Dr. Umar Ardo’s Role in the Proxy Clash of Civilization Re; The Crumbling of Nigerian “Christians Genocide” Narrative, By Umar Ardo – Part 2

By Olusegun R. Babalola

This DR. Umar Ardo’s disconcerting article, that cannot be thoroughly addressed in a single article, was brought to by notice by a Nigerian nationalist and federalist, Madu Bright O. Alwell. He noted; “We respectfully seeking a detailed response …” This has led 8-part response: The Nigerian Proxy Clash of Civilizations, Dr. Umar Ardo’s Role in the Proxy Clash of Civilization, Dr. Umar Ardo as Civilizational Strategist of Moral Violence, Understanding DR. Umar Ardo in the Age of Civilizationalism, DR. Umar Ardo’s Moral Violence and Kafkaesque Natural Justice Pretentions, Natural  Justice Rightly Understood; Case for Dialogue Between 2-Civilizations, The Fundamental Challenges; Neo-Crusade Between Muslims and Christians; and Nigeria @ Crossroads & the Way Forward. The general purpose is civic self-understanding of our problematic challenges towards a peaceful resolution and if possible, conversion.

Just as the RUGA policy is a proxy for civilizational expansionism of the Fulani version of Afro-Islamic civilization (AIC) within the Indigenous-African civilizational (IAC) spaces towards the latter’s civilizational erasure; and the “Christian Genocide” narrative is also a proxy for IAC that accommodates FoRB against civilizational erasure by the AIC, Dr. Umar Ardo had also once sold a proxy, nay – a blackmail – that as long as there is Fulani profiling, the Fulani would frustrate the restructuring that IAC fervently demand. This civilizational stunt is evident primarily in his Aug. 30, 2021 article “Fulanis’ Fears of Restructuring.”

Ardo’s Case for Conditional Restructuring

Ardo’s “Fulanis’ Fears of Restructuring” has five central themes. Firstly, he pushed for national provisions of ranches for the pastoral Fulani. Having rolled out the national benefits of pastoral Fulani (products and economic opportunities), Ardo noted that since “environmental, security and other factors, maintaining and nurturing the herds have lately become serious issues,” ranches with “huge expanse of land” and “animal-related industrial base” should be provided by Nigeria to solve the “farmers/herders conflict.”

Secondly, Ardo protested against the problem of “unfair ethnic profiling and demonization of the Fulanis” which is blocking the provisions of ranches for the Fulani. He lamented that “anti-Fulani extremists would have none of it; no any solution to Fulani issues is worthy enough of consideration.” For example, he noted during Buhari’s presidency “Yet today, the sins and failures of Buhari are turned into the sins and failures of Muslims and Fulanis.” Ardo noted “ethnic extremists situate all the problems of the country on ethnicity” focused on “the Fulanis as the major culprits in the failure of the Nigerian State.” The Fulani he affirmed were never in the unitarist “crime scene” of “the introduction of military rule;” the “abolishment of the federal structure and imposition of unitary system;” the replacement of “fiscal federalism” with “centralized command of resources” between 1967-1974; and the promulgation of dysfunctional “presidential democratic” constitutions of 1979 and 1999. Dr. Ardo noted “It is such demonization that led to the unfortunate human catastrophe in Rwanda in 1994 … we need to negate this negative narrative as an inevitable step towards evolving higher national ideals. Until this is done, Nigeria will not move an inch.”

Thirdly, Ardo accepts that Nigeria currently runs an “unjust dysfunctional federal structure” with “fundamental structural issues bedeviling the country” and that “restructuring can help resolve many of these problems if properly conceived.” Ardo admits that “Nigeria must be restructured so as to survive for all Nigerians” and noted the historical superiority of “the 1960 Independence Constitution” where “the regions and their ethnic groups were all controlling their resources and developing at their own pace,” which is now propagated by “federalists.” Ardo noted that since the Military abolished the federal structure and imposed a military and unitary system, “Nigeria’s political debates and struggles” over the “unjust dysfunctional federal structure” that is “inequitable and exploitative” have “been between the “federalists” and the “unitarists” taking ethnic, religious and sectional tides depending on who’s in power.” This frustrates “the ordinary evolutionary process of nation building; facilitated by political agitation for restructuring.”

Fourth, Ardo identified “the major problem” to restructuring through “ordinary evolutionary process of nation building” are “religious extremists are mainly in the North and the ethnic extremists mainly in the South.” According to him, “while religious extremists raise armed revolts, killings and destructions against the country in the name of religion, ethnic extremists conceive and propagate jaundiced diabolical ethnic narratives to create tensions in the polity.” They “have hijacked the politics of restructuring on both the sides of proponents and opponents” and thus “threatening Nigeria’s nationhood.” Furthermore, the recalcitrant “ethnic and religious extremists” led to “military intervention” in the first place and shaped “military disengagement and the structure put in place.”

Fifth, Ardo concluded that “most champions of the restructuring agenda” are the Southern “ethnic extremists” and “the major propagators of” Fulbe “demonization narrative.” He claimed that “the accusations being leveled against President Buhari on the so-called “islamizing and fulanizing Nigeria” via the RUGA policy is a “a stunt of the ethnic extremists.” And thus, restructuring “is seen as one and the same thing as ethnic extremism” and “will remain suspect before the Fulanis as a whole, thereby compelling them to oppose it and thus make more difficult its attainment.”

