By Wale Ajao
waleajao2002@gmail.com
History may turn out to become an unintended tool of self-destruction if its interpretation and essence is misused or misunderstood advertently or inadvertently. As the younger generation of historians go about the business of interpreting and presenting past events they must keep in mind the fact that we study the past to do better now and in the future.
In his article titled it is the turn of Alaafin Owoade, Dare Babarinsa, Chairman Gaskia media limited indirectly referred to the unending and needless debate on who is superior between Alaafin and Ooni. He gave the impression that the Ooni is superior because Ooni Adesoji Aderemi was chairman of the western state council of obas all through the reign Ladigbolu I Adeyemi II Ladigbolu II and Adeyemi III. His submission led Ajisebi Oyo radio. Tv to respond with their own version of history as they argued that Alaafin is superior because Ladigbolu II was also at a point chairman of western state council of obas even when the legendary Oba Adesoji Aderemi was still the Ooni and also Governor. In these presentations both Ajise bi Oyo Tv and seasoned journalist and respected historian Babarinsa are re-visiting a needless debate that has been overtaken by events. This is a debate which one of the leading Yoruba historians, Professor Siyan Oyeweso, deliberately avoided in his address at the coronation of Alaafin Owoade on Saturday April 5. I imagine that Professor Oyeweso would have thought that revisiting the superiority debate is needles now. It has been overtaken by events. Yoruba land is now part of a nation created by nineteenth century British imperialism. The Nigerian state today must address the major challenge facing all neo colonies. That task or duty is about how the disparate political and administrative structure bequeathed to all former British colonies must be re-created so that it can achieve democracy and development.
In our world today democracy and development have become mandatory. They are the major yardsticks of assessment of the performance of nation states. In this regard monarchy no matter how effective it may still be in a few parts of the world will also be assessed in relation to how far it can bring development to the people. It is in this sense that historians have no choice than to relate monarchy to its usefulness in contributing to development of a nation. It is also in this sense that the role of the Ooni and that of Alaafin in contemporary history is how both referred and ancient monarchical institutions can be useful for development efforts of the Nigerian state.
In her quest for development the Nigerian state has made great efforts to re structure the dysfunctional aspects of the neocolonial state. For example, the colonial state created three regions North west and east and made the north bigger in land and convoluted censors figures. The Nigerian state coming out of a three-year civil war came up with nineteen state structure. The purpose was to achieve unity by making the states the unit of administration. Many people still say that the issue is not the unit of administration but the generation and control of resources. So till today many people still say that the Nigerian federation is imbalanced because those who own the resources do not control them. The central government controls the resources it doesn’t own. It gathers the resources together and tells the real owners what share they can have.
In relation to the issue at hand the Alaafin or the Ooni has no say in this very critical matter. The Alaafin and the Ooni are now under different state governments and who is superior between them is of no relevance to the administration of the two states where both of them are residing. Alaafin is under Oyo State Government and the best the Alaafin can do for his people is to see how the institution of Alaafin can assist the state government in making governance to deliver dividends of democracy to the people. The same applies to the Ooni. It is a waste of time, energy and resources for both monarchs to be flexing muscles about superiority when nineteenth century British imperialism had turned them into followers of whoever is the Governor of the state they live in.
Of course we all know that democracy took precedence over monarchy from the time we became an independent nation. Our people and our historians should stop reading history backwards by revisiting a dead issue like who is superior between Alaafin and Ooni. Each of them is superior in his domain. Both Alaafin and Ooni have great roles to play at the community level where they can function better under the new dispensation that places them under elected governor.
In the precolonial era when the supremacy issue originated the Alaafin and Ooni were never at any point in history under the same political unit. All Alaafin agreed that they originated from Ife. However, all Alaafin as of right also have a right to claim superiority because they eventually built empire. Despite the fact that they originated from Ife they built empire which controlled more than half of Yorubaland. It is this achievement that gives all Alaafin the right to claim to be superior to the Ooni.
But this is useful only if we are talking about the pre-colonial era. Under the present dispensation it is of little significance to still dissipate energy on who is superior between Alaafin and Ooni. It is true that the issue has a long history. The foremost Yoruba historian, Samuel Johnson, in his History of the Yoruba published in 1922 by CSS bookshop has suggested that both Alaafin and Ooni should be given equal leadership roles. He advocated that the Alaafin should be the political head of the Yoruba nation. He also wanted the Ooni to be the spiritual head of the Yoruba nation. Our teachers, both late Professor Adeagbo Akinjogbin and Professor Ade Ajayi, advocated that Ooni ought to be the leader because of the orirun concept in Yoruba culture. This means that where a person originated from takes precedence. So if all Alaafin agree that they originated from Ife, then the Ooni should be the head of the Yoruba nation.
Again this position is useful only before the emergence of the present dispensation. Under the present situation political leadership of Nigeria is not determined by the Yoruba alone. Colonialism has brought the Yoruba into a new nation. The Alaafin and Ooni must fend for their people under this new reality. The best way forward is to forget this unending and needless debate. It is true that right from the pre-colonial era there has been rivalry between the two which led Johnson to formulate the dual leadership mandate. It is true that the colonial masters recognised Alaafin as the leader of the Yoruba because the Alaafin was the head of Oyo empire under which Ibadan and Ogbomoso and other Yoruba towns took instruction. Oyo empire even extended to present day Benin Republic and may be some parts of Togo. Yet, we need to move forward and read history forward.
This writer had advocated that decolonization is mandatory for the survival of the Nigerian state. One major decolonization is the struggle for proper federalism that will allow those who own resources to control them and contribute to the federal purse as agreed by the ethnic nationalities that make up the federation. This will require constitutional amendment. We should give priority to proper federalism which will hasten our struggle for development which has become mandatory for nation states in our contemporary world.
Another decolonization we need to do is to put our traditional institutions where they should belong in line with the present dispensation. We should abolish State Council of Obas and put all Obas at the community level. All Obas should operate at the local government level. We need constitutional amendments to give defined roles to monarchs at the local government level and they should be well remunerated for this role. For example, resolving conflicts through out of court settlements is one age old function of our traditional rulers. They should also be recognised as the custodian of culture and traditions. They should be seen as promoters of growth and development in their community and this should be constitutionally guaranteed.
The idea of classification of Obas as First Class or Second Class flows from colonialism. We should stop it. No oba is superior to another oba. No people is superior to another people as long as we are in a democracy. Ife is not superior to Oyo just as Oyo is not superior to Ife. Ooni is not superior to Alaafin and Alaafin is not superior to Ooni. We should stop classification of obas as first class or second class because it is needless in a democracy because our obas are now community leaders in this democratic dispensation.
The best way the Alaafin can sustain the majesty of the institution is to key into development as a priority. This can be done by mobilizing Oyo indigenes to eradicate illiteracy in his domain; by promotion of youth employment and exposing the youths to information communication technology; by mobilizing the people to secure their community; by promotion of cottage industry through community efforts. This will be more worthwhile than dissipation of energy on who is superior between Alaafin and Ooni.
Dare Babarinsa in referring to Adeyemi III kept saying he reigned from 1970. The correct sequence is from January 14, 1971. But this is just by the way. The real purpose of this intervention is to situate monarchy within the context of our national struggle for democracy and development. It is only by doing this that we can get out of the snag of turning history into an instrument of self-annihilation.
Ajao is a veteran journalist.