Vol. XXI, Issue 2 (Spring 2014): |
||||||
BOARD: Gloria Emeagwali Walton Brown-Foster Haines Brown ISSN 1526-7822 REGIONAL EDITORS: Olayemi Akinwumi
TECHNICAL ADVISOR: Jennifer Nicoletti
For more information on AfricaUpdate |
|
Table of Contents
In this issue of
Africa Update, Professor
R.C Njoku reflects on the various
rebellions that have erupted around the world within the last few years.
What does the future hold for Africa, in particular, and humanity in
general? Will governments respond to street protests and popular revolts
and rebellion by bringing about appropriate socio-economic reforms? How
will Europe cope with its on-going sovereign debt crisis? Will
dictatorship replace democracy in any of the indebted countries? Will
socialism make a comeback or will anarchy be the new world order in
regions across the globe? Will the nation state as we know it disappear
in some areas? These are some of the questions raised by the scholar,
and, in this era of mayhem and chaos in numerous regions, from Tunisia
and Egypt's Arab Spring, the civil war in Syria and South Sudan, the”
occupy” movements in the US, the UK and elsewhere,
Boko Haram in Nigeria, and Russian nationalism, secessionism and
neo-Nazism in Ukraine, there is no better time to ask them. On a
different note, Dr. Zacharys Gundu comments on an exhibition of newly
discovered Nigerian antiquities that was held in Frankfurt, Germany in
2013, before being launched in Nigeria. Gundu
argues that the premature exhibit was indeed an insult to Nigerians,
who should have had a clear role in the presentation of such artifacts.
He proposes guidelines with respect to Nigerian antiquities and calls
for fairness and inclusivity. Nigerian archeologists should not be
marginalized in their own country. Nor should the racist, supremacist
and exploitative agenda underpinning archeological activity in the
colonial era be allowed to rear its ugly head in this new millennium.
It is interesting to note that a
German archeological team in Ethiopia has also been queried for
inadequate compensation for land and labor and inappropriate activity.
The time has come for African countries to reconsider their
association with those foreign archeological teams and their puppets
that are bent on plunder, misappropriation, and marginalization of
Africans.
We thank the
contributors for their scholarly analyses. Professor Gloria Emeagwali History, Ideology and Africa in the Age of Rebellion
Raphael Chijioke Njoku, PhD
The burden of this discourse is on the increasing
global impulsion for youth rebellion and radicalism against the
established state systems and what this emergent trend portends for
conventional statehood in Africa, in particular, and for humanity, in
general. From the most subtle to the most radical, about three subtypes
of the movement could be identified worldwide. The newest is mostly
evident in the diverse shades of social movements that cropped up in
various parts of the world: the “Arab Spring,” “Occupy Wall Street,”
“Tahrir (Martyr) Square” and so on.1 Given the circumstances
from which the movements were born, it is important to add that they
have been mostly well-justified. The justifications may be found with
the worsening conditions of living around the world brought about by
leadership failures and corruption of leaderships, downturn in the
global economy and the resultant financial crisis, rising unemployment,
and increasing high costs of energy, education, healthcare, housing,
water, and food. Indeed, the protesters have received a sympathetic
voice from Columbia University economist and Noble Prize winner, Joseph
Stiglitz with the comment that “protesters around the world say they are
part of a generation that played by the rules but has no hope for the
future.”2 Whether this generation of young people has indeed played by the rules is debatable in view of the fact that similar movements have risen in places where the socioeconomic conditions are comparably fair, and social justice remains within the reach of the ordinary man.3 This second sub-type of rebels- without- a- cause has neither a clear-cut rationale nor carefully articulated sets of demands/goals. The motivation for protesters in places like Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, countries where the standards of living remains relatively high, for example, seem to be their penchant to identify with a rising global movement portrayed daily on YouTube, cable television, emails, Facebook, twitter, chat rooms, and other social media and networks. An activist in London defended this sub-type of protestations with the logic that “At this stage, I would say that demands are not a good thing to have because the idea is to create an open space for critical conversation on a broader level in the occupations, but nationally, internationally, etc.”4 The third sub-type, the homicidal ideologues, and undoubtedly very destructive, has been around for quite a while but was popularized in a spectacular fashion on September 11, 2001 following the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. Let us not forget that the Osama Bin Laden-inspired brand of religion - political extremism was also a form of resentment at the emergent neo-capitalist system that has created a bottomless “unhappy valley” between the haves and the have-nots, the powerful and the powerless, and the North versus the South. The stunning execution of the destruction of the World Trade Center by the terrorists had all the trappings of youthful recklessness that no truly spiritual minded fellow would ever conceive. This sheer homicidal run has since spread to Yemen, Spain, Norway, Nigeria, Russia, Britain, Mali, Algeria, and Syria in what the Center for Systemic Peace has identified as “global terrorism” with serious intensity.5
The evolving phenomenon throws into relevance some
critical philosophical questions over the meaning of nationhood,
citizenship and nationality, dictatorships and political control,
freedom, egalitarianism, human rights, liberalism, democracy, and
capitalism. Is the world witnessing a probable demise of capitalism and
democracy?6 Have we seen the last of fascism, Nazism and
dictatorship? Will these concepts remain relevant in the coming future?
