Discourse 323
By Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde
A Day With Fukuyama
Nigeria is today counted among failed states. Early in his tenure, President Obama was said to privately dismiss the country as a failed state, an assessment that prompted his preference for Ghana as the venue to declare his short but eloquent prescription for the largely failed African continent: “Africa needs strong institutions, not strong leaders.”
On a more impersonal level, the Failed States Index published by Foreign Relations of the United State Department of State has been listing Nigeria among failed states since its debut in 2005. In 2011, Nigeria maintained its 14th position as in 2010 largely as a result of its whopping deficit in provision of basic public services that a state should deliver to its citizens.
However, our notorious position is beginning to be hailed even in academic circles, beyond the political environs of foreign offices. Nowhere was I alerted to this fact than in the latest publication of the renowned American political scientist, Francis Fukuyama, The Origins of Political Order (2011). In the early pages of the book, the reader finds Fukuyama listing Nigeria along with Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, as failed nations that “everyone would like to figure out how to transform…into ‘Denmark’… stable, democratic, peaceful, prosperous, inclusive and has extremely low level of political corruption.” (Pg. 14).
Only two paragraphs earlier, Fukuyama has described sub-Saharan African countries as libertarian paradise, “the kinds of minimal or no-government societies envisioned by dreamers of the Left and Right.” The region as a whole region, generalized the author,
“is a low tax utopia, with governments often unable to collect more than about 10 percent of GDP in taxes compared to more than 30 percent in the United states and 50 percent in parts of Europe…basic public services, like health, education, and pothole filling are starved of funding…”
The two best illustrations of those “kinds of minimal or no-government societies that Fukuyama could find among the failed states in the region were Somalia and – again – Nigeria.
Fukuyama’s voluminous The Origins is a must read. From his thesis, one understands that Nigerians’ retrogression into primordial cleavages of tribe and religion is a standard reaction of humanity wherever political decay has set in as the society gets stuck in “dysfunctional institutional equilibrium.” Our preference to members of our tribes and families than to the wider interest of the Nigerian nation is precisely the expected response of people living where higher social institutions fail:
“Inclusive fitness (kin selection) and reciprocal fitness…may be regarded as default form of social organization. The tendency to favor family and friends can be overridden by new rules and incentives that mandate, for example, hiring a qualified individual rather than a family member. But the higher-level institutions are in some sense quite unnatural, and when they break down, humans revert to the earlier form of sociability.”
Nigeria has inarguably returned to that primitive level of sociability. I doubt in the near future the good old days of merit would return. Our preference today is clearly for the family or tribe member (nepotism), a person we are indebted to in one way or another (reciprocal altruism) or a member of our religion.
The retrogression plague has eaten deep into our psyche. Today, not a single issue would be raised without beneficiaries of our state of decay infusing it with those primordial sentiments. We fail even to see crimes against Nigerians as crimes so long as they do not touch our own. When the military evidently stepped beyond their bounds and carried out atrocities that resulted in the depopulation of Maiduguri early last week, many people sounded not only indifferent but were eager to ridicule the rationale of any protest against the atrocities. The debate over Islamic Banking also smacks of the same depressed psyche. An American friend whomisman expert on Nigeria told me that his heart sunk after reading the press release against the interest-free banking by leaders of the Christian Association of Nigeria. Also, it was not quite a while when we saw during the last presidential election how the country was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines. Credibility was thrown away in favour of religion and ethnicity. This sad trend, unless checked, is likely to remain for generations to come.
We daily lament on our decay but evidently we deliberately work to entrench it. We may continue on this road but we cannot avoid its consequences. Under such circumstances, violence in form of ethnic and religious crises – including Boko Haram – will continue to be commonplace. It represents the symptoms of our accelerating decomposition. At the same time it is the manifestation for the need for institutional change. Fukuyama:
“Politics emerges as a mechanism for controlling violence, yet violence constantly remains as a background condition for certain types of political change. Societies can get stuck in a dysfunctional institutional equilibrium in which existing stakeholders can veto necessary institutional change. Sometimes violence or the threat of violence is necessary to break out of the equilibrium.” (Pg. 45)
Toeing this line, many concerned Nigerians have at various times expressed the desire for structural change. They see the diminishing return in governance to be as a result of the tragedy of the commons. If only the Nigeria is disbanded into new nations based identities of tribe or religion, its people would be better governed.
Thus, the nostalgia of reverting to life under the former three regions has dominated the debate. Biafra, representing Igbo interest, was and is still the voice to reckon with in the Southeast. The passion for its reincarnation remains high. The Afenifere cultural group lays claim to a separate government for Yoruba ‘race’ in the Southwest. Recently, the South-south has found a voice in MEND for the control of its resources to the exclusion of the remaining ‘parasites’ in the country. Its intention to secede is widely speculated. From the North is the Middle Belt movement representing the non-Muslim minority groups there who would live happily once emancipated from the dominance of their Muslim Hausa-Fulani neighbours. Finally, the araba sentiment of the 1966 has been rekindled in the Muslim North itself as rising increasing religious influence and feeling of its political alienation from the rest of the country in the aftermath of last elections. The voice of unity and progress from the nationalist that echoed loudly in the 1970s seem to be lost by the cacophony of these agitations.
However, there is no guarantee that even if the new entities that would emerge after the de-amalgamation of the country would be different from the present. If separation is based on the primordial instinct of kinship, further instability as a result of lineal differences is very likely to stage a comeback. In short, Nigerians should not trust kinship. Fukuyama, once more:
“While segments can aggregate at a high level, they are prone to immediate fissioning once the cause of their union (such as external threat) disappears. The possibility of multilevel segmentation is seen in many different tribal societies and is reflected in the Arab saying, “Me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against the stranger.” (Pg. 58)
Learning from the studies of E. E. Evans-Pritchard’s studies of the Nuer people of Southern Sudan which Fukuyama cited to illustrate this point, one can easily see how our present hope is not founded on better basis than the kinship basis that drove our African independence movement. 'Africa for Africans' was the common 'nationalist' dictum throughout the continent against the ‘white’ colonialists.
