Historical Perspectives of African Nationalism: with Focus on Nigeria

Pol­gá­ri Szem­le, 13. évf., 4–6. szám, 2017, 365–374., DOI: 10.24307/psz.2017.1226

Odor­ige Cat­he­ri­ne Enor­edia PhD Stu­dent, Na­ti­o­nal Uni­ver­sity of Pub­lic Ser­vi­ce (cathyoma@​yahoo.​com).

Sum­ma­ry

Po­li­ti­cal dis­co­ur­se on the con­cept of na­ti­o­nal­ism has been wi­dely based on the­o­re­ti­cal pers­pec­ti­ves from Wes­tern Euro­pe­an and Ame­ri­can so­ci­eti­es. Re­gard­less of de­ve­lop­ments con­cer­ning ti­ming and sta­bi­lity, every na­ti­on state has some form of na­ti­o­nal­ism and na­ti­o­na­lis­tic mo­ve­ments. Na­ti­o­nal­ism in the wider wes­tern so­ci­eti­es was born out of the exi­gen­ci­es of in­dust­ri­a­li­za­ti­on and mo­der­ni­za­ti­on, while in most parts in Afri­ca, it arose from the struggle aga­inst the for­ces of im­pe­ri­al­ism and co­lo­ni­al­ism and from the need of de­ter­mi­na­ti­on for self-ru­le. The­o­re­ti­cal dis­cus­sions on the sub­ject of na­ti­o­nal­ism have been di­vi­ded along the lines of pri­mor­da­lists, pe­ren­ni­a­lists, eth­no-sym­bo­lists, mo­der­nists and con­struc­ti­vists. This paper seeks to analy­se Afri­can na­ti­o­na­lis­tic struggles from such the­o­re­ti­cal pers­pec­ti­ves with a focus on Ni­ge­ria.

Jour­nal of Eco­no­mic Li­te­ra­tu­re (JEL) codes: F54, N17, N37, N47
Key­words: Afri­ca, Ni­ge­ria, co­lo­ni­al­ism, na­ti­o­nal­ism, na­ti­on and state


Int­ro­duc­ti­on

The two ele­ments of state and na­ti­on are es­sen­ti­al to na­ti­o­nal­ism dis­co­ur­se. Dra­wing a dis­tinc­ti­on bet­ween these two ea­sily con­fu­s­ed fields is es­sen­ti­al to un­der­stand­ing na­ti­o­nal­ism. Na­ti­on is de­fi­ned as an eth­nic group, or cul­t­u­ral com­mu­nity sha­ring com­mon cul­tu­re, cus­toms inc­lu­ding lan­gu­age. State is an au­to­no­mous po­li­ti­cal group not ne­ces­sa­rily based on uni­form cul­tu­re (Lewis, 1993). Dra­wing from ana­lo­gi­es from his­to­ri­ans, law his­to­ri­ans, and so­ci­o­lo­gists, cul­t­u­ral and so­ci­al an­th­ro­po­lo­gist in an at­tempt to est­ab­lish the fo­un­da­ti­o­nal his­to­ry of the Hun­ga­ri­an state (Kásler, 2017) de­fi­nes the state as an ins­ti­tu­ti­o­nal sup­re­me aut­ho­rity, in­de­pen­dent from ex­ter­nal po­wers and en­for­ced on the po­pu­la­ti­on of a spe­ci­fic geo­gra­phi­cal area. The evol­ving na­tu­re in the dis­co­ur­se of na­ti­o­nal­ism can be seen in ground shift­ing from one pers­pec­tive to anot­her by the­o­rists; com­pa­re these two de­fi­ni­tions of Na­ti­on by Smith A. D. Na­ti­on is a named human po­pu­la­ti­on oc­cupying a his­to­ric ter­ri­to­ry, sha­ring com­mon myths and mem­ori­es, a pub­lic cul­tu­re and com­mon laws and cus­toms for all mem­bers. Smith (2002) and anot­her he gave in a pub­lic lec­tu­re a named and self-de­fi­ned com­mu­nity whose mem­bers cul­ti­vate com­mon myths, mem­ori­es, sym­bols and va­lues, pos­sess and dis­se­mi­na­te a dis­tinc­tive pub­lic cul­tu­re, res­ide in and iden­ti­fy with a his­to­ric hom­eland and crea­te and dis­se­mi­na­te com­mon laws and sha­red cus­toms. Bre­u­illy (2005) view the chan­ge from “all mem­bers” to “self-de­fi­ned” as a shift to na­ti­on as elite dis­co­ur­se or elite con­struct as aga­inst na­ti­on as a group con­struct. This po­sit­i­on tends to con­form to the mo­der­nist view of which a Bre­u­illy is one, on the de­ve­lop­ment of na­tions and na­ti­o­nal­ism as mo­dern. Mo­dern in the sense of break­ing down the old pat­ri­ar­chal struc­tu­re that exis­ted in Euro­pe prior to in­dust­ri­a­li­za­ti­on and mo­der­nism as we find in the examp­les of trans­for­ma­ti­on from the ‘alien yoke’ to in­di­vi­du­al li­berty. Iden­ti­fi­ab­le in the Eng­lish na­ti­o­nal­ism an af­fir­ma­ti­on of in­di­vi­du­al fre­e­dom, self-as­ser­ti­on of per­so­na­lity (Kohn, 1965:16) and the shift from the 18th cent­ury land based squ­i­re achy in Eng­land to the new eco­no­mic man, the Stock Bro­ker in­ter­na­ti­o­nal mer­chant, nabob the men crea­ted by Bri­ta­in’s ex­pan­si­on as an im­pe­ri­al eco­no­mic power, where in­ter­na­ti­o­nal we­alth was no lon­ger tied to land. Ig­na­ti­eff (1987), also, the com­mon ascript­ion of na­tions to ter­ri­to­ry and hom­eland tend to rob no­ma­dic or tran­si­to­ry na­tions of their na­tion­ho­od. Had the Jews not been a na­ti­on prior to the re­sett­le­ment of Jews as a re­sult of the May 1948 proc­la­ma­ti­on of Is­ra­el as a state? The cont­ro­versy in the clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on of the Ma­gyars eit­her as no­mads, when vie­wed aga­inst the backdrop of no­ma­dic li­festy­les of great no­mads of South West Asia, North Afri­ca and the Eu­ra­si­an Step­pe since they have clung to se­den­tary li­festy­le since the cap­tu­re of the Car­pat­hi­an Basin (Arm­strong, 1982). On the other hand, du­ring their mo­ve­ment from Etel­köz to the Car­pat­hi­an basin (Kásler, 2017) they were a na­ti­on maybe one on the move at that time.

