By Jideofor Adibe @JideoforAdibe pcadibe@yahoo.com (07058078841 SMS only)
In
garden talks and beer parlour political conversations, one
often
constantly hears one side charging the other: “Please
let’s put
sentiments aside and be patriotic here”. Such
admonitions are fairly
common when Nigerians of different
political, ethnic and religious
persuasions engage in political
conversations. Over time, I have come to
believe that the
concept of ‘patriotism’ is not neutral in such
conversations but
often a veneer used by the contending groups to gain
mileage
during arguments.
In
this reflection therefore, I will interrogate the notion of ‘patriotic
Nigerian’, and how the identity of the ‘patriotic Nigerian’ interfaces
with other identities that such a Nigerian bears.
Patriotism
is often defined as an emotional
attachment to a nation which an
individual recognizes as his/her homeland. Patriotism is sometimes
called ‘national feeling’ or ‘national pride’.
The
core features of patriotism include special affection for one’s own
nation (country); a sense of personal identification with the nation,
special concern for the well-being of the nation and willingness to
sacrifice to promote the nation’s good. Though used interchangeably by
patriotism advocates, there are differences between ‘nation’, ‘state’
and ‘country’. While ‘country’ and ‘state’ are synonymous terms that
apply to self-governing political entities, a ‘nation’ however is
usually used to refer to a group of people who feel that they are one or
ought to be one. As an ‘imagined community’, it is easier to evoke a
sense of patriotism among citizens where the nation-building process is
advanced (‘proper nations’) than in societies where the basis of
togetherness remains contested (where country is seen as a mere
geographical expression).
The
problem with these defining features of patriotism is that they are
relative. For instance, if one is constantly critical of a government’s
policy, does that make one less patriotic than say a political partisan
who believes that the government means well and therefore deserves to be
supported in whatever policies it comes up with? If an unemployed
Nigerian decides to vote with his feet in search of the proverbial
golden fleece in a another country, does it make that person less
patriotic than others who remained behind for one reason or the other to
rough it out?
A
common tendency among some ‘patriotism’ advocates is to mistake
patriotism for groupthink. Groupthink is a term coined by the American
social psychologist Irving Janis in 1972. Janis explained the concept as
“the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking
becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override
realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.” In groupthink,
loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial
or non-conforming issues and ideas or even alternative solutions. The
idea that groupthink must never be mistaken for patriotism goaded
Stephen Nathanson, professor emeritus in philosophy at Northeastern
University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, to write:
“While
patriotism is often lauded as an unquestionable value, the status of
patriotism is a problem for many thoughtful people. It is particularly
troublesome for people who care about the common good but are alienated
by the all too frequent use of patriotism and patriotic symbols to
stifle debate, tarnish the images of rival candidates or arouse popular
support for aggressive military policies.”
The
use of ‘patriotism’ to stifle debate or blackmail people into joining
the bandwagon in servicing narrow interests or accepting values they do
not agree with is perhaps what Samuel Johnson, the English poet and
essayist had in mind when he called patriotism “the last refuge of the
scoundrel”.
The
unfortunate thing is that as the Nigerian state becomes more polarized,
it concomitantly generates more groupthinks that support and feed the
various polarities that widen the social distance among Nigerians. For
instance shortly after the election of Buhari as the President, those
who supported his emergence as President tended to see those who did not
(or whom they believe did not support him) as the ‘out-group’, whose
moral, political and social values were defeated in the election. In the
same vein, among those who did not support Buhari’s candidacy, their
own groupthink, manifested in counter stereotyping, also hardened. They
became labelled the ‘Wailing Wailers’. Groupthink is usually contrasted
with the ‘marketplace of ideas’, which is often used as a justification
for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of
a free market. A key idea here is that the truth will emerge from the
competition of ideas in free and transparent public discourse.