However, immediately after the departure of the British from Nigeria, for example, as in all other parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the ‘fictive kinship’ of the anthropologist overtook national interest, leading to civil wars in many countries, many of which are still claiming lives unabated. One would need some thinking before counting 15 African countries that have not gone through the hell of civil war. Nepotism became the order of the day, resulting in the gross underdevelopment of the continent to the extent that many people, including many scholars, today lament the departure of the 'white' man. Given our failed state, only an undeserved self-pride would prevent us from welcoming the 'white man' were he to knock on our doors today. Or is he here already in hue name of privatization and aid agencies?
In the same vein, the presence of other regions in today’s Nigeria may serve as a catalyst for de-amalgamation. But it is utopian to think that more stable nations will emerge there from. The risk of failure cannot be ruled put even in the homogenous Southwest and Southeast. "Me against my brother..." As for the Northern part of the country – the Middle Belt and the North – their catalysts cannot be kinship but a compound of different chemistry: religion.
Though Christianity and Islam has helped to forge social cohesion at levels higher than the tribe in Europe and Muslim World respectively, they woefully failed to protect such societies against the primordial instincts once institutional structures they built became dysfunctional. Europe cannot count its inter-faith wars until it decided to shut religion entirely from its politics. The same thing with the Muslim World. No sooner did the initial four caliphs passed away than the Ummah became divided and continued fighting civil wars until the caliphate was abolished by Attaturk in the early 20th Century.
So religious harmony would not guarantee stability among people given to decay due to the strong sectarian nature of religion. Thus Somalia, the consistent gold medalist on the Failed Nation Index, is not only struggling with clannish differences but also, most recently, with sectarian ones between sufis and the Wahabbi al-Shabab. The Muslim North in Nigeria would likely be prone to instability from such differences too. Boko Haram is here as an undeniable example. There will be many similar puritanical organizations in the new North that may launch a ‘Jihad’ against other Muslims whom they already declared infidels. "Somalia", in the words of a contributor in one of the Northern Internet fora, "is not distant from my sight."
The would be emancipated Middle Belt nation will have both factors – tribe and religion – to contend with. There is no end to its diversity. The differences could be an advantage in forming a pluralistic society or a disadvantage that would engulf the state into ceaseless inter-ethnic crisis similar to the ones the region has witnessed during the past two decades - including the one fought just last week between Mumuyes and Jukun in Taraba State that has left many dead.
Agitation of the South-south is based on its oil - its sharing and environmental impact. Unless its leaders acquire wisdom superior to the one they portray today, differences between various tribes and the capriciousness of its elites may become the ingredients for instability. The scramble may produce the worst case scenario.
I am not a prophet of doom. Citizens of the different nations to emerge may show a propensity for mutual tolerance and transparency better than what they exhibit presently as Nigerians. They may prove both the anthropologists and the political scientists wrong in the absence of ‘the other Nigerian’, when the tragedy of the common disappears. That not withstanding, personally, I will not squander my hope.
If there are sufficient Nigerians ready to make the present nation work as it is I will not hesitate to join them rather than consigning my fate to the unknown, a priori. At least I have a feeling of the problems of the present and there is a consensus that what is needed is a credible leadership that will oversee the overhauling of our institutions. Our differences are not insurmountable. They could be addressed to the reasonable satisfaction of all under the tutelage of a charismatic and competent leadership, a Gorbachev if necessary. Though the probability of such a leadership may not be high especially if we insist on its emergence through the present counterfeit democracy, the pain of waiting for it is mild compared to the long suffering in conflict ridden new nations.
How that vanguard would emerge and compel the necessary reform of political institutions remains a serious challenge to well-meaning Nigerians who, though many, are yet to cross the borders of their ethnic and religious divides, catalogue the grievances of each section, brainstorm over their solution and submit it to Nigerians for adoption through the most effective means possible. Thus, our problems of scale and its diminishing return on governance can be addressed without resorting to primitive cleavages that guarantee further suffering in most of the emerging entities.
This is my distillation of our situation as informed by my one day companionship with The Origins. It has provided me with sufficient reason for caution against the consequences of breaking up our country based on tribal and religious sentiments. It has instigated the desire in me to look for Nigerians with whom I would partner for the emergence of a future Nigeria, perhaps of different configuration, that would be quickly expelled from the league of failed states.
I am ready to be a foot soldier of any commander to this cause.
Bauchi
19 July 2011
Showing posts with label Restructuring Nigeria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Restructuring Nigeria. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Friday, May 21, 2010
The Fallacy of Carrying a Camel and its Load
The Fallacy of Carrying A Camel And Its Load
By
Dr. Aliyu Tilde
aliyutilde@yahoo.com
Our first discussion on restructuring only attempted to debunk the long held impression that the North is against the idea. What we did not set out to do in that brief essay was to discuss the scope of restructuring that would have included many issues beyond the capacity of a page. The agenda of restructuring can be broadly divided into three components: one, decentralization; two, revenue mobilization and allocation; and three, taxonomy of the geopolitical entities of the new federation. Attaining these objectives require tackling three technical matters, viz. the forum for deliberations, its sovereignty and mode of selecting its delegates. In our discussion today we will focus on the necessity and merits of decentralizing the octopus called federal government.
There is no doubt that the federal government needs to be downgraded to the barest tolerable size to harness development, increase its efficiency and reduce the tussle for its seat among the entities forming the federation. There is a consensus over the undesirability of the present giant-size government at the centre which spends over half of the national revenue and is effectively in charge of, among others, the judiciary, the military, police, national security, prisons, immigration, customs, currency, land, oil and mineral resources, external affairs and trade, education, science and technology, energy, public sector regulation and services, infrastructure, federal capital, elections, census, ports, railway, maritime, labour, national parks and state of emergency. In addition to these, there are other sectors like health, agriculture, local government and rural development that it concurrently runs with state governments. What is often forgotten is the fact that the population of the country has increased by over 100% in the last forty years. This means that there is a two-fold increase in demand for services. Meeting these demands require a government that operates efficiently. In Nigeria such a centre must be dynamic, prudent and impartial in how it pursues issues of security, stability and national development. Only then would happiness characterise the polity.