Ter­ri­to­ri­al iden­tity rose in Wes­tern Euro­pe in the early midd­le ages. The Uni­ted Na­tions or other sta­tes ter­ri­to­ri­ally de­fi­ne a state for in­ter­na­ti­o­nal re­cog­ni­ti­on. A more re­cent de­ve­lop­ment in his­to­ry ac­cord­ing to Kohn (1967) prac­ti­cally non-exis­tent in Asia and Afri­ca until the midd­le of twen­ti­eth cent­ury, they were at best ci­ty-sta­tes or em­pires. He po­sits that the mo­dern na­tions-sta­tes emer­ged in the midd­le of the wes­tern re­vo­lu­ti­on of the 17th and 18th cent­ury in Hol­land Eng­land and Uni­ted Sta­tes of Ame­ri­ca based upon a new in­te­grat­ing force of group cons­ci­o­us­ness-Na­ti­o­nal­ism. Kohn has been cri­ti­ci­zed for lump­ing to­get­her whole count­ri­es that had very dif­fe­rent na­ti­o­nal traj­ec­to­ry strictly based on their geo­gra­phi­cal pro­xi­mity. This is ha­zard­o­us for the un­der­stand­ing cul­t­u­ral and po­li­ti­cal de­ve­lop­ments among count­ri­es re­gard­less of how close they are (Di­eck­hoff –Jaff­re­lot, 2005).

The his­to­ry of Euro­pe bet­ween 1789 and 1945 ad­jud­ged sy­no­ny­mous with the growth and de­ve­lop­ment of mo­dern na­tions (Bayc­roft, 1998). This is not to say that na­tions and na­ti­o­nal­ism were de­vel­oped in this pe­ri­ods, what was new was the con­cept of mo­dern state as it is known today. Prior to this pe­ri­od his­to­ric scho­lars and so­ci­al phi­lo­sop­hers were more con­cer­ned about the me­rits and de­fects of na­ti­o­nal­ism (Smith, 1998). The con­cept of “na­ti­o­nal­ism” was vie­wed from two fronts. The first is the at­ti­tu­de and the other is ac­ti­on. At­ti­tu­des is att­ri­bu­t­ab­le to fee­ling of a group loyal­ty that mem­bers of a na­ti­on or state have when they are con­cer­ned about their na­ti­o­nal iden­tity. The ac­tions that mem­bers of a na­ti­on-sta­te apply when there is a per­ce­i­ved enemy that th­rea­tens the exis­ten­ce of the group (Druck­man, 1994) or when se­e­king to achi­eve self-de­ter­mi­na­ti­on en­gen­der­ing what the Ita­li­ans under Mus­so­li­ni called ego­ism of na­ti­o­nal­ism.

Na­ti­o­nal­ism (Gell­ner, 1983) is the sense of po­li­ti­cal to­get­her­ness that people feel part of a “we” group as aga­inst the “they” group. This dis­tinc­ti­on of “them” and “us” can pro­du­ce an ideo­logy or mo­ve­ment that can be an­tit­he­ti­cal and pro­du­ce ac­tions that is ma­niac in na­tu­re (Ne­ge­du–Ata­bor, 2015). Na­ti­o­na­lis­tic sen­ti­ment as a mo­ve­ment is the fee­ling of anger arou­s­ed by the vi­o­la­ti­on of the prin­cip­le or the fee­ling of sa­tis­fac­ti­on arou­s­ed by its ful­fil­ment (Gell­ner, 1983). The dis­mis­sal of pre-lin­gu­is­tic man as me­aning­less by Gottfried Her­der 1744-1803 is app­rop­ria­te he says that only lan­gu­age makes man human and it can only be leant in a com­mu­nity other cha­rac­te­r­is­tics of com­mu­nity are sha­red cus­toms and tra­di­tions. This po­sit­i­on is sy­no­ny­mous to Ke­do­u­rie (1994) when he vie­wed the whole to be prior to and more im­por­tant than the part, that the part can­not exist on their own wit­ho­ut the co­he­rent and or­de­red whole. Con­se­qu­ently, the fre­e­dom of the in­di­vi­du­al lies in iden­ti­fying himself with the whole (Oz­ki­rim­li, 2010). Na­tions have al­ways exis­ted re­gard­less of how pri­mi­tive they had been.

Pre-co­lo­ni­al sys­tems of ad­mi­nistra­ti­on in Ni­ge­ria

The his­to­ry of na­tions and na­ti­o­nal­ism in Afri­ca as in other cli­mes pre­da­tes her struggle for self-ru­le, be­fo­re the int­ru­si­on of the Bri­tish into the geo­gra­phi­cal space that is pre­sent day Ni­ge­ria.1 The count­ry then was made up of se­ve­ral gro­ups, which were al­re­ady ope­rat­ing, si­mil­ar to the mo­dern day de­fi­ni­ti­on of state. Ac­cord­ing to Smith (1998) a state is rep­re­s­en­ta­tive of a group of in­di­vi­du­als pos­ses­sing com­mon and dis­tinc­tive ele­ments of cul­tu­re, uni­fi­ed eco­no­mic sys­tem, ci­ti­zen­s­hip rights or all mem­bers ha­v­ing a sen­ti­ment of so­li­da­rity ari­sing out of com­mon ex­pe­ri­en­ces and oc­cupying a com­mon ter­ri­to­ry. Pas­sports, so­ci­al se­cu­rity num­ber and iden­tity cards did not de­fi­ne ci­ti­zen­s­hip then, but by sur­vi­val and pro­tec­tion­ism. Ac­cord­ing to Charles Willy an Ame­ri­can so­ci­o­lo­gist, the state was a war ma­chi­ne in this sta­te­ment acc­re­di­ted to him state make war and war make sta­tes (Tilly, 1993). Men are de­pen­dent upon to fight in wars that keep the sta­tes in­tact they the­re­fo­re are de­ri­va­tive of the right to its ci­ti­zen­s­hip, but this ci­ti­zen­s­hip is not de­vo­id of class or hi­e­rarchy in these so­ci­eti­es.

