By Adisa Adeleye
A FEW weeks before the start of the  unnecessary but costly Biafran war or The Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970), I wrote an article in the Daily Times with the caption, ‘CAN WE AFFORD TO FALL APART?‘.  In my pardonable innocence, I examined the economic implications of a break_up on internal trade and movements of people.

The idea was to examine options of possible solutions to the political problems of the day through dialogue among the political leaders.  An answer to my question came from Mr. Sylvester Ugoh who said in the Nigerian Outlook (Enugu) that we could afford to break if that was the only alternative to survival.  Unfortunately, Nigeria went into a costly Civil War without achieving the necessary and required unity.

The allusion to the above is to mirror the present day event.  The Nigerian Civil War of the 1960s was a direct result of unjustified killings of Northern and Yoruba‘s Senior Military Officers in the political murder of some important Northern and Yoruba political leaders by some misguided but politically ambitious young military officers of southern origin.

The primitive reaction of soldiers of northern origins by wanton killings of Ibos in the Northern region fuelled the already worse situation.  Thus, people of Eastern origin who fled from the North to save their lives returned to their home stead and declared the Republic of Biafra as a defensive shield to protect the lives of their people. This is now in the history of our shameful past.

Under the policy of reconciliation and reconstruction of the Federal Government, the country has been able to return to an era of peaceful co-existence.  What looks like the gain of the civil war culminating in the philosophy of ‘ABURI DECLARATION‘ seems to have been forgotten in the opulence that followed the emergence of oil revenue.  The Aburi philosophy which could be based on confederation principle in a political set up appears now to have died peacefully with its author, late Odumegwu Ojukwu.

The earlier version of a confederation principle embedded in the North ‘Eight_Point‘ Programme of 1953 seems to have been interred with the bones of Sir Ahmadu Bello and Alhaji Tafawa Balewa in 1966. Today, if Nigerians are arguing whether Nigeria should break up or not, it looks as if the same Nigerians are poor students of history.  If we can excuse the present crop of Nigerian leaders who, perhaps, were born after the independence era, or were mere toddlers or bare footed school children, the elderly ones who witnessed the carnage of the past and the turbulent political era of the 1950s could not escape the condemnation of being passive onlookers.

The constant calls of Sovereign National Conference or other forms of dialogue to sort out the problems of Nigeria would appear as trying to minimize the damage.  The Federal Government of the 1960s could not be exonerated from the events that led up to break up of law and order at the time by being politically naive.

The prime Minister at the time, Alhaji Tafawa Balewa acted more like a politician than a statesman in the eruption of violence in the then Western Region.  It appeared that political considerations outweighed security implications in the solution to the problems of the then Western Nigeria.

The civil war did not solve the emerging problems of political instability brought about by the North’s political hegemony, Ibo economic domination and Yoruba intransigence, even after a Yoruba man General Olusegun Obasanjo has ruled the country more than two times.

The present problem of the country is based on political instability as a result of unresolved issues of party politics (ruling parties wanting to win at all costs) and the distribution of booties among their members only) and the frightening insecurity to life and property (under the constant bombs and harassment by Boko Haram), attention is now focused on creation of opportunities to seek and talk amongst ourselves on the road towards peaceful co existence.

Untiring efforts

While the untiring efforts of the Federal Government are recognized, it should be realized that the ruling party (PDP) by its overt action could not solve the problems alone.  It needs the efforts and contributions of other Nigerians for a better resolution of the raging problems of the country. As I have noted before, summing up the mood of the 1930s in Britain, a Cambridge Don, David Thomson said, ‘ within so brief a span, the people of Britain knew deep economic depression and widespread distress, prolonged crisis and intense anxieties, fumbling leadership and moments of national humiliation‘.  I believe, and justifiably so, that the situation described, fits the present day Nigerian situation.

When Britain, our past colonial master was faced with serious economic crisis in the 1930s, it resorted to a National Government to save the Pound.

Nigeria’s economy (mass unemployment) political and security crises (Boko Haram bombs, armed robberies and kidnappings) seem too complicated for the Federal Government to handle alone.  To some analysts, the jovial and amiable crowd of party faithful in the federal cabinet appears unsuitable by its composition to produce the desired measures or exact the necessary painful sacrifices (they earn fabulous salaries and allowances).

And as shown in the last increase of petrol prices, the general feeling was that the government had no regards for the genuine feelings of consumers.  It is even now doubtful if many Nigerians at this moment have any joyful sense that a new and a more progressive regime have been installed.

The credibility gap between the government and the governed is widening, regrettably.  President Jonathan should act as a statesman not as a politician (seeking for PDP victories all over) to restore complete confidence.  This is the time for a meaningful dialogue.