It is no secret that liberation struggles such as the Ogoni’s could be reduced to selfish political platforms to serve all kinds of personal interest. In that light, the different questions asked over the rationale of the proposed State to those passionately canvassing for it are valid, and above all, fundamental to the very precepts of the Ogoni struggle. Such questions are probing tools to properly test if an Ogoni State would be able to provide the desired liberation for the Ogonis as an indigenous minority. Apart from scrutinizing the underlying motivation and details of the proposed State, the questions also seek to determine whether the alternative to states as components of the Nigerian federation has become unviable or unattainable.

But as it stands, to postulate that a States within Nigerian federation do not answer the Ogoni question requires an enormous amount of courage, it requires political literacy acumen and intelligence, as well as a great deal of hard work to argue against what seems like the current – and overwhelmingly popular – political position. Without laying claim to a monopoly of knowledge or any infallibility on the issue, The Ogoni Gong decided to dissect the different dynamics and perspectives of the knotty matter. In arguing that an Ogoni State as a unit of the present Nigerian system does not actually address the accumulated plights of the Ogoni people, a pan-optic view of the nature and practice of State is inevitable and toward this end we have to first examine the concept of State as a political theory, and the creation of States in Nigeria.

Grammatically, and within the Nigerian and American context, a State is a political and geographical entity that is part of a federation. In this sense, a State as part of a federation is different from a nation-State, which is commonly implied to mean a country. The latter is also a certain form of State (territory), which derives its legitimacy from serving as a sovereign territorial unit. A country also contrasts with ethnic-nationality, because an ethnic nationality or Nation refers to a people that share the same cultural and/or ethnic identity.

The definitions and explanations found on Wikipedia (an online encyclopedia) are concise and very helpful:  "The term "nation State" implies that the two geographically coincide, and this distinguishes the nation State from the other types of State, which historically preceded it. If successfully implemented, this implies that the citizens share a common language, culture, and values – which was not the case in many historical States. A world of nation States also implements the claim to the self-determination and autonomy for every nation (ethnic groups), a central theme of the ideology of nationalism."                    

The educational site goes further to extrapolate that: "the term "nation State" is frequently misused to mean a sovereign State, even if its political boundaries do not coincide with ethnic boundaries. This is an erroneous usage but now widespread. It appears to arise from an erroneous impression that a "nation State” is to be distinguished from a "State" that is a member of a federal system, such as a State in/of the USA (United States of America)."

Drawing on the definitions and explanations from Wikipedia and other academic materials in the fields of history and political science, State, nation-State, nation and even kingdom, dynasty etc, were not, at least in their original forms significantly different from one another. Stretching this assertion a little further; both nation and State are English words or concepts that have roots in European cultures and historical backgrounds. They therefore do not necessarily have a similar meaning in any African language, unless they are interpreted and approximately applied. For instance, in any typical African setting or language, it is not easy to effectively explain what a State or nation is, because it would require a lot of brain straining to equate State or nation to the individual’s understanding of a geographical territory.

Hence, whatever name or tag by which territories are identified and differentiated today, it is important to understand that in their original form, the landmark features that define specific regions are based on political, organization and indigenous coordination; cultural interpretations of the world around and beyond each domain; ecological and economic interdependency; and ability to harness and manage the environment. This means that no group of people was naturally and intrinsically greater than the other. It was, and should remain the ability of each group or ethnic community to appraise, appropriate and harness nature to produce the gross out-puts that address their collective needs.

In contrast to the above, the tenets of today's States and Nation-States are strongly connected to the theory and practice of liberal democracy that was established through the emergence of the middle class, a group that rose to challenge the lords, monarchs and manors in Europe during the era of Feudalism. The agitation of the middle class of those days was mainly against the fact that the means of production was concentrated around the upper and ruling class. Hence, the struggle by the middle class was never a true reflection of the fact that the economic and political destinies of the ordinary people who were the vast majority; was tied to and unbroken from servitude status on the farms and estates of a few elites who were both the landowners and rulers.

