Jos crisis: a question of nationhood

I would have loved to continue with the 2nd part of faith and politcs but I have been writing my thoughts about the recent ethno-religious crisis in my home city Jos, Nigeria.


Another fight

On November the 28th, 2008 I received what I can only refer to as a distress call from my mother. From her voice I could clearly sense there was trouble. She said: "...Son, please pray for Jos, there is trouble. Muslims and Christians are fighting again". Within the turn of a minute I was taken back to a similar situation that had taken place on September 7th 2001, when we witnessed a widespread destruction of lives and properties; where we saw the great betrayal of trust as friends and neighbors who have shared so much over long periods of time, drew the battle lines against each other and made swords clash. It was a chilling experience, one not even better imagined. Muslims and Christians combed their neighbourhoods in search of each other to dispel.

The irony of a city

Jos popularly called "Home of Peace and Tourism" at this point became a home of shreds and terror. Houses and cars were set on fire, human bodies littered the streets, random sounds of gun shots could be heard from unknown locations as people took shield from whatever they could to avoid stray bullets: some cried for help while others chanted religious slogans; thick black smoke hovered the sky from the burnings beneath and the air was filled with the smell of burnings.

After coming back from such memory trip, with a sense of frustration I hit my fist to the wall and asked: Why again... why must it have to happen again? Have we not learned from the past? I could not put my mind around what could have been the immediate cause of the clash but to only wait until I could call family and friends to know. As hours rolled by, phone calls came and the stories began to take shape and it became obvious that it was still on the issue of religion, politics and ethnicity. These three elements characterized previous crises that took place in 2001 and 2004.

Historical antecedents

Jos, the capital of Plateau State consists of Jos North, Jos South and Jos East Local Government Areas (LGAs); of these three Jos North LGA happens to be the heart of the State capital. Since the creation of the latter two LGAs out of the old Jos Local Government there has been a twist in the North. While Jos South and Jos East have remained politically stable, due largely to their ethnic homogeneity, Jos North seems to have been plunged into a state of religious and ethnic squabbles between the different indigenous ethnic groups on the one hand and the mostly Muslim Hausa-Fulani Muslims on the other. (It is important to note that there are non-Muslim Hausa-Fulani).

The creation of Jos South by the Gen Ibrahim Babangida administration in 1991 and later Jos East by the Gen Sani Abacha administration in 1996 was intended to address the religio-ethnic and political interests and tensions. However, these have only deepened the suspicion among the different groups existing in Jos
To gain further insight and grasp the complexity of the situation, one would have to step back from a specific situation to the larger picture. Let’s look at the North as a region and see how the Jos crises may have its place there.

A romance of religion and politics

Religion has been the major element that defines the north. The northern part of Nigeria is predominantly Muslim and the non-Muslims there are in the minority. Islam's influence of the north has been strong since the ascendancy of the hegemony of the Hausa-Fulani. Islam has not only established itself as a religious institution in the north but has become what shapes and defines the economy, socio-political nuances of this region. With such a posture of strength in the region, non-Muslims have always felt marginalized and alienated from the scheme of society's affair and the fight for self-actualization has been an ongoing battle for the ethnic minorities of the north.

The non-Muslims of the north, although with few in the core Northern Nigeria, mostly stretch through the region of Nigeria popularly known as the Middle-belt region; a name that describes its central placing in the country as well as define its political quest for self-identity and actualization. It is very unique by its composition: a very heterogeneous region of Nigeria with several tribal and ethic groups. In fact it has over half of the almost three hundred ethnic groups of Nigeria. In some cases it takes a journey of less than a hundred kilometers to drive pass dozens of ethnic and tribal groups distinct from each other only by full or a slight linguistic tone and accent. This region is undoubtedly the most ethnically diverse region of Nigeria.

