Jean-Paul Sartre’s
existential distinction between en-soi (being-in-itself) and pour-soi
(being-for-itself) offers a striking lens through which to view Nigeria’s
present condition. En-soi is static, unconscious, and complete, the mode
of being of objects that simply exist. Pour-soi, by contrast, is
dynamic, self-aware, and incomplete, the mode of being of conscious beings who
must continually define themselves. Nigeria today is caught in a tension
between these two modes: the state itself remains inert, silent, and
object-like, while its constituent nations: Oduduwa, Arewa, and Biafra awaken
as restless, self-defining communities. This existential clash is Nigeria’s
imminent dilemma.
The Awakening of Living Nations
Oduduwa, Arewa, and Biafra
embody pour-soi. They are not content to merely exist within the
boundaries of a federation; they are conscious of their histories, their
marginalisation, and their aspirations. They demand recognition, justice, and
self-determination. Their presence is no longer latent but increasingly visible
in everyday life:
- In the South-West, calls for
restructuring echo through civic forums and town halls.
- In the North, debates about insecurity
and governance sharpen regional consciousness.
- In the South-East, the memory of Biafra
continues to animate political discourse and grassroots mobilisation.
These nations are becoming;
they are alive, self-aware, and pressing against the limits of Nigeria’s silent
state.
Nigeria as the Silent State
Nigeria itself, however,
remains en-soi. It exists as a geopolitical entity, a map drawn by
colonial hands, but it struggles to act as a living nation. Its institutions
are weak, its leadership often unaccountable, and its structures rigid. Unlike
its constituent nations, Nigeria does not reinvent itself. It clings to
existence without transformation, unable to reconcile diversity with unity.
Consider the analogy of a
household: the children grow, develop personalities, and demand recognition,
while the parent remains static, refusing to adapt. The result is conflict,
estrangement, and eventual breakdown. Nigeria risks this fate if it continues
to exist as a silent state while its nations awaken.
The Roots of Division
Nigeria’s dilemma is not
abstract; it is lived daily by its citizens.
- Insecurity: From insurgency in the North-East to
banditry in the North-West and communal clashes in the Middle Belt, the
military and police appear too feeble to guarantee safety. Ordinary
Nigerians live with the constant fear of violence.
- Division: Ethnic and religious identities often
overshadow national identity. A Yoruba trader in Lagos may feel more
kinship with Oduduwa than with Nigeria; a Hausa farmer in Kano may see
Arewa as his true community.
- Injustice and Marginalisation: Regions complain of being excluded from
power and resources. The South-East, for instance, has long lamented its
absence from the presidency.
- Corruption: Public funds meant for schools,
hospitals, and infrastructure vanish into private pockets. Citizens see
roads crumble and hospitals decay while politicians thrive.
- Weak Institutions: The judiciary is compromised, the
National Assembly feeble, and the executive unchecked. Nigerians often
joke that justice is for sale, but beneath the humour lies despair.
- Fragile Security Forces: Once symbols of strength, the military
and police now struggle against both external threats and internal decay.
Citizens often rely on vigilante groups or community self-help rather than
the state.
Relatable Examples
To ordinary Nigerians, these
abstract failures translate into everyday struggles:
- A farmer in Benue cannot plant crops
without fear of attack.
- A student in Enugu studies by candlelight
because electricity is unreliable, while billions are siphoned from the
power sector.
- A trader in Kano pays multiple taxes to
local authorities yet sees no improvement in roads or markets.
- A young graduate in Lagos faces
unemployment, watching opportunities vanish into nepotism and corruption.
These lived realities make
the pour-soi nations more attractive than the en-soi state.
People turn to ethnic and regional identities for meaning and protection
because Nigeria as a state fails to provide them.
The Existential Threat
Sartre reminds us that pour-soi
is defined by freedom and possibility, while en-soi is fixed and inert.
Nigeria’s tragedy is that its statehood remains en-soi, a silent,
object-like existence, while its constituent nations are pour-soi,
restless and self-defining. The more these nations awaken, the more Nigeria’s
inability to reinvent itself becomes a threat to its survival. A state that
cannot transform risks being shattered by the consciousness of its people.
Toward Reinvention
Nigeria’s imminent dilemma
is clear: either it reinvents itself as a living nation capable of uniting its
diverse peoples, or it will be torn apart by the centrifugal forces of Oduduwa,
Arewa, and Biafra. Reinvention requires:
- Building strong, independent institutions
that command respect.
- Restoring trust through justice and
accountability.
- Addressing corruption with real
consequences, not empty rhetoric.
- Empowering the military and police to
protect citizens rather than oppress them.
- Crafting a national narrative that
embraces diversity as strength rather than division.
Conclusion
Nigeria’s future depends on
whether it can transcend its en-soi inertia and embrace the pour-soi
consciousness of its people. The living nations are rising, demanding
recognition and justice. The silent state must awaken, or risk dissolution.
Sartre’s existential lens reveals the urgency: Nigeria must choose between
being a static object or becoming a conscious, united nation.
The dilemma is imminent, and
the choice is stark. Nigeria can remain a silent state, existing without
transformation, or it can reinvent itself as a living nation, embracing the
restless consciousness of Oduduwa, Arewa, and Biafra. The time for reinvention
is now.
Comments