If not, which of the “isms” will help make new meanings of our world
today? In other words what ideals of political philosophy can both
explain and accommodate the challenges presented by an emergent
generation of global citizens stewed in a combustible mixture of
crumbling economies, shrinking family values, Global Positioning System
(GPS), cell-phones, twitters, iPods, and Facebook cultures? What sought
of ideological surveillance could be deployed to maintain security while
answers are sought for the continued use of pipe bombs, suicide belts,
predator drones, and other gadgets that have altogether trapped human
society in an unpredictable and violent dance of destiny? This is the
complex and slippery task this analysis is devoted to. Colonialism, Cold War, and the Beginning of History
The present order of things in Africa and other
regions did not suddenly appear from nowhere. Historically it has been
in the making since 1492 (the pivotal year Christopher Columbus first
sailed to the New World) but picked a fierce momentum following European
colonial encompassing and emasculation of the Americas, Asia,
Oceania/Australasia, and Africa. Over the colonial centuries, the
Europeans sowed the twin seeds of Western notions of development and
underdevelopment.7 As a result, the progression of human
society became synonymous with reshaping non-Western societies after
Western ones or what some scholars have branded “global neoliberalism.”8
The cultures that tried to question or reject the neo - capitalist
system hoisted by the Europeans were branded communist and therefore
dangerous.9 In Africa, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, Dr. Kwame
Nkrumah of Ghana, and for a while, Siad
Barre of Somalia were singled out for destruction. Their crime was their
publicly expressed opinion that Communism—whether the Africa genre or
its Western brand –was the best option for African development. The West
led by the U.S. imposed iron curtains of isolation around the
nonconformists and sustained the Cold War from 1945 to 1989 against
“enemies” of capitalism. The struggle was wedged with high-tech
espionage, satellite launches, spacecraft, assassinations, coup d'états,
economic sanctions, sabotage, proxy wars, propaganda, videos, germs, and
other biological agents.
After the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, the key
players in the East-West ideological struggle (U.S. Russia, Britain,
France, Germany) began to aggressively commercialize and civilianize
Cold War era hi-tech inventions—GPS, cell-phones, internet access,
emails, and others. These gadgets radically altered the speed with which
humans and information travel. In the academia, students of
international studies and social science theorists responded with new
paradigms extrapolating the emergence of a new world order. Among other
things, these scholars foresaw an evolving world in which global
citizens and consumerism would become nationality-less with an imminent
breakdown in traditional statehood.10 Although this optimism
was founded mainly on the difficult-to-police swiftness with which
hitherto privileged information was now accessed via the internet, the
economists were more interested in the expansion of multinational
businesses like AT&T, Nike, Wal-Mart, Toyota, Chevron, Puma, Exxon,
Shell BP, to mention but a few.
In the light of this, the phrase “global village”
gained currency in popular usage. In 1999, Thomas L. Friedman titillated
the minds of readers of The Lexus
and the Olive Tree with the argument that "globalization is not
simply a trend or fad but is, rather, an international system. It is the
system that has replaced the old Cold War system, and, like that Cold
War System, globalization has its own rules and logic that today
directly or indirectly influences the politics, environment, geopolitics
and economics of virtually every country in the world."11
Despite the way academics responded to Friedman's thesis, there is no
denying the fact that perhaps only a handful of countries—namely Canada,
China and Norway were adequately prepared to meet the demands of the new
world order. While China applied heavy doses of disciplinary policies to
contain the excesses of its youths, it also invested heavily around the
world, particularly in Africa in order to ensure the future of its
teaming population. Canada and Norway used enormous resources to cushion
the rough edges of needs by guaranteeing social welfare for their
citizens, while extracting their abundant natural resources piecemeal.