While the diversity of this region remains a major feature that makes it unique, defining it as an entity or a part of the larger northern Nigeria has been a big challenge. For instance, the question of what defines the north will run along many fronts like, religion, language, ethnicity, and culture. When the reality of the diverse nature of the generality of northern Nigeria is brought into the equation, the true drama begins. It ends up being impossible to have a generally satisfactory definition of the north without having some part of the north feeling alienated or aggravated. Historical realities bear testaments to this.

Politically speaking, since the religio-political campaign (Jihad) of Usman Dan Fodio, in the wake of the 18th century which led to the establishment of the Sultanate in Sokoto, Islam has sort to establish itself as the religion of the north seeking to enforce its beliefs in every area of society. This is premise on the fact that Islam makes no separation between religion, politics or the state and culture or tradition, political leaders and traditional rulers in the north have seen their roles as that of upholding and promoting the course of Islam. There has not been any better prove of this than the efforts made by State Governors and other political leaders in the Northern states of Nigeria to enforce the Shari’a legal system in order to achieve the realization of Islamic states. This negates the provision of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which provides for a secular state and a freedom of worship for all Nigerians. However, the dominance of Islam in the North has led to the declaration of some states as Islamic with little or no regard for the non-Muslim population who are equal citizens.

Unlike the middle belt, the core north has a common language which binds its people together. For the people of the middle belt Hausa is simply a second language. This common language and religion in the core north has helped create some level of unity, and makes the presence of any other religion to be seen as a threat to Islam’s, and by extension the Hausa Fulani’s firm grip over the north. Whereas, there has been relative "religious peace" in states with an almost absolute majority of Muslims (and that is not without a strong discrimination of the minority non-Muslim population) parts with a seeming dominant population of non-Muslims (usually Christians and some traditionalists) seem to experience series of religious clashes erupted as a result of Islam’s attempt for territorial expansion and wider political domination. This can be true of Southern Kaduna, Zaria, parts of Bauchi, Parts of Kano, among the Tiv, Jukun and Plateau people.

A time for an honest and just reflection

The recent crisis in Jos, in my opinion is a further reflection of unresolved questions. These questions are key to any honest discussion of national unity at any level of the Nigerian society. The crisis is not the main problem but a symptom of a need for justice. A call for such discussion is not a call to disunity as injustice is the greatest undoing of unity. For example, in the core north even Christians who are indigenes of those States cannot win elections there talk more of Christians who are settlers, but the Hausa-Fulani man who is not an indigenous person in Jos wants to dominate its political sphere. Is this just and fair? The Christian child in the core north does not enjoy the privilege to receive Christian religious instruction in public schools, but the Muslim child gets Islamic instruction in public schools within Christian dominated areas in the Middle Belt. Is this just and fair? A failure to discuss these issues will only continue to postpone healing and prolong the problems.
While there have been crises along religious lines, they have also always had ethnic undertones with them. Within the Middle Belt region there have been clashes in the past that owe to ethnic sentiments; take for instance a long history of conflict between the Jukun and Tiv ethnic nationalities, which lingered for a long period, the ethnic crises between the Kataf people and the Hausa Fulani. Other parts of the region may have not recorded bloody ethnic conflicts that cost lives and property but their politics have always suggested deep ethnic diversity. A lot has been done in the name of ethnicity: good or bad. In Plateau, a home to a large number of minorities, there are the minorities of the minority who feel marginalized by the so-called major ethnic groups. A very close look at the way politics have been in Plateau State in the past two decades reveals a people so divided by tribal and ethnic sentiments than are willing to admit to. There exists certain suspicion between the people of southern Plateau and that of the Northern part of the State. In fact, the three main indigenous tribes in Jos North Afizere, Anaguta and Berom are suspicious of each other’s intent and fear one may dominate the other. This of course is not just a regional problem nor is it only found in Plateau State but it reflects the state of the Nation Nigeria.

