Last week, I wrote about the lessons of economic history, and stressed the need for Nigeria to learn from its own and others’ economic past. I would like to continue with the same subject of history this week. But before I proceed, I want to thank Chief Philip C Asiodu, who emailed me to say he enjoyed last week’s piece, titled “Nigeria is not learning the lessons of economic history”. His words: “I agree with you and we need more of such pieces. Congratulations.” Feedback, any feedback, from readers, is pleasing to every columnist, and when the feedback is positive, it’s doubly gratifying! So, I was delighted to receive a compliment from Chief Asiodu!
Now, as I said, I want to continue with the same subject in this week’s column, but my focus is on a different historical theme. I want to explore the origins and historical development of Britain and Nigeria. And my aim is to see if there are lessons we can learn from the history of Britain about how Nigeria or, indeed, any country, can transform itself from a backwater to an economic power. To be clear: I am not a historian. I am not trained in the subject. But I love history. I am fascinated by the history of things: from economic and political history to the origins of people and nations and the history of ideas! I believe that a nation or a people that do not know where they came from, would struggle to understand who they are, let alone know where they are going! Unfortunately, many people are indifferent to, if not apologetic about, history. How many Nigerians have any serious knowledge about the origins of this country, for instance? We all say we are “Nigerians”, but what does the word “Nigeria” really mean? Should we care?
Of course, we should. I like how Niall Ferguson puts it in his book, Civilisation: “There is only one past. And although the past is over, it is indispensable to our understanding of what we experience today and what lies ahead of us tomorrow and thereafter. ” Then he adds: “the past is really our only reliable source of knowledge about the fleeting present and to the multiple futures that lie before us, only one of which will actually happen.” As someone also put it, “we are the product of the past, citizens of the present, and applicants to the future”. Now, which future out of many possible futures a nation or a people “apply to” is a matter of choice, but making the right choice starts with knowing about the past, what worked, what didn’t and why – essentially, it’s about learning from history!
Just over a week ago, as I opened my Sunday Times newspaper in London, there was in it a large poster titled “History of Britain”, which traced the people and events that have shaped the nation from when the first humans stepped on British soil some “800,000 years ago”. And last week, Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II celebrated her 90th birthday, with festivities, including lighting of 1000 beacons, across the UK! Britain is, indeed, a country with well-documented history. Nigeria is less so!
Yet what strikes me as I study the history of Britain is how remarkably similar the country and Nigeria are, in terms of some of their experiences. Take their colonial history. Following their successful conquest in AD 43, the Romans ruled Britain as an imperial province for nearly 400 years. Hundreds of years later, Britain embarked on its own empire-building, and rules Nigeria for about sixty years. So, both countries have experienced being colonised and ruled by a more powerful nation.
Another similarity is that both countries are political inventions. For instance, Britain exists only because of the political marriage between England, Scotland and Wales, each of which existed in their individual rights as separate nationalities and predate Britain (If you are talking of the United Kingdom, then you have to add Northern Ireland). Similarly, Nigeria exists only because of the political merger (indeed, a forced marriage) of the Yoruba, the Igbo, the Hausa/Fulani and the other tribes, all of which were separate nationalities and predates the creation of Nigeria!
Before George Goldie (some call him “father of Nigeria”) used his soldiers and “maxim guns” to beat all the nationalities into total surrender from the late 1880s and established the Northern and Southern protectorates, there was nothing called Nigeria. In 1900, Goldie’s Royal Niger Company, which controlled the two protectorates, passed their governance to the British government. That was the beginning of the formal colonisation. Before then, it was the businessmen who were in charge. Frederick Lugard was later to lead the amalgamation of the two protectorates into one country, Nigeria, in 1914, becoming, if you like, the “father of ‘united’ Nigeria”.
So, back to my point, Britain and Nigeria are political inventions, the only difference is that in the case of Britain, the union was achieved through negotiation and mutual agreement between England and Scotland (the Act of Union 1707) and through England conquering Wales and colonising the Irish. But in the case of Nigeria, the ‘union’ was achieved through imposition by the British, and not because any of the nationalities negotiated with or conquered one another.
