There is something not right about Nigeria. We cannot seem to agree on what it is. Different member groups have different ideas about the problem. The most popular suggestions being religious intolerance, ethnic hatred, crime, and corruption (Spring, 2014). Committed effort has debated these problem ideas in isolation; not enough effort has explored the intersections between them. This is perhaps why the understanding of the “Nigerian problem” has remained limited or fragmented – and the solution, if it is singular, has remained elusive. Unfortunately, this has been the situation for long and could remain so indefinitely.
The fragmented nature of the topic creates a state of confusion. Where there is no agreed central problem, and the moving parts are not adequately understood, there can be no clear solution. The effect of the ambiguity in Nigeria’s case is the ongoing blame game: the youths blame the older generation for failing the nation, the elders do not see the problem as generational but as the effect of the missteps of a few bad eggs among them who constitute the ruling class, these leaders are convinced their efforts deserve appreciation from the “ungrateful” public. Everyone appears to be right; no one is responsible.
Outside the groups, individuals are no closer to clarity about the “Nigerian problem”. The suggestions cut across leadership, followership, religion, ethnicity, corruption, the colonization effect and more. There is no end to the list. 200+ million people present millions of explanations for the underperformance of the Nigerian state. Out of curiousity and in adopting the creative problem solving technique of reversal, what if we stop being direct about our approach and instead consider the possibility that we could all be right and wrong at the same time? What if the suggestions are valid and that we are dealing with may be a complex problem not a simple one?
Imagine a secular gathering consisting of 3 people (A, B, and C); each with different leanings. A pack of pizza was served for sharing among them. ‘A’ decides that prayers must lead the sharing; ‘B’ rejects the idea, arguing that “prayers should come at the end instead.” C is unconcerned about timing for the prayer; C just wants to eat. The trio decide to run a ballot. The warring sides devise strategies to win, with C holding the swing vote. A privately offers C his slice to win the prayer debate. B does same. C suggests that the session should start and end with prayers and includes a sermon on brotherhood. The three agree. C eats the whole pack. The other two are aggrieved. How do you cast blame in this case?