Crises of identity

The fact is that being a Nigerian is the last of many layers of identity. My brother in-law told me a story of a European missionary who attended a seminar that was to help foster peace and religious dialogue between Christians and Muslims in the north, at the end of the gathering an excited fellow from the audience shouted out: "Who believes in Nigeria?", almost all the people lifted their hands as they shouted "I!!" Just about the same time he gave a follow-up question to the first: "Who believes in a Nigerian?" at this point, one could hear the pin drop. This is something that has been consciously or unconsciously engrained in our psyche. What does it truly mean to be a Nigerian? The answer is a long list of identities; one is first a member of his ethnic group, then a member of his/her religion, then a member of his/her region, then a member of his/her political party and maybe then a Nigerian.

There is a deep seated mistrust between one ethnic group to another and giving the historical and contemporary realities in the north between religion and politics vis-a-vis ethnic diversity in the Middle Belt, individual groups defined either by religion or ethnicity assume their continued existence depends on them. In Jos, this is clear in the composition of the two major political parties: the People's Democratic Party is composed of largely Christians and indigenes of Jos while the All Nigerian People's Party is largely composed of Hausa Fulani Muslims. This reality was true during the Ibrahim Babangida's Social Democratic Party SDP and National Republican Congress NRC. People pitch in base on their religion and ethnicity.

Men of common heritage

It was Yusuf Maitama Sule who, in a program on National TV said: I am made to love mankind and not only my-kind -I thought that was a powerful statement to have come out of one of the respected leaders of the North. The failure to see that all men are alike is one of the problems. Even though we are a deeply religious people, we still have not come to grasp that all men are created by the same creator we claim we believe in. The genius of the American declaration of independence:
“We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not only true for the Americans but holds a universal truth for all men. We are first humans, created by a living and personal God before we are any other thing. As humans, we all share some common experiences, aspirations and expectations to life. We love the right to life for ourselves and family; we love liberty: our constitution, however deficient, does provide for some of those inalienable rights. If we desire these then we have to give same to our neighbors by observing the golden rule or in the words of the philosopher Emmanuel Kant, the "categorical imperative: Love your neighbor as yourself; Act only in that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Re-thinking nationhood

A way forward for Nigeria and Nigerians will mean an honest return to the concept of National rebirth addressing the question of national identity, equity, fairness and justice. As a matter of National identity we must come to terms with what truly makes us Nigeria and Nigerians. As a federation, we have to accept the fact that there are different groups and interests. These should not be a deficiency for our country but a strength. Imagine the immense potentials our diversity brings to bear in our country if we see each group and interest as part of the whole and realize that our beauty is in our diversity. When we disagree, it should be for the purpose of constructive progress for all. From the rainforest region to the creeks of the Niger delta and to the rocky plains of the plateau and up to the hot desert of the North we are all Nigerians and should not only have the right to speak but be heard wherever we go. In the spirit of true national rebirth, we must decide the most honest way to re-think our governing structure and see ways to truly make our federating units function and give leadership to the Nigerian people.

Nigerians are deeply religious. I do not say this in a derogatory way. It is almost the soul of our country. We display our sense of piety in every area of our life. In fact, in times of economic and political turmoil, Nigerians have found great strength and comfort from faith. We revere sacred people and items so devotedly yet a common sense of valuing human life often defy the peace our "religions" claim to be or give. My faith teaches me a culture of life; that there is such thing as the decency and dignity of human life; that protecting and promoting life is an act of worship to the creator of life. We need to find ways to function as a nation, defining clearly that fine line between state and religion. The idea of keeping this two separate is not godlessness but the way forward for this religiously plural society of ours. It is simply acknowledging that within our society, there are different spheres or institutions and they must each exercise independence for effective functioning. We must have a strong constitution that reflects our collective values and provide for citizens regardless of there faith and creed to go on without fear of molestation. Politics should not be used to promote religious agenda nor should religion be used to promote political agenda, be it in the North or South. Political office holders who have sworn to uphold the constitution of the federal republic should be faithful stewards who live by that oath. Should they desire to promote their religion through the means of political office, they should be impeached as abusing the oath of office and the constitution which contains collective guidelines for operating government.

Last word

Finally, I do not pretend to have provided answers to the many questions on this whole issue. I do not intend, in this writing to indict one religion over the other but to point to acts of injustices and unfairness where they have been shown and to call for a change of attitude where necessary for the collective good. God save Nigeria.