The va­ri­o­us eth­nic and cul­t­u­ral gro­ups that make up the count­ry Ni­ge­ria exis­ted as au­to­no­mous po­li­ti­cal en­ti­ti­es. These en­ti­ti­es had their own po­li­ti­cal sys­tems, so­ci­al and re­li­gi­o­us va­lues dis­tinct from one anot­her, descri­bed by Sir Hugh Clif­ford the Gover­nor Ge­ne­ral of Ni­ge­ria 1923-1956, as a coll­ec­ti­on of in­de­pen­dent Na­tive Sta­tes, se­pa­ra­ted from one anot­her by great dis­tan­ces, by dif­fe­ren­ces of his­to­ry and tra­di­tions and by eth­no­log­i­cal, ra­ci­al, tri­bal, po­li­ti­cal, so­ci­al and re­li­gi­o­us bar­ri­ers (Omu, 1998). This nar­ra­tive was evi­dent in the lar­ger gro­ups of the Ha­usa-Fu­la­ni king­dom, Yo­ru­ba king­dom, Igbo king­dom, Benin king­dom, Nupe king­dom. and na­tions from its de­fi­ni­ti­on as a large body of people uni­ted by com­mon des­cent, his­to­ry, cul­tu­re and lan­gu­age, in­hab­it­ing a par­ti­cu­lar ter­ri­to­ry as epi­to­mi­zed by the se­ve­ral mi­no­rity gro­ups like the Ido­mas, Tivs, Ijaws, Ur­ho­bos, It­se­ki­ris, Ibi­bios.

Osa­do­lor (2001) be­mo­ans the dif­fi­culty among scho­lars in re­a­ch­ing a con­sen­sus on the de­fi­ni­ti­on of state even at va­ri­o­us con­fe­ren­ces fo­cu­s­ed at re­a­ch­ing an ac­cept­ab­le de­fi­ni­ti­on; cho­o­sing the de­fi­ni­ti­on of state by Zart­man (1995) who po­sits that a State is the aut­ho­ri­ta­tive po­li­ti­cal ins­ti­tu­ti­on that is sove­reign over a re­cog­ni­zed ter­ri­to­ry. Fo­cus­ing on the three func­tions of the state spelt out by the de­fi­ni­ti­on, which is sove­reign aut­ho­rity, ac­cep­ted sour­ce of iden­tity and the arena of po­li­tics the state as an ins­ti­tu­ti­on tan­gib­le or­ga­ni­za­ti­on of de­ci­si­on mak­ing and iden­tity and se­cu­rity gu­a­ran­tor wit­hin the po­pu­la­ted ter­ri­to­ry. He cites Ilif­fe (1995) who points to the slow de­ve­lop­ment of sta­tes in the West Afri­can rain fo­rest when com­pa­red its Sa­van­na coun­ter­part when early Euro­peans to Afri­ca first descri­bed them, most were ad­judge sta­te­less but he points to the Benin King­dom as a state. Be­li­eved to have ori­gi­na­ted as a re­li­gi­o­us cent­re, but trans­for­med into a state con­que­ring other mic­ros­ta­tes around it and sub­jec­ting them to its aut­ho­rity (Ilif­fe, 1995).2

The mi­li­tary in­no­va­ti­ve­ness of the Benin King­dom is evi­dent from the over 10,000-ki­lo­me­ter earth bo­un­dary built round the city to pro­tect it from in­vad­ers, exist­ing until date. Oba Ewu­a­re car­ried out these struc­tu­ring, this or­ga­ni­zed sys­tem of ad­mi­nistra­ti­on was what the Por­tu­gu­ese met when they ar­ri­ved in 1486 the sculp­tu­ral works, we­alth, and sop­his­ti­ca­ti­on of the pa­lace deeply imp­res­sed the Euro­pe­an vi­si­tors. Osa­do­lor (2001) also points us to the mi­li­tary might of the an­ci­ent Benin king­dom, the mi­li­tary tac­tics and the ar­mo­ury could only have been pos­sib­le under an or­ga­ni­zed state. These ac­counts put a hole in the Kohn’s the­ory that there were no na­ti­on sta­tes in Asia and Afri­ca. Ilif­fe also points to the Igbo peoples in today’s Ni­ge­ria as sta­te­less in an­ci­ent times based on the ac­counts of the Euro­peans descript­ion. This po­sit­i­on may not be far from pre­con­cept­ions that a state ought to have a sing­le stool of le­aders­hip, but the Igbos ope­ra­ted a comp­let­ely de­cent­ra­li­zed sys­tem where there were no re­cog­ni­zed sing­le stool of aut­ho­rity but all rep­re­s­en­ta­ti­ves of fa­mi­li­es at the vil­lage squ­a­re jo­intly re­a­ched de­ci­sions bot­he­ring on the state. They or­ga­ni­zed their lives based on this sys­tem that is close to the ope­ra­ti­o­nal struc­tu­re of de­moc­racy as it is today, fitt­ing per­fectly with its modus ope­ran­di. With sha­red res­pon­si­bi­li­ti­es among age gra­des and tit­led chi­efs se­e­ing to the day-to-day ad­mi­nistra­ti­on of the com­mu­nity. In line with the po­sit­i­on of Busia (1962) who avers that ma­jo­rity of pre-co­lo­ni­al sta­tes were stab­le, de­cent­ra­li­zed, and al­lo­wed for ci­ti­zen’s par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in the po­li­ti­cal pro­cess. These va­ri­o­us gro­ups were gover­ned by self-de­vel­oped ad­mi­nistra­tive sty­les, which dif­fe­red from place to place. Descri­bed by Oyov­ba­ire (1983) as king­doms, em­pires, ci­ty-sta­tes, chi­ef­doms, cal­ip­ha­te and vil­lage re­pub­lics. While the Ha­usa-Fu­la­ni of the core north had a pre­do­mi­nantly cent­ral sys­tem of govern­ment based on Is­la­mic law, as the Emir or Sul­tan had swe­e­ping po­wers. The Yo­ru­ba king­dom ope­ra­ted a semi cent­ral sys­tem in the sense that the Oba who is tho­ugh the cent­re of aut­ho­rity was sub­ject to checks and ba­lan­ces by the Oyom­i­si (el­ders’ coun­cil) or the Ifa pri­est. The re­fe­ren­ce to na­tive sta­tes by the Gover­nor Ge­ne­ral could also mean de­fi­ni­ti­on of eth­nic com­mu­ni­ti­es by Smith (1998) of which he clas­si­fi­es as a named human com­mu­nity with sha­red an­cestry, myth, hist­ori­es and cul­tu­res ha­v­ing af­fi­lia­ti­on with a par­ti­cu­lar ter­ri­to­ry and a sense of so­li­da­rity, cul­t­u­ral af­fi­ni­ti­es as aga­inst kins­hip. These eth­nic pri­mor­di­al na­tions maybe true of some of the gro­ups but not all of the gro­ups that make up to­days Ni­ge­ria. The Benin king­dom for examp­le comp­ri­sed of va­ri­o­us eth­nic gro­ups who eit­her by con­quest on vo­lun­ta­rily for the rea­son of pro­tec­ti­on were cont­ent to be as­so­ci­a­ted to the great king­dom mee­ting up with de­mands of tri­bu­tes and taxes re­qu­i­red of them as being part of the king­dom. Ilif­fe (1995) cap­tu­res the na­tu­re of na­ti­o­nal­ism at this time with the re­fe­ren­ce to th­re­at of reta­lia­ti­on, each state or quasi state is cons­ci­o­us of the pos­si­bi­lity of an in­vas­ion by anot­her. Pri­mor­di­al in na­tu­re, which Law­son (2005) de­picts the na­tions as ro­bust qu­a­lity of lon­ge­vity, re­la­ted­ness cons­tancy, and emo­ti­o­nal at­tach­ment with respect to a par­ti­cu­lar group and all the ele­ments of sha­red lan­gu­age, cus­toms, re­li­gi­on and ar­te­facts. Re­gard­less of time and space where there is a na­ti­on or state there, is na­ti­o­nal­ism with an iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of them and us ma­ni­fes­ted in eit­her fee­ling or ac­ti­on? Kohn’s sub­mis­si­on that there were no sta­tes in Afri­ca prior to Euro­pe­an in­vas­ion is quest­ion­ab­le when vie­wed from the pers­pec­tive of the ac­counts of ad­mi­nistra­ti­on by the Euro­pe­an in­vad­ers. What took place was an ob­struc­ti­on of in­ter­nal pro­cess of state for­ma­ti­on be­ca­u­se of the Euro­pe­an in­vas­ion, which left tra­ils of cor­rupt­ion and po­li­ti­cal in­sta­bi­lity (Tan­gie, 2006).

