A modern Nigeria may well become a reincarnation of the US
=============================================================
June 21, 1998
By Ali Mazrui
Nairobi - Now that Sani Abacha has died, there are many areas of
speculation
about Nigeria's future. One of those areas concerns Nigeria's relations
with
the United States. After all, the United States' business with Nigeria
involves billions of dollars of both investment and trade in the petroleum
industry. Has Abacha's death eased those basic relationships? Yet, this
article is not based on those concerns. It is about how much Nigeria and
the
United States have in common. As a matter of fact, Nigeria may be a
potential future reincarnation of the United States. That question is much
bigger than the immediate
post-Abacha era of Nigeria.
Of all the countries of Africa, Nigeria is the closest approximation to the
United States. There is a love-hate relationship between the two countries
and yet no African country can more accurately be described as the United
States-in-the-making than Nigeria. There is, first, the two countries'
respective status in their regions. The United States is the colossus of
the
Western hemisphere. Nigeria is the colossus of West Africa. Nigeria's
population outnumbers the populations of the rest of the 15 original
members
of Ecowas (Economic Commission of West African States) combined.
The United States issued the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 which eventually
became a
legitimisation of Pax Americana in the Western hemisphere. This document
legitimised American intervention in Latin American countries in pursuit of
either democracy or a free market for American business. Nigeria, under
Abacha, evolved not the Monroe Doctrine but the Monrovia Doctrine
legitimising intervention in West Africa by troops led by Nigeria. Instead
of Pax
Americana we are witnessing the birth and development of Pax Nigeriana -
the
right of Nigeria to "pacify" any unruly neighbours. Abacha may have started
something of longterm duration.
It began in Monrovia, Liberia. It has since also been implemented in Sierra
Leone. Nigeria is almost the only African country which has consistently
tried to maintain a federal system of government similar to the US. It is
true that federalism and military rule make very strange bedfellows.
Nigerian
federalism has been distorted by militarism.
Nevertheless, while the very word "federalism" was almost anathema all over
the rest of Africa, in Nigeria, terms like "the federal character" of
Nigeria have added new form of legitimacy to localised autonomies.
Federalism in the US is alive and well. Federalism in Nigeria is alive, but
not well. But that is more than can be said for federalism in the rest of
Africa. Like the United States in the 1860s, Nigeria in the 1960s fought a
civil war to save the union and save the boundaries of the respective
federations.
On the union or federal side in both civil wars, the leadership was in the
hands of remarkably humane personalities - Abraham Lincoln in the American
civil war, Yakubu Gowon in the case of the Nigerian conflict. In the case
of
the assassination of the top leaders, the Nigeria case skipped one beat. It
was not Yakubu Gowon who was assassinated - as was the case with Abraham
Lincoln
- it was the leader who replaced Gowon, Murtala Muhammed. The question
arises whether after almost 40 years of independence, Nigerian political
culture is like that of the American frontier - rough and ready, with high
anarchic
tendencies. And the Nigerians themselves? Are they, by African standards,
rugged
individualists operating in pursuit of self-interest? Abacha tried to curb
that individualism but failed to destroy it.
There are no "Red Indians" in Nigeria - natives to be hunted down and
exterminated as they were in the USA. But are there "cowboys" in Nigeria by
another name, fighting economic duels with each other with relentless
aggrandisement? Is there a frontier culture in post- colonial Nigeria which
is eroding ancient African standards of restraint? Americans in the
frontier
evolved their own version of the English Language. Nigerians also evolved
their own version of English - not just pidgin, although that is rich
enough,
but also special phrases in standard English - such as the phrase "go slow"
to mean "traffic congestion" and the question mark "not so?" to serve all
kinds of purposes. Nigerians also are evolving their own pronunciations.
University professors pronounce the word "Senate" as "Sinate"; and the word
"peasant" as "pisant". And since they are speaking Nigerian standard
English, who is to say they are wrong? One of these days, Nigerians may
also
evolve their own way of spelling English words - just as Americans have
done.
Nigerians have bought economic liberalism and pro-market ideologies.
Socialist
reformers in Nigeria have had a hard time winning converts. Nigerians like
the idea of the economic individual as a money-maker. Nigeria has yet to
approximate for any length of time the other side of the American dream -
political pluralism and liberal democracy. Both civilian politicians and
soldiers in Nigeria have played havoc with liberal values and democratic
disciplines.
On corruption, does Nigeria reflect an earlier America or a continuing
American reality? Renowned American television journalist Mike Wallace was
once interviewing Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan on the CBS
television programme "60 Minutes". Wallace chided Farrakhan for visiting
Nigeria, already ranked as the most corrupt country in the world in some
Western publications. Farrakhan said to Wallace "I won't accept your
describing Nigeria as the most corrupt country."
Wallace challenged Farrakhan: "Tell me which country is more corrupt than
Nigeria." Farrakhan responded: "I live in one" - meaning the United States.
There is no doubt that earlier this century, the United States was
extremely
corrupt. But has it made progress? On nepotism it has. No US President is
ever again likely to nominate his brother Attorney- General - as John
Kennedy appointed Robert Kennedy. Both Nigeria and the United States are
(by
absolute standards) quite violent societies. The USA has excessive
individually-focused violence (ethnic-focused, religion-focused,
regionalist-focused.)
The elite of Nigeria has become disproportionately American-trained in
part.
It began with the first President, Nnamdi Azikiwe. The proportion of
Nigerians educated in the United States has been increasing all the time
since Azikiwe's time. Unfortunately, the brain- drain from Nigeria has also
disproportionately found its way to the United States. American
universities
are teaching the Hausa language, the Yoruba religion, and the Ibo political
experience. Lincoln University in Pennsylvania has inaugurated a series of
annual conferences named after Nnamdi Azikiwe. I attended the first
conference alongside former Nigerian President Shehu Shagari, former
President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, Professor Adebayo Adedeji, and
Professor J. Isawa Elaigwu. Nigerian universities are showing signs of
partial Americanisation. We now have the concept of semester, and the
concept of semester-long courses. This used to be totally alien for the
original British tradition of our colonial masters.
In Nigeria we now have the American title Associate Professor, which was
totally alien to the original British paradigm of Lecturer, Senior
Lecturer,
Reader and Professor. Nigerian universities participate in such American
academic schemes as the 50 years of Fulbright scheme. Nigerians also deal
with American foundations like Ford, Rockefeller, MacArther, Carnegie and
US
Federal Government schemes. Nigerians are, like Americans, very innovative.
But just as theirs is the concept of "the ugly American" abroad, meaning
the
American who throws his weight around, I am afraid there is also the
concept
of "the ugly Nigerian", meaning the Nigerian who throws his weight around
and seeks to take advantage. The concept of "the ugly Nigerian" is familiar
from Cape Town to Cairo, from Chicago to Kuala Lumpur. The concept of "the
ugly American" is known from Lagos to London; from Bombay to Berlin. We
need
to do something about both cases, since most Nigerians and most Americans
are decent people. They do not deserve the bad name.
The United States today may be a larger, richer, more modern version
Nigeria, but if Nigeria survives in its modern boundaries, it may indeed
become a reincarnate of the American experience in West Africa - for better
or for worse.
If Nigerians do not like the prospect of becoming the United States of West
Africa, the time to act is now. How can we abort the reincarnation of the
United States in the new Nigerian of tomorrow? That is a question of far
wider significance than the immediate aftermath of the death of a military
ruler.
|