National anthems: Purpose and practice – Part 2

Changing the Change   
President Ebele Jonathan convened the 2014 National Conference which approved the recommendation of its Committee on Political Restructuring and Forms of Government that Nigeria should revert to the old National Anthem or what some people term the ‘Original National Anthem’. The Conference based its submission on two main grounds.

First, it was of the opinion that the old Anthem is a better symbol of unity, peace and prosperity without substantiating how it does. Second, the Conference argued that the change would assist Nigeria to achieve her goal of building a fully integrated nation. The two grounds sounded good to the ear but are hardly plausible. At best, they are general political platitudes.

They also, more or less, form the basis of the adoption of what the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio, termed the “up-dated National Anthem”. The protagonists argued that “Nigeria We Hail Thee” connects “more to our core with a deeper meaning”. This is still in the realm of generalisations. Candidate Tinubu had promised to revert to the old Anthem during his presidential campaign claiming that it “describes us much better” because “it is about service, commitment and nation-building”.   

There is no prescribed amendatory process for a National Anthem because it is not specifically written into the Constitution. The change is therefore technically not an amendment to the Constitution. It could therefore be handled as a bill which is what was done in this case. Democracy demands a participatory process which normally involves a public hearing. At the public hearing, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of the Federation, Mr Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), argued that public hearing is necessary but not sufficient for the proposed amendment. For him, “it should be subjected to a wider consultation” to reflect the general wish of Nigerians.

The Senate Majority Leader, Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele, is quoted to have said, on the same subject, that “if considered necessary, further consultation would be had on the matter”. It turned out that no further consultation was had on the matter. The ‘original Anthem’ was therefore brought back without subjecting it to any editing. This is the point of departure for the next section.
 
Editing the change
The term “up-dated National Anthem” by Senator Akpabio is not borne out by even the minutest editing of the Anthem. It was reproduced completely with the most offensive derogatory line of the lyric which states “Though tribe and tongue may differ; in brotherhood, we stand”. The derogation is proved by the fact that the term ‘tribe’ is reserved for Africans, Indians and Native Americans and not for peoples in similar circumstances in Europe and the United States. Chinua Achebe in his “Things Fall Apart” had referred to the penchant of colonial officers and European anthropologists for denigrating colonial peoples as tribesmen. We rely on the definitions of two eminent Dictionaries of the English Language to demonstrate discriminatory attribution of the term to Africans and in this particular instance to Nigerians.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines tribe as “an aggregate of people in a primitive and barbarous condition” just as the Century Dictionary defines it as “a division of a barbarous race of people”. To retain this in the National Anthem will be the worst and unfortunate intentional self-denigration in the twenty-first century. Even worse than that is the fact that the colonial metropolis deliberately applied the word ‘tribe’ as a justificatory phraseology for colonialism and its attendant atrocities.

It inflicts a double jeopardy on colonial peoples and neutralizes the right of independence. To retain it in the National Anthem is to accept   that self-determination is a concession for which Nigerians should show gratitude. Self-determination is a right.

The conjunction ‘Though’ that begins the third line of the Anthem suggests that the differences caused by ‘tribe and tongue’ are major obstacles to unity but moderated by brotherhood as a solvent.

The role of brotherhood as solvent for the differences of tribe and tongue is counter-intuitive because differences would not have been noticeable and/or worrying if brotherhood is an efficacious solvent in the first place. Even if brotherhood were efficacious, the word brotherhood has become suspect as sexist in matters of this nature. It is better avoided in critical matters like the National Anthem.

In conclusion we want to put on record the speed with which the ‘original’ Anthem was brought back to life. It shows that the National Assembly can speedily attend to issues. In this same spirit, we implore the National Assembly to set in motion the process of expunging the offensive words so as to relieve all Nigerians of the memories of colonialism in our National Anthem.

We also want to use this occasion and medium to remind Nigerians that colonialism is alive and well. It comes now in the form of loans, grants, and the establishment of military posts. In the words of the arch colonialist, Cecil Rhodes, ‘colonialism is philanthropy with ten percent’. It is not only the Greeks that give Greek gifts.
Concluded.
Izevbaye, Emeritus Professor of English; Adeniran, Professor of Linguistics and Ayoade, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, wrote from University of Ibadan, Nigeria.