The animation following the emergent global order
was so big in the 1990s that Francis Fukuyama authoritatively declared
that it was the End of History.12 A more cautious opinion was
offered by Samuel Huntington who looked at the horoscope contrasting the
view of Fukuyama (his former student) with a prediction that the lines
of future conflicts have been drawn along culture zones—for instance
Asian versus Western cultures; Christianity versus Islamic cultures, and
so on.13 But as some of these avowals are now unfolding on
the global stage, it is clear that the thaw in the Cold War was not by
any means the end of history. Rather, it was a momentous process of
transition to a new era in human society. An era in which the youth,
particularly young people in Africa and the Middle East were in a hurry
to enjoy positions previously reserved for those with superior
chronological age.
There is therefore an urgent demand for a critical
reexamination of the concepts of political liberalism, neoliberalism,
and global governance in order to reposition their implicit idioms as
youth culture and rebellion masked in revolutionary garb threaten
established governmental systems and sociopolitical norms. From the
suburbs of Paris Communes through Oslo and London; and from the
dictatorship mélanges of Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Libya, and
Yemen; the resilient terror cells in Afghanistan, Nigeria, Iraq, Mali,
Pakistan and India; and from the decomposition of the state in Somalia
to the cell-phone vices in West Africa, every corner of the world has
quickly embraced a man-made epidemic that has left political
philosophers in a deficit position. The evolving phenomenon necessitates
a number of relevant questions: Is this the end of modernity or the
beginning of the postmodernism eminent French philosophers, Michel
Foucault and Jacques Derrida began to articulate as ideological concepts
in the 1980s?14
Where will this emergent culture take the African continent in the
coming decade? Knowledge and the End of History The root causes of the emergent global movement underbellies the evolutionary nature of human history. Georg Hegel and Karl Marx were the first European thinkers to write about the evolutionary nature of history. Despite his deprived knowledge of African history in particular and the history of non-Western societies in general, Hegel however noted that human history is about the unfolding of human reasoning, which gradually but eventually culminates in the expansion of human freedom. Karl Marx, in his classic mastery of the dialectics of politics, economy, and conflicts, observed that human society transformed from the pre- human society to hunter-gatherer society through agricultural, preindustrial, and then industrial and postindustrial orders as the economy also progressed. The Hegel-Marx praxis provides us with a couple of interrelated clues that can be underlined. The first is the expansion of reasoning and human freedom in the Hegelian tradition. In the past three decades or more, the African youth have welcomed the rise of postmodernism as a handy tool to explain new logic—especially as they relate to power, human rights, women's rights, and gay/lesbian lifestyles. In fact the Igbo grey-haired elders did not need to read Hegel to denote that “new perceptions are gained every hour”—meaning that indeed human reasoning grows with age and experience.
While Africa is still waiting for the industrial
breakthrough, industrial manufactures have successfully permeated and
transformed all localities of the world with exotic cultures in forms of
new and ‘sophisticated' tastes and lifestyles that are difficult to
sustain as new generations of “modernized” or rather culturally rootless
people emerge. In light of this, Fukuyama has revisited his 1989 book,
strongly defending and solidifying his controversial thesis with the
point that “The end of history was thus, a theory of modernization that
raised the question of where that modernization process would ultimately
lead.”15 Therefore what is confronting mankind today is a highly
combustible mixture of three ideologies: postmodernist thinking, over
indulgence in opulent and greedy consumerism, and increasing reckless
resource depletion. As things are going, it is almost as if there is no
tomorrow. The human locusts eat up available resources today. Occupy Movements
Perhaps the answer to the question as to where the
new pace of modernization would ultimately end has come upon us even
though the nature of things to come is still unfolding and unclear. It
is ironic that the final stage of the implosion was set for the global
majority or the 99 percent of the world population (here identified as
the 99ners) right from the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, which
marked the momentous triumph of capitalism over socialism. The West
celebrated victory with the Reaganite neoliberal agenda—including the
imposition of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) on developing
countries, particularly in Africa where the program wreaked havoc on
Africa's mono- economies and acerbated the cadence of political crisis.
While the IMF, World Bank, Paris Club and other Western Credit
institutions pressed on with liberalization and marketization programs,
the great awakening it brought allowed the impoverished majority the
opportunity to start questioning the rights of the privileged elite to
dominate every sphere of economic and political systems. Indeed, the
last two to three decades are a watershed, a point when humans crossed a
threshold to attain an epiphany—a realization that similar problems of
the rich versus the poor; the powerful versus the powerless—are issues
that cut across boundaries of ideology, culture, creed, race, and
ethnicity.16 It is one of the consequences of a modern
capitalist system - that has no
human face and
was energized by European
colonialism- and the height of an
insatiable penchant for material acquisition and consumerism.