In the book, "Introduction to Comparative Politics", the author, John D. Nagle, recounts that men like Thomas Hobbes, Oliver Cromwell and John Locke amongst others, who rose up against absolute monarchy at the time, were all apostles of secularism – that ‘rulership’ should not be tagged divine and unquestionable because this breeds corruption. He summarizes their arguments as, (1) the social order is a human, and not a divine (2) that the egoistic self-interest of each adds up to the best social result; and (3) that one of the chief roles of the State (dynasties and kingdoms in their days) is to guarantee the enforcement of contracts (covenants).

Accentuating his argument against the middle class, Nagle said, "let us note here that when Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Madison defend the social contract of the citizenry or the rights of the citizen to elect their representatives to the government, they took for granted that this citizenry would include only male property owners of some substance. No one among these early theorists of liberal democracy advocated or envisaged voting rights (the franchise) for the non-propertied, for factory and farm workers, for women and certainly not for slaves. The term "bourgeois democracy" describes rather precisely and objectively the limited extent of political participation intended by the proponents of early capitalist democracy; the bourgeoisie and the ideologists were not fighting for relief from universal suffrage but its own class right. Once again let us for the record make clear that while Adam Smith and others of his persuasion thought of capitalism as a progressive advance over feudalist production, the fruits of its progress were not destined for the working class. In fact, with the introduction of the factory assembly line under capitalism, Smith has the following rather pessimistic prediction for the modem industrial worker:

"The understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by the ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations... has no occasion to exert his understanding... He generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for human to become... His dexterity at his own particular trade seems in this manner to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society, this is the State into which the laboring poor, that is, the greater body of the people, must necessarily fall.'"

Through the campaign of men like Adam Smith, city-States, parliaments and other governmental structures gradually but steadily spread in Europe to replace kingdoms and monarchial rule. Under the new system advocated by the middle class of Smith’s days, it was typical to have power within and around the fraternities of lords, (spiritual and temporal), nobles and the business magnates. This was the precursor of modern day politics, but what has been tagged as the replacement of the medieval era by the modem era was actually a compromise reached amongst three contending forces that struggled to have dominance over the production mechanisms, the ordinary and poor members of their societies.
The forces of absolute monarchy, magnate oligarchy and noble (elite) democracy created and used the parliament as the chief tool to realize their selfish goals. Today, almost every society follows the concept of the likes of Adam Smith to build and sustain elitism and aristocracy on the strength of illusionary structures of nation-State, which are crafted to lubricate the interest of the bourgeoisies. It seems that this development and its contribution to the systemic curves is already lost or unknown to those that presume that the modern day nation-State and their components like the Nigerian administrative divisions (States, local government councils and wards) bears automatic fruits of political liberation and economic freedom.

The transformation from medieval into modern nation-States is a major factor that aided the European hegemony and their dominance in the contemporary world, the spread of the system beyond their territories and for the dominance of others is colonialism, which enabled them to prey upon the third world. The rooted impact of this historical antecedence is still conspicuous; and will continue to surface whenever analysis of the prognosis of the failures of modern African States like Nigeria is done. We cannot necessarily ignore the inimical impacts that the evolution of modern States in Europe has on the characteristics of third world nations like the Nigerian federation.  This generally known fact is best understood, if it is considered in view of the reality that Nigeria – more than other African country – subscribes to the colonial intention to usurp natural resources. This overriding imperial objective would not be achieved if indigenous peoples are not effectively annexed and disempowered into being mal-functional nation-States, just as the Ogonis, Ijaws, Itsekiris and other tribes of the Niger Delta are in Nigeria today.

The United Nations General Assembly recently made a resolution to ensure the rights of indigenous groups like the Ogoni people, 143 countries voted in favor of the resolution, while 4 countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and United States) voted against it, and 11 other countries including Nigeria abstained from voting on the matter. This decision is in harmony with what the Ogoni people and other Niger Delta groups had been fighting for, below is an extract of the resolution:
 

The Sixty-First General Assembly of United Nations Adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The General Assembly today overwhelmingly backed protections for the human rights of indigenous peoples, adopting a landmark declaration that brought to an end nearly 25 years of contentious negotiations over the rights of native people to protect their lands and resources, and to maintain their unique cultures and traditions.

