I have been watching with keen interest the ongoing democratic debate over the Scottish referendum on independence which would be held on the 18th of September 2014. A few days ago the British Prime Minister David Cameron made a lengthy argument why Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom.  He spoke about the mutual benefits of staying together as a bigger unit, the integrated trade links, the many contributions of Scotland to the union, the shared history and the potential losses that will accrue to both partners in the event that the Scottish voted to leave the United Kingdom. 

The Scottish First Minister and leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) Alex Salmond on his own part argued about the benefits of Scottish independence; the social, economic, political and psychological benefits of being able to assert their own identity run their own affairs and take their own decisions on foreign policy. All in all, the debate continues and promises to get more interesting as the date of the referendum approaches. What is most interesting is the democratic approach to the issue of Scottish independence in recognition of their inalienable right to self determination and the fundamental   necessity to build the United Kingdom through consent rather than through force.  Britain is a world power with every military arsenal at its disposal to prevent Scottish independence by force, but they choose the democratic route because that is the right and civilised thing to do.

It is illogical and must serve as one of the greatest acts of human stupidity and indeed barbarity to   indulge in building or keeping a nation by force. History has shown that such nations are most often torn by perpetual strife and last only for a while before they inevitably implode. In the later part of the 20th century, the implosion of the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia amongst others suffices as a testament to the assured end of states built by force rather than by consent and the perpetual internal strife in most African countries is yet another testimony to the tragedy of forced states. As the opinion polls suggest, it is most likely the majority of the Scottish would vote to remain in the United Kingdom just like the Quebecois voted to remain in Canada in 1994. The reasons are obvious,  there is shared prosperity,  there are mutual benefits for both parties, there is justice and equality, there is mutual respect, there is democracy and the rule of law, there is no policy of marginalisation/exclusion, ‘there are  no born to rule oppressors’  who believe the country belongs to them, there are no segregated neighbourhoods, there are no ethnic and religious killings, there  are no Sharia states and ultimately by the mere act of being allowed to vote  and make their own choice, there is unlimited respect  for the natural  freedoms that each unit should enjoy.

For these reasons, Scotland would in all likelihood vote to remain in the United Kingdom and it would be a wise decision for no sane group will vote to leave a union that accords them their freedoms, autonomy together with prosperity and other shared/mutual benefits. In the conduct of the Scottish referendum, there are many important lessons for Nigeria. Already the proposed national conference is dogged by a clause that stipulates that ‘Nigerian unity is non-negotiable and thus would not be discussed in the national conference’.  Nigeria’s primitive leadership are still held hostage by the crude and outdated idea that Nigeria can be kept by force without the express democratic consent of those who make-up the nation. It is like telling the parties to a bad marriage that they have no right of divorce no matter the abuse. These leaders are yet to realise that sustainable nations can only be built by democratic consent, justice, equality and mutual benefits rather than by force. They go about insisting that Nigeria is non-negotiable, yet everyday their actions, injustice, bigotry, sponsored ethno-religious conflicts, oppression, marginalisation, born to rule mindset, lack of respect, bad governance, corruption and other shenanigans make Nigerians more hostile to the idea of Nigeria and drive the nail  deeper into the nations coffin.

One would have expected that leaders particularly Northern leaders who insist on Nigerian unity would invest so much in nation building, prosperity, justice/ equality amongst others such as to convince the Nigerian masses of the desirability of Nigeria. Yet the reverse is the case as these leaders have worked day and night in erecting the injustices that have increasingly doomed the nation. Little wonder the hypocrites won’t allow any discussion of Nigeria’s unity because they fear and rightly so that any opportunity given for self determination would result in the breakup of the country by many units seeking to escape the injustice and oppression Nigeria represents. Ordinarily the ideal nation is one where there is reasonable ethnic and cultural homogeneity, this is why most European nations derive their names from their ethnic groups; thus the French call their nation France, the Germans call their nation Germany, the Irish call their nation Ireland, the Scottish call their region Scotland, the Danish call their nation Denmark, the Swedish call their nation Sweden etc. These nations were founded on the basis of the cultural links that bound them together.

In the case of Nigeria, it was founded through the exploits of a selfish third party, a British trader Taubman Goldie who was seeking resources within the geographical area. In the bid to consolidate his investments, the British government forced together hitherto independent cultural units and created the amalgam of disparate, ethnic, cultural and religious groups now infamously known as Nigeria.  The deed was done not for the benefit of the subjects thrown into a strange mix of alien cultures and religions with the certainty of divisions and strife but for the express interests of the British trader and the colonial overlords. Even the name Nigeria is so fake to the extent that it represents no local culture and was given by the wife of lord Lugard.  The nation’s history tells its own story and the earlier we confront the reality of the falsehood of the Nigerian contraption the better. If well managed, diversity is not of its own a bad thing, for each unit can contribute its strengths and gifts to make a stronger whole, but such arrangement must be negotiated and must be won through the democratic consent of all those who make-up the nation. The idea of Nigeria remains a myth and will remain so until the people themselves exercise their God given freedom to choose to be or not to be Nigerians.

 
Like Chief Obafemi Awolowo once said ‘Nigeria remains a mere geographical expression’ and like Yakubu Gowon also said ‘there is as of yet no basis for Nigerian unity’. Long years of injustice, oppression, tribalism and the born to rule mindset by successive leaders have brought the nation to the brink. The solution is not to further the problem by continuing with ‘internal colonialism’ through the insistence that Nigerian unity is non-negotiable. The solution is to allow Nigerians from every unit debate the question of Nigeria, negotiate and decide for themselves if they want to continue with Nigeria and under what conditions they wish to do so. The most important lesson from the Scottish referendum is that force or the denial of essential freedoms is never an option for the purposes of keeping a nation together. If Nigeria’s selfish and hypocritical leaders chose to deny the ethnic nations their inalienable freedom of choice by insisting that Nigerian unity is non-negotiable, they would only have succeeded in continuing with ‘internal colonialism’ and only temporarily postponing a problem they will still have to confront sometime in the future but maybe this time with much bloodshed.  Running away from a problem doesn’t solve it, it worsens it. A world should be enough for the wise.

Lawrence Chinedu Nwobu
Email: lawrencenwobu@gmail.com