However, since the military started to wax the centre with these tasks, there has been a continuous decline in its performance to the extent that it hardly accomplishes anything efficiently. There is an evident collapse in education, health care delivery, military facilities and law enforcement, for example. Even the animals and plants in Yankari know that they were better off when the park was managed by the state government as a game reserve. The federal government woefully failed its last constitutional assignment - national elections - when it could not, up to this moment, compile a comprehensive voters' register, let alone conduct a free and fair election. Finally, there is a global consensus that Nigeria is among the most corrupt countries on earth and ironically over half of the corruption is reported to be taking place at the centre led by a 'messiah' who claims to be a 'born again' and who took an oath to be prudent.
What is alarming is the depreciation of our values that the situation engenders. People have started interpreting corruption as an African value. I was shocked to read Dr. Ladi Hamalai, a lecturer at National Defence Academy, publicly attempting to rationalize the fraud that took place during the last elections simply because it was similar, in her judgement, to what happened during the First and Second republics. She was however obstructed by her motive from going a step further and asking herself whether, following the same precedence, a coup against Obasanjo will be a welcomed idea. When some members of the esteemed academia in romance with the centre become victims of such bizarre moral bankruptcy then we have a firm rational ground on which to move swiftly and disarm the centre of its corrupting charisma.
For these reasons, I strongly support the idea that the federal government be dispossessed of most of its powers. Nothing has strengthened this idea in my mind better than the recently concluded national elections. When a monumental failure like Obasanjo was able to secure a second term by exploiting all sorts of divides and fraud, it shows that the confederation of beneficiaries of central power will never again allow this nation to tread the path of good sense. It also shows that the disintegrative forces of ethnicity and religion in the country are stronger than its integrative bonds of progress and national development. With the absence of a revolt culture I became convinced that through decentralization we could reduce to a possible minimum the injury that an incompetent centre could inflict on the entire federation.
It is a matter of detail to work out the quantum of responsibility that the centre should concede to the periphery. However, in principle, since it has become a citadel of corruption and inefficiency, I will support an evacuation that will leave behind only necessaries which by nature would be required to keep any loose federation kicking. Such things will include external affairs, courts to adjudicate in inter-governmental disputes, maritime, currency, immigration, state of emergency, and a portion of the military just strong enough to ward off external aggression from any of our weak neighbours. The bulk of the military today should then be converted to police. Matters like education, health, rural development, agriculture, land and mineral resources, industry, national parks, energy, water resources and police should all be pushed to the lower layer of the structure.
Reducing the responsibilities of the centre has both advantages and disadvantages. Broadly speaking, there are three disadvantages - two based on fear and the other based on ideology and self-preservation by the many beneficiaries of the present order. The most obvious is the attendant risk of disintegration when one of the units, feeling self-sufficient, decides to overstretch the thread linking it to the centre, akin to what happened in 1967. Secondly, there will be a rise in micro-nationalism with people becoming more interested in promoting their regions than the nation. Thirdly, some of the regions may be visited by the calamity of political instability and insecurity which, if sustained, may grant "unitarians" another opportunity to occupy the domain of civil governance for another four decades, as we saw in the aftermath of 1965 elections in the southwest.
Notwithstanding the forte of these disadvantages, especially given their ugly scene on our historical landscape, I am persuaded by reason to believe that the advantages of decentralisation are stronger. One, there is the mechanical advantage of efficacy when the neck-breaking load carried by the centre now is distributed among regions. Tasks could be carried out quicker and to the satisfaction of a greater number of people. Actually, nothing will bring government closer to people than shelving to the periphery most of the responsibilities of the present federal government.
Two, the question of ease aside, by distributing the duties of the centre to various independent entities, the chances of collective failure is reduced because its contagion will be localized and hardly would it, except by design, infect the rest. The various entities will thus have varying degrees of corruption, laziness, instability, underdevelopment, etc.
Three, the regions will be free to individually develop at their own pace in various sectors of life without any of the entities being dragged or slowed down by the incapacity or overcapacity of another. Given our differences in culture and levels of western education and industrialisation, it is a fallacy to grow, like crops do on an experimental bed, under blanket treatments from the centre. The recent introduction of Sharia is a good example to cite here. Also, a region in the South can emphasise tertiary education while another in the North can concentrate on primary and technical education, depending on their level of educational development and manpower demands.
Four, micronationalism itself could be a potent tool of development in a true federation. There will be competition among the regions, the one ahead trying to maintain its lead while those lagging behind it working hard to catch up with it. The stories of the educational and industrial development of the country under the late Chief Nnamdi Azikwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Sir Ahmadu Bello during the 1950s and early 1960s are sweet to remember. Were governors in the North, for example, blessed with the drive and initiative of the Sardauna, their states would not have stayed behind, dependent and underdeveloped three and a half decades after his demise. The pride of the Sardauna would have driven them closer to ingenuity than to dependence. The chance will recur if the periphery is allowed control over its resources. This will compel many regions to increase their productivity by making advances in taxation, mineral exploitation, manpower development, industry and agriculture.
Five, the fear of domination by one section of the country will be dispensed with if the centre is made less powerful. We have heard the long imaginary tale of northern domination, using presidency as the only index. Now that a southerner is in power, northerners have for the first time got the chance, using statistics of employment in the public sector and the distribution of public capital across the country, to prove their age-long marginalization by the South. With prolongation of such debates, the policy and practice of the centre will continue to be predicated on tribal preference. However, the damage that such tribal lords would cause from their position at the centre will be reduced in a real federation.