Faith and Politics pt. 2

faith and politics pt2

In the first part of writing on faith and politics, I have tried to mention why it is important to talk about faith and politics today. I have also made some attempt to give some grocery look at the historical development of the issue in question. In this 2nd part, I do intend to carry on from where I stopped with the movement of the centre of Christianity from East to West.

The significance of this moving meant also an ideological shift. By paradigm I mean like in the words of

The rule of law in a hierrachechal society: A look at Africas democracy.

What ever happen to theological reflections

After my first degree in theology, I left the walls of the seminary both satisfied and with a deep hunger. I left satisfied because the act of theological process and reflections gave me some apparatus for further reflections and-some forms of engaging with the Bible in a way that further enlightens me on the truth of God´s word. My hunger conversely was intensified by the seemingly deep gap I realized between the extensive and inexhaustible work within the walls of the theological academia and the shallow approach to nourishing of faith from the pulpit to the pew. To my great dismay, it seemed our efforts in much of our theological training seem to fall flat at the threshold of both the seminary and local church doors, because little is left as to how much our theological researches, deep reflections of theologies we have can be said to have penetrated the immediate local church and society we have been called to serve, for heaven´s sake. It is with this deep hunger that I have tried to make both a personal commitment and make pleas with gifted people to join in raising awareness and a charge for a reconsideration of the efficacy of our theology in this time and age. Just walking around the shelves of my undergraduate Seminary brings me to great number of theses written at both the undergraduate and graduate levels that have been students’ attempts to address some of the issues the church needs to address. But having worked in the church for a period of three years, observing the style of leadership in the church and also the challenges faced at the local church, I am always asking the question: where have all those researches gone? (Have we asked the right questions? Have we found the right answers, and have we applied them in the right way?).

Faith and politcs (pt 1)

The nature of the relationship between faith and society has been a matter of debate for centuries. Since the reformers of the 15-16 centuries tried to put the marriage between state and church asunder, subsequent generations have made attempt to tap into that idea and try to articulate it into their particular situations in an attempt to create social harmony. Despite this long time debate, there is no clear consensus to weather these two are mutually exclusive or mutually dependent.

Today we are still at the same place asking the same question: what is the relationship between state and Church or more broadly speaking, faith and politics? For Islam this is not much of a strong debate as it has never had a long history of attempting to separate politics and faith hitherto the usual reference to some countries as "Islamic state". However, there is an upsurge of new movements within Islam, like the "liberal Muslim" or "the progressive Muslims" who seem to embrace and promote the idea of the separation of state and religion. In the meantime, we will consider them a minority group within Islam. The conservative view in Islam has always been to see all things through Islam and thus Islam defines every sphere of society. The concept of separating Islam from the state would be viewed an act of sacrilege,thus the constant fight for a sharia controlled state.

Conversely, the idea of the separation of state and religion has mostly been a Christian idea. From the decisive years of the early church, Christians have had to define their place in a multi religious context. In most cases, it was clear how the state viewed its relationship with religion. To take the Roman concept of "pax Romana" (the Latin meaning of Roman Peace), the roman empire sort to keep peace at all levels of society and did that by giving for some forms of "inclusiveness" and degree of religious tolerance by accommodating and assimilating all religions into some "pool of polytheism" though ebbed by the worship of the emperor as pivotal in the keeping of peace. The church in such context was often targeted, falsely, as the enemy of the state. It was clear that the Church's refusal to any form syncretism was considered antithetical to a peaceful Rome and an act of subversion to the emperor. It is at this point that the church recorded its high number of mat yrs. They were persecuted in all forms.