With the hindsight of anti-colonial and liberation
movements in Africa and Latin America, Franz Fanon and Chinua Achebe are
right in their separate observations that colonized people dreamt to
occupy the positions of the former colonialists as soon they ejected
them.17 Human
freedom, in its true appreciation, both as a concept and a political
reality, is an inherent part of life, a universal condition for harmony.
If this psychology of colonial domination and
liberation is accepted, then scholars can critically interpret the
difference between Fukuyama and Huntington as academic soothsayers. Both
scholars, from their vantage epistemological standpoints, tried to
predict the future of human history in light of the evolutionary nature
of things. They quite understood that human society is dynamic. In an
interesting admittance, Fukuyama agrees with Huntington, and more
importantly Max Weber before them, that culture is a critical factor in
human society, the organizing force that shapes the direction and
velocity of modernization in both the political and economic sense of
the word. The points of contrast remains that where Fukuyama stated the
imperative, Huntington rejects the fact that the Enlightenment values
and institutions—freedom, popular government, freedom of speech, human
rights, justice and equity, are universal values. Rather Huntington
claimed that these are solely Western.18
The truth, however, is that long before the
Enlightenment which blossomed in the eighteenth century, the Igbo, Akan,
Berber, Somali, Dimka, Efe, Kikuyu, and several other precolonial
Africans understood the incorrigible value of democracy and lived by its
principles.19 In Europe after the so-called Enlightenment,
what happened was that oligarchies continued in their old ways using
propaganda and subterfuge to entrench power and privileges. As Michael
Vickers has aptly observed, it is daily more and more obvious “that
autocratic and oligarchic governance world-wide, whether in overt or
camouflaged form, is losing traction at an accelerating rate.
Everywhere, the common man is making it very clear that oligarchs posing
as democrats have pushed their luck to the limit.”20 Under the unfolding order, China remains an interesting chapter in political and economic study. Vickers has observed that on the economic front, the swing of mass production and industrial goods has changed all of a sudden with the big twist. According to Vickers, China's powerful grasp on the “economies of America and the West, is like a great boa constrictor. Mortally wounded and wallowing in unbridled greed, massive debt and moral bemusement/ decay, the days of America and the West as dominant players are numbered.”21 On the political front, China has refused to democratize in the Western sense of the word, but a billionaire like the Facebook co-founder, Eduardo Saverin, has scored a point of controversy in stating that he left America and denounced his U.S. citizenship because “Americans everywhere are restricted.”22 More surprising and curious is the fact that the Facebook guru is now doing his business investments in China. If everything we read from the news media is true, one would have thought that China is not the best place to seek the freedom and liberty Saverin craves for.
Undoubtedly, internet based social networks will
increase the pace and range of the youth culture in Africa and more
old-fashioned rulers across the globe will face open challenges from the
people. One can therefore begin to imagine what governments will do to
stave off the impact of the movement that is beginning to manifest in
sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria, and Mali are some of the major battlefields
with Islamists trying to carve out separate statehoods in the northern
regions of both countries, while in eastern Nigeria, organized crime in
the form of kidnapping, and armed
robbery have been serving as the forerunner of things to come. What Next?
What the entire Occupy drama and youthful
revolutionary zeal will result in and how it will end is anybody's
guess. The truth of the matter is that similar mass movements in the
past did not always end on a peaceful note both for the protesters and
their intended targets. For instance the French, Haitian, and Latin
American revolutions ended up destroying both the ancient regimes and
the revolutionary leaders, despite the fact that each of these
revolutions ushered in new beginnings. One may foresee a similar outcome
in Africa if those in the corridors of power fail to devise potent
strategies to calm down nerves and deflate the increasing threats from
the masses' discontents. An acclaimed prophet of God in the person of
Prophet T.B. Joshua of the Synagogue Church of All Nations (SCOAN),
Nigeria, has expressed serious concerns about the rupture in the making.
