ANIOMA ONLINE SERIES IV
Writing the political history of Nigeria is made interesting and easy when that history is divided into three areas - the pre-colonial history, the colonial history and the post-colonial history. The same approach will be utilized in this series of Anioma in Nigerian political history.
But first, let us discuss a preliminary issue. Senator Ned Nwoko recently, from the blues, re-ignited the issue of the need for the creation of Anioma State. As if woken up from Dream-land, several groups from Anioma went spending valuable time and money debating whether the state of Anioma should be grouped along with the south-east, or should be grouped with the south-south. These are two regions of Nigeria.
In essence, these groups of people were thinking geo-politics. They were thinking ahead about the position Anioma will occupy geo-politically in Nigeria when it was created.
Geo-politics is power-configuration it deals with the acquisition and utilisation of power within a geographical space. Thus, every group, every nation wishes to possess sense within the space it finds itself, such that it can manipulate others in the eternal quest for power, influence, income, safety, etc., in the Lasswellian model definition of politics as who gets what, when, and how?
This is why nations engage in geo-political struggle, a "childish" struggle that has no end. Why childish?
Childish, because as just stated, the struggle has no end. The struggle is irrelevant because political friendship and political enimity is never static, it is ever-changing, ever-revolving. Childish because power itself is always a transient phenomenon, and its essence can only be temporarily applicable.
This is why I insist that the issue of where Anioma should be grouped is irrelevant - at least for now. Geopolitical thoughts only become relevant if there is a base from which such thinking emanates.
Stated otherwise, you have to come to dinner only if you possess an invitation to that dinner. You have to engage in geo-political disputations only when you have gotten the Anioma State created. Not before then, before then you are only counting your eggs before they are hatched. The hard work has to be continued first. The feeding of the layers must continue, even with the high cost of feed nowadays, before we expect the eggs, then hatching of the eggs! For after all, is it not an irony of history, that the first group of people that started the agitation for state creation in Nigeria - the Aniomas - have no state after their name, while thirty six states have been created in this country.
This shows how little clout Anioma has in Nigerian politics and shows the need for the struggle for the Anioma identity to be intensified. If Aniomas are asked today what region of Nigeria they come from, the answer should not be south-south, or south-east. The answer should be that " I am from Anioma, the region is irrelevant to me. The Anioma identity is the first port of call. Geopolitics must wait.
As we mentioned earlier, an analysis of Nigerian political history had better be done through the pre-colonial, Colonial, and post colonial, framework.
THE PRE - COLONIAL DAYS
In their book, African political systems Fortes and Pritchard focused on the motion that pre-colonial Africa featured two distinct political systems. They talk of the “state” and the "stateless" systems. According to them, the "State" system presented a picture of a powerful, centralized administration in which there existed a king, with wide powers- legislative, executive and judicial.
The king's power were such that he could not be challenged as his word was law, he made laws, his subaltern execute the laws and all adjudication ended at his court. The entire society was organized in a way to ensure that the king was next to Divinity. It reminds one of the claim by Louis XIV of France that " L’etat c'est moi" the claim by English kings of the divine right of kings right up to James II, whose rights were pegged and given to parliament in the glorious revolution of 1688.
The king had a large army under his command and personally led his troops to war, and was ready to die in such a war, as did hunch- backed Richard III.
Continuing, the authors talk of the existence of a vast bureaucracy to satisfy the needs of an empire, which, as they stated, was peopled by a large population in a vast land.
The authors matched their claim with examples -the Zulu empire with the kwazulu, the Benin empire with the oba, the Ashanti kingdom with the Asantehene, the Bornu empire with her shehu, the oyo empire with her Alafin, the Emirates of northern Nigeria with their emirs, the powerful Opobo King, called Jaja of Opodo, the almighty kings of the kingdoms of Uganda, of whom the baganda was the best known and not to be forgotten were the Pharoahs of Egypt, who even pre-dated the above mentioned kingdoms.
The King was an absolute ruler, a dictator whose word was law.
The “stateless” society, according to Fortes and Pritchard was the direct opposite of this picture.
In this society, there was the absence of a Supreme authority. There was no king, no Supreme authority controlling the affairs of the state, no visible “ supreme court.” No visible legislature, no visible functional judiciary. And yet everything worked like a clock. To make matters more inexplicable, there was no large army, the communities were organized in small units, each unit apparently independent of the other, detached from the others by forests and operating like what one would describe today as a "confederation" of autonomous states.
There was no centralized authority, no large army, no large bureaucracy, no prison yards, no big legislatures, executives or expansive legal structure.
The authors describe the "stateless" society of their description as “acephalms”, i.e "headless" because there was no celebrated "head" like the king, the oba, the asantehene or whichever title would come to one's fancy .
For all intents and purposes, the Fortes and Pritchard analysis can only be described as partially correct, if one wishes to be charitable, and as a fallacy, if one wishes to be brutally frank. In one of my works, I described the analysis as "one of those lines of thinking that emanates from the minds of those writers who gave the Africans no credit in developing a system of their own. They only see African political systems in the light of their own political systems.
In their version of "political development" for example, they see the input into the legislature as only final when laws are signed by president, even if the hoipolloi does not approve of such a law. They see a " developed" society only in a society with a powerful president, or a dictator no matter how either got to the position.
