Revisiting Awolowo and the limits of an inherited union
Nigeria as a “Geographical Expression”:
Few statements in Nigeria’s political history have provoked as much reflection as the description by Obafemi Awolowo that Nigeria is “not a nation but a mere geographical expression.” Far from a casual remark, Awolowo’s assertion was a distilled critique of the country’s origins, its structural contradictions, and the persistent challenges that have defined its postcolonial experience. Decades later, his characterization continues to resonate in debates about identity, governance, and the viability of the Nigerian union.
The Historical Foundations of a Fragmented State
The entity now known as Nigeria was not forged through a shared historical evolution or collective consent. Its creation can be traced to the administrative decision of Frederick Lugard, who, in 1914, amalgamated the Northern and Southern Protectorates for the convenience of British colonial governance. This act joined together a vast array of ethnic nationalities each with distinct political systems, cultures, and worldviews into a single political framework.
The absence of consultation or consensus meant that Nigeria began its existence without the foundational elements of nationhood: a shared identity, mutual trust, and a unifying social contract. Instead, it inherited an artificial cohesion imposed from above, designed primarily to serve colonial economic and administrative interests.
Awolowo’s description of Nigeria as a “geographical expression” reflects this reality. In his view, what existed was not a nation in the true sense, but a territorial convenience a space occupied by diverse peoples who had not organically evolved into a unified political community.
Structural Imbalances and Persistent Tensions
One of the central arguments embedded in Awolowo’s critique is that Nigeria’s diversity, while potentially a strength, has been mismanaged within an unsuitable constitutional framework. The forced union brought together regions with differing levels of development, contrasting religious orientations, and incompatible political traditions.
Rather than addressing these differences through genuine federalism or negotiated coexistence, successive governments often relied on centralized power structures inherited from colonial rule. This concentration of authority has fueled competition for control at the center, turning politics into a high-stakes contest where access to state resources becomes the primary objective.
In such an environment, national cohesion is undermined by zero-sum calculations. Groups perceive political power not as a means of collective advancement, but as an instrument for regional or ethnic advantage. The result is a cycle of distrust, agitation, and instability.
Governance Without Nationhood
Awolowo’s thesis also speaks to the challenges of governance in a state lacking a cohesive national identity. In Nigeria, the state often appears distant from the citizenry, and public institutions struggle to command legitimacy. Political leadership is frequently criticized for prioritizing personal or factional interests over national development.
This governance deficit is exacerbated by weak institutions, systemic corruption, and limited accountability. The rule of law is inconsistently applied, and public confidence in state structures remains fragile. In such circumstances, the idea of a unified national purpose becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.
Without a shared sense of belonging, citizens may retreat into narrower identities ethnic, regional, or religious further weakening the bonds that hold the state together. The absence of nationhood, in Awolowo’s formulation, makes effective governance not just difficult, but structurally constrained.
The Problem of Legitimacy
A critical dimension of the argument that Nigeria “cannot work” as presently constituted lies in the question of legitimacy. Nations are typically built on some form of collective agreement, whether through historical evolution, social contract, or democratic consensus. Nigeria, however, lacks a clear moment of voluntary union.
The 1914 amalgamation, followed by the transfer of power at independence, did not involve a comprehensive renegotiation of the terms of coexistence among its constituent peoples. As a result, many continue to view the Nigerian state as an imposed framework rather than a chosen community.
This perceived lack of legitimacy manifests in recurring calls for restructuring, regional autonomy, or, in some quarters, outright secession. These movements are not merely political expressions; they are symptoms of a deeper unresolved question: on what basis do the peoples of Nigeria agree to live together?
Why the Union Struggles to Function
Drawing from Awolowo’s perspective, several factors explain why the Nigerian union has struggled to achieve stability and cohesion:
Artificial Origins: The state was created without regard for the historical and cultural realities of its peoples, resulting in a fragile foundation.
Absence of Shared Identity: Nigeria lacks a unifying narrative strong enough to supersede ethnic and regional loyalties.
Centralized Power Structure: The concentration of authority at the federal level intensifies competition and fuels conflict.
Institutional Weakness: Governance systems have not evolved sufficiently to manage diversity or ensure accountability.
Economic Contestation: Control of national resources, particularly oil wealth, has become a source of division rather than collective benefit.
Together, these factors create a system in which tensions are not incidental but inherent. The challenges are not merely the result of poor leadership, but of structural contradictions embedded in the very conception of the state.
Rethinking the Future
To argue that Nigeria, as currently structured, cannot function effectively is not necessarily to advocate for its dissolution. Rather, it is to recognize the urgency of reimagining the terms of its existence. Awolowo himself was a proponent of true federalism a system in which regions would enjoy significant autonomy while remaining part of a broader union.
Such a restructuring would require an honest national conversation about identity, governance, and the distribution of power. It would involve revisiting the constitutional framework, strengthening institutions, and fostering a sense of shared purpose that transcends historical divisions.
Conclusion
The description of Nigeria as a “geographical expression” remains a powerful lens through which to examine its past and present. It highlights the gap between the existence of a state and the reality of a nation a gap that continues to shape the country’s trajectory.
Whether Nigeria can bridge this divide depends on its willingness to confront its foundational contradictions and to undertake meaningful reform. Until then, Awolowo’s words will continue to echo as both a diagnosis and a challenge: a reminder that nationhood cannot be assumed it must be consciously built.
Comments