By a vote of 143 in favour to 4 against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States), with 11 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which sets out the individual and collective rights of the world’s 370 million native peoples, calls for the maintenance and strengthening of their cultural identities, and emphasizes their right to pursue development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.

A non-binding text, the Declaration states that native peoples have the right “to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties” concluded with States or their successors.  It also prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them.

The Human Rights Council adopted the Declaration in June 2006, over the objections of some Member States with sizeable indigenous populations.  The Assembly deferred consideration of the text late last year at the behest of African countries, which raised objections about language on self-determination and the definition of “indigenous” people.

“The importance of this document for indigenous peoples and, more broadly, for the human rights agenda, cannot be underestimated,” said General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa in a statement delivered by Assembly Vice-President, Aminu Bashir Wali of Nigeria. She warned that, even with the progress achieved by events such as the 1995 first United Nations International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples and the beginning of the Second International Decade last year, native peoples still faced marginalisation, extreme poverty and other human rights violations.  They were often dragged into conflicts and land disputes that threatened their way of life and very survival; and, suffered from a lack of access to health care and education. “I am acutely aware that the Declaration is the product of over two decades of negotiations,” she said, and stressed that, by adopting the Declaration, the Assembly was also taking another major step forward towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.  It was also actively demonstrating the General Assembly’s important role in setting international standards.

Countries voting against the Declaration said they could not support it because of concerns over provisions on self-determination, land and resources rights and, among others, language giving indigenous peoples a right of veto over national legislation and State management of resources.
Speaking in explanation of vote before the text was adopted, Canada's representative said that, unfortunately, the provisions in the Declaration on lands, territories and resources were overly broad, unclear, and capable of a wide variety of interpretations, discounting the need to recognize a range of rights over land and possibly putting into question matters that have been settled by treaty.

The representative of the United States said that it was disappointing that the Human Rights Council had not responded to his country’s calls, in partnership with Council members, for States to undertake further work to generate a consensus text.  The Declaration had been adopted by the Council in a splintered vote “…and risked endless conflicting interpretations and debate about its application, as already evidenced by the numerous complex interpretive statements issued by States at its adoption at the Human Rights Council, and the United States could not lend its support to such a text”.

Australia’s representative said his Government had long expressed its dissatisfaction with the references to self-determination in the text.  Self-determination applied to situations of decolonization and the break-up of States into smaller states with clearly defined population groups.  It also applied where a particular group with a defined territory was disenfranchised and was denied political or civil rights.  Australia supported and encouraged the full engagement of indigenous peoples in the democratic decision-making process, but did not support a concept that could be construed as encouraging action that would impair, even in part, the territorial and political integrity of a State with a system of democratic representative Government.

In an informal meeting following adoption of the text, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, said:  “This day will forever be etched in our memories as a significant gain in our peoples’ long struggle for our rights as distinct peoples and cultures.”  While she respected the interpretive statements made by Member States, indigenous people believed the significance and implications of the Declaration should not be minimized in any way.  That would amount to discrimination.  “For us, the correct way to interpret the Declaration is to read it in its entirety or in a holistic manner and to relate it with existing international law,” she said.

She said that effective implementation of the Declaration would test the commitment of States and the whole international community to protect, respect and fulfil indigenous peoples’ collective and individual human rights.  “I call on Governments, the UN system, indigenous peoples and civil society at large to rise to the historic task before us and make the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a living document for the common future of humanity,” she concluded.

Les Malezer, Chairperson of the Global Indigenous Caucus, said that, with the adoption of the Declaration, the United Nations and indigenous people had found common ground.  The text did not represent the sole viewpoint of the United Nations, nor did it represent the viewpoint of all the world’s indigenous people.  It was based on mutual respect.  It contained no new provisions of human rights.  It was based on rights that had been approved by the United Nations system but which had somehow, over the years, been denied to indigenous peoples.  It was a framework for States to protect and promote the rights of indigenous people without exclusion or discrimination.