DIM ODUMEGU OJUKWU: A PAST SO PRESENT

          Dim Odumegu Ojukwu died on Saturday, 26^th of November 2011 at the age of 78. Most of the comments made about him said he was a hero, a patriot and a statesman who lived a full life. Many said he would be sadly missed, and his political shoes will be difficult to fill. General Yakubu Gowon who led Nigeria against Ojukwu’s 30-month rebellion said he never regarded Ojukwu as an enemy, even as took up arms against Nigeria.  He said Ojukwu died a committed Nigerian who even attempted twice to become a democratically-elected leader of Nigeria. President Goodluck Jonathan said Ojukwu was forced into the leading role he played during the Nigerian civil war out of his immense love for his people, justice, equity and fairness. He praised him for his commitment to reconciliation and the full reintegration of his people into a united and progressive Nigeria after the war. General Muhammadu Buhari said in his life, Ojukwu was many things to many people: a soldier, a leader, a rebel and a politician. Senate President David Mark said that Ojukwu deserves a prominent chapter in the history of Nigeria, and no one can deny the fact that he played his role creditably according to the dictates of the time.

These views about the life and times of Dim Ojukwu represent one version of history, and it is fair to say that they represent the verdict of history that Ojukwu himself would value above all others. For a man who made the full circle, from a soldier sworn to protect and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nigeria; to a rebel who took up arms against it; to a politician who failed to find a fitting place in an emerging democratic system; then back to a leader of a tribal political party in a nation where tribes have failed to yield grounds for emergence of citizens, Ojukwu’s life is a study in the challenging history of the Nigerian federal system.

Ojukwu made history; and was made by Nigerian history. A tribal hero when he made the decision to pull the Eastern Region out of Nigeria, history will also remember him as a villain whose ego and tragic miscalculations brought the people he attempted to lead to freedom, to their knees. He was not part of the reconciliation and reintegration process: that part will be assigned by history to federal leaders who defeated him. He was not part of the incredible pace of rehabilitation and re-integration of Igbos and other Easterners into the rest of Nigeria, which showed that his rebellion had little organic foundations. That part of history will be credited to leaders who had vision and statesmanship, and who understood that Nigerian unity was a lot more resilient than Ojukwu himself believed.

But history will have a place for Ojukwu as a leader who stood for his people when they appeared to have fallen victims of the destructive ethnic-motivated political events which changed the course of the history of the young Nigerian free nation. Many innocent Easterners, which included many non-Igbos were killed in the north in what appeared to be a reaction to a perceived Igbo or Eastern coup which killed Northern and Western leaders. Many Northerners were also killed in the East. A young military leadership which found itself thrust into power with huge sectoral influences tried to keep the nation afloat without success. Ojukwu’s solution was to pull Igbos and other Easterners out of Nigeria into a new nation, Biafra, in spite of many attempts to dissuade him.  A democratic process which was being severely tested by strong ethnic pulls had collapsed on the head of young military officers who had very clear ideas about the need to keep the nation’s unity intact. The cumulative effects of the AG’s betrayal of Azikiwe which forced him to retreat to the East and wear his Igbo tribal toga as politician; the crisis in the West when Awolowo’s larger-than-life image brooked no dissent, and whose political empire was being assaulted by the Northern People’s Congress from within; the crisis with communities in today’s Middle Belt which showed that even the Sardauna’s fabled grip on Northern politics was largely exaggerated had eroded the foundations of unity among the political elite in the build up to the 1966 coup. By accident or design the 1966 coup portrayed an Igbo or Eastern agenda to achieve a regime change in its favor. Northern officers fought back with their own coup; and it all proved too much for Ojukwu, who then said that secession was the only solution, since Igbos were not wanted in Nigeria.

