“Middle Belt’’, a crisis of definition and inclusion

One of the top promoters of the ‘’Middle Belt’’ idea once told me that by definition the concept encompasses all ethnic groups in northern Nigeria minus the Hausa-Fulani. When I sought to know why he arrived at such an expansive definition as many of the ethnic groups in question were outside of the geographical area covered by the term, he replied that the issue was beyond that. ‘’You see Iliya’’he said, ‘’it is more than geography. It is about the fact that all of the ethnic groups in the north have suffered and are still suffering from the domination and subjugation of the Hausa-Fulani’’.

If we are to agree with this definition, in hypothetical terms it means the whole of the north central region, two-thirds of the north-east and about one-fifth of the north west taking into consideration southern Kaduna and parts of Kebbi state.

Historically origin of the idea dates to the pre independence years when Patrick Dokotri of Plateau province agitations for more political representation of the indigenes of the province. But it was given more traction by Joseph Sarwuan Tarka of Benue Province who took it to the level of state agitation for what was termed ‘’the people of the middle belt area of northern Nigeria’’. For effective measure J.S Tarka as he was more popularly known founded and led a party for this purpose named United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC).  There were similar agitations in some parts of the north too notably the Borno Youth Movement (BYM) led by Ibrahim Imam championing the creation of a Borno state.

With the creation of twelve states in 1967 in which were included the North east and Benue-Plateau states respectively to the satisfaction of their agitators, these movements lost their fizz. J. S Tarka made his peace with the northern political establishment and moved to join the mainstream of northern and Nigerian politics.

The current ‘’Middle Belt’’ concept however is a radically different departure from the original one. Whereas the original one was about a specific agitation for more political representation and state creation with a political movement for purpose, the current one seems to be more of a protest with no defined purpose rather than an abiding hatred for Hausa-Fulani and what they represent. Yes the original one was also directed at the Hausa-Fulani leadership of the north, but its purpose was specifically for widening of the political space and creation of states in the north. The original one in recognising the diversity of the peoples making up the area, sought to include and represent all and sundry in the agitations. The current one despite its professed geographical and political spread however in practical and operational terms pointedly seeks to represent one tendency alone in the vast, diverse area it purports to cover. Whereas the original one was a mass movement from the grassroots led by people who sought to achieve the political aims of the people, the current one is all about the pursuit of the personal interests of people who have little or no touch with the people they purport to represent. They are for the most part driven by grudges, spite, unfilled expectations and nihilistic bent of the promoters.

It is little wonder the current ‘’Middle Belt’’ appears lost in defining what it really is and who it represents. In the absence of this it has been handed over for use exclusively by the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) for its partisan religious agitations. The ‘’Middle Belt’’ of today has also settled into a protest movement for hire by southern political groups merely for the purpose of making up the numbers in their quest for political relevance in the country. Most often in these circumstances the ‘’Middle Belt’’ exists only of communiqué value and relevance usually signed by an obscure and largely unknown individual purporting to represent the interests of the area.

Perhaps it is due to this lack of focus and purpose that is compelling the promoters of the middle belt idea to consider changing tack and calling it the Kwarrarafa federation. This is in reference to the pre-jihadist federation that encompassed the whole of the area covering the whole of present day central Nigeria extending to large parts of North east and some significant parts of North west of Nigeria. But can this go beyond the historical symbolism it represents? Can this guarantee adequate political representation? Where do significant outsiders like Tiv feature in this? What about the inherent contradictions?

But a mere change in nomenclature will hardly solve the crisis of relevance embedded in the current ‘’Middle Belt’’ issue. An emphasis on eternal hatred of one ethnic group as raison d’etre for existence is counter-productive. You cannot single out and profess hatred for one particular ethnic group out of the three major ethnic groups that have and are still collectively responsible for what you consider the ‘’domination and subjugation’’ of the ‘’middle belt” and other similar groups in the country.  Similarly you cannot protest and agitate against non-inclusion and turn round to practise same in your politics. Wilful failure to recognise, reflect and harness the diversity of the people making up the area in the politics of the ‘’Middle Belt’’ will yield little or no positive results. And in this regard, the promoters of the ‘’Middle Belt’’ idea must not continue to use one religion, Christianity as the political and social ideology of the concept to the exclusion of bona fide indigenes of the area who are not Christians.

The ‘’Middle Belt’’ is an integral and important part of the north and Nigeria. Its people have played and are still playing important roles in Nigeria. To that extent the ‘’Middle Belt’’ shares in the success and failures of Nigeria as well as its future prospects. In this regard, it must stand up and chart a course befitting its status in Nigeria rather than the present one being promoted.