Six, the monopoly that Abuja has over our physical development will come to an end with decentralization. The capital city has hindered the growth of other cities and state capitals and it will continue to do so until it ceases to be a host of a strong centre.
Seven and final, decentralization will make the centre less contentious. The reason why fierce battles are fought to capture it is simply due to the power it wields and the destiny it shapes using the economic resources and instruments of governance at its disposal. If trimmed by 90% such that only about 10% of oil revenue reaches it, then politics of the centre would be more characterised by sanity than by the ongoing mania.
The contention is thus distributed among the peripheral entities. However, with the absence of monthly allocations of oil booty coming from Abuja, the mantle of leadership at the periphery would become glaringly burdensome such that only the competent and self-sacrificing would be lured into picking. Right now I have the strong feeling that even a child can run a state or local government if all it takes is to collect a share from the federation account and distribute it among his people and friends as he wishes. We must regard such a state only as provisional, as it does not conform to universal ethics of purposeful leadership.
These are some of the advantages of decentralization that easily come to mind at first thought; there may be many more that might flow from deeper reflection. Some of the issues raised today will definitely become clearer after discussing the other components of the restructuring agenda - revenue mobilization and allocation and taxonomy of the federation. Meanwhile, the dialogue we suggested in the first article must continue. Let us listen to every view and accept it based on its validity and merit or reject it for its fallacy and menace. Let us not be distracted by Obasanjo and his PDP agenda of phasing out local governments and introducing advisory zonal councils. The appetite of restructuring cannot be satiated by a sandwich from the menu of a chef that could rightly be qualified as the greatest beneficiary and apostle of unitary government.
In supporting states, local governments and their development in addition to its nationwide undertakings, the federal government is akin to a traveller struggling to carry a camel and its burden. What we attempted doing today is to advise him using common sense that, instead, he can have more rest and move faster in his journey if he allows the camel to carry him and his load.
By
Dr. Aliyu Tilde
aliyutilde@yahoo.com
Our first discussion on restructuring only attempted to debunk the long held impression that the North is against the idea. What we did not set out to do in that brief essay was to discuss the scope of restructuring that would have included many issues beyond the capacity of a page. The agenda of restructuring can be broadly divided into three components: one, decentralization; two, revenue mobilization and allocation; and three, taxonomy of the geopolitical entities of the new federation. Attaining these objectives require tackling three technical matters, viz. the forum for deliberations, its sovereignty and mode of selecting its delegates. In our discussion today we will focus on the necessity and merits of decentralizing the octopus called federal government.
There is no doubt that the federal government needs to be downgraded to the barest tolerable size to harness development, increase its efficiency and reduce the tussle for its seat among the entities forming the federation. There is a consensus over the undesirability of the present giant-size government at the centre which spends over half of the national revenue and is effectively in charge of, among others, the judiciary, the military, police, national security, prisons, immigration, customs, currency, land, oil and mineral resources, external affairs and trade, education, science and technology, energy, public sector regulation and services, infrastructure, federal capital, elections, census, ports, railway, maritime, labour, national parks and state of emergency. In addition to these, there are other sectors like health, agriculture, local government and rural development that it concurrently runs with state governments. What is often forgotten is the fact that the population of the country has increased by over 100% in the last forty years. This means that there is a two-fold increase in demand for services. Meeting these demands require a government that operates efficiently. In Nigeria such a centre must be dynamic, prudent and impartial in how it pursues issues of security, stability and national development. Only then would happiness characterise the polity.
However, since the military started to wax the centre with these tasks, there has been a continuous decline in its performance to the extent that it hardly accomplishes anything efficiently. There is an evident collapse in education, health care delivery, military facilities and law enforcement, for example. Even the animals and plants in Yankari know that they were better off when the park was managed by the state government as a game reserve. The federal government woefully failed its last constitutional assignment - national elections - when it could not, up to this moment, compile a comprehensive voters' register, let alone conduct a free and fair election. Finally, there is a global consensus that Nigeria is among the most corrupt countries on earth and ironically over half of the corruption is reported to be taking place at the centre led by a 'messiah' who claims to be a 'born again' and who took an oath to be prudent.
What is alarming is the depreciation of our values that the situation engenders. People have started interpreting corruption as an African value. I was shocked to read Dr. Ladi Hamalai, a lecturer at National Defence Academy, publicly attempting to rationalize the fraud that took place during the last elections simply because it was similar, in her judgement, to what happened during the First and Second republics. She was however obstructed by her motive from going a step further and asking herself whether, following the same precedence, a coup against Obasanjo will be a welcomed idea. When some members of the esteemed academia in romance with the centre become victims of such bizarre moral bankruptcy then we have a firm rational ground on which to move swiftly and disarm the centre of its corrupting charisma.
For these reasons, I strongly support the idea that the federal government be dispossessed of most of its powers. Nothing has strengthened this idea in my mind better than the recently concluded national elections. When a monumental failure like Obasanjo was able to secure a second term by exploiting all sorts of divides and fraud, it shows that the confederation of beneficiaries of central power will never again allow this nation to tread the path of good sense. It also shows that the disintegrative forces of ethnicity and religion in the country are stronger than its integrative bonds of progress and national development. With the absence of a revolt culture I became convinced that through decentralization we could reduce to a possible minimum the injury that an incompetent centre could inflict on the entire federation.
It is a matter of detail to work out the quantum of responsibility that the centre should concede to the periphery. However, in principle, since it has become a citadel of corruption and inefficiency, I will support an evacuation that will leave behind only necessaries which by nature would be required to keep any loose federation kicking. Such things will include external affairs, courts to adjudicate in inter-governmental disputes, maritime, currency, immigration, state of emergency, and a portion of the military just strong enough to ward off external aggression from any of our weak neighbours. The bulk of the military today should then be converted to police. Matters like education, health, rural development, agriculture, land and mineral resources, industry, national parks, energy, water resources and police should all be pushed to the lower layer of the structure.