Culturally, Britain and Nigeria are also broadly similar. For instance, Britain is a monarchical country; Nigeria is, to some extent, monarchical too. Most Nigerians respect and value their traditional rulers more than their political leaders. Just consider the influence of kings like the Sultan of Sokoto, Ooni of Ife, and Oba of Benin. Legends and myths also hold sway in both countries. In his book, The English, Jeremy Paxman, a prominent journalist, said that the English believe they are one of the lost tribes of Israel, who escaped in 8th century BC, when the Assyrians invaded Israel, forcing ten tribes into exile. The Igbo also claim a Jewish descent, claiming they are descendants of Eri, Arodi and Areli, the three sons of Gad, the 7th son of Jacob. So, the Igbo and the English are probably cousins, as both have a Jewish origin! Of course, there are several versions of the origins of the Yoruba and, indeed, of who Oduduwa, their presumed progenitor, truly was or where he actually came from!
Now, the similarity that brings me to the heart of this intervention is socio-economic, concerning the initial conditions of Britain. The truth is that, in the 14th and 15th centuries, Britain was a wretched country, a miserable backwater. English life expectancy at birth was on average 37 years between 1540 and 1800. Indeed, as Ferguson puts it in Civilisation, “English life in the 14th and 15th centuries was truly ‘short, poor, nasty, brutish and short’”. Even Nigeria, with its multifaceted challenges, can’t be described in those terms!
So, how did a country with such a miserable background become one of the greatest empires in the world, and the 6th largest economy in the world today? Well, necessity, they say, is the mother of invention. Surrounded by hostile rivals, like France and Spain, and facing socio-economic challenges at home, Britain needed radical solutions. And trade became the main solution. Indeed, the primary aim of colonisation was to gain access to overseas markets and secure trade routes. But trade and overseas expansion were only part of the solution; it would be wrong, for instance, to suggest that Britain owed its transformation mainly to colonisation.
At home, there was a scientific revolution, which triggered the industrial revolution, as entrepreneurs exploited scientific and technological innovations in manufacturing. And the large consumer markets at home and abroad (Yes, thanks to colonisation), ensured the success of the industrial revolution. Of course, there were other critical drivers and enablers, such as the institutional framework (the common law, rule of law etc), Britain’s naval power, its financial innovation (for instance, the gold standard was Britain’s invention), and, of course, the intellectual contribution of the likes of Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo whose ideas underpinned the economic and political development of the country.
To be sure, any attempt at transplantation would be futile, but there are key lessons one can learn from the British experience. For me, the first, given Nigeria’s history, is the need to achieve unity among the different nationalities. Each of the nationalities is still behaving as if it’s fighting for its own survival within the country. Nigeria’s independence leaders did little to unite the country. Efforts should have been made to achieve genuine political settlement, and create some symbols of unity. For instance, I asked earlier about the meaning of the name “Nigeria”. Clearly, it’s derived from the word “Niger”, which is a Greek word for “black”, and which, like the phrase “Dark Continent”, was used by the colonialists to describe the hair and skin colour of the people and their economic backwardness. Of course, this pales into insignificance now, but the “founding fathers” should have come up with a new name that would better reflect the country’s aspiration and unite the people. Today, efforts must be made to unite the country because a country cannot make real progress without a common identity and a sense of oneness. It was central to British success, where the royal family is the supreme embodiment of the idea of Britain.
Second, Nigeria must have global ambitions. It must care about its place in the world, in terms of trade, political relevance etc, and work to attain and maintain that position. Third, Nigeria must be a country of scientists and innovators. The country will make no significant progress without a scientific and technological revolution. Fourth, Nigeria must be a country of entrepreneurs. Industrialisation is not possible unless there are entrepreneurs who can exploit scientific innovation to manufacture things. Fifth, Nigeria must be a country where ideas matter, where intellectuals play a key role in national development. And, of course, the government must create the right institutional and policy environment for all of these elements to work together harmoniously.
Britain was once a miserable backwater but it leapt forward to prosperity and power. Everything it did to achieve this feat, apart from colonisation, can be emulated by all countries, including Nigeria, with a similar background to overcome their own challenges!
Olu Fasan