Co­lo­ni­al­ism and the ef­fects and changes on the na­ti­on(s)

Slave trade pre­ce­ded co­lo­ni­al­ism. A th­ri­ving busi­ness that took place from the 15th to19th cent­ury. Se­ve­ral ac­counts on the con­duct of slave trade (Law, 1995; Ojo, 2008; Wa­ri­bo­ko 1998), re­ve­als an est­ab­lis­hed re­la­ti­onship bet­ween Afri­can le­ader/elite tra­ders and their Euro­pe­an coun­ter­part. The ac­counts by Wa­ri­bo­ko (1998) showed a de­pen­den­ce on the Euro­pe­an tra­ders and Bri­tish con­sul for sup­port in the in­ter­nal po­li­ti­cal int­ri­gues of power struggle bet­ween Wil­li­am Dappa Pebb­le Pe­re­kun­le the VI and Chief Madu in Bonny king­dom. Law (1995) re­fe­ren­ce to Hop­kins the­ory that the abo­lit­ion of slave trade and the re­duc­ti­on in lewd lucre that fol­lo­wed, bro­ught about po­li­ti­cal strife and civil wars that dis­rup­ted the ex­port trade in palm oil and other raw ma­te­ri­als for the Euro­pe­an in­dust­ri­es pro­vo­ked the an­ne­xa­ti­on of the Yo­ru­b­aland and sub­se­qu­ently led to the par­tit­ion­ing of Afri­ca. The in­ter­nal wrang­ling made the va­ri­o­us na­tions vul­ne­rab­le to Euro­peans who equ­ip­ped with know­ledge of the Afri­can na­ti­on ha­v­ing tra­ded with them for four cent­uri­es ag­reed among them in the Ber­lin con­fe­ren­ce of 1884/85 con­ve­ned by Ot­tom­an Von Bis­marck on the par­tit­ion­ing of Afri­ca (Eluwa et al., 1996). This chan­ge of app­ro­ach from trad­ing to exp­lo­i­ta­ti­on was not wit­ho­ut re­sis­tance.

Re­sis­tance in the va­ri­o­us ter­rit­ori­es set the stage for na­ti­o­na­list mo­ve­ment in Ni­ge­ria as with other parts of Afri­ca. Some ac­counts of this re­sis­tance was the Benin ex­pe­di­ti­on of 1897, when the Benin mo­narch Oba Ovor­anm­wen re­sis­ted at­tempts to for­ce­fully make him sign a tre­aty be­qu­eath­ing his king­dom to the Bri­tish crown. He the­re­fo­re pla­ced an em­bar­go on the Benin River, which dis­rup­ted trad­ing ac­ti­vi­ti­es of the Bri­tish. Anot­her re­sis­tance was the Ijebu war of 1892, which was the re­sult of the king Awu­jah’s bloc­ka­de of the trad­ing route to Lagos, which was at this time a co­lony. The Ani­o­cha war aga­inst the Bri­tish Royal Niger com­pany 1883–1914 and the re­sis­tance by King Jaja of Opobo aga­inst the Bri­tish at­tempts at ha­v­ing di­rect ac­cess to the hin­ter­land palm oil mar­kets (Ubaku et al., 2014). The con­que­ring of these va­ri­o­us na­tions due to more sop­his­ti­ca­ted fi­re­po­wer gave Bri­ta­in the ground to est­ab­lish the va­ri­o­us ad­mi­nistra­tive units. These dis­pa­ra­te, au­to­no­mous, he­te­ro­ge­ne­o­us and sub na­ti­o­nal gro­ups were mer­ged to­get­her in 1914 and named Ni­ge­ria this gave birth to the Ni­ge­ri­an na­ti­on. This for­ma­ti­on dri­ves home the de­fi­ni­ti­on of na­ti­on by Be­ne­dict An­der­son that says, it is an ima­gi­ned po­li­ti­cal com­mu­nity both in­he­rently li­mi­ted and sove­reign. Ima­gi­ned be­ca­u­se even mem­bers of the smal­l­est na­tions will never know most of their fel­low mem­bers, meet them or even hear of them (An­der­son, 2006). Na­ti­o­nal­ism is not the awa­ke­ning of na­tions to self-cons­ci­o­us­ness it in­vent na­tions where they do not exist (Gell­ner, 1964).

