Ethnicity and National Development

By Ken Saro-Wiwa. Alumni Lecture at University of Ibadan, June 1989. Appears in the collection Nigeria: The Brink of Disaster (Port Harcourt: Saros, 1991), by Ken Saro-Wiwa.

I intend in this paper to argue that the nation got into its present pass because it failed to develop a strong political structure in keeping with its traditional set-up. I postulate that such a structure is capable of withstanding economic adversity which easily destroys a weak political structure. I intend to show that the lack of competent personnel, the canalization of all energies into the struggle for power, debilitating corruption and other social evils have arisen because we have ignored the ethnic nature of our society, choosing to pretend that the ethnic groups do not exist and stubbornly refusing to build our house on the strong fundaments of ethnicity.

This may sound rather perverse because it has always been argued that our strength lies in unity and that tribalism is the bane of our nation. This brings me immediately to the difference between ethnicity and ethnocentrism. Ethnicity is the fact of the ethnic group. It poses no danger to the nation. Ethnocentrism is the danger; it is the misuse of the ethnic group, of ethnic sentiments against other ethnic groups in a sterile competition. Ethnocentrism can be combated. Ethnicity is permanent.

Even at the risk of sounding trite, it has to be stated that Nigerian existence is due neither to the exigencies of geography nor to ethnic unity. It came about as a result of the disastrous rivalry and the chase for colonial aggrandisement of the great Powers at the end of the 19th century. It was always a mere geographical expression. In the words of Obafemi Awolowo, Nigeria's greatest political thinker to date, Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. The word `Nigeria' is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria from those who do not.

This is not surprising. Most great nations today started as mere geographical expressions; in time, they build their peculiar national character from the different ethnic and cultural ele- ments within their boundaries.

Since the Amalgamation of Nigeria in 1914, we have been trying to do the same. The only problem is that our efforts have been fumbling because we have failed woefully to think deeply about it and we have stubbornly refused to learn from our mis- takes.

Following upon Amalgamation, all ethnic groups, big or small, were absorbed into a greater system than they were used to. People were mobilised in the broadest sense of the term and became conscious that they were part of a system which embraced other ethnic nationalities. But their commitment to their ethnic groups was not eroded. On the contrary, the competition for the crumbs from the colonialists' table forced the ethnic groups into an internal solidarity which they might not have had before the advent of the British. The major ethnic groups in particular found themselves consolidating their internal unity. [...]

The blame for this terrible state of affairs [post-civil-war corruption] must be laid squarely at the door of the major ethnic groups who have consistently behaved as though Nigeria is a nation of themselves alone, whereas it is well-known that the nation consists of over three hundred ethnic groups.

None have recognized this more than the minority ethnic groups who have borne the brunt of the indigenous colonialism of the majority groups. These minorities were aware of the dangers they faced from the very beginning. Obafemi Awolowo had warned: Certainly these minority groups are at a considerable disadvan- tage when they are forced to be in the midst of other peoples who differ from them in language, culture and historical background. [...]

I cannot end this paper without outlining precisely what will be the configuration of the country should ethnicity be adopted as the base of our national development.

In the first place, it will have a most pleasant effect on self-reliance and social justice. The many ethnic groups in this country who have been denied their freedom, either in pre-colo- nial times or after the advent of the British, will re-discover themselves and will be forced to take their fortune in their hands. Thus, indigenous colonialism will have been dealt a death blow.

Second, the majority ethnic groups will be forced to stop battening on other peoples and will have the opportunity to develop at their own rate without feeling that other people are holding them back. They will also be forced to prove to me, at least, that they are not merely big-for-chopping majorities, adept at angling for Federal positions where they invariably brag about their merit. They will now have an opportunity to use that merit in their natural environment. And so we may at last find some clean cities in Nigeria.

Thirdly, the considerable energy which is being spent in a sterile struggle for power will be released and channelled to more imaginative and productive ends. We shall hear far less of zoning and all such idle beasts and merit will take on new meanings.

Fourthly, the resources of the country will reach a broader mass of the people.

And fifthly, there will be greater stability, as the need for changes of boundaries and structures will no longer arise and new rules will have to explain in full any tinkering with struc- tures that have stood the test of time.

The scientific method, once used successfully, will replace arbitrariness, jingoism and deception in decision-making at the highest level. The Nigerian nation will become stronger.