However, before the collapse of the Roman empire in the hands of the Goths, Christianity had not only enjoyed acceptance under emperor Constantine but had been made the state religion. All though this was not greeted by all the citizens as a great idea, it made the role of the state and church quite blurred. For the church, its primary role, that of worship, evangelism and services of mercy and justice in the society was in some fashion turned political. With the fall of Rome in 410 some were quick to blame the church for its collapse. However, we see for the first time, in the midst of the confusion that followed the fall, an attempt to redefine the church. Augustine´s work: the city if God was the attempt to try to re-claim the identity of the church and by so, clarify its relationship with the state. One could conclude that Augustine's thesis was not a synthesis for the relationship between the church and state but an antithesis between the church and state. He defined the church as a mystic entity, an organic rather than an organisational being. one saddle with a responsibility that has a vertical bearing towards heaven and not much with a horizontal relevance to earthly affairs.

But before we hastily reach any conclusion of assuming that Augustine was the father of the separation of state and religion, we need to examine the shift that occurred in the centre of Christianity from East to West. The effort of Augustine did not practically change the state of affairs but clarified the fundamentals of Christianity. The movement of the strength of the church from east to west was a move from a Greek influenced church to a Latin influenced Church. However, the marriage between the state and church as officiated by Constantine was never dissolved. As David Bosch puts it: the church strive to articulate her role profusely in this "alter and throne" era.

Faith in a pluralistic society

We live in a world that is so closely knitted together than any time in history. The homogeneous nature of many societies has fast been replaced by a multi-diverse era. The abundant flow of information, the increasing migration of people for: business, jobs, marriage, the seeking of social and political asylum have all in some untamed manner made this change in most societies possible.

It is of note to say that this change has not left things as the were some two to three decades back. With the moving of people and the easy access to communicate across boarders and cultures, ideas have also found a way to travel. These ideas have come from different cultural and religious beliefs. We could say that moving people have moved with their cultures, values and of course religions.

For most societies that have been very homogeneous in their form, this change in the social fabric poses a perplexing situation of defining itself as a people, culture and religion. This perplexity has led to some degree of frustration in some quarters while in others it is a mixed blessing. Depending on how every concerned individual sees the situation, I think both sides are legitimate in their reaction. There is nothing that can be more human than these reactions. I am of the opinion that man is made a preserving being. The desire to preserve long held values, beliefs and cultures are part of what defined us as human. On the other hand we are progressive beings. The ability to innovate is a deeply seated gift in our human culture. While we may seek to preserve, we always embrace the sense of progress in our total culture.

At this time however, the tension will be what is the dividing line between preserving heritage and progress in any society. I believe it is not the question of "either or". It is the question of every society being able to adapt and define itself in a changing time without losing its core values. This is not the contest for cultural supremacy but that of cultural accommodation and the exchanges of cultures in the arena of cultural dialogue.

To this end I think that the question of faith is crucially important. I do believe that faith is an essential part of our society. All societies have been known to have a consciousness of faith, some degree of believe in the existence of the supernatural. Well, someone may say "there are those who do not believe in the supernatural". But that is only so because of the premise that there is such. So, whether you believe or don't believe in the existence of the supernatural only underscore the argument that there is a possible consciousness of the supernatural that has made the debate possible.
However we define our individual or communal Faith it will always be a fact that it will affect the general nature of the being of any society as an entity. Faith and society are not opponents. Faith is a crucially necessary part of the society. It has to a large part been the conscience of the society in the formation of a morally conscious society. To try to organise a society without it will be like playing a soccer match without a referee. Many people assume faith or as we call it "religion": the enemy of the society. Well, like every good thing among people, they can have both positive use and negative. We can count, with our fingers all the problems that have been associated to the question of faith, but when we wait to ponder for a moment we can see myriads of benefits that faith has brought to societies.

With our societies being religiously plural, we have a duty, like with every sphere of the society to find a square of meaningful dialogue: call it a market square of ideas or city centre for religious dialogue, the important thing is that we must learn to open for faith conversation in how we organise society. Some of the religions of the world have been spread by the use of sword, we know the outcomes and the historical stigma that has left, but they have also been spread by the use of debate and dialogue. Rather than hate and kill those who do not share our faith we must use the most of other abilities we have been created with, that of reasonable debate and dialogue.