrong policy formulations, biased implementations, patriotic or nationalistic mis-presentations, wrong aligned preferences of ‘matters arising’ by the tiers of government, exaggerated responses from within national life and international collaborators. These dynamics though ‘necessary’ can equally be ‘avoidable’ when right interventions are implemented duly as process and simultaneously as product.

Recalling our history and formulating our narrative as Nigerians is very primary/fundamental to reaffirming our unity in the midst of our unique diversities. We must own and be responsible for our pre-colonial, colonial and postcolonial narratives. Modest and credible historians have and could have had the opportunity to tell the story of Nigeria against the backdrop of a nation, which was a ‘space’ for relationship among various groups, and not ethnic and religious divides. The amalgamation of 1914 did not seem to be a relational space as many have argued, but the independence of 1960 gave Nigerians the once a time opportunity to dialogue and understand.

In the quest for a relational platform, the national conference has emerged. Questions regarding the appropriateness of it in the context of time, events and premeditated outcomes should not be a factor to deter this opportunity. I think that amidst the mechanics of planning/design, implementation and monitoring, if wisely and transparently explored then a transformed nation would emerge.

Inaugurating the committee at the Presidential Villa on Monday October 7th, President Goodluck Jonathan said: “In the task before you, no voice is too small and no opinion is irrelevant. Thus, the views of the sceptics and those of the enthusiasts must be accommodated as you formulate this all-important framework. This Conversation is a People’s Conversation and I urge you to formulate an all-inclusive process that protects the people’s interest.”

As much as the rationale for the constitutional conference or Sovereign national conference (among many names though still wrestling with the appropriateness of the contextualized term) appears juicy, the timeline appears blurred. The Nigerian populace has not been told when the task of the committee is expected to end with recommendations made. For a good planning, time is essential, but it should be respected by any/subsequent administration, and prudence with modesty applied by committee members as well. Some strategic questions need to be answered and clarified by the advisory committee if the confidence of Nigerians is to be restored. Also, the public should have be empowered with a long term knowledge regarding the process. The micro level must not be neglected in this process. Why are we embarking on the national dialogue? Who is credible to be the representing stakeholder, and at what levels would such representations be made? Who are stakeholders? What is being represented or presented as a common interest and good? How would an all participatory and fulfilling representation be enhanced? When would various planning, information gatherings and modalities be put in place? The timeline should be realistic, knowing fully well that another political dispensation is around the corner (hoping that it would not be a tactic for manipulation). Where would the advisory committee sit to receive the memos of stakeholders and listen to people?

Sincere responses to these questions would be an implied or predicted success. The grass-root level (the ward/constituency and local government levels) is as important as the technocrats and the middle class (hoping that there are no sets of standards/criteria for participation that hinder micro level participation). One might ask that when constituent representatives do not represent their wards in anyway, how would the grass-root be involved in the process and also made to own the process. Civil Society Organizations and their Leaders tend to make ‘biased interests’ as demands and no longer the common good of the masses. But how much information has been disseminated about the National Conference and its traits? Education through publicity-mechanisms about meanings, process and implications, is yet to reached/attained.

The essence of this platform for national understanding would be futile if Nigerians are not individually transformed to new perspectives of national life. The pro-active nature of the national dialogue would reveal past hurts and grievances but we must learn to appreciate our differences and allow human dignity to be a common factor for mutuality. My bet is that the conference might not be beneficial if previously neglected needs of the masses are not met. Thematically, the advisory committee saddled with the responsibility of designing it, would not forget about a holistic approach to ensuring security of life, but the status of citizenship and indigene-ship. The right to worship and a place for it should be intrinsic as well. Ethno-religious violence have been brewed from such tensions surrounding the expression of this right of citizenship and the status of a ‘visitor’ within Nigeria, thereby disclosing the fact that Nigerians are regarded as visitors within their own country. It should respect religion and its rights. Resource control, management and distribution among other things should be given serious attention.

When the national dialogue/conference becomes a common ground, it becomes the moment to create a nation state particular to our people, having a system of government that is characterized by conclusive participation. No group is ineligible for this conference. Nationalized/Naturalized  Foreigners in Nigeria should have an input to make as well. We need an unbiased ‘third eyes’. There must be an ownership and responsibility of our constitution and its process. We must be unique in our ideologies and applications (sensitive to culture and respect communities and their indigenous capacities). There would be an exhaustive litany of matters arising but even though all might not be attended to, caution should be applied as not to neglect the essentials. The challenge foreseen is that there might be a ‘revisit’ of issues. So many have been hurt and healing with a probable reconciliation might crop up. The ‘needs’ that are regarded as ‘unmet’ might be demanded back. This is for a ‘rebirth’ of the constitution and the nation together with our perspectives as Nigerians. Nigeria must learn how to accept realities as they come and not shy away from possible situations that are threatening to our unity, but try to manage these situations properly to attain a mutual and co-existing’ nation.