He proffers the simple solution that governments, particularly African
leaders, must create jobs for the youth and try to accommodate them in
positions of power.23 Friedman was right in his declaration that
planning ahead is the most potent solution to peace for every nation to
be able to weather the new challenges: “you need a strategy for how to
choose prosperity for your country or company.”24
While African leaders have appeared oblivious of
the interests of the young people, it is equally bothersome to observe
that in most cases, the Western governments have also been slow (or even
indifferent) to respond positively to the legitimate demands of the
masses. For instance, in the United States, the Congress politicized the
grievances tabled by the 99ners: “We demand immediate reforms to end
government corruption and curtail the harmful impact of corporate
greed.” The U.S. protesters charged congress to “reduce the harmful
economic impact of Wall Street speculators;” to “prosecute the criminals
who brought about the global financial crisis,” and “pass the ‘Buffet
Rule' which enjoins the rich to pay just fair tax as the poor do.”25
Rather than acknowledging and addressing
grievances, government officials in Africa, like their counterparts in
Britain, U.S. and Spain have used legal charges to thwart the cohesion
of the movements, arrest and stop protesters. The moral dilemma of these
crackdowns was contested on a poster at the
Occupy Wall Street Zuccotti
Park in New York in 2011 with the slogan: “Break curfew get Arrested.
Break Economy get Bonus.”26 Such charges of double standards
will neither make world leaders look good before the court of public
opinion nor help resolve the rising problem of social unrest. In the
light of this, Stiglitz has noted that social protests everywhere give
“a sense that the system has failed….. the conviction that even in a
democracy, the electoral process could not set things right—at least not
without strong pressure from the street.”27 This is
corroborated by a view held by protesters in Australia who claimed that
“Occupy Adelaide was an ongoing community protest to peacefully
demonstrate the urgency of rebuilding democracy from the grassroots and
to challenge the all-powerful and privileged minority elite who
perpetuate social injustice in the interests of corporate profits.”28 What Does the Future Hold for Africa and the World?
The task at hand is to try to project the likely
consequence of the ongoing movements in Africa and elsewhere. Individual
governments around the world have two or three basic choices to make.
One is to respond positively to popular demands for change by
implementing social reforms that will bring about “a democracy where
people, not dollars matter, and a market economy that delivers on what
it is supposed to do.”30 As Stiglitz further states, “this
includes providing the masses an opportunity to use their skills, the
right to decent work at decent pay and a fairer economy and society. The
hope is evolutionary not revolutionary.”31 In other words,
complying with these demands or hopes may or may not extinguish the
flame of radicalism and anger in the streets but at least, it will take
off some pressures from political leaders and buy some cooling off
period for state leaders to take a proactive measure that may blunt the
speed and sharpness of the movement. Temporary solutions have not quite
succeeded in solving social ills. Where one may rest the danger is that
this generation of people glued to cybernetics already knows too much
and their tastes and lifestyles are difficult to meet. As the popular
Nollywood actor dramatized recently in his new movie “Osuafia's
Wedding,” the African youth also want to marry on the internet while
expecting cultural compliance from their spouses.32 Such
expectations are naïve, if not unreasonable.
The second scenario is the likelihood of return of
autocratic and totalitarian regimes as seen in the period before the
1980s. A current example is Egypt since the July 3, 2013 military coup
that sacked the elected Islamist government of Mr. Morsi and his Muslim
Brotherhood Party. As the events continue to unfold, no one can say for
sure what the next order will be. In the recent past, China, Russia,
North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran violently subdued similar movements
against their governments. Meanwhile governments in the U.S. France,
Spain, and Britain have employed arbitrary uses of power to disorganize
protesters. In Greece, Italy, and Spain the Occupy Movement cashed in on
the rising debt crisis to greatly rattle their governments but did not
achieve more. It might not come
as a surprise if one of the established Western democracies relapsed
into a dictatorship in order to crush rising violent mass protests.
The third scenario is to expand the welfare state
system or enable true Marxism—that is the quest to actualize the rule of
workers of the world by way of seizing control of means of production as
envisaged in classical Marxism. It is often usually assumed among the
leaders of postcolonial nation states in Africa and Latin America that
Marxism is a recipe for radicalism. Contrarily, a closer look at the
classical Marxist doctrine reveals that it is indeed a humanist ideology
of state organization and socialist economic existentialism. The
original vision of Marx and Engels was articulated on the expectation
that a more humane society would materialize and exploitation of the
means of production by a few privileged elite would give way for a
socialist worker's republic. In this system, the expectation has been
that those whose labor produced the wealth would enjoy the fruits of
their hard work. This doctrine first tested in Russia following the
October Revolution of 1917, achieved limited success in the classical
sense. It is important to know that the version of socialism that was
instituted in the defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) and
to which most Marxist governments around the world identified with was
quite different from the original principles of the ideology. Lenin and
Stalin like Mao Zedong in China, and Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, corrupted
Marxism to suit their respective brands of local politics and societal
organizations. Perhaps the only brand of communism that came close to
the aspirations of Marx and Engels was Julius Nyerere's
Ujamaa as applied in Tanzania.33
Fourthly, if none of these three scenarios
materializes, the world must brace up for a possible dissolution of the
state systems, and reigns of anarchy in many countries. In its most
refined form, there could be a break down in central governments and
strengthening of regional governments as has been witnessed in Belgium
since 2008. But the most likely scenario, particularly in Africa, could
be the breakup of state systems in the manner seen in Somalia since the
1990s following the fall of the Siad Barre dictatorship.
