EXAMINING THE POLITICS OF IDENTITY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ANYIAM-OSIGWE’S GROUP MIND PRINCIPLE
Part 4 of a 6-part scholarly examination by Tetsekela Michelle Anyiam-Osigwe of the Igbo condition in Nigeria from the perspective of her grandfather’s (Sage Philosopher Chief Emmanuel Onyechere Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe) Group Mind Principle.
Challenges For “National Group Mind” In Overcoming The Limitations Of Post-Amalgamation
Case study: The Igbo condition in Nigeria
THE INDIGENE-CITIZEN PRINCIPLE
“…In Nigeria, all evidence would suggest that the loyalty of the Nigerian is first to his ethnic stock either as an Igbo man, a Hausa, Fulani, Ijaw, Itsekiri, Yoruba or Tiv, among others. His relationship with the Nigerian State, is filial, and at best, a matter of convenience and expediency…” – Michael Anyiam-Osigwe (2013)
THE PYRAMID OF IDENTITY
The notion of Nigerian unity and the realisation of what Anyiam-Osigwe calls a “National Group Mind” are confronted with the hierarchy of identity that privileges the loyalty as an indigene over that of a citizen.
Despite some cultural disparities (particularly linguistic) still existing within each tribe, that he is Igbo, for instance, still remains central to his identity.
The Igbos’ attachment to being Igbo is almost on par with their attachment to being men or women. The foundational Identity of South Easterners equates to being Igbo men and Igbo women and this is conveyed in their dispositions among other tribes, and then among themselves. With the latter, there is a deep sense of kinship and brotherhood.
To this end, we identify ourselves as Igbos in Nigeria and not Nigerians who just so happen to be Igbo. Crucially, this construct of identity seemingly only manifests in the Nigerian space. In the rest of Africa, we are Nigerians. In the diaspora, we are Africans. We are only made significantly conscious of our “Igbo-ness” in the Nigerian setting and this identity construct proves significantly salient in the political arena.
The hierarchy of identity is not is not simply a function of post
amalgamation; the Igbos have increasingly found that their post-Biafra exclusion in Nigeria’s political space makes it necessary for them to remain conscious of this hierarchy of identity. Indeed, it is difficult to subscribe to a national narrative in which you have no part in construction.
Beyond this, and equally as crucial, is the fact that those who call for unity, those in authority who placate the Igbos for “doing more damage to our collective nationhood than any other ethnic group,” are the same set of individuals who fan the embers of ethnic rivalry, facilitating the deepening of the ethnic factor in the electoral process. It undoubtedly remains the case that at the ballot box, religion and ethnicity matter far more than party policy. Politicians are guilty of soliciting votes by shoring up animosity against the other ethnic group next door.
For Anyiam-Osigwe, tainting the support of a particular candidate with the utterances of ethnic champions creates the antithesis that negates the appropriate eclecticism within which our national construct can sustain its expression. He posits that a deliberate effort to brand Jonathan as the President of Nigeria from the Niger Delta would have proved more advantageous to his person and the country, than wittingly or unwittingly, portraying him as the Niger Delta President of Nigeria.
It nevertheless remains that this type of conception of identity facilitates a nexus between people (ethnic group), power and politics, existing in a dimension where the political is intrinsic to the personal. Each group aspires to a seat in power with the belief that only their “people” will deliver on what is good for them. The past 50 years post-Biafra has seemingly vindicated the Igbo resolve; so long as they continue to be marginalised, there can be no progress or holistic development.
Consequently, many Igbos would want an Igbo President. This may even gradually be the same for, inter alia, the Yorubas, the Ijaws, the Tivs, as the proliferation of collective wills based on group identification mobilises minority groups to demand for power positions due to consistent marginalisation.