Babangida vs. Nnamdi Kanu: Nigeria currently hangs between Kanu's Independence referendum and Babangida's devolution of power

Babangida vs. Nnamdi Kanu: Nigeria currently hangs between Kanu's Independence referendum and Babangida's devolution of power

In making the case for dialogue over war, the storied British Prime Minister Winston Churchill reputedly said that, “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” In its 57 years or so as an independent nation, Nigeria has mostly heeded that piece of wisdom. The only exception was during the political crisis of 1965 which led to a civil war. Even in that case, it is little known that the crisis was nearing a resolution when a military coup upturned everything.

Just before the coup, the New Nigerian — the mouthpiece of the Northern People’s Congress —carried an editorial in which it called for an annulment of the election that set off the bloodshed in Western Nigeria. The election was ostensibly won by the NPC’s Western Region’s ally and the paper had long vilified the rivals. No election is worth so much bloodshed, the paper editorialised. In all likelihood, the about turn was intended to prepare the ground for a parallel announcement by NPC leaders.

I recall this bit of history after reading the text of former president General Ibrahim B. Babangida’s powerful speech calling for the devolution of power as the way out of Nigeria’s heightening political tension. I tend to think that the politically astute Babangida is not speaking for himself alone. Even if he were, his is still a powerful voice.

“It is our collective responsibilities to engender a reform that would be realistic and in sync with modern best practices,”Babangida said in the pivotal passage in the speech. “For example, restructuring has become a national appeal as we speak, whose time has come. I will strongly advocate for devolution of powers to the extent that more responsibilities be given to the states while the Federal Government is vested with the responsibility to oversee our foreign policy, defence, and economy.”

That the Federal Government will have to oversee foreign policy and defence in any restructuring is generally a given. The matter of oversight of the economy is one that would require much parsing. After all, resource control is the primary driving force behind the push for a return to true federalism.

In any case, while Babangida’s call for devolution of power necessarily garners the most attention, his supporting arguments for a united Nigeria are quite noteworthy. To begin with, he makes the case that despite claims to the contrary, Nigeria has made considerable strides both in economic advancement and the forging of a national identity since its founding in 1914.

“We cannot deny or repudiate our progress at nation-building in spite of the limitations and challenges that we have continued to experience,” Babangida said.

As a people, we need a proper study and understanding of our history in order to correct the warped perceptions of our past so as to minimise the dangers of badly skewed stories of our democratic experience in governance; and to regenerate mutual confidence and uphold the tenets of living together as one country.”

Here, Babangida alludes to the fact that perception matters regardless of the reality, and the tenor of political rhetoric dictates perception.

“That we have not fully realised our potential as a great nation is not enough reason for us to want to demolish the foundation of our nationhood or rubbish the labours of our heroes past,”Babangida said.

In calling for restructuring, Babangida has aligned himself with the demands of the Eastern Consultative Assembly after some Northern youths issued an ultimatum to the Igbo to leave the North. Still, it is improbable that those who are vested in the Biafra advocacy will rethink their stance. Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, a former president of the Nigerian Bar Association and a major supporter of the Biafra advocacy, has said as much.

“I see every politician now says restructure but I disagree,” Agbakoba is quoting by The PUNCH last Wednesday as saying. “I also think the acting President (Yemi Osinbajo) was wrong to say that Nigeria is insoluble. There is nothing sacrosanct about Nigeria. It can blow up anytime.”

Nnamdi Kanu, who has emerged as the most powerful Igbo leader, is also unlikely to go with any arrangement that would preclude his ascendance as the president of another Biafra. As the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, he has presented himself as the person who will lead the Igbo to the proverbial Promised Land.

As the proprietor of Radio Biafra in Britain, Kanu was known for his virulent attacks not just on the Nigerian government but on Nigeria itself. His arrest and prolonged incarceration by President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration only raised his stature in the eye of many Igbo. Today, some Igbo reportedly prostrate before him and he assumes the air of a potentate, issuing directives accordingly.

What is remarkable about Kanu’s rise is what it says about the ease with which messianic leaders emerge among people who feel disenfranchised. It is so easy to rouse them to a cause with vague promises of a better life. Messianic leaders inspire rabid following without being required to provide a systematic and logical evidence of their stated or implied promises. And so it is quite often that their promises turn out to be phantoms once they realise their political ambitions.

When Babangida spoke of the need to unify Nigeria, he spoke from hard-earned experience, both military and political. It is touching to read his personalisation of the Nigerian course, the emotional and physiological scars he still bears from the war.

Kanu, a post-civil war young man, might not be able to relate to Babangida’s repeated reference to that dimension of his stance. But there are quite a few Igbo leaders who can. The Igbo-dominated All Progressives Grand Alliance has taken issue with Kanu’s manoeuvrings to disrupt the political process through directives for election boycotts, calling him a “maximum emperor.”

In response, IPOB has issued a scathing attack on APGA. “APGA is motivated by personal greed and self-aggrandisement,” IPOB charges in a press release. That’s quite ironic, because there are quite a few people who see Kanu and other leading Biafra advocates as doing exactly that.

Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, a former Minister of Information and Culture, has characterised Kanu as a man of peace. “The truth is that Nigeria should count herself lucky that he (Kanu) is a pacifist who has not called for and neither is he interested in an armed struggle, ”Fani-Kayode is quoted by The PUNCH on Wednesday as saying.

If that’s the case, it is indeed a good thing for Nigeria. But pacifists don’t usually engage in incendiary rhetoric. And incendiary rhetoric and implacable advocacy can engender crisis that degenerate beyond anyone’s control.

So Nigerians — especially the Igbo and other advocates of partitioning — have a choice between Babangida’s plea and Kanu’s advocacy. The fate of the country depends on it.

-Minabere Ibelema