Reducing the responsibilities of the centre has both advantages and disadvantages. Broadly speaking, there are three disadvantages - two based on fear and the other based on ideology and self-preservation by the many beneficiaries of the present order. The most obvious is the attendant risk of disintegration when one of the units, feeling self-sufficient, decides to overstretch the thread linking it to the centre, akin to what happened in 1967. Secondly, there will be a rise in micro-nationalism with people becoming more interested in promoting their regions than the nation. Thirdly, some of the regions may be visited by the calamity of political instability and insecurity which, if sustained, may grant "unitarians" another opportunity to occupy the domain of civil governance for another four decades, as we saw in the aftermath of 1965 elections in the southwest.
Notwithstanding the forte of these disadvantages, especially given their ugly scene on our historical landscape, I am persuaded by reason to believe that the advantages of decentralisation are stronger. One, there is the mechanical advantage of efficacy when the neck-breaking load carried by the centre now is distributed among regions. Tasks could be carried out quicker and to the satisfaction of a greater number of people. Actually, nothing will bring government closer to people than shelving to the periphery most of the responsibilities of the present federal government.
Two, the question of ease aside, by distributing the duties of the centre to various independent entities, the chances of collective failure is reduced because its contagion will be localized and hardly would it, except by design, infect the rest. The various entities will thus have varying degrees of corruption, laziness, instability, underdevelopment, etc.
Three, the regions will be free to individually develop at their own pace in various sectors of life without any of the entities being dragged or slowed down by the incapacity or overcapacity of another. Given our differences in culture and levels of western education and industrialisation, it is a fallacy to grow, like crops do on an experimental bed, under blanket treatments from the centre. The recent introduction of Sharia is a good example to cite here. Also, a region in the South can emphasise tertiary education while another in the North can concentrate on primary and technical education, depending on their level of educational development and manpower demands.
Four, micronationalism itself could be a potent tool of development in a true federation. There will be competition among the regions, the one ahead trying to maintain its lead while those lagging behind it working hard to catch up with it. The stories of the educational and industrial development of the country under the late Chief Nnamdi Azikwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Sir Ahmadu Bello during the 1950s and early 1960s are sweet to remember. Were governors in the North, for example, blessed with the drive and initiative of the Sardauna, their states would not have stayed behind, dependent and underdeveloped three and a half decades after his demise. The pride of the Sardauna would have driven them closer to ingenuity than to dependence. The chance will recur if the periphery is allowed control over its resources. This will compel many regions to increase their productivity by making advances in taxation, mineral exploitation, manpower development, industry and agriculture.
Five, the fear of domination by one section of the country will be dispensed with if the centre is made less powerful. We have heard the long imaginary tale of northern domination, using presidency as the only index. Now that a southerner is in power, northerners have for the first time got the chance, using statistics of employment in the public sector and the distribution of public capital across the country, to prove their age-long marginalization by the South. With prolongation of such debates, the policy and practice of the centre will continue to be predicated on tribal preference. However, the damage that such tribal lords would cause from their position at the centre will be reduced in a real federation.
Six, the monopoly that Abuja has over our physical development will come to an end with decentralization. The capital city has hindered the growth of other cities and state capitals and it will continue to do so until it ceases to be a host of a strong centre.
Seven and final, decentralization will make the centre less contentious. The reason why fierce battles are fought to capture it is simply due to the power it wields and the destiny it shapes using the economic resources and instruments of governance at its disposal. If trimmed by 90% such that only about 10% of oil revenue reaches it, then politics of the centre would be more characterised by sanity than by the ongoing mania.
The contention is thus distributed among the peripheral entities. However, with the absence of monthly allocations of oil booty coming from Abuja, the mantle of leadership at the periphery would become glaringly burdensome such that only the competent and self-sacrificing would be lured into picking. Right now I have the strong feeling that even a child can run a state or local government if all it takes is to collect a share from the federation account and distribute it among his people and friends as he wishes. We must regard such a state only as provisional, as it does not conform to universal ethics of purposeful leadership.
These are some of the advantages of decentralization that easily come to mind at first thought; there may be many more that might flow from deeper reflection. Some of the issues raised today will definitely become clearer after discussing the other components of the restructuring agenda - revenue mobilization and allocation and taxonomy of the federation. Meanwhile, the dialogue we suggested in the first article must continue. Let us listen to every view and accept it based on its validity and merit or reject it for its fallacy and menace. Let us not be distracted by Obasanjo and his PDP agenda of phasing out local governments and introducing advisory zonal councils. The appetite of restructuring cannot be satiated by a sandwich from the menu of a chef that could rightly be qualified as the greatest beneficiary and apostle of unitary government.
In supporting states, local governments and their development in addition to its nationwide undertakings, the federal government is akin to a traveller struggling to carry a camel and its burden. What we attempted doing today is to advise him using common sense that, instead, he can have more rest and move faster in his journey if he allows the camel to carry him and his load.
Professor Sagay: Buy the Bride a Single Bed
BluntPoint (1): Professor Sagay, Buy the Bride a Single-Bed
By
Dr. Aliyu Tilde
info@fridaydiscourse.com
Professor Itse Sagay, SAN, has never hidden his fervent interest in the national question. In particular, he has, like many of us, expressed great dissatisfaction over the role that “the North” has played in shaping contemporary Nigeria. Two weeks ago, Thisday reported his renewed call for “true federalism”. In a lecture titled “True Federalism in an Emerging Democracy: A Case Study of Nigeria” which he delivered at Le Meridien Eko Hotel, Lagos, the Professor suggested “double-decker” approach to achieving a true federation. Handicapped by lack of Sagay’s entire presentation, we are compelled to use Thisday’s report to explain here what the approach of the professor is all about.
The basis for his “double-decker” suggestion is the lack of consensus among the six geopolitical zones on the political restructuring of Nigeria. According to him, four zones are “expressly demanding for a fundamental restructuring of the country”, reported Thisday, while “the Northeast and Northwest are unwilling to entertain the proposed restructuring consequently leading to contrasting wishes.”