Ardo’s Contradictions

What is surprising here is Ardo’s two inherent contradictions, which are tactfully glossed over by “natural justice” pretentions.

The first contradiction is that Dr. Ardo deliberately omitted any account of the “religious extremists” (mainly in the North) whilst surprisingly focused only on how the propagandist ethnic extremists frustrate restructuring through the demonization of the pastoral Fulani and the connected refusal to give the pastoral Fulani the “huge expanse of land” needed to end the “the farmers/herders conflict.”

The second contradiction manifests when one adds his affirmation in his 2024 Understanding the Fulbe factor in West African Affairs that whilst the “nomadic pagan or nominal Muslim pastoralists” contribute “to their settled kins’ war efforts,” well-being, “militarily and financially;” the “Fulbe government secure “grazing lands for their pastoralist kins” without “educating or Islamizing them;” with his confirmation that “religious extremists are mainly in the North” raise “armed revolts, killings and destructions against the country in the name of religion.” Thus, from civilizational points-of-view, how could the members of Indigenous-African Civilization (IAC) accommodate within themselves ranches with “huge expanse of land” occupied by the pastoralists who, based on Pulaku contribute to the war efforts of the Islamic Fulani – part of the same Northern “religious extremists” who” raise “armed revolts, killings and destructions against the country in the name of religion?

This Ardo’s article, which proposes ranches as the condition for restructuring, is a strategic and a scripted grand plan towards the reactivation of Buhari’s RUGA towards the “Final Conflict” between the 2-Civilizations towards complete Islamization and Fulanization. The pastoral Fulbe, now as terrorists, act as part of the military force for the settled Fulbe and the settled Fulbe would provide land for the pastoral Fulbe. We are reminded of Femi Adesina, Buhari’s Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, who on behalf of the presidency stated on the African Independent Television (AIT) Kaakaki  programme on July 3, 2018 “giving land for ranching better than death” and that “Ancestral attachment? You can only have ancestral attachment when you are alive.” As we have seen, this “template” is a placeholder for ideology for Fulberic-AICl expansionism. The whole idea is the modern and exclusive and repugnant continuity of the Fulbe’s “strategic advantages” and civilizationalism within a multi-civilizational-state. One cannot but agree with Dr. Ardo that when “extremists take charge there’s always little room for rational thinking,”

The third contradiction is that provision of ranches need not include acquisition of land for the pastoral Fulbe towards “Fulanization and Islamization.” President Buhari’s RUGA proposal, now repackaged as the “Pulaku Initiative” which was unveiled by President Tinubu administration on February 13, 2024 and launched by the President in Minna, Niger State March 11, 2024. The ideology contrived towards civilizational continuity through national provision of ranches need not be an exclusive and repugnant “Pulaku Initiative.”

This is evident in the Afenifere Diaspora Discussion Roundtable (Vol 1 Issue 2/March 23, 2024 – edited by Professor Seun Kolade). The Roundtable noted that ranching could be achieved if it is established: (1) as “a legitimate business” involving “both government and private stakeholders” (Public-Private Partnership PPP) whilst also addressing “the logistical challenges of land, water, and veterinary services,” all based on “law enforcement and equitable land rental systems as means to integrate ranching harmoniously;”(2) “with respect to land ownership and community rights” based on “Transparent dialogue and collaboration with local communities” to address issues of “land use, cultural practices, and the socio-economic impact of ranching;” (3) the need for “restructuring and a more decentralized approach to agricultural policy” to reflect “the divers ecological, cultural, and economic landscape,” allow “states and local governments” to “tailor ranching policies to their specific needs and circumstances” and towards “inclusive and effective agricultural sector;” (4) emphasis should not be placed “on cattle ranching over other forms of livestock farming.”

Just as my August 2024 Win-Win Deal – If-I-Were-the-President [1]article, where I argued for three-staged reforms, economic and security, moral and polycentric, and constitutional reforms, the Roundtable is arguing for restructuring for more inclusive agricultural policy and to making ranching work, unlike Dr. Ardo that makes ranching a covetous Fulbe-ric acquisition of (not renting of) other’s ancestral land – other’s civilizational spaces – as a condition for restructuring.

If it is then true as Ardo claimed in “Fulanis’ Fears of Restructuring”  that restructuring is seen by the Fulanis (a significant representatives of the AIC) “as one and the same thing as ethnic extremism” which stalls the Fulani civilizational expansionist proxy such as RUGA and Pulaku Initiative, and “will remain suspect before the Fulanis” compelling “them to oppose it and thus make more difficult its attainment,” it may also then be true that whilst majority of the people of the IAC are peacefully advocating restructuring of the Nigerian “dysfunctional system,” the incessant mayhem caused by the radical members of AIC (by Boko Haram, ISWAP and bandits … etc.) may in fact be a coordinated efforts to “oppose” and “make more difficult its attainment.”

[1] https://obalufonics.com/win-win-deal-if-i-were-the-president-challenge/