Unveiling the Economic, Political and Cultural chaos of Nigeria

Since the amalgamation of Nigeria by the British in 1914, the country has been plagued by bouts of war, economic crisis, ethnic conflict and political instability. Scholars have attempted to trace the genesis of this conflict and have blamed the British for several of its policies. The first momentous act of the British in the political evolution of Nigeria as a modern state was the amalgamation of the administration of the two sections of Nigeria on 1 January 1914 by Lord Lugard. For ease of governing and in the economic interest of the British […] this, in effect produced two Nigeria’s, each with

different social, political, economic, and cultural backgrounds and development within the country.1 The union of diverse cultural groups that had, until the occupation of the British, little or no political interest in one another posed a genuine threat to the unification and progress of the newly formed state. Some pessimistic assertions implied that the country was cursed from the onset. One thing only I wish for you, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa said to Harold Wilson as they drove to Lagos airport a few days after the formers death that you never have to become Prime Minister of a federal and divided country. 2 In June 1967, fed up by the political and economic instability of the country, the Easterners attempted to secede from Nigeria and establish the sovereign state of Biafra. This essay will therefore discuss the Nigerian Biafran civil war in light of two theoretical perspectives; Marxism and post colonialism. By comparing these two perspectives, this essay will delineate the role of colonialism as a means of economic oppression and violence.

Pre colonisation

In Friedrich Engels Anti-Duhring, he postulates, force is no mere act of will, but requires the existence of very real preliminary conditions before it can come into operation, namely, instruments, the more perfect of which gets the better of the less perfect.3 In order words, for an act of force to occur, there needs to be economic advancement by the colonist. The European imperialist push into Africa was motivated by three main factors, economic, political, and social. It developed in the nineteenth century following the collapse of the profitability of the slave trade, its abolition and suppression, as well as the expansion of the European capitalist Industrial Revolution.4 In order to make the system of indirect rule economically viable, Great Britain unified diverse cultural and ethnic groups in western Africa and named it Nigeria. The nation was divided into two identities, the North and South. Frederick Lugard returned to Nigeria as Governor of the two newly created regions. Lugard had found in the northern territories a very suitable foundation for the system of indirect rule. This region was the home of the Fulbe and Haussa who had established a series of Muslim emirates which assured political stability.5 Although it was easy to spread an additional layer of control over the Northerners, this system of indirect rule proved difficult to introduce to the two dominant peoples of the South, who further divided by the British were the Yoruba in the west and the Ibo in the east. As a result of never being subjected to Muslim rule, these ethnic groups had an elaborate structure of leadership and conflict resolution that were not as autocratic as the Northerners. In fact, the East had a system of government that resembles the contemporary democratic system of government of the Western world.

In the struggle over national wealth, control depended on who dominated the government at the centre. The constitution of 1951 clearly showed the profile of a federal state with three autonomous regions and a marked preponderance of the north who the British were keen to back.6 A final election held in 1959 showed that the NPC (Northern People’s Congress) led by Abubakar Tafewa Balewa had the largest number of seats. Since regional identities were strong and national identity was weak, the greatest fear of most Nigerians in the 1960s was that the region would be “dominated” by another.7 This constant fear led to coup after another, rigged elections and a dysfunctional government. The role of post colonialism in the lead up to the Nigerian Biafran civil war is evidently a disadvantageous power structure built by Great Britain in order to serve it purpose. By making the Northern region larger than other regions, the British created a nation in order to serve its economic and political purposes.

Post Colonisation

In 1960 Nigeria, the North, rather fearful of losing its political power agreed to gain independence from Britain. On the other hand, the South anxious for independence from the British agreed to remain part of the country. For indigenous leaders, independence was an opportunity to demonstrate not only their qualities as human beings, but also their competence as state managers.8 Unfortunately, 6 years after Nigeria gained independence; Eastern Nigeria broke away and formed the sovereign state of Biafra. One of the four reasons cited by the Biafrans as the reason for their succession was that they were being treated as second class citizens in their supposed country. Conversely, before the war, several military officers were overthrown by a coup. This started with the killing of several Northern military

leaders led by the Easterners. The Northerners retaliated by their own coup killing several Eastern military personnel. In furtherance, many Easterners who lived in the North for business purposes were killed and the majority from fear left their properties and returned to their homeland. These killings as well as political instability and economic instability led to the Nigerian Biafran civil war. Ethnic differences and poverty have been major factors in many civil wars. Political stability is largely dependent on economic stability so the poorer the country and the more deprived large sections of is population, the greater the likelihood of large scale unrest.9 Evidently, the theories of post colonialism and Marxism like war and force are much the same. In order to rule Nigeria and retain her resources, it was imperative for the British to change the political and social structure to serve its purposes; once they did this, they merged different tribes together to make the system of indirect rule cost effective. As soon as they discovered that not all regions accepted indirect rule, the British gave power to the Northerners who with majority seats in parliament ruled the nation. The Easterners, fearing their rights were not met wanted more representation. The first coup in 1966 by Major Kaduna Nzeogwu brought a beacon of hope to the Ibo’s. Unfortunately, this hope did not last as this event triggered countless revenge attacks on the Ibo.