“In the face of these contrasting wishes”, Professor Sagay presented, “we can establish a ‘double-decker’ or an asymmetric federation, in which the north west and north eastern zones and parts of the north central zone desiring it, can retain the centralised federation which we are operating under the 1999 Constitution, as between those zones and the Federal Government, on the other hand, and a loose restructured federation which is currently being demanded by the southern states as a minimum condition for their continued voluntary existence as part of Nigeria for the states demanding it.”
In the words of the reporter, Sagay said that “in such a system, one may envisage a situation in which the southern zones and the parts of the north central zones, sharing the same view, will establish their own independent police forces, a peoples militia, organise their own population censuses and control their mineral resources independently of the federal police, federal census and federal resources.”
“Under this arrangement,” the Professor continued, “ every zone and nationality will operate within the type of federalism it prefers. And in this manner, the Nigerian federation or the Union of Nigeria as the movement for national reformation draft calls it, will remain unbroken.”
The professor was quick to draw a similarity between his “double-decker” and the agreement reached in 1953 when the North chose to delay its self-government status until 1959, three years after the South.
I share Sagay’s view that we need to restructure Nigeria. Also, I can understand the reasons why Professor Sagay and the South generally have the notion that the northeast and the northwest are “unwilling” to part with the present arrangement. This is a conclusion that naturally flows from the belief that the North is the greatest beneficiary of the status quo because it lacks the resources to survive independently. That aside, few northern voices have really championed the cause of restructuring.
Let us briefly dwell on these points. For example, from independence up to the end of Abdulsalami regime, all the previous heads of state, military or civilian, have been northerners except Ironsi (1966) and Obasanjo (1976-1978), both ushered into power by destiny than by design.
In the same vein, the thesis of a “parasitic North” is not without its credible premises. The South has repeatedly made the point that the North does not produce a single barrel of oil, the sole commodity from which Nigeria earns its foreign exchange. This has made northern states heavily dependent on “gifts” and “donations” from the federal government. To worsen the situation, northern state governments have been reluctant in inventing means of generating substantial internal revenues though the region has vast land, mineral and agricultural resources. Understandably, therefore, many analysts believe that the North fears its incapacity to stand on its own feet in a newly structured Nigeria. Like a parasite, they say, it needs a host to suck and survive. (Needless to say that northerners have their defence against these charges. Moreover, many southern states are in the same “beggar” position as the North.)
Finally, nothing appears to express the perceived satisfaction of the North with the present Nigerian structure better than its silence, which even in Islamic jurisprudence is often interpreted as consent. While southerners have granted interviews, written articles and held conferences at home and abroad to propagate the gospel of restructuring, to my knowledge very few northerners have written on the subject or organized a conference to discuss the matter. On the few occasions they spoke, northerners have been equivocal, or rhetorical, or destructively critical of the idea of a restructured federation. Something, somewhere, may be a hangover of the civil war, continue to give the northern establishment the wrong notion that it is the custodian of a unitary ‘Federal’ Nigeria.
I personally appreciate the above general views of the south. However, I would like to state emphatically that the perception of northern satisfaction with the status quo is the construction of the northern establishment, the class of northern beneficiaries of the current unitary arrangement. Any dispassionate visitor to the North will be appalled by the disparity between the status of the commoners on the one hand and that of few privileged elite on the other. While the former are haplessly living in difficulties engendered by poverty, illiteracy, injustice and neglect, the latter are empowered by their exclusive monopoly over the monthly “donations” from Abuja to enjoy privileges of affluence, education, sanctity and patronage.
Southern advocates would have known that as a result of the above contradiction the less privileged in the North would support restructuring. Moreover, there are other factors contributing to northern dissatisfaction with the status quo. Some lament over the retrogression which the region has been undergoing since the mid-eighties in areas like education, culture and governance. The region, they believe, has been paying a high price for its “custodianship” of “One Nation, One Destiny.” Many northerners also are tired of being targets of frequent abuse and demonization. Today, the major tribes of the upper north, the Hausa, Kanuri, Nupe and others, are not the most envied in the country. That is not to mention the Fulani who some southern intelligentsia have already tagged “Tutsis of Nigeria”, who, like their Rwamdan counterparts, are fit only for elimination.
This misunderstanding – between the North and South over support for restructuring – has arisen principally from two sources: one, this is not a country where importance is attached to statistics. Otherwise, through simple polls, the South would have long discovered the presence of this silent majority among northerners that is ready to support restructuring along lines that are even more radical than what some southerners have proposed so far. Two, there has not been an exchange of ideas between the North and the South on the matter. Even in the media few writers move across the divide to express their views in a domain outside theirs. Conferences on restructuring have mainly involved only southern participants. For example, in the conference on the topic that produced the book titled Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria which was sponsored by international institutions, sixteen of the twenty-three contributors came from the Southwest, two came from the Southeast, another two came from the Northcentral (one Yoruba and one Tiv), one (a Yoruba!) from the Northwest and another one from northeast.
Whatever is their disagreement, Nigerians must accept that the argument of restructuring is very strong and convincing. From the sad events of January 15, to the Civil War, to Okar coup, to June 12 and its aftermath, and finally to the present tenure of Obasanjo and its 4-19 origin, the country’s political history is often punctuated with crises arising from mutual distrust. Besides, the periphery has grown too large for the corrupt and inefficient centre to keep intact without deterioration setting in. The Yoruba for example are over twenty-five million. That is a big nation. What sense does it make to deny such a people autonomy of their choice? Why should anyone today in Sokoto, Maiduguri or Makurdi raise a finger against a new Biafra? What moral imperative or interest would compel the North to ‘save’ the oil rich Niger delta if its people now strongly feel that they will be better off with an autonomy that gives them exclusive control over their oil resources?
