By Festus Eriye
The passing of Britain’s longest reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, was bound to be an epochal event. For over seventy years she was the only such leader her countrymen ever knew. On the global stage she outlasted over 14 US presidents and innumerable world leaders.
She had become a constant fixture in the corridors of power such that people subconsciously started to see her as near immortal. We saw late last week that she was mortal.
For an unprecedented seven decades she sat on the throne of one of the mightiest empires the world has ever known. But while the British Empire was widely acknowledged as mighty at some point in history, it was not necessarily the most popular.
This was so because it spread its reach across the globe largely by conquest. It sustained its grip on its far-flung acquisitions by force of arms – crushing all opposition that stood in its path as the juggernaut rolled on. Its pillaging of the territories and dominions it had subjugated under its rule, was also by force. But it was by no means alone in this brutal pursuit of empire building and exploitation. The French, Belgians, Portuguese, Spaniards were all equally guilty to different degrees.
By the time of Elizabeth’s ascension to the throne in 1952, the empire was already unraveling across the world under the pressure of independence movements. In 1947 India broke free from the yoke of the colonialists on the back of a struggle led by Mahatma Ghandi and his followers. It was an example that would inspire many other nations across Asia and Africa in the late 50s and early 60s.
But while the British colonialists were not necessarily flavour of the month everywhere they went, their long-reigning monarch enjoyed an uncommon popularity that never waned all through her rule. Foreign leaders were in awe of her regal and genteel persona and fell over themselves to meet her. Her subjects, in the overwhelming majority, virtually deified her. In fact, many credit her for keeping the monarchy in her country relevant solely by sheer force of her personality, despite the numerous scandals and very public failings of members of the royal family.
So it is not surprising that her passing, the outpouring of grief and very public show of affection by her subjects, and the rituals of transition from one monarch to another, would be an event that would transfix the world.
Predictably, not everyone is impressed. Anti-monarchists who never really disappeared under Elizabeth have been largely muted this week – save for a few who bucked the largely somber and supportive trend by flashing one or two ‘Abolish the monarchy’ placards.
But one of the stories of the week was how a relatively unknown Nigerian-born assistant professor with Carnegie Mellon University, Uju Anya, fired off a grievance-filled tweet wishing the Queen “excruciating pain” on her hearing she was in a critical condition. She could not bring herself to be compassionate to the head of an “an evil empire” she blamed for the death of her family members.
While there are those who are sympathetic to her position, many questioned her judgment in sending out such an unfeeling post at time of tender emotions. Many of her defenders didn’t stop at backing her right to free speech, they unloaded against Britain and its monarch for Nigeria’s myriad troubles. Some blamed the Queen for backing the Federal Government against the Biafra secession in the civil war.
Even before the demise of Elizabeth II many argued in our national debate that the amalgamation in 1914 of the then Northern and Southern Protectorates by Lord Lugard is at the root of our lingering crisis.
While the cobbling together of diverse tribes, tongues and territories into a nation that never existed may have created original problems for the new contraption, Nigeria isn’t the only such artificial entity manufactured by the colonialists. Some have moved on and are now thriving, others have run into crisis and been broken up, only to continue in crisis.
Nigeria came close to that break up between 1966 and 1970. It has been reeling ever since but has somehow remained afloat even in the face of the most negative prognosis. For 62 years as an independent nation we have run our affairs without the meddling of interloper colonialists. The closest ties, aside bilateral ones, are our relationship as members of the Commonwealth. At most we can blame the Brits for bringing us together, but for over six decades we’ve had an opportunity to run our own affairs and chart our common destiny.
In that time we had opportunities to invest crude oil windfalls, build world class infrastructure, establish our agricultural base and make good laws for the sustainable development of our country. But we left all of these things undone.
Without the prompting of the British and its monarch, we blew millions of dollars hosting the month-long FESTAC jamboree in the 70s with the majority of our people still largely poor. Our then Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, is quoted to have declared in a moment of misplaced hubris ‘that our problem wasn’t money but how to spend it.’
The British didn’t force us to adopt the money-guzzling American presidential system which now saddles us with funding a bicameral legislature and other forms of large government drainpipes. Outsiders didn’t help us shut public universities for seven months. Multiple military interventions and underwhelming civilian rule have foisted a culture of corruption and the deepening of poverty and underdevelopment.
So while it is useful to reflect on the role of Britain and its monarchs past and present in our national journey, all the bashing, tongue-lashing and finger-pointing is just redundant venting that can’t change our lot. With the 2023 campaigns set to kick off in two weeks, it would be more helpful to focus the national discussion on our challenges regarding the economy, insecurity and national cohesion.
The Nation