Co­lo­ni­al­ism is the ex­er­ti­on of po­li­ti­cal cont­rol by one po­wer­ful na­ti­on over a wea­ker na­ti­on (Ade­ri­big­be, 2006). It re­fers to the est­ab­lish­ment and ma­in­ten­ance of fo­rei­gn rule over a set of people for gett­ing ma­xi­mum eco­no­mic be­ne­fit by the co­lo­ni­zing power (Fa­deiye, 2005). Co­lo­ni­al­ism had its roots in the greed that Euro­pe­an count­ri­es ex­hi­bi­ted to­wards Afri­ca’s untap­ped na­tu­ral re­sour­ces (Ma­pu­va–Chari, 2010). Co­lo­ni­al­ism imp­li­es for­mal po­li­ti­cal cont­rol in­vol­ving ter­ri­to­ri­al an­ne­xa­ti­on and loss of sove­reignty. The na­tu­re of gover­nance app­li­ed by the Bri­tish in most parts of the count­ry, the sys­tem of in­di­rect rule gave the Afri­can le­aders a false fee­ling of being in char­ge or part of the le­aders­hip pro­cess, when in re­a­lity the shots were called by the co­lo­ni­al ma­s­ters. This was res­pon­sib­le for the de­la­yed na­ti­o­na­lis­tic cons­ci­o­us­ness espe­ci­ally in the north where in­di­rect rule was succ­ess­ful. Co­lo­ni­al ex­pan­si­on­ism is eco­no­mic in aim, mo­no­po­lis­tic in ori­en­ta­ti­on, po­li­ti­cal in jus­ti­fi­ca­ti­on and mi­li­tary in met­hod. The re­la­ti­onship bet­ween the co­lo­ni­zing count­ry and the co­lo­ni­zed is asym­met­ri­cal. It is that of de­pen­dency that fa­vo­urs the oc­cupying na­ti­on to the det­ri­ment of the oc­cu­pi­ed ter­ri­to­ry. Co­lo­ni­za­ti­on be­co­mes the pro­cess of ac­qui­sit­i­on and ma­in­ten­ance of ter­ri­to­ry (Adeye­ri–Ad­e­ju­won, 2012).

Im­pe­ri­al­ism, pan-afric­an­ism and na­ti­o­nal­ism

Afri­can na­ti­o­na­lis­tic tho­ught of in­de­pen­den­ce has two major trends: Pan-Afric­an­ism and an­ti-im­pe­ri­al­ism. Pan-Afric­an­ism re­sul­ted from the abo­lit­ion of slave trade that had been prac­ti­ced for over four cent­uri­es. Its abo­lit­ion was in most parts ins­pi­red by the same di­vi­sions that led to the civil war in Ame­ri­ca. The in­dust­ri­ally more ad­van­ced North, where sla­ves were no lon­ger ne­e­ded as a re­sult of tech­ni­cal de­ve­lop­ment, be­came a th­re­at to the So­ut­hern sta­tes, which had pre­vi­o­usly do­mi­na­ted fe­de­ral leg­i­sla­tu­re for more than half a cent­ury, and had an eco­nomy still hea­vily de­pen­dent on sla­very. Alt­ho­ugh sla­very was not the pri­ma­ry rea­son for the war, sla­ves were the di­rect be­ne­fi­cia­ri­es, as the war led to the abo­lit­ion of slave trade. The rac­ism and discri­mi­na­ti­on aga­inst black people that fol­lo­wed the abo­lit­ion and the struggles the­re­af­ter gave rise to Pan-Afric­an­ism. This gives cre­den­ce to the pro­po­sit­i­on that the pain­ful tran­sit­i­on to mo­der­nism laid the fo­un­da­ti­on for the birth of na­ti­o­nal­ism (Smith, 1998). In the words of by Dr Shep­per­son a comp­li­ca­ted At­lan­tic tri­ang­le of inf­lu­en­ces bet­ween the new world, Euro­pe and Afri­ca (Legum, 1965). In 1919, Dr Du Bois wrote: “...​the Afri­can mo­ve­ment mean to us what the Zi­o­nist mo­ve­ment meant to the Jews, the cent­ra­li­za­ti­on of race eff­orts and the re­cog­ni­ti­on of ra­ci­al fount.” While Afri­can na­ti­o­nal­ism was, by de­fi­ni­ti­on, an an­tit­he­sis of Euro­pe­an im­pe­ri­al­ism, which re­sul­ted from in­ten­sive ri­val­ri­es bro­ught about by the par­tit­ion­ing of Afri­ca, seen as a sour­ce of raw ma­te­ri­als, in the 1800s for mar­kets and sphe­res of inf­lu­en­ce (James, 1995). By the end of the 19th cent­ury, 90 per­cent of Afri­ca was in the hands of the Euro­pe­an im­pe­ri­a­lists. This co­lo­ni­al­ism bro­ught about re­volts in most parts. The de­si­re for self-de­ter­mi­na­ti­on gave birth to Afri­can na­ti­o­na­list struggles. The 19th and 20th cent­ury saw the de­ve­lop­ment of dia­spo­ra in Pan-Afric­an­ism among Af­ro-Ame­ri­cans and Af­ro-Ca­rib­be­an like Henry Syl­ves­ter Wil­li­ams, Ge­or­ge Pad­mo­re, W.E.B Du Bois, C. L. James and ot­hers. The Pan-Afric­anist tho­ught was based on a cul­t­u­ral and ra­ci­al issue with the main de­mand being equ­a­lity and non-discri­mi­na­ti­on. The 1923 ma­ni­fes­to, for ins­tance, proc­la­i­med “In fine, we ask that black people, be trea­ted as men” (Legum, 1965:29).