As the heat from the sun of its contradictions becomes unbearable, the nation must realize the stupidity of taking shelter in the oven of monotonous and empty national integration dialectic. All pretensions like “state creation”, “federal character”, “NYSC” “zoning”, “rotational presidency”, “power sharing” and so on have failed to settle its political contentions. Pre-1999, the problem was thought to be with the mediocre leadership the North has been accused of giving the nation. Today, with the woeful failure of Obasanjo in the last four years, it is clear that such mediocrity is not a monopoly of the North anymore. Apparently, something fundamental is wrong with the structure of the polity.
Neither is it possible, given the prevailing liberal world order, for the nation to stop any of its part from seceding. The world today will not sit and watch Nigeria kill a million of its citizens and starve three times that figure. Never. We have seen stronger unions, like Yugoslavia, disintegrating explosively simply because it failed to readjust at the most appropriate time.
To start a true restructuring journey, all that is required is for supporters of the project from the different zones to reach out to one another and work together using different avenues. They need to amalgamate into a massive national movement that would compel recognition by the establishment. They may not have a picture of the political structure the nation would end up with. They may not have a complete catalogue of problems waiting for them or the positions that will be articulated by every participant. Not even the modalities of the conference are clear. Yet, dialogue will not harm anyone. Dialogue, if started early and handled with scholastic maturity has the potential of overcoming their fears and enabling them to discover solutions to those problems. Dialogue can reconcile those positions that could at first instance appear irreducible and puzzling. Finally, dialogue is their best weapon against any opposition, be it from ‘nationalist’ ideologues or from beneficiaries of the present unitary structure.
With an ever-growing interest in the restructuring agenda nationwide, it appears that the crisis of consensus over its necessity is almost over. I therefore advise Professor Sagay to abandon his “asymmetrical”, “double-decker” reformation idea for lack of “contrasting wishes.” He should realize that nature has endowed the beautiful with a symmetrical structure, while couples, unlike kids, have always preferred the single-bed to the double-decker. So let Prof allow the baby of restructuring wear a symmetrical face. Later, as a bride, let him also, for goodness sake, buy her a single-bed.
By
Dr. Aliyu Tilde
info@fridaydiscourse.com
Professor Itse Sagay, SAN, has never hidden his fervent interest in the national question. In particular, he has, like many of us, expressed great dissatisfaction over the role that “the North” has played in shaping contemporary Nigeria. Two weeks ago, Thisday reported his renewed call for “true federalism”. In a lecture titled “True Federalism in an Emerging Democracy: A Case Study of Nigeria” which he delivered at Le Meridien Eko Hotel, Lagos, the Professor suggested “double-decker” approach to achieving a true federation. Handicapped by lack of Sagay’s entire presentation, we are compelled to use Thisday’s report to explain here what the approach of the professor is all about.
The basis for his “double-decker” suggestion is the lack of consensus among the six geopolitical zones on the political restructuring of Nigeria. According to him, four zones are “expressly demanding for a fundamental restructuring of the country”, reported Thisday, while “the Northeast and Northwest are unwilling to entertain the proposed restructuring consequently leading to contrasting wishes.”
“In the face of these contrasting wishes”, Professor Sagay presented, “we can establish a ‘double-decker’ or an asymmetric federation, in which the north west and north eastern zones and parts of the north central zone desiring it, can retain the centralised federation which we are operating under the 1999 Constitution, as between those zones and the Federal Government, on the other hand, and a loose restructured federation which is currently being demanded by the southern states as a minimum condition for their continued voluntary existence as part of Nigeria for the states demanding it.”
In the words of the reporter, Sagay said that “in such a system, one may envisage a situation in which the southern zones and the parts of the north central zones, sharing the same view, will establish their own independent police forces, a peoples militia, organise their own population censuses and control their mineral resources independently of the federal police, federal census and federal resources.”
“Under this arrangement,” the Professor continued, “ every zone and nationality will operate within the type of federalism it prefers. And in this manner, the Nigerian federation or the Union of Nigeria as the movement for national reformation draft calls it, will remain unbroken.”
The professor was quick to draw a similarity between his “double-decker” and the agreement reached in 1953 when the North chose to delay its self-government status until 1959, three years after the South.
I share Sagay’s view that we need to restructure Nigeria. Also, I can understand the reasons why Professor Sagay and the South generally have the notion that the northeast and the northwest are “unwilling” to part with the present arrangement. This is a conclusion that naturally flows from the belief that the North is the greatest beneficiary of the status quo because it lacks the resources to survive independently. That aside, few northern voices have really championed the cause of restructuring.
Let us briefly dwell on these points. For example, from independence up to the end of Abdulsalami regime, all the previous heads of state, military or civilian, have been northerners except Ironsi (1966) and Obasanjo (1976-1978), both ushered into power by destiny than by design.
In the same vein, the thesis of a “parasitic North” is not without its credible premises. The South has repeatedly made the point that the North does not produce a single barrel of oil, the sole commodity from which Nigeria earns its foreign exchange. This has made northern states heavily dependent on “gifts” and “donations” from the federal government. To worsen the situation, northern state governments have been reluctant in inventing means of generating substantial internal revenues though the region has vast land, mineral and agricultural resources. Understandably, therefore, many analysts believe that the North fears its incapacity to stand on its own feet in a newly structured Nigeria. Like a parasite, they say, it needs a host to suck and survive. (Needless to say that northerners have their defence against these charges. Moreover, many southern states are in the same “beggar” position as the North.)
Finally, nothing appears to express the perceived satisfaction of the North with the present Nigerian structure better than its silence, which even in Islamic jurisprudence is often interpreted as consent. While southerners have granted interviews, written articles and held conferences at home and abroad to propagate the gospel of restructuring, to my knowledge very few northerners have written on the subject or organized a conference to discuss the matter. On the few occasions they spoke, northerners have been equivocal, or rhetorical, or destructively critical of the idea of a restructured federation. Something, somewhere, may be a hangover of the civil war, continue to give the northern establishment the wrong notion that it is the custodian of a unitary ‘Federal’ Nigeria.
