It is difficult to come to grips with the nature of character of the Nigerian State without recounting the historical circumstances that brought Nigeria into existence. As is well-known, Nigeria was a product of the intra-imperialist intrigues of the 19th century. The various communities that later crystallised to Nigeria lived their separate lives until they were forcefully brought together in furtherance of British colonial interests. As Chief Obafemi Awolowo once observed, they hardly had anything in common save the colour of their skins.

The British, being past masters at bringing disparate peoples together, wasted no time in providing the constitutional scaffolding for their colonial territory. Right from the Clifford Constitution and Lyttleton Constitutions of 1951 and 1954, respectively, the British colonial government sought different ways and means of ensuring peaceful co-habitation among the numerous peoples of the territory. Nevertheless, the federation crated in Nigeria, like others created by the British elsewhere, has had a chequered history. As soon as the guarantors of the Nigerian state formally severed the umbilical chord with the metropolis, the strains of keeping together a large, disparate population became clearly visible, leading ultimately to military dictatorship and an ugly and avoidable civil war.

Regrettably, the civil war failed to resolve the national question which can, in fact, be considered as having exacerbated it. If, before military incursion into the political space, Nigeria had three and later, four regions to contend with, the country thereafter had, first, 12 and later, 19 and now, 36 fractions, and largely, enviable prefectures littering the political landscape, with the generality of the people having little or nothing to show for the products of military political engineering beside ballooning administrative overhead costs and an abiding misery and impoverishment. Indeed the military years in government have been rightly described as "years of the locust" so much so that their civilian successors would require several decades of restoration and refurbishment before Nigeria can be placed on the launching-pad for socio-economic and political development.

In characterising the Nigerian state, it is important to bear in mind the fact that political power had passed upon independence to the more conservative or reactionary elements of the governing class. Lacking generally in the foresight revolutionary commitment of an Nkrumah or Sekou Toure, Balewa and his confederates accepted the subordinate role ascribed to them by imperialism such that they merely did as instructed by their colonial mentors, with Nigeria spearheading the 'Monrovia Group or the conservative wing of Africa's power elite. Accordingly, Nigeria was, to all intents and purposes, a neo-colonial state, dominated by elements of the comprador bourgeoisie. Within such a situation, the state became an apparatus of power in the hands of forces that had accepted their intermediary role vis-ˆ-vis foreign capital.

The upshot of this state of affairs was that Nigeria became safe for neo-colonial manipulation and control such that Nigeria forfeited its rightful place at the vanguard of African liberation. The neo-colonial state, as Mkrumah never tired of reminding, is one "which is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty... (but)... (in) reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside." In such a country, the search for foreign investment becomes paramount and superior to all other considerations, be they human rights or the public good. Accordingly, the neo-colony is a lackey and marionettte of imperialism, shorn of all aspiration or pretences toward self-reliant and autonomous development.

At this time and age, the Bretton Woods institutions have assumed responsibility for supervising and monitoring developments in the various neo-colonial states for all manner of policy, be it social, economic or political. Aside from dictating policy options for the neo-colony, they actually recruit even ministers and train technocrats and government functionaries to ensure faithful and unflinching implementation of both fiscal and monetary policies emanating from Washington. If and when the neo-colony begins to be assertive or unyielding to foreign diktat, there are always contingency plans for handling the situation.

A sampling of Nigeria's actions and policies, especially in the recent past, would confirm that the country, to all intents and purposes, is a veritable neo-colony. Our national budgets have been known to contain US dollar components. Besides, not only have we had to seek approval by these foreign financial institutions before presenting national budgets to the National Assembly, foreign airlines, some landlords and even private boutiques have felt no compunction in donominating air fares, house rents and prices in dollars in a country that still claims that the naira was its legal tender. We seem to have forgotten the fact that a nation's currency is the monetary equivalent of its sovereignty. In a situation where representatives of foreign powers have spared no opportunity to freely admonish and counsel the Nigerian government on its policies without caring a hoot about diplomatic niceties regarding non-interference, it is no exaggeration to say that we are really not in charge of our affairs.

It is instructive that the US felt perfectly free in announcing recently that it was assembling an African Forces Command despite the deleterious consequences such a move portends for the independence and territorial integrity of Nigeria and the rest of Africa. In fact, our own Naval Chief of Staff was reported to have welcomed the renewed interest of the Americans in the southern Atlantic area! And if any further confirmation was needed on the subservient role of the country vis-ˆ-vis imperialism, one need only recall the fact that Nigeria had to lean very heavily on the US for the air-lift of its troops to Darfur pursuant to the establishment of the AU peace-keeping contingent in that beleaguered territory.

It seems many Nigerians have become wise to our peripheral and neo-colonial status as they now direct their appeals regarding the situation in the country to foreign governments and international agencies while our political leaders also love to throw their offices open to all manner of foreign delegations and relish interviews conducted by the foreign media, especially journalists from the global networks. This is aside from their 'word' press conferences, usually tagged as such because of the presence of one or two foreign correspondents. This, of course, mirrors the inferiority complex of many of our leaders, a condition otherwise known as 'colonial mentality' which, in turn, is a reflection of the country's neo-colonial status.

Admittedly, the centre-periphery analytical model has some well-known limitations but, which with respect to Nigeria, would seem to generally hold true. To the extent that Nigeria still operates a disarticulate economy, to that extent would it be true that we are locked in the ghetto of the so-called globalized world. In such a scenario, it would be most difficult, if not, in fact, impossible for the country to break loose and embark on the path of economic independence and self-reliance.