Prof. Ango Abdullahi presented this paper at the 50th anniversary of Sam Nda-Isaiah, publisher of Leadership newspaper. The first part was published last Friday

TRIBALISM/ethnicity/sectionalism: It is my contention that tribalism, ethnicity and sectionalism played the most part of Nigeria’s political instability. Most of the military interventions experienced in Nigeria were inspired by tribal and ethnic tendencies inherent in the country’s social diversity.

The civil war, the creation of states and local governments over the years have simply been a response to continuing pressures arising from tribal and ethic loyalties. The constitution of the country was changed or amended several times since independence, and this was largely   to address political instability arising from tribalism, ethnicity and sectional sentiments.

Neo-colonialism after 1960

Nigeria’s colonial history and heritage unfortunately provide the conducive atmosphere for neo-colonial interests to manifest and thrive. These interest have been deeply entrenched and have so far continued to undermine Nigeria’s self esteem and self reliance. They have aggravated the country’s over-dependence on foreign ideas and foreign technology. The overall consequence of this is that the country has virtually lost control of the commanding heights of its economy. That is why the country is paradoxically both rich and poor at the same time!!

Bad governance/corruption et al: Instability in the Nigerian polity could be both the cause and the effect of bad governance with all the other attendant ills such as corruption, inept leadership, poverty and general insecurity. The demise of the first republic marks the beginning of political instability in Nigeria and the inevitable consequences which arose from un-elected leaders-both military and civilians. The only two occasions when Nigeria was about to have good leaders with potential capacity to provide good governance, which might have led the country to regional and global greatness were quickly subverted by foreign neo-colonial vested interests using their local agents. Good governance should have meant that Nigeria and Nigerians would take their destiny in their own hands, while the consequences of bad governance as we have seen since 1960 mean the surrender of Nigeria’s resources to foreign control leaving, as it were, the Nigerian citizenry to wallow in abject poverty. Good governance in Nigeria should have been freedom from control and manipulation of neo-imperial agencies like the World Bank, IMF etc.

Prognosis about the future: While it is easy to look back into the history of Nigeria and its development, it is far more difficult to look into its future in the face of all the odds that have so far continued to challenge it during the last 98 years. Let us start from the optimistic view point that nations are not necessarily built overnight. Nations usually evolve from the hard work, sacrifices and resilience of their own peoples. We may also further argue there is nothing like a perfect nationhood where every citizen is happy or is in agreement with every happening in his country. So, from this optimism, we may further argue that we are unfairly being impatient with the failings of Nigeria and Nigerians only after a relatively short period of 98 years of becoming a country. After all the countries we are trying to copy to-day have taken much longer than 100 years to arrive at where they are to-day.

On the less optimistic point of view it may be argued that Nigerians are not deliberately working hard and diligently enough to make the Nigeria project work. On the contrary while there may be those who would genuinely believe in the Nigeria project, there are those who believe that the Nigeria project could not possibly succeed and therefore the sooner it is terminated the better for its component parts. To support their position they point as examples many countries with similar features and history as Nigeria who tried but at the end failed to build and keep their countries.

‘Earshot’- Media in the Nigerian Project

Since we are today celebrating one of the country’s best journalists, we should also use the opportunity to appraise the role of the media in the Nigeria project so far. At 73 I am in a position to know what roles the media have so far played especially in the political and social life of Nigeria. In the first republic you could easily predict the home base of any newspaper by simply glancing at their main headlines. The papers were replicas of the major political parties in the three regions of the Federation, the NCNC in the Eastern Region, the AG in the Western Region, and the NPC in the Northern Region.

Whatever issues were at stake, the newspapers in these regions, regardless of their ownership, reported only the partisan and parochial positions of their leadership and their respective areas. The question now is whether there is any significant change in Nigerian journalism today. The honest answer in my opinion is “NO”. In fact it could be argued that there is more parochial and divisive journalism today than in the first republic. And there is no indication yet that the media will be balanced and neutral in their reporting of events in Nigeria. It is this sensational divisive reporting on Nigerian affairs by the Nigerian media which gives foreign interests the materials with which to project the “likely disintegration” of the country in not too distant future. However in every general rule there is always an exception no matter how small the margin of error.

Not many will disagree if I pronounce Leadership Newspaper as one of the few exceptions of the crass journalism exhibited by the generality of the Nigerian media houses today. The credit may be, to so many behind the scene but I want to give a large chunk of it to Mr Sam Nda Isiah personally. We pray that God will continue to strengthen his resolve in the service of “GOD AND COUNTRY”.