Although the process of disintegration is difficult
to imagine at this point, what is not in doubt is that a new order is
emerging that no ideology in practice may be able to define. Where the
danger resides for everyone is that the list of religious fanatics,
aggrieved politicians, business failures, anarchists and mischief makers
is growing. Anyone or group of people could take advantage of the
emerging order of things under the cover of the popular “liberal
democratic” movement to cause huge damage to life and property in Africa
or elsewhere. Conclusion
This article focused on the increasing tendency for
youth revolt and radicalism against the established state systems across
the world. It attempted to describe what this emergent trend portends
for traditional systems of government in particular and for humanity in
general. The immediate cause of the rising social discontent has been
identified with the recent economic deterioration. Poverty is
aggravating anger at a time when human society is ripe with high
expectations and unbridled tastes and affluent lifestyles.
The world
may be heading towards the evolution of either an expanded welfare
state, true socialism or a complete resort to anarchy and lawlessness.
The choice taken by global leaders today will determine which of the
“isms” will eventually triumph—democracy/capitalism,
dictatorship/centralized economy; true communism/socialism or something
new to our world.
The Nok Frankfurt Exhibition: An Interrogatory Comment
An exhibition on the Nok Culture of Nigeria, titled ‘Nok. Origin of
African Sculpture' opened in Frankfurt, Germany on 30th October, 2013.
This is coming after close to 10 years of controversial archaeological
investigations in the Nok valley by a German archaeological team led by
Professor Peter Breunig of the Goethe University, Frankfurt. The Germans
started their investigation of the Nok valley in 2005. Without a proper
memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the National Commission for
Museums and Monuments (NCMM), the German team embarked on a suite of
unethical activities involving wholesale exportation of excavated
materials to Germany. Local communities in the Nok valley including
community leaders and traditional chiefs were treated with contempt
while the local archaeological community in the country was deliberately
shut out of the project (see Gundu and Idoko 2012). Following sustained
pressure and criticism of the project championed by the Archaeological
Association of Nigeria (AAN), a MoU was signed between the Germans and
the NCMM five years into the project. The AAN rejected this because it
was badly skewed in favor of the Germans leading to a review by 2012.
The extant MoU allows for the participation of the Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria and the University of Jos as project collaborators.
Both universities have departments of Archaeology. While the University
of Jos offers archaeology at the undergraduate level, the Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria has an archaeology program up to the postgraduate
level.
The Frankfurt exhibition is a sad commentary on the management of
archaeological and heritage resources in the country. As pointed out by
the AAN in a statement against the exhibition (a full text of the AAN
statement can be seen at
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/89621), the Nok terracotta
represent a strategic heritage resource in the country. They are the
earliest of their type in sub Saharan Africa (see Jemkur 1992). This is
the main reason why they ought to have been exhibited in Nigeria where
the public has a direct connection with them before taking them to
Germany. Starting the exhibition in Germany undermines international
best practice and shows that, Nigerians are yet to win the right to
interpret their heritage and patrimony through preservation and display.