The 1944 mee­ting of wel­fa­re stu­dents, and other mo­ve­ments based in Bri­ta­in led to the est­ab­lish­ment of the Pan-Afri­can Fe­de­ra­ti­on and to the or­ga­ni­za­ti­on of the fa­mous fifth Pan-Afri­can cong­ress in Man­ches­ter in 1945, with over 200 de­le­ga­tes – of trade unions, po­li­ti­cal par­ti­es and other or­ga­ni­za­tions – in at­ten­dance, inc­lu­ding Kwame Nk­ru­mah of Ghana and Jomo Keny­at­ta of Kenya. They de­man­ded au­to­nomy and in­de­pen­den­ce for se­ve­ral Afri­can count­ri­es and com­mu­ni­ti­es (Shiv­ji, 2009).

Ni­ge­ri­an na­ti­o­na­list en­de­a­vo­urs

Mak­ing use of re­li­gi­o­us ani­mo­sit­i­es, the Bri­tish po­li­cy re­in­for­ced dif­fe­ren­ces and deep­e­ned the gap bet­ween the va­ri­o­us gro­ups that make Ni­ge­ria. The re­gi­o­nal ad­mi­nistra­tive sys­tem promo­ted by the co­lo­ni­a­lists made sure that people were di­vi­ded along eth­nic and re­gi­o­nal lines. Some po­li­ci­es simply could not be imp­le­men­ted in some re­gions. Ta­xa­ti­on, for examp­le, was alien to most parts in the south of the count­ry and stir­red up a num­ber of re­volts (Warri, 1927; Aba women’s riot, 1929) (cf. Odu­wo­bi, 2011).

One of the reve­la­tions of the na­ti­o­na­list mo­ve­ment was that the edu­ca­ti­on pro­vi­ded for the Ni­ge­ri­an po­pu­la­ti­on ser­ved the sing­le pur­po­se of fa­ci­li­tat­ing ad­mi­nistra­ti­on for the co­lo­ni­al ma­s­ters, as they could not rec­ru­it suf­fi­ci­ent la­bour ot­her­wi­se. This is si­mil­ar to the start of pub­lic edu­ca­ti­on in Euro­pe, which had been a pri­vi­le­ge of the elite prior to in­dust­ri­a­li­za­ti­on and ur­ba­ni­za­ti­on ac­cord­ing to Tom Nain’s pat­ho­logy of Mo­dern de­ve­lop­men­tal his­to­ry. The Ni­ge­ri­ans – pre­do­mi­nantly from the so­uth-wes­tern and so­uth-ea­s­tern areas, who had the op­por­tunity to tra­vel to Euro­pe for furt­her stu­di­es had first-hand ex­pe­ri­en­ces with Pan-Afri­can ac­ti­vists like Mar­cus Gar­vey and W.E.B Du­bo­is, key pro­po­nents of the mo­ve­ments de­mand­ing the eman­ci­pa­ti­on of Afri­ca. The West Afri­can Stu­dents’ Union was fo­un­ded in Lon­don in 1925. The ini­ti­al focus was not based on pat­ri­ot­ism to­wards Ni­ge­ria as a count­ry, but on as­ser­tive eth­nic cons­ci­o­us­ness, espe­ci­ally with the Igbos and Yo­ru­ba. They began the agi­ta­ti­on for self-ru­le.

The church also pro­vi­ded plat­forms for the na­ti­o­na­list mo­ve­ment, as Euro­pe­an mis­si­on­ari­es were rac­ists and tried to pre­vent Afri­can le­aders­hip in the church. This led Ni­ge­ri­an cler­gi­es to de­ve­lop de­no­mi­na­tions in­de­pen­dent of Euro­pe­an mis­si­on­ari­es and these new pul­pits pro­vi­ded ave­nues for the free exp­r­es­si­on of a cri­tic­ism of the co­lo­ni­al rule. The urban phe­no­me­non of eth­nic kins­hip or­ga­ni­za­ti­on was also inst­ru­men­tal in the awa­ke­ning na­ti­o­nal­ism; and led to the for­ma­ti­on of major eth­nic group unions like the Egbe Omo Odu­du­wa and the Igbo Fe­de­ral Union. Ot­hers inc­lu­ded non-po­li­ti­cal as­so­ci­a­tions like the Ni­ge­ri­an Union of Tea­chers, the Ni­ge­ri­an Law As­so­ci­a­ti­on and the Ni­ge­ri­an Pro­du­ce Tra­ders’ As­so­ci­a­ti­on led by Oba­fe­mi Awo­lo­wo. The youth and stu­dent gro­ups, con­sisting of in­tel­lec­tu­als and pro­fes­si­o­nals, were more po­li­ti­cally cons­ci­o­us and stood in the van­gu­ard of na­ti­o­nal­ism. In 1922 Ni­ge­ri­an rep­re­s­en­ta­ti­ves were el­ec­ted to the leg­i­sla­tive coun­cil, and this pro­vi­ded po­li­ti­cally cons­ci­o­us Ni­ge­ri­ans with a spe­ci­fic plat­form. Hu­bert Ma­ca­u­lay, pub­lis­her of the Lagos Daily News arou­s­ed po­li­ti­cal aware­ness in Ni­ge­ri­ans and acted as le­ader of the Ni­ge­ri­an Na­ti­o­nal De­moc­ra­tic Party, an as­cen­dency of the Na­ti­o­nal Youth Cong­ress. He co-fo­un­ded the Na­ti­o­nal Coun­cil of Ni­ge­ria and the Ca­me­roons, the first Na­ti­o­na­list Party in Ni­ge­ria with Nnam­di Azi­ki­we, and uni­ted the he­te­ro­ge­ne­o­us eth­nic gro­ups in a solid bloc. Hu­bert Ma­ca­u­lay be­came the first le­ader and Azi­ki­we was the sec­re­tary.

Ni­ge­ri­ans’ par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in the Se­cond World War was also inst­ru­men­tal in the struggle when they fo­ught along­si­de other Bri­tish sol­di­ers. The trade unions, ad­vo­cat­ing Mar­xist views, pla­yed a sig­ni­fi­cant role in the fight for self-govern­ment.

