The question to ask is: Is exit from the union the only solution to the current situation?
In the case of Nigeria, diversity has failed to bring about the emergence of a modern nation-state, rather it is an albatross. Nigeria is a good case study of the impossibility of the achievement of a modern and functional state by political practice. In other words, a functional nation-state cannot emerge by democratic processes…
Jean Jacques Rousseau’s “Common agreement” characterizes the fundaments of a practical living together of people groups of assorted interests in these words: “every one of us places his individual and all his force in like manner under the incomparable course of the overall will, and, in our corporate limit, we get every part as an indissoluble piece of the entirety.” This entire, this group will be called the body politic or the state, which has the obligation of guaranteeing the individual and aggregate security of the constituent individuals. This, as indicated by Rousseau is the premise of the production of a country state. Nigeria was not established on these standards, and the leaders of Nigeria have never tended to or looked to achieve the development of a genuine Nigerian state when freedom through open discourse and a straightforward commitment.
Notwithstanding the way that distinctive Nigerian ethnicities were not counseled to guarantee or reject the 1914 mixture, it has consistently been expected that the concurrence of these various identities throughout the long term will twist in reverse to achieve the introduction of a genuine country state. This has not been the situation.
Through beast power, distinctive ethnic identities bound to similar topographical directions in what is called Nigeria, have throughout the years been constrained to energetically or reluctantly endow their aggregate security to the preeminent course called the Republic of Nigeria, with next to zero ensures that the incomparable bearing would guarantee the security of segment individuals. Be that as it may, this aggregate security has since freedom been deceptive. The ethnic identities that make up the nation have never truly had a sense of safety. Uncertainty has been the sign of the Nigerian state since the prompt post-freedom time frame, from the political agitation of Western Nigeria, and the narrow-mindedness that finished in the common conflict through the thing we are presently seeing in all pieces of the country.
The vision of the leaders of the Nigerian state is simply existential. This existential mentality excludes the interests, well-being, and security of the peoples of the union. It is founded on vainglorious individual self-preservation and an obsessive craving to access the treasury of the commonwealth.
On the off chance that popular government was intended to incite a “common agreement” through the political race measure by various identities deciding on standards, social union, and advancement, at that point, it has completely bombed in this country. The Nigerian “popular government” is established on nationality, with its inborn qualities being separate instead of joining together. The fixation of the political class to separation and rule on an ethnic and strict premise has delivered the conceivable accomplishment of a cutting-edge country state excess.
On account of Nigeria, variety has neglected to achieve the rise of an advanced country state, rather it is a gooney bird. Nigeria is a decent contextual analysis of the inconceivability of the accomplishment of an advanced and useful state by political practice. As such, a utilitarian country state can’t arise by equitable cycles, except if by an underlying agreement wherein the people groups of assorted perspectives and identities consent to the standards of existential association where the interests of every part, independent of its size, is considered. During the time spent arriving at this underlying agreement, the vision for the association is characterized and this common vision is the paste that will hold the country state together. The vision of the heads of the Nigerian state is essentially existential. This existential mindset avoids the interests, prosperity, and security of the people groups of the association. It is established on vainglorious individual self-protection and an over-the-top longing to get to the district’s depository.
The shortfall of a public vision lies at the lower part of helpless administration, slight for law and order, robbery of the federation, nepotism, debasement, and numerous different ills that portray the Nigerian culture. Aggregate security, which is the reason for the “association” of assorted ethnic identities, has been disintegrated to approach nothing.
In such a dysfunctional situation, it is natural that members of the union would begin to question their continued membership of such a union that has not added any value to their lives and is incapable of performing the most basic duty of securing their lives and properties.
In a particularly useless circumstance, it is regular that individuals from the association start to scrutinize their proceeded with the participation of such an association that has not enhanced their lives and is unequipped for playing out the most essential obligation of getting their lives properties. It is a characteristic automatic response that, as it were, is like how the Nigerian association has consistently worked and which presumably drove us into the circumstance in which we get ourselves now.
The inquiry to pose is: Is exit from the association the lone answer for the current circumstance? Are there whatever other choices that might be satisfactory to everybody?
Regardless of the multitude of difficulties, Nigerians are known to be extremely savvy individuals. We need to connect with this aggregate insight to emerge from this existential problem in which our lawmakers have put us.
Aare Prince Osibote is the President of Oodua People’s Congress (OPC).