By starting the exhibition in Frankfurt, the European audience has been
effectively privileged over Nigerians whose forefathers were directly
responsible for the Nok culture. German scholars have also been
effectively given a first opportunity to skew the interpretation of the
Nok finds to reinforce European historiography. The organizers of the
exhibition have done this by exhibiting the Nok materials in dialogue
with contemporary Egyptian and Greco Roman sculptures. (See press
release on the exhibition by Liebieghaus Skulpturensammlung at
www.liebieghaus.de/admin/imageServer.php ) In the despicable philosophy
of ‘universal museums', the Nok materials are
deemed incompetent to stand alone
before a European audience, hence the attempt to compare them as
primitive art against figurative European art.(Opoku 2013b)
The exhibition is predicated on a skewed reading of the African past and
it is clear, Nigeria had no input into the exhibition concept. This is
unfortunate because the extant MoU with the Germans is particular on the
fact that the Germans were only to fund the exhibition and assist in the
design of the exhibition concept. The 292 page exhibition catalog is
also skewed. Not only is the catalog written in German but out of the 20
chapters in the catalog, only three of them are written by Nigerians,
underscoring the exclusion of Nigerian scholars in the project. In a
clever way to legitimize the exhibition and give the impression of
approval by the Nigerian authorities, the Germans got the Nigerian
Minister for Culture, Tourism and National Orientation, High Chief Edem
Duke to write the Preface to the Catalog while Mr. Abdallah Usman, the
DG of the NCMM wrote the Foreword. Curiously, the Preface and Foreword
are the only pages of the Catalog that are in English.
The exhibition underscores the urgent need for Nigeria (and other
African countries) to safeguard national patrimony and appropriate the
right to interpret it. The European interest in African studies must be
recognized for what it is, to take control of the African past and
validate the different ways of knowing it and to use Africa as a
laboratory to breed European specialists in order to direct the
direction of African studies and deploy knowledge on Africa in
furtherance of European interests (see Andah 1995). Since 2005 when the
Nok project started, the Germans have trained up to eight postgraduate
students of European extraction at the Masters level using the Nok
valley as a laboratory. At least two of these have started the PhD
program on different aspects of Nok (see Breunig and Neumann 2011).
Interestingly, no Nigerian is yet to be trained from this project at the
postgraduate level. The Commission which is the ‘supervisory authority'
of the Nok project has been unable to coordinate properly for the
training. In a recent reaction to the position of the AAN against the
Frankfurt exhibition, the Director General of the NCMM, claims the
Commission ‘has in mind' the training of three Nigerian postgraduate
students on the project at the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.(see page
35 of The Nigerian Guardian Newspaper of 15th, November, 2013). That
this is coming close to ten years of the project after the Germans have
trained eight of their own is lost on the Director General of the NCMM,
Mr. Abdallah Usman. Nigeria seems to be unprepared in effectively
collaborating in this project. With the huge competence gaps in the NCMM
(see Folorunso 2011) and lack of vigilance by the leadership of the
NCMM, it is not clear how Nigeria will ensure that the Germans meet all
their obligations in the project under the extant MoU. It is this fear
that prompted the Archaeological Association of Nigeria to sponsor a
resolution at the plenary of the 7th World Archaeological Congress (WAC)
in Jordan calling on the Germans to respect the MoU and abide by its
terms as part of international good practice.
The status of the Nok materials exhibited in Frankfurt is also not
clear. Also obscured is how the materials even got to Germany. According
to the press release by the organizers (Liebieghaus Skulpturensammlung)
of the exhibition, the materials comprise both original terracotta
pieces and copies. In their words ‘Original terracotta will be presented
next to faked pieces and copies' The organizers claim that ‘countless
forgeries and copies have found their way into the art market and into
museum collections'. The organizers are silent on how the ‘original
terracotta' and ‘copies' on exhibition here were collected or acquired.
Did all these come from the efforts of Professor Breunig and his team?
Were some of these bought on the illicit art market? What exactly did
the organizers receive on loan from the NCMM to supplement the
exhibition? Answers to these questions are important not only because
they will help Nigeria hold Germany accountable when returning these
materials, the answers will also clear the German team of charges of
involvement in illicit trade in antiquities in the Nok valley.
In the past, both the Germans and the NCMM have denied the wholesale
export of the Nok materials from Nigeria, claiming only small samples
and broken terracotta were taken out for analysis and restoration. The
sheer number of Nok materials on display at Frankfurt and the fact that
even fakes and copies were on display means that both the Germans and
the NCMM were economical with the truth about what was in reality being
exported from the Nok valley. Considering the fact that the Germans were
not always accompanied by Nigerian archaeologists in their excavation of
some sites in the Nok valley and they have not deposited any good
records of what they have so far recovered in the Nok valley with the
NCMM as required by law, it is any body's guess whether Nigerians will
ever know what was taken out of the Nok valley by Professor Breunig and
his team. It is also not clear if we will be able to hold the Germans to
account when these materials are returned to the country. In at least
one case highlighted by the Archaeological Association of Nigeria, the
Germans were permitted to export a sealed deposit of Nok materials in
POP from the site of Garaje in 2011. This was opened at the
Romisch-Germanishches Zentral Museum in Mainz where the so called
restoration of the Nok terracotta pieces took place in the absence of
Nigerian scholars, even though the export permit gave this as a
condition. Nigeria does not know what the Germans recovered from this
cast.