Essay

One important factor that contributed to the Nigerian Biafran war was the introduction a taxation system that overtaxed its citizens. Colonial rule by the United Kingdom brought many changes to the citizens of Nigeria. Charged with the tasks of governing the territories of Nigeria, expanding the commerce of the country, and promoting “progress” and “civilization” for peoples they considered inferior and backward, British colonial officers went about restructuring Nigerian societies in the years after their colonial conquest.10 Their purpose was to destroy cultures and traditions they deemed backward and harmful and introduce a much stronger Nigerian economy. The colonial economic model focused on expanding Nigeria’s import-export markets through increased cash crop and mineral production. […] The British also instituted a cash economy based on the UK currency and forced Nigerians into wage labor.11 Changes to the economic structure of Nigeria led to significant social changes. This meant that more people, especially from the south travelled to other parts of Nigeria in search for better opportunities. However, feelings of resentment and frustration quickly arose after the British introduced a taxation system alien to the natives. For Northerners, paying tax to their rulers was widely practised, in the South; however, it was a completely new system. The colonial economy forced people to work for cash, commandeered labor on a regular basis […] and were refashioned to meet the needs of increased cash cropping, decreased food production, and expansion in the import-export market. Nothing aroused more ire among the common people of southern Nigeria, however, than the new forms of taxation that accompanied colonial rule.12 Anti-tax protests became the norm for ordinary working class Nigerians opposed to the unjust colonial taxation policies and treatment. Sometimes, tax collectors resulted to force, going so far as to strip uncooperative women naked in public spaces to see if they were old enough to pay taxes.13 A very popular mass demonstration aptly called the “Women’s War” among the Igbo’s, ensued; women looted factories and destroyed Native Court buildings and property, as well as the homes of those associated with the Native Courts.14

Postcolonial theory recognises that colonial discourse typically rationalises itself through rigid oppositions such as maturity/immaturity, civilisation/barbarism, developed/developing, progressive/primitive.15 The people aware of the suppression of their basic human rights and unfair treatment lobbied for a free humane society. In Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth he writes, when you examine at close quarters the colonial context, it is evident that what parcels out the world is to begin with the fact of belonging to or not belonging to a given race, a given species. In the colonies the economic substructure is also a superstructure. The cause of the consequences; you are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich. That is why Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched every time we have to do with the colonial problem.16 Fanon’s request for a further extension of the meaning of Marxism in light of colonialism is correct; however, if he feels the need to justify the psychological and cultural impact of colonialism, post colonialism covers this in details. Hence, one dissimilarity between post colonialism and Marxism is that although post colonialism concerns itself with the direct impact of the erosion of ones culture in favour of a foreign one, Marxism concerns itself with economic and political differences.

Summary

I conclude and will attempt to summarise points I have made previously and comparisons between the theoretical concept Marxism and post colonialism. In order to understand the lead up to the war I have explained the condition of the Baifrans during the British occupation from colonisation, independence and post colonization. As may be evident from my contemporary event of conflict and violence, both theoretical ideologies are negative. Marxism exposes how Britain in the race for power, ideology, classism and ideology have supressed races they have deemed inferior to them. Hence, because these natives are seen as inferior, they are suppressed because of their race, colour and religion. The notion of the African as minor…took very strong hold. Spaniards and Boers had questioned whether natives had souls; modern Europeans cared less about that but doubted whether they had minds, or minds capable of adult growth. A theory came to be fashionable that mental growth in the African ceased early, that childhood was never left behind.17 If African’s, more specifically Nigerians were dehumanised, exploiting them would be a much easier task. I may not have mentioned in this essay that oil was found in the Niger delta region of the East. This is important because the wealth created by such discovery had the ability to make Nigeria one of the wealthiest nations of the world. Unfortunately, rather than contributing to the overall development of Nigeria and to improved living conditions for Nigerian citizens, however, this wealth was distributed unequally, benefitting primarily those people who have access to state power.18 Biafrans believed they were responsible for the economic stability of the nation and demanded for more political influence which the north was greatly against. The North did everything in their power to make sure Biafrans lose the war and even today there are Eastern Nigerians who are still loyal to the republic of Biafra because the conditions of the Ibo has not changed. During the war the North blocked any form of food to come through to the East either by air, land or even sea. This led to what the western world called “starving children”, and I was one of those. They were desperate.19

Reference

Armitage, Ronda. Violence in society: the impact on our lives. Great Britain: Hodder Wayland, 2003.

Atofarati, A.Abubakar. The Nigerian Civil War: Causes Strategies and Lessons Learnt. Military, 1992. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/AAA. htm (accessed October 25, 2012).

Engels, Friedrich. “Theory of Force.” In 100969 Theories of Conflict and Violence, edited by M Zolkos,7-22. Bankstown: University of Western Sydney, 2007.

Falola, Toyin, Matthew M. Heaton. A History of Nigeria. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Fanon, Frantz. 1963. “Concerning Violence.” In The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, 1961.

Gandhi, Leela. Postcolonial: A critical introduction. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1998.
Kirk-Greene, A., H., M. “The Genesis of the Nigerian Civil War and the Theory of Fear.” The Scandinavian Issue of Africa Studies, no. 20 (1975): 11-12.

Poku, Nana, and Anna Mdee. Politics in Africa: A new introduction. London, UK: Zed Book Ltd., 2011.

Rothermund , Dietmar. The Routledge Companion to Decolonization. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2006.