  For thirteen years, from 1966 until 1979, the nation lived under the rule of the military, which fought a war; engineered a remarkable reconciliation and reintegration; received unprecedented revenues and began to administer a government with huge resources in a poor country; lost the battle against corruption and against its own cohesion and integrity. Those 13 years severely underdeveloped democratic values and institutions. A hesitant and weak effort at democratization was again aborted just four years after the military withdrew; but not before Ojukwu was pardoned and returned to the country to join the Northern-dominated ruling party, NPN. In a way, it was his own personal re-integration with his fatherland, and the beginning of his involvement with a political process which had little room for former tribal heroes. Another 15 years would be spent by Nigerians under military governments, during which corruption grew while politicians shrank in stature and influence in the hands of the military. Ojukwu took his place as a has-been, in a system in which the military decided who became billionaires, and who were friends or enemies. He was part of the Nigerian older generation which witnessed the West move into virtual rebellion after Abiola’s election was aborted; and NADECO and OPC must have  reminded him of the feelings of injustice following the May and November killings of Easterners in 1966. He had a stint as a Head of a militia he formed, and he was never too far from other Igbo tribal groups such as Ndi-Igbo.

The political contraption which produced a Yoruba President in 1999 specifically as a response to the reaction of the West following Abiola’s sojourn had little room for Ojukwu. Unable to win elections or find a prominent national position in a major party, he retreated into his tribal enclave and floated a political party that is almost purely Igbo. This gave him a political platform and an asset, but reinforced him as a leader good enough only for the Igbo people. But he was in good company here. The ANPP and AD were virtual tribal parties. The CPC which emerged out of the shadows of the ANPP and the fragmenting fortunes of the PDP in the north is limited to the far north. The former AD is an uncanny reincarnation of the old Action Group, so the Yoruba people, like many Igbo people, have scurried back into tribal holes. The South South is holding on to the PDP as its strongest base, and the party is increasingly looking like a south south people’s party. The north is divided between an ethnic and religious minority which will go anywhere other than where the majority goes, and a majority which has lost real power quite possibly for the first time in its history.

The pervasive and decisive influence of ethnic politics which indirectly produced Ojukwu is today, even more pronounced. The most consistent clamor for the Igbo in Nigeria is to be accorded full rights and dignity, for a people who must live substantially outside Igboland. This demand is being checkmated by a Yoruba mentality which sees survival in Nigeria in terms of locking up its doors to the rest of Nigeria, or more specifically, competition. The demand is being resisted by a rising mentality in much of the south south which resents the historic subordination of its people under Igbos, and which wants to keep Igbos outside its newly-found assertive mentality and huge resources. The demand is being frustrated by policies which deny and deprive Igbos full rights and privilege in many parts of Nigeria where they live; in laws and other measures which limit their rights and freedoms as citizens; and in periodic crises which target Igbo property and lives even when they are not part of the problem.

There is much in the life history of Ojukwu which is still a major problem in Nigeria. In the early 1960s the Tiv riots and other isolated uprisings showed that the north is vulnerable to crises around tongue and faith. Today, much of the christain north has a severely stressed relationship with Muslim north: and the unending conflicts in Plateau, Bauchi and Kaduna States may just be the modern manifestation of these old conflicts. The West went into virtual rebellion in the 1990s to protest what it saw as the denial of a Yoruba man’s legitimate mandate to govern. Today, almost the entire West is a monolithic political conclave, and there is increasing tendency to think that it can be structured into as a future State. The south south has received a bountiful reward for its insurgency around natural resources; and whole communities have now acquired new mentalities and resources to protect more territory for tribes. The far north is split between a part which is yet to come to grips with the loss of political control of the centre; and an emerging insurgency in the name of a non-secular State. On the whole, the nation is made up of tribes and ethnic group as building blocks, and not citizens with equal rights. The nation is a captive of a vision-less leadership which reinforces its sources of weakness of the nation.

Historians will wonder what Ojukwu would have thought, in his last days, of the nation he served, then fought, then served again as a politician with a mixed past. But in his life, history will remind Nigerians of the pitfalls of inept leadership and crass opportunism. Much of the past captured in the life and times of Ojukwu are very much part of the present in Nigeria. This is tragic for a nation which should have learnt many lessons about the dangers of mismanaging its plurality and diversity. If Nigerians could take a step back and critically examine the life of Dim Ojukwu, they may yet learn why some people think our nation will not survive the next five years as a united country. And perhaps we may produce the type of leadership that will be sure that we do.