The "State" and "stateless" analysis never applied to Nigerian politics, let alone to Anioma politics, in the pre-colonial era. The oba of Benin, though powerful, was not almighty. He was treated like a god, but he was answerable to the very inner chiefs. The Oyo Messi in the Oyo empire held the Alafin of Oyo to ransom and would send him the all-famous calabash of kola which meant that he should abdicate if he became too powerful. There were checks and balances to these kings who were deemed to be divinely ordained.
In the entire Anioma area, the kings, although powerful, were checked by powerful forces in the society. In Ubulu-Uku, for example, one wicked king, Obi Ojukor was forced to abdicate by the Ubulu-Uku royal family, when his reign became too bloody and nearly led to a revolt by the citizens against royalty. He was banished to Agbor, and his son Jeboma made to rule as Obi Ogene.
At oshimili local government, and at Kwale and Agbor complex, the so called 'State' society was not prevalent as each quarter had its own Obi, until recently when there was a determined effort to have central Obi (the Asagba of Asaba) who recently died, and the Obuzor of Ibusa who is still alive and well. A new Asagba has been crowned. These kings do not have supreme powers, the like of which Fortes and Pritchard describe.
Thus, most of Anioma presented the "stateless" format, especially in Ndokwa and Ndoshimi areas where the society was organized in small units, independent of each other, and rule was by council of Elders who make laws, executed by the "Ikolos", - the youths. The Council of Elders also adjudicates.
The point is noted; that in areas where kings existed in Anioma in pre-colonial days, - Agbor, Ubulu-Uku, Akwukwu, although these kings were powerful, they were not absolute, as they were checked by internal agents and often times, by traditions, customs and the spiritual forces which they had to respect.
In other areas, government was by Councils of Elders who had legislative, executive and judicial powers.
Each unit was independent, and there was inter-unit trade as there would be among different nations! Of course the trilogy of co-operation -competition and conflict existed - as we shall see in the next two segments - the Anioma in history in the colonial and post colonial days.
THE COLONIAL ERA
As it is well known, the colonial era featured rule by the Britain over Nigeria and Nigerians. The essence of this rule was cradled and buttressed in the policy of Association. This policy unlike that of French Assimilation, was intended to exploit the Nigerian, without caring much about the development of Nigeria- socially, economically and otherwise. This was unlike the policy of Assimilation which was intended to make the African "black French men and women". This led to France regarding her colonies as provinces of France. Subsequently, the French surpassed the British in the development, economically of their colonies. Roads in the French colonies were well-built, economic development was prioritized, even deputies were elected from the colonies into the French Parliament.
Obnoxious as this policy may look and sound, it at least showed that the French were not in Africa only for the spoils. There was a tune of altruism in their veins.
The British policy of Association, with its emphasis on exploitation and the lack of an aggressive developmental approach led to the politics of British colonial rule being nothing but the politics of nationalism.
Nigerian politicians and even non-politicians went to town preaching against colonialism. And this is where Anioma comes in. Anioma citizens were part of the genre of politicians, businessmen, students, church leaders, who fought for Nigerian independence.
Nigerian nationalism was in stages - traditional, syncretic and modern. Traditional nationalism involved the struggle against the British by the traditional rulers of those days. This nationalism had some basic characteristics. First, it was negative; i.e it was not intended to create a new nation called Nigeria; rather, it was a question of each traditional leader, in his small area of rule, fighting the incursion of the British.
Secondly, this resistance was done with primitive arms as against the sophisticated arms of British soldiers.
This form of nationalism had to fall in the face of heavy weaponry and heavy artillery.
Prominent among those Anioma leaders who participated in this politics of resistance were the kings of Anioma, the chiefs, and all the nationalists of this era. In Anioma, the most prominent format of this politics was the Ekumeku resistance which spread through Anioma towns, especially in Aniocha and parts of oshimili local government areas.
With the failure of traditional nationalism came syncretic nationalism. This form of nationalism featured the use of Nigerian and African culture to fight British. Nigerians were encouraged to "think African", worship God in the African way, pay more attention to African culture, and recognize their Africaness. This attitude was politicised and epitomised in Mbonu Ojike's slogan-- "boycott the boycottables" and was championed by the clergy, and the nationalist politicians. Dancing local native solos were introduced into church services, African and African - oriented churches were built; churches like the United African church were built, the white garment churches sprang up, the Bible and hymn books were translated into Nigerian languages.
Although syncretic nationalism and politics were widely accepted, they only created a cultural awakening in the people.
But they also had a major influence on the next stage of nationalism - modern nationalism, for they prepared the consciousness of the people to the reception of modern politics,
Thus, when Anioma politicians like chief Dennis Osadebe teamed up with Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and others to utilize the tools of modern nationalism to fight the British, the letter had no where to run to. She succumbed and granted independence to Nigeria. For record purposes, modern nationalism took the form of the utilisation of modern tools to struggle for independence. Such tools included the use of mass mobilisation methods like the use of newspapers, rallies, press conferences, modern weapons of war, the radio and other means of communication.
Furthermore, and more potently, the nationalist politicians fought the British in the British mother tongue of which they were eloquent, it was with all these and other circumstances - like the consequences of second world war in which Nigerians participated on the side of Britain - that on Oct 1, 1960 Nigeria was free at last.
[TO BE CONTINUED]
Copyright@ Nuel Publishers, October 2024.
All rights reserved.
Anioma Online is published by Nuel Publishers
3, Ubulu Unor Road
Ubulu Uku
Delta State
Nigeria
Email : editor@aniomaonline.com
Website : www.aniomaonline.com
