Abstract
Can public art, architecture and urban design be indices of the social, economic and political struggles for hierarchies and dominance among contesting interest groups within a postcolonial society like Nigeria? In 1975, the Nigerian military proposed that building a new Federal Capital Territory at Abuja would facilitate the country’s “federal character” resolve the problem of nepotism, and ease ethnic tensions among the two hundred and fifty cultural groups which constitute the nation (Afigbo, 1986; Ajayi, 1984)1. However, a study of the architecture and the sculptures at the newly constructed National Assembly Complex suggest otherwise. In this paper, it is argued that while the ideology of a nationalist architecture and the concept of a “federal character” might have merit for a multi-ethnic society like Nigeria, at Abuja, “federal character” instead became the means with which the emergent postcolonial elite consolidated its economic and political power through the exploitation of public art, as well as Modernist architectural and urban design elements using Islamic, Christian, and Ancestral visual icons.
Highlights
Let alone Abuja, Nigeria’s modern capital city designed in the 1970s and built in the 1980s and 1990s, could be expected to achieve the broad egalitarian goals indicated by the postcolonial Nigerian authorities, what was achieved instead? Why would the idea that architecture and urban design might deliver such goals be imagined in Nigeria in 1975, the time when the building and the inaugural experiences of Brasília (Brazil), Chandigarh (India), Dodoma (Tanzania), and Islamabad (Pakistan) had been receiving mixed reviews from the architectural and urban design community, as well as from politicians and social critics (Evenson, 1973; Epstein, 1973; Kalia, 1987; Holston, 1989; Vale, 1992; Dovey, 1999)? How did certain Modernist inspired architectural and urban design
This will be accomplished by first, explaining the political setting surrounding the decision to relocate the capital, second, discussing how Modernism, as well as Christian, Islamic, and Ancestral Visual Icons, were used to contest economic and political power at Abuja, third, reviewing the struggle for economic and political dominance at the critical central Three Arms Zone of Abuja, fourth, integrating the analysis provided by the three previous sections and, summarizing the findings of the study
In 1974, when the debate for the relocation of the Federal Capital was at its peak, Ishaya Audu, the Vice Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria, wrote that, “Firstly, our attention is drawn to the fact that this discussion has gone on since the creation of Nigeria as one political entity, contrary to the belief of some that the issue has only arisen as a result of recent manifestations of physical congestion (Audu, 1974).”
Summary
Let alone Abuja, Nigeria’s modern capital city designed in the 1970s and built in the 1980s and 1990s, could be expected to achieve the broad egalitarian goals indicated by the postcolonial Nigerian authorities, what was achieved instead? Why would the idea that architecture and urban design might deliver such goals be imagined in Nigeria in 1975, the time when the building and the inaugural experiences of Brasília (Brazil), Chandigarh (India), Dodoma (Tanzania), and Islamabad (Pakistan) had been receiving mixed reviews from the architectural and urban design community, as well as from politicians and social critics (Evenson, 1973; Epstein, 1973; Kalia, 1987; Holston, 1989; Vale, 1992; Dovey, 1999)? How did certain Modernist inspired architectural and urban design. When the dome of a mosque from the colonial era appears on the nation’s Parliament Building, it raises an alarm to many southern Christian and Animist Nigerians of the possibility that a northern based, Moslem, military and civilian intelligentsia, to which the late Abacha belonged, would dominate Nigeria’s political and artistic culture It begs for an explanation regarding why the original modernist-inspired design by Tange was suddenly abandoned in favor of a design that was approved by fiat by an unelected, military junta, which had muscled its way to the political apex of the country through a military coup d’état (New York Times Magazine, 2002; Mabogunje, 1999). The completed National Assembly Building, so different from the one originally designed, calls attention to a governmental lack of governance and accountability, as well as to issues relating to law and order and the responsibilities of national leaders to obey laws that are enacted by the Assembly (Idris, 1975; Benson, 1975; Onun, 1975; Eke, 1975; Afilakalaka, 1975; Omumu & Boji-Boji, 1975)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