Som­ew­hat late, with per­mis­si­on from the emir the Nor­t­hern Ha­usa-Fu­la­ni est­ab­lis­hed the Nor­t­hern People’s Cong­ress in the 1940s, led by Ta­fa­wa Ba­le­wa. Oba­fe­mi Awo­lo­wo crea­ted the Ac­ti­on Group in 1951.

For the pur­po­se of self-govern­ment, the dis­pa­ra­te gro­ups were able to put their dif­fe­ren­ces aside and come to­get­her to achi­eve in­de­pen­den­ce in line with An­der­son’s po­sit­i­on that every succ­ess­ful re­vo­lu­ti­on de­fi­nes itself in na­ti­o­nal terms (An­der­son, 2006), and Ni­ge­ria was able to achi­eve in­de­pen­den­ce in 1960.

Conc­lu­si­on

Afri­can po­li­ti­cal de­ve­lop­ment was se­ri­o­usly un­der­mi­ned for a long time, partly be­ca­u­se of its de­pen­den­ce on oral tra­di­ti­on to pass in­for­ma­ti­on from ge­ne­ra­ti­on to ge­ne­ra­ti­on. Ne­vert­he­less, ac­counts by the first Euro­peans who met Afri­cans show that Afri­ca did have its own forms of ad­mi­nistra­ti­on be­fo­re the Euro­pe­an in­vas­ion. The ar­gu­ment that Euro­pe ex­port­ed ci­vi­li­za­ti­on to Afri­ca is un­et­hi­cal in the opin­ion of the­o­rists like Wal­lenstein (1961) who sees Euro­pe­an in­vas­ion as a clog in the wheel of Afri­ca’s po­li­ti­cal de­ve­lop­ment, abor­ted in the wake of Euro­pe­an in­vas­ion.

Gottfried Her­der said that the con­cept of a pre-lin­gu­is­tic man is wrong, as it is lan­gu­age that makes man human. Whe­re­ver there exis­ted a human com­mu­nity, they dif­fe­ren­tiate the ‘we’ group from ‘them’, and whe­re­ver this exis­ted there has al­ways been some form of na­ti­o­nal­ism.

