Obo Effanga
The United Kingdom finally voted to
severe itself from the European Union last week, in what is no doubt a
landmark expression of citizens’ rights to self-determination. The
build-up to the Thursday referendum was simply electrifying as the whole
world waited to see where the pendulum would eventually rest. And when
the votes were all counted, a majority of the people voted to leave the
EU, thus ending an era of a broad-based united Europe.
One of the things I observed in the
excitement about voting to leave the EU, or Brexit, as they dubbed it,
was that many proponents made it look as if voting to leave was
synonymous with voting to re-affirm the UK’s independence and perceived
superiority. And the British so love that feeling of superiority.
Interestingly, this newfound independence of the UK was delivered to
them via the sweet tongue of Nigel Farage, the Member of Parliament
elected on the platform of the UK Independent Party. But the final
victory belongs to the citizens of the UK who chose to believe the lone
Independent Party voted the way they voted.
As usual with votes of such a close
result, there is bickering, nay, sour grapes in the camp of those who
voted to stay but were defeated. Unfortunately, they have lost the votes
and they must live with the consequences, along with those who won. And
it doesn’t matter if, as it is being claimed, some of them were just
driven by mere UK-centric sentiments and a disdain for too much foreign
influence on their ways of life.
It is apparent that many UK people
found it difficult to accept the tag of European, as opposed to being
simply, British. I equally met many British citizens who were even more
comfortable with being simply English than being British. I know of a
few who said as Englishmen and women, they sometimes feel awkward
carrying passports that announced them as “citizens of the United
Kingdom”. In fact, once an English friend talked about “African dinner”
and I asked if there is any such thing as “European breakfast”. She
quickly rejected such, but could at least talk about “English meals”. At
least, she got the point I was making about diversity.
With such diversities and differences
expressed, I could truly relate with many Nigerians who say they see
themselves more as representing and belonging to their various
ethnicities and maybe geopolitical expressions than they see themselves
as Nigerians. But while that may be similar, the difference lies in how
much the central government strives to build a united country where the
citizens are not always reminded in action and inaction of the state
that what they suffer is not necessarily as a result of their ethnicity.
There are a few more lessons I see in
the Brexit referendum that Nigeria could learn from. Recall that the
decision by the UK to join the EU was initially made on behalf of the
citizens by the government, made up of their elected representatives in
Parliament. But consistently, and after seeing how they fared within the
Union, the UK citizens kept demanding their rights as citizens and
holders of the sovereignty to determine whether or not they wished to be
in the EU. Their demands may initially have been scorned, but
eventually they had their ways – an opportunity to vote. The lesson here
for us in Nigeria is that even if we may concede our rights to decision
making to our elected representatives in the legislature, we still
reserve the power to generally decide some fundamental questions and
that through various other democratic means, including referendum.
In Nigeria’s context, such questions
would include decisions as to the structure of our country and the
union, division and enlargement of component units and territory. On the
face of it therefore, no question about Nigeria’s existence, continued
existence and nature of relationship necessary for such existence should
be considered “off limits”. We may wish to learn from the referendum
conducted in Scotland in 2014 which eventually led to the country voting
to remain as part of the UK. Interestingly, Scotland is now
reconsidering another vote on that issue after last week’s Brexit for
which they overwhelmingly voted for the UK to continue in the EU.
Back to the Brexit issue, many UK
citizens believe that keeping their borders wide open to all citizens of
the EU impacted negatively on their individuality or Britishness, if
you would. It also made them obliged, even if morally speaking, to
accepting immigrants from outside Europe, where such persons had been
accepted into any of the EU countries. I daresay that many of those who
voted Brexit, especially the young people did not bother enough to find
out all the full information about the pros and cons of their continued
EU membership. Those categories of citizens are usually the ones who
easily take a position on an issue in any voting population and run with
it very passionately. Their views may be the majority, but may not
necessarily be the best for all.
Such passionate and expressive citizens
have the tendency to also use the power of their number to awe the rest
of the society. They and their views often appear more popular than
those of the elite or the intelligentsia and they tend to more driven by
populist and even mob sentiments. There is reason to believe that many
who do not necessarily agree with them may not be bold enough to state
their opposition for fear of being branded as saboteurs. Thus, those who
want to see a different country or structure than the status quo can
easily resort to propaganda, painting a picture of a future utopia if
the views they canvass are allowed to be implemented.
There was a good dose of propaganda
that pulled voters to the Brexit. One of such was the claim by the
Brexit campaigners that leaving the EU would free a whopping £350m a
week to the UK, being the cost they pay for EU membership. These free
funds, they said, the country would spend on the National Health Scheme.
But just two hours after winning the vote, Farage, the UKIP leader,
said the money could not be guaranteed and claimed he would never have
made the promise in the first place, even though the promise was
emblazoned on some campaign vehicles used by his team.
Such experience above should weigh in
the minds of many Nigerians who are now excitedly mulling a possibility
of referendum in Nigeria, for any of several causes. No doubt, the most
popular one is the call for Biafra referendum and, possibly a Niger
Delta referendum. I daresay that if any of those referenda should happen
now, the result may be as seen in the UK. There may be good reason to
complain about the structure and operation of Nigeria today. But those
who demand separation, division and the likes should also be sure they
have a clear picture of what the future, post referendum, may be.
How clear and detailed are those who
excitedly make demands for sovereign states and nations out of the
present Nigeria about how those proposed new countries would operate and
survive, differently from the present country? Have we taken a good
look at how democratic, free and fair, the current managers of the
proposed independent entities are? In the event they ever succeed, who
would be the ones to operate the new states and with what level of
integrity would they operate? And for the more enlightened and more
comfortable elite who stay aloof in cities, far away from their
potential new sovereign states, have they considered the immediate
consequences of referendum results? Would they hope to simply take a
walk home and be handed over the new independent states to run based on
their sense of fair play and justice? I am not aware of anywhere in the
world such ever happens.
Comments