Another
problem in delineating a ‘patriotic Nigerian’ is that in a multi-ethnic
society like ours, ‘national feeling’, does not automatically translate
into ‘Nigerian feeling’. Here we get into the tension between ‘nation’
and ‘nationality’. A ‘nationality’ could be defined as a ‘stateless
nation’. A nation or nation-state often has different nationalities
within its range. For instance the Tamils, the Punjabis and the
Bengalis are different nationalities constituting the Indian nation
just as the Yoruba, the Igbo, the Hausa/Fulani, the Ijaw, Idoma etc. are
nationalities within the Nigerian nation-state. In countries where the
basis of nationhood remains contested, nationalities often compete with
the nation-state. In such a country, one’s identity as a member of a
particular nationality competes with one’s identity as a citizen of the
country in which that nationality exists. The fact that one is a proud
Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa/Fulani, Ijaw or Idoma however does not necessarily
mean that the person is less patriotic than others who do not flaunt
their pride in their ethnic homeland. The decisive issue is the manner
in which this pride in the ethnic homeland is portrayed and narrated.
Quite
often, which of these identities one privileges or prioritizes will
depend on which one the person feels is most under threat. For instance,
outside Nigeria, one’s identity as a Black person or Nigerian may be
the dominant identity because it is the one most caricatured. However
the same Nigerian who was very active in pan African or Pan Nigerian
movements in the UK or the USA can return home to become an ethnic
champion. In fact the same person can move from being an ethnic champion
to a champion of his senatorial district or even village during
inter-communal feuds or rivalries. It does not mean that such a person
is a hypocrite. It simply tells us that the notion of identity is
dynamic and has both time and space dimensions. In essence a soldier
that fought in defence of the territorial integrity of the country can
also be a morbid ethnic irredentist. In the same vein, that one fought
or was on the federal side during the civil war does not necessarily
make that person more patriotic in contemporary discourses than others
precisely because the contexts and issues were different from what we
have today. Patriotism, like identity, is not ossified in time and
space. It is dynamic, with time and space dimensions.
One
of the funny ways in which some Nigerians try to lay greater claim to
the Nigerian state or discourses around it is to portray themselves as
‘de-tribalized’. Technically the word ‘de-tribalized’ is used to
describe an ethnic or cultural group that has lost its characteristic
customs and cultures either by adopting a different custom or through
‘cultural cleansing’. In Nigeria-speak however, we use it to refer to
people that have supposedly suppressed or ‘killed off’ the
ethnic/cultural part of their identity. I am not sure this is possible.
Obviously in discourses, there are people who strive for ‘objectivity’.
I am not sure of neutrality because as they say, behind every
neutrality lies a hidden choice.
An
important question raised by the above reflection is whether
separatists could be called ‘unpatriotic Nigerians’. I am not sure
because patriotism is not just about one’s love for particular
geographical expression (country), it is also about one’s location in
the contending arguments about how that country should be constituted,
organized and run. Separatist groups are largely individuals and groups
who feel alienated from the Nigerian state and therefore choose to
delink from it. Individuals and groups have different reasons for
feeling alienated. And mind you every part of the country have at one
time or the other felt alienated, humiliated and marginalized, hence you
have separatist elements from across the country - Boko Haram, Biafran
agitators, advocates of sovereign national conference, resource control
champions, those who talk of the North as if it were a separate
country, Igbo supremacists and Oduduwa irredentists.
The
point of the above is to show the difficulty in trying to delineate a
‘patriotic Nigerian’ in a polarized country like ours, where there is on
the one hand a proliferation of groupthinks and on the other hand a
love for robust ideas exchange. Another point is to raise an alert about
the tendency by some patriotism advocates to use the word as a tool of
blackmail to chill free speech and choke contrarian narratives.
Read more at http://www.dailytrust.com.ng/news/columns/who-is-a-patriotic-nigerian/175029.html#eb1UY5mDk0efw3s8.99
No comments:
Post a Comment