Notes

Re­fe­ren­ces

Ade­ri­big­be, Segun (2006): Basic App­ro­ach to Govern­ment. Joja Edu­ca­ti­o­nal Re­se­arch and Pub­lis­hers Ltd., Lagos
Adeye­ri, Olu­se­g­un – Ad­e­ju­won, Ke­hin­de D. (2012): The Imp­li­ca­ti­on of Bri­tish Co­lo­ni­al Eco­no­mic Po­li­ci­es in Ni­ge­ria’s De­ve­lop­ment. In­ter­na­ti­o­nal Jour­nal of Ad­vance Re­se­arch in Ma­nag­ement and So­ci­al Sci­en­ces, Vol. 1, No 2, www.​garph.​co.​uk/​IJARMSS/​Aug2012/​1.​pdf.
An­der­son, Be­ne­dict (2006): Ima­gi­ned Com­mu­ni­ti­es. Ref­lec­tions on the Ori­gin and Spre­ad of Na­ti­o­nal­ism. Verso, Lon­don – New York.
Arm­strong, John A. (1982): Na­tions Be­fo­re Na­ti­o­nal­ism. Uni­ver­sity of North Ca­ro­li­na Press. Cha­pel Hill. Bayc­roft, Ti­mo­thy (1998): Na­ti­o­nal­ism in Euro­pe 1787–1945. Camb­ridge Uni­ver­sity Press, Camb­ridge. Bre­u­illy, John (1994). Na­ti­o­nal­ism and the State. Uni­ver­sity of Chi­ca­go Press, Chi­ca­go.
Bre­u­illy, John (2005). Dat­ing the Na­ti­on: How Old is an Old Na­ti­on?’ In: When is the Na­ti­on? To­wards an Un­der­stand­ing of The­ori­es of Na­ti­o­nal­ism. Eds.: At­su­ko It­chi­jo, Gor­da­na Uzel­ac, Ro­ut­ledge, Ab­ing­don.
Bre­u­illy, John (2013). The Ox­ford Hand­book of the His­to­ry of Na­ti­o­nal­ism. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, Ox­ford.
Busia, Kofi A. (1962): The Chal­len­ge of Afri­ca. Fred­erick A. Pra­eger, New York.
Di­eck­hoff, Alain – Jaff­re­lot Ch­ri­stop­he (eds.) (2005): Re­vi­sit­ing Na­ti­o­nal­ism. The­ori­es and Pro­ces­ses. Pal­gra­ve Mac­mil­lan, New York.
Druck­man, Da­ni­el (1994): Na­ti­o­nal­ism, Pat­ri­ot­ism and Group Loyal­ty: A So­ci­al Psy­cho­log­i­cal Pers­pec­tive. Mershon In­ter­na­ti­o­nal Stu­di­es Re­view, Vol. 38, No. 1, 43–68, https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​222610.
Eluwa, Gab­ri­el I. C. et al. (1996): Afri­ca and the Wider World since 1800. Afri­ca­na-First Pub­lis­hers Li­mi­ted, Onits­ha.
Fa­deiye, J. Ola­de­le (2005): A So­ci­al Stu­di­es Text­book for Col­l­e­ges and Uni­ver­sit­i­es. Akin-John­son Press and Pub­lis­hers. Iba­dan.
Gell­ner, Ern­est (1964): Tho­ught and Chan­ge. We­i­den­field and Nic­ol­son, Lon­don.
Gell­ner, Ern­est (1983): Na­tions and Na­ti­o­nal­ism. Black­well Pub­lis­hers, Ox­ford.
Gell­ner, Ern­est (1997): Na­ti­o­nal­ism. Orion Books Ltd, Lon­don.
Ig­na­ti­eff, Mi­cha­el (1987): The Myth of Ci­ti­zen­s­hip. Queen’s Law Jour­nal, Vol. 12, 399–420.
Ilif­fe, John (1995): Afri­cans. The His­to­ry of a Con­ti­nent. Camb­ridge Uni­ver­sity Press, Camb­ridge.
James, Cyril L. R. (1995): His­to­ry of Pan-Afri­can Re­volt. Charles H. Kerr Pub­lish­ing, Chi­ca­go.
Kásler, Mik­lós (2017): Eth­nic and De­mo­gra­phic Changes in Hun­gary’s (More Than) 1100 Years Long His­to­ry. Civic Re­view, Vol. 13, Spe­ci­al issue.
Ke­do­u­rie, Elie (1994): Hegel and Marx: Int­ro­duc­to­ry Lec­tu­res. Black­well, Lon­don.
Kohn, Hans (1962): Age of Na­ti­o­nal­ism. Har­per & Bro­thers Pub­lis­hers, New York.
Kohn, Hans (1965). Na­ti­o­nal­ism. It’s Me­aning and His­to­ry. Van Nostrand.
Kohn, Hans (1967): Prel­u­de to Na­tions-Sta­tes: The French and Ger­man Ex­pe­ri­en­ce, 1789-1815. D. Van Nostrand Com­pany.
Law, Robin (1995): From Slave Trade to ‘Le­gi­ti­ma­te’ Com­mer­ce. Camb­ridge Uni­ver­sity Press, Camb­ridge, https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​CBO9780511523861.
Law­son, Step­ha­nie (2005): Na­ti­o­nal­ism and the po­li­tics of eth­ni­ci­ty in Fiji: cri­ti­cal pers­pec­ti­ves on pri­mor­dial­ism, mo­der­nism and eth­no-sym­bo­l­ism. In: When is the Na­ti­on? To­wards an Un­der­stand­ing of The­ori­es of Na­ti­o­nal­ism. Eds.: At­su­ko It­chi­jo, Gor­da­na Uzel­ac, Ro­ut­ledge, Ab­ing­don.
Legum, Colin (1965): Pan-Afric­an­ism. A Short Po­li­ti­cal Guide. F. A. Pra­eger Pub­lis­hers, New York.
Lewis, M. I. (ed.) (1993): Na­ti­o­nal­ism and Self De­ter­mi­na­ti­on in the Horn of Afri­ca. It­ha­ca Press, Lon­don.
Ma­pu­va, Je­phi­as – Chari, Fre­e­man (2010): Co­lo­ni­al­ism No Lon­ger an Ex­cu­se for Afri­ca’s Fa­i­lu­re. Jour­nal of Sus­ta­in­ab­le De­ve­lop­ment in Afri­ca, Vol. 12, No. 5.
Ne­ge­du, Isa­i­ah – Ata­bor Au­gus­tine (2015): Na­ti­o­nal­ism in Ni­ge­ria: A Case of Pat­ri­o­tic Ci­ti­zen­s­hip. Ame­ri­can In­ter­na­ti­o­nal Jour­nal of Con­tem­por­ary Re­se­arch, Vol. 5, No. 3.
Odu­wo­bi, Tunde (2011): From Con­quest to In­de­pen­den­ce: The Ni­ge­ri­an Co­lo­ni­al Ex­pe­ri­en­ce. His­to­ria Ac­tu­al On­line, No. 25, 19–29.
Ojo, Ola­tun­ji (2008): The Or­ga­ni­za­ti­on of the At­lan­tic Slave Trade in Yo­ru­b­aland, Ca. 1777 to Ca. 1856. The In­ter­na­ti­o­nal Jour­nal of Afri­can His­to­ri­cal Stu­di­es, Vol. 41, No. 1.
Omu, Fred (1998): Eth­ni­ci­ty, Na­ti­o­nal­ism and Fe­de­ral­ism in Ni­ge­ria: An In­ter­ac­tive Tri­nity of Re­la­ti­onsh­ips. Benin Jour­nal of His­to­ri­cal Stu­di­es, Vol. 2, No. 1–2, 1–22.
Osa­do­lor, Osar­hi­e­me (2001): The Mi­li­tary Sys­tem of Benin King­dom, c. 1440-1897. PhD The­sis, Ham­burg, 23 July, www.​academia.​edu/​31310702/​The_​military_​system_​of_​Benin_​Kingdom_​c._​1440_​-_​1897.
Oyov­ba­ire, Sam E. (1983): Struc­tu­ral Chan­ge and Po­li­ti­cal Pro­ces­ses in Ni­ge­ria. Afri­can Af­fa­irs, Vol. 82, No. 326, 3–28, https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​oxfordjournals.​afraf.​a097500.
Oz­ki­rim­li, Umut (2010): The­ori­es of Na­ti­o­nal­ism. Pal­gra­ve Mac­mil­lan, New York.
Shiv­ji, Issa G. (2009): Where is Uhuru? Ref­lec­tions on the Struggle for De­moc­racy in Afri­ca. Ed. God­win Mur­un­ga, Pam­ba­zu­ka Press, Cape Town.
Smith, An­tho­ny D. (1998): Na­ti­o­nal­ism and Mo­der­nism. Ro­ut­ledge, Lon­don.
Smith, An­tho­ny D. (2002): When is a Na­ti­on? Geo­po­li­tics, Vol. 7, No. 2, 5–32, https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​714000928.
Tan­gie, Fon­chin­gong (2006): The State and De­ve­lop­ment in Afri­ca. https://​www.​codesria.​org/​IMG/​pdf/​tangie.​pdf?​1422.
Tilly, Charles (1993): Co­er­ci­on, Ca­p­ital, and Euro­pe­an Sta­tes AD 990-1992. Wiley–Black­well.
Ubaku, Ke­le­c­hi – Emeh, Chi­ke­zie – Anyik­wa, Chin­e­nye (2014): Im­pact of Na­ti­o­na­list Mo­ve­ment on the Ac­tu­a­li­za­ti­on of Ni­ge­ri­an In­de­pen­den­ce 1914-1960. In­ter­na­ti­o­nal Jour­nal of His­to­ry and Phi­lo­sophi­cal Re­se­arch, Vol. 2, No. 1, 54-67.
Wal­lenstein, Im­ma­nu­el (1961): Afri­ca. The Po­li­tics of In­de­pen­den­ce and Unity. A Vin­tage Ori­gi­nal, New York.
Wa­ri­bo­ko, Nimi (1998): Ca­pa­bi­lity Dis­t­ri­bu­ti­on and Onset of the 1869 Bonny War. Nor­dic Jour­nal of Afri­can Stu­di­es, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1–26.
Zart­man, Wil­li­am I. (1