The NCMM which has statutory stewardship responsibility over the
country's heritage resources is sadly nonchalant about securing these
resources for the benefit of Nigerians. In 2007, the Commission approved
the export of rare funerary materials from the site of Durbi Takusheyi
in Katsina State to Mainz in Germany, ostentatiously for restoration.
After the restoration, the Germans retained the objects and put them on
display in 2011 with the promise that the materials will return to
Nigeria in 2012. These materials are still on display in Germany and no
one knows whether they will ever return to Nigeria.
German scholarship is extremely dubious with the national patrimonies of
other nation states. The German, Leo Frobenius is still fingered in the
disappearance and replacement of the Olokun head in Ife with a copy (see
Eyo and Willet 1980). The export of the bust of Nerfertiti from Egypt in
1913 by Ludwig Borcherdt also underscores German underhand dealings. The
bust has remained in Germany all these years with the German Government
contesting its ownership with Egypt. Yet in another development, German
scholars exported the Bogazkov sphinx and other archaeological materials
from Turkey for restoration after which they refused to return the items
to Turkey. It was only in 2011 that international pressure compelled
Germany to agree to return these treasures to Turkey (see Opoku 2012).
Nigeria and other African countries dealing with countries like Germany
and rogue ‘universal' museums must be very careful. At the moment,
Germany is holding 1,038 Benin stolen artifacts between five of their
museums in Berlin, Stuttgart, Hamburg, Dresden and Leipzig.(see Opoku
2013a) The Leo Frobenius Institute in Frankfurt alone has 5,670 Nigerian
antiquities in its collections(see Kuba 2010 and Hambolu 2010). Many of
these, were collected and exported under dubious circumstances by Leo
Frobenius during his infamous expedition to Nigeria between 1910-1912.
If the NCMM were genuinely concerned with safeguarding Nigeria heritage,
they would have been exploring how to engage Germany in order to ensure
the repatriation of some of these treasures. What we see instead is the
continued support and legitimization of exhibitions of Nigerian
treasures outside the country by rogue museums and other institutions
who are totally unwilling to sit down to discuss the repatriation of
Nigerian antiquities illegally held in their storerooms. In the case of the Frankfurt exhibition (and others), the Commission has continued to argue that exhibiting Nigerian treasures outside the country brings ‘good will to Nigeria' and is a window of opportunity to ‘sell the country outside oil'. This is warped thinking striving only because of the misunderstanding of the value of heritage in development. Exhibitions of Nigerian treasures originating in the west cannot bring good will to the country precisely because, they are predicated on exhibition concepts that are skewed against Nigeria. For rogue universal museums, such exhibitions do not only flaunt stolen Nigerian heritage treasures, they portray Nigeria and Nigerians as foolish when the country's officials are invited to legitimize such exhibitions through attendance and contributions to exhibition catalogs. We accept the portrayer when we not only loan artifacts to supplement such exhibitions but also present ourselves at the opening of such exhibitions and endorse their catalogs. Nigeria is certainly in need of good will and must aspire to sell itself outside oil. Yet, doing this requires the cultural sub sector to come to the knowledge that foreign exhibitions of our treasures are not the first way to go. The way to go is to first elevate our patrimony to premium status in the country before seeking to sell ourselves outside oil.
Nigeria must use the unfortunate Frankfurt exhibition to review
modalities for international collaboration in the study of the country's
patrimony. As custodians of our heritage, the NCMM must support Nigerian
scholars to take control of the study of our past and appropriate the
right to interpret it. The Frankfurt exhibition must be the last of its
kind. Nigerian heritage treasures must debut in Nigeria before going for
exhibition outside Nigeria. When that happens, Nigeria must insist on
writing the exhibition concept as a way of ensuring the country has a
voice in the interpretation and presentation of its heritage to the
world. The NCMM and Nigerian Government should also stop legitimizing
the exhibition of illicit Nigerian treasures held by rogue museums in
Europe and America. Time has come to put in all we can to engage
countries and institutions laying claims to our antiquities.
* Associate Professor of Archaeology and African Studies at the
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. He is also the current
President of the Archaeological Association of Nigeria and the Editor of
the Journal of Nigerian Field Archaeology. Contact: takuruku@yahoo.com | ||||
|