The cast shadow

 There are moments when genuine intentions/existents are implemented at the wrong contexts, and the right contexts have also had wrong intentions/existents imposed on them too. The credibility of intentions till today still faces different measuring variables. The National Dialogue, which the president of Nigeria conceives at this current ‘mixed’ and ‘unclear’ manifested of the Nigerian history, seems to be disconnected from the ‘sovereign’ characteristic of the dialogue. The fact that the national dialogue’s report has to be scrutinized and approved by the national assembly is a clear indicator that the presidential guideline seemingly creates restriction, limitation of the right of expression and distrust. There are ‘no go areas’ taboos that should not be discussed. This highest national governing arm of government still faces inter and intra house-conflicts that have created a ‘shadow’ division of interests on the grounds of politics, religion and ethnicity. Genuine patriots of our country no longer ignite nationalistic ideologies.

The core reason for this dialogue is the fact that the governing machineries struggle to coordinate or manage our diversities. Militia groups’ formations are gradually becoming re-energized for a goal that Nigerians would not even think about. It had better not be imagined I should believe. One would convincingly ask if the national dialogue would mean a dramatic pause to the forthcoming 2015 presidential elections, or whether it would enjoy the political grace of sustainability by another political dispensation, genuinely guiding the process to a transparent conclusion.

The civil society organizations in Nigeria have not really exercised strong agencies that would stir transformations. Partisan politicking seems to have a way of infecting the nucleus of our country. Knowledge and awareness of individual human rights, which have not been made available to 75 percent of Nigerians cripple the ability and capacity of the ‘national agency’ to be in operation.

Conclusion

 Whether there is a guarantee for sustenance of peace after the conference or after their recommendation might have been implemented, is another ball game. At both intra and inter levels of co-existence is the challenge of sincere approach to the whole process of dialogue. Creating a space for the integration of diversified interventions by all stakeholders/organizations involved in the peacebuilding process would be a symbol and indication of sustaining peace, development and wellbeing in a post conflict context.

Intra ethnic conflicts in Nigeria have escalated and to de-escalate such there is an indispensable need to being receptive to transformational dynamisms. Amidst the fact of international or external actors in the process of violent conflict mitigation and intervention implementation, Nigeria should have the agency to generate her own pattern and indigenous designs and mechanisms for development and sustainable peace. A proactive reflection on the escalated violence in the north for example could be drawn from the lessons postulated by Donald Steinberg in the Conflict Prevention and Resolution Forum at Washington DC which was organized by Search For Common Ground, and moderated by Sandra Melone the executive vice president of SFCG. Thus, Don affirms that the possible reasons for escalation of violence could be that urbanization and population are rapid within a weak economy society, the populace are denied political participation, civil societies become absent, while ‘spoiling’ neighbors fuel their situations, violent contexts are militarized by their governments thereby increasing tensions and retaliations together with the ‘unfolding’ of grievances over past hurts and violence[xiv].

Perhaps, the disagreement that arises among political stakeholders and ethnic groups regarding the national dialogue tends to portray the fear and skepticism, which do exist within the Nigerian society.[xv] According to records, the National Dialogue or in its various ideal nomenclatures, Sovereign National Conference, Constitutional Conference was held in 1976, 1978, 1988, 1994/95 and 2005.[xvi]  Against the mindset of some politicians that it will lead to a break-up and disunity,[xvii]is the fact that our multi perspective or diversity should be encouraged in respect of ideas and approaches towards a reconstructed and renewed nation. Disagreements among stakeholders at various levels should not only be invited but also welcomed, as this will prompt ‘outside the box’ creativity among Nigerians. The national dialogue should not be an urbanized affair or issue, high-jacked by the elite class to the detriment of the non-elites at the grass roots.

Anchoring an anticipated change is not only worrisome but could be indeed a twisted phenomenon. Education and information dissemination, which is both trusted and transparent, must be encouraged. Unfortunately, the Nigerian society gets more information about political rallies and impending political dispensation, gets educated about party votes than the need for such a national dialogue. Publicity is lowly esteemed as an important factor towards its success. The presence of new approaches and innovations with perspectives would ignite the change, which an indigenous Nigeria needs, since such changes depend on results. Also, it is pertinent to affirm the fact that anything that supports reflective conversations among new and different parts of our ‘diverse’ nationhood is of utmost importance. Through this ‘risky’ process new information is gotten; new meanings develop and our nation grows in intelligence together with our national agency empowered in response to the social construct – structure.

Setting the standards for determining the values in our society remains contestable, acknowledging the fact that corruption remains christened and glorified by the judicial or justice system, that seems to be the instrument of the high and mighty in the society. The mechanisms that the government and her people create in the mitigation of violent conflicts must respect human life, human right and human dignity. Studies in social sciences have proven that culture of a people or situation changes when behaviors change, pointing to the inescapable truth – that managing conflict or transforming conflict starts with oneself being open to individual change/transformation.

In knitting my perspectives, I should say that when international actors and conflict mitigating stakeholders, Non governmental and non profit international and local organizations partner with the government of Nigeria on the spectrum of peacebuilding regarding sustainable development, well meaning and just peace society, then the Federal government’s strategies for peace and development together with her perspectives would be spurred to deconstruction and transformation or sensitively and contextually managed or transformed into an integrative non adversarial holistic intervention.  It is never easy, but it is possible.