Nation on Board. Lynn Schler

leaders often began to channel the variety of struggles against colonial authority on which they had drawn—embracing peasants, workers, and intellectuals—into a focus on the apparatus of the state itself and into an ideological framework with a singular focus on the ‘nation.’ In the process, many of the possible readings of what an anticolonial movement might be were lost.”³¹

      The agenda of the nationalist elite did not reflect the aspirations of all Africans. As colonialism drew to a close, individuals and communities from across the continent conjured up visions and interpretations of what decolonization could and should mean, but many of these have been subordinated, lost, or silenced by narratives of nation-building. Even within the context of nationalist ideologies, formulations that diverged from the political agenda seeking to establish modern nation-states existed, but they have been largely lost in the historical record. Although many of the paths taken in the era of decolonization became irrelevant, outdated, or even oppositional with independence, their significance should not be measured by their ultimate fate in the postcolonial landscape. As Fred Cooper has argued, the difficulty in writing a contoured history of decolonization and accurately assessing the significance of the new possibilities born in this era is that “we know the end of the story.”³² Looking back from the present, historians tend to privilege narratives describing processes of nation-building as the main theme of decolonization. Left behind are the other possible routes and outcomes—cultural, political, and economic alliances not corresponding to the physical or conceptual borders of postcolonial African nation-states.

      Histories of decolonization in African contexts have insufficiently examined how everyday Africans embraced and promoted alternative visions of postcoloniality rather than those ultimately enforced by political elites. And, little attention has been paid to the individual and communal journeys taken by nonelites toward the assumption of national identities and ideologies, and the consequences of their entwinement in this historical trajectory. One notable exception is Gregory Mann’s work on the fluid and changing notions of political belonging invoked by Senegalese veterans in the colonial and postcolonial eras. Mann argued that national identity was part of a broad and changing set of statuses inhabited by veterans in an effort to claim political and material benefits. For Senegalese veterans, national identity was a “claims-making” instrument that diverged from more formal, legal notions of citizenship signified by decolonization and the establishment of nation-states in Africa.³³ Similarly, it will be seen that Nigerian seamen’s formations of nationalist consciousness bore little resemblance to elite visions, which were aimed at constitutional reform, political emancipation from foreign domination, and nation-building. For seamen, becoming “Nigerian” was a strategy for achieving better pay, more just relations with management, and an end to racial discrimination. Thus, this investigation into the Nigerianization of seamen unpacks the meaning and significance of a Nigerian identity and highlights its fluidity and evolution over time. It will be seen that decolonization was a process that everyday Africans responded to, interpreted, and experienced, rather than one merely dictated from above.

      While this book illustrates how ordinary people exploited opportunities to create a political agenda and postcolonial vision tied to their particular circumstances, it ultimately draws attention to the processes and institutions that finally prevented seamen from representing themselves and protecting their interests. For masses of Africans, decolonization was a process that ultimately ended in unfulfilled promises. The transition to independence was characterized by the collaboration between European capitalists and African political and economic elites to construct a postcolonial future favoring and protecting their specific interests. Once independence arrived, these elites had to confront the tremendous challenge of meeting the needs of the masses. Fred Cooper has claimed that while most African states took up projects of development, few had the necessary resources or dedication to serve the interests of the people. Instead, postcolonial ruling elites ensured their own survival and prosperity by becoming “gatekeepers” over the limited resources that moved into and around the newly born nation-states.³⁴

      This book provides a clear illustration of the processes described by Cooper. Seamen’s expectations of the postcolonial reality went unfulfilled because the management of the Nigerian National Shipping Line had insufficient resources and managerial experience to develop the national line into a viable enterprise. Instead, Nigerian officers tightened their control over the resources moving in and out of Nigeria through the ships of the NNSL. Against this backdrop, seamen experienced a worsening of employment conditions on board ships, and a narrowing of possibilities for those engaged in independent trade. This case study thus illustrates how political and economic developments associated with the transition from colonialism to independence ultimately limited the autonomy of African labor in crafting postcolonial identities, and provides background for understanding the disillusionment working classes expressed toward the postcolonial reality. In chronicling the defeats and failures experienced by Nigerian seamen, the study exposes precisely how power was consolidated in the processes of nationalization at the expense of labor, and how deals struck between European and African elites on the eve of independence continue to limit the choices and opportunities available to African working classes today.

      CORRUPTION AND DECLINE OF A POSTCOLONIAL BUSINESS VENTURE

      The history of the establishment, functioning, and ultimate demise of the Nigerian National Shipping Line can be seen as a microcosm of the broader fate of countless political and economic schemes in postcolonial Nigeria. This focused investigation into one enterprise provides insights into how the promise of economic nationalism slowly evaporated as it confronted the political and economic realities of postcolonial Nigeria. The story of the NNSL can be woven seamlessly into a larger narrative of mishaps and failures of government planning and economic development in the postcolonial era. These narratives of unrealized opportunities, failed government, underdevelopment, and corruption abound in the history of postindependence Nigeria, and scholars across disciplines have attempted to provide an appropriate theoretical framework for understanding their causes and long-term effects. Academics have debated the roots of the political and economic instability that has plagued Nigeria since independence, as well as the stark inequalities and misappropriations that only seem to deepen over time. Indeed, these debates are not limited to Nigeria, and many scholars inside and outside the continent struggle to understand the persistent economic and political difficulties faced by postcolonial African states.

      Several distinct approaches have taken shape in these debates. There are those who find explanations in institutional weaknesses, many of which are attributed to the legacy of colonialism. Thus, Mahmood Mamdani has argued that the roots of inequality in postcolonial Africa are found in the colonial legacy that institutionalized unequal structures of power that served the needs of only a small elite at the expense of the masses.³⁵ Scholars from the schools of underdevelopment theory and dependency theory also argue that the colonial legacy is largely responsible for instituting a world system that leaves postcolonial states at a perpetual disadvantage in international markets. But while acknowledging the immense obstacles colonialism placed on Africa’s road to development, many are beginning to feel ill at ease with these explanations that do not confront the postcolonial factors shaping Africa’s present. As Timothy Burke summarized the situation, “The problem of postcolonial Africa is treated by the majority of scholars, especially anthropologists and historians, as an extension of or continuation of the problem of the colonial, that the moral and political challenge of postcolonial society is subordinated to or situated within a modernity whose character is largely causally attributed to colonial intervention.”³⁶

      As we move further away from the colonial era, there is a growing need for understanding postcolonial realities beyond the impact of the colonial legacy. In recent years, several significant works have argued that the postcolonial instability and weakening of African polities and economies must be understood against the backdrop of the cultural contexts of local societies. Thus, argue Patrick Chabal and Jean-Pascal Daloz, African states will never evolve into exact replicas of the Western state because this transplanted model does not serve the interest of local elites. African elites prefer to maintain a deeply rooted traditional system based on “a reciprocal type of interdependence between leaders, courtiers and the populace. And it is a system that works, however imperfectly, to maintain social bonds between those at the