I personally appreciate the above general views of the south. However, I would like to state emphatically that the perception of northern satisfaction with the status quo is the construction of the northern establishment, the class of northern beneficiaries of the current unitary arrangement. Any dispassionate visitor to the North will be appalled by the disparity between the status of the commoners on the one hand and that of few privileged elite on the other. While the former are haplessly living in difficulties engendered by poverty, illiteracy, injustice and neglect, the latter are empowered by their exclusive monopoly over the monthly “donations” from Abuja to enjoy privileges of affluence, education, sanctity and patronage.
Southern advocates would have known that as a result of the above contradiction the less privileged in the North would support restructuring. Moreover, there are other factors contributing to northern dissatisfaction with the status quo. Some lament over the retrogression which the region has been undergoing since the mid-eighties in areas like education, culture and governance. The region, they believe, has been paying a high price for its “custodianship” of “One Nation, One Destiny.” Many northerners also are tired of being targets of frequent abuse and demonization. Today, the major tribes of the upper north, the Hausa, Kanuri, Nupe and others, are not the most envied in the country. That is not to mention the Fulani who some southern intelligentsia have already tagged “Tutsis of Nigeria”, who, like their Rwamdan counterparts, are fit only for elimination.
This misunderstanding – between the North and South over support for restructuring – has arisen principally from two sources: one, this is not a country where importance is attached to statistics. Otherwise, through simple polls, the South would have long discovered the presence of this silent majority among northerners that is ready to support restructuring along lines that are even more radical than what some southerners have proposed so far. Two, there has not been an exchange of ideas between the North and the South on the matter. Even in the media few writers move across the divide to express their views in a domain outside theirs. Conferences on restructuring have mainly involved only southern participants. For example, in the conference on the topic that produced the book titled Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria which was sponsored by international institutions, sixteen of the twenty-three contributors came from the Southwest, two came from the Southeast, another two came from the Northcentral (one Yoruba and one Tiv), one (a Yoruba!) from the Northwest and another one from northeast.
Whatever is their disagreement, Nigerians must accept that the argument of restructuring is very strong and convincing. From the sad events of January 15, to the Civil War, to Okar coup, to June 12 and its aftermath, and finally to the present tenure of Obasanjo and its 4-19 origin, the country’s political history is often punctuated with crises arising from mutual distrust. Besides, the periphery has grown too large for the corrupt and inefficient centre to keep intact without deterioration setting in. The Yoruba for example are over twenty-five million. That is a big nation. What sense does it make to deny such a people autonomy of their choice? Why should anyone today in Sokoto, Maiduguri or Makurdi raise a finger against a new Biafra? What moral imperative or interest would compel the North to ‘save’ the oil rich Niger delta if its people now strongly feel that they will be better off with an autonomy that gives them exclusive control over their oil resources?
As the heat from the sun of its contradictions becomes unbearable, the nation must realize the stupidity of taking shelter in the oven of monotonous and empty national integration dialectic. All pretensions like “state creation”, “federal character”, “NYSC” “zoning”, “rotational presidency”, “power sharing” and so on have failed to settle its political contentions. Pre-1999, the problem was thought to be with the mediocre leadership the North has been accused of giving the nation. Today, with the woeful failure of Obasanjo in the last four years, it is clear that such mediocrity is not a monopoly of the North anymore. Apparently, something fundamental is wrong with the structure of the polity.
Neither is it possible, given the prevailing liberal world order, for the nation to stop any of its part from seceding. The world today will not sit and watch Nigeria kill a million of its citizens and starve three times that figure. Never. We have seen stronger unions, like Yugoslavia, disintegrating explosively simply because it failed to readjust at the most appropriate time.
To start a true restructuring journey, all that is required is for supporters of the project from the different zones to reach out to one another and work together using different avenues. They need to amalgamate into a massive national movement that would compel recognition by the establishment. They may not have a picture of the political structure the nation would end up with. They may not have a complete catalogue of problems waiting for them or the positions that will be articulated by every participant. Not even the modalities of the conference are clear. Yet, dialogue will not harm anyone. Dialogue, if started early and handled with scholastic maturity has the potential of overcoming their fears and enabling them to discover solutions to those problems. Dialogue can reconcile those positions that could at first instance appear irreducible and puzzling. Finally, dialogue is their best weapon against any opposition, be it from ‘nationalist’ ideologues or from beneficiaries of the present unitary structure.
With an ever-growing interest in the restructuring agenda nationwide, it appears that the crisis of consensus over its necessity is almost over. I therefore advise Professor Sagay to abandon his “asymmetrical”, “double-decker” reformation idea for lack of “contrasting wishes.” He should realize that nature has endowed the beautiful with a symmetrical structure, while couples, unlike kids, have always preferred the single-bed to the double-decker. So let Prof allow the baby of restructuring wear a symmetrical face. Later, as a bride, let him also, for goodness sake, buy her a single-bed.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Shariah and Restructuring Nigeria
Shariah and Restructuring Nigeria
If any politician in the country is challenged to gather a voluntary crowd of a million people in support of any secular issue, not to share loot, but say democracy in Nigeria, the obvious answer is that he will decline to take it up. It is just impossible. The so-called two million-man march held during Abacha did cost the nation a big fortune. Yet, the attendance, by any honest estimate, was only some few hundreds of thousand. The pro-democracy rally that followed in Lagos was a more dramatic failure.
On October 27, 1999 however, the Zamfara state government did gather a crowd of well over a million people. No one could claim that the people who trooped the city of Gusau from near and far that day were sponsored. Their transport, feeding and accommodation arrangements were all personal. The governor himself could not hold back his tears at the unimaginable and unexpected assembly. Those who would like to know what the Muslims masses in the country care for most should give this event the relevance it deserves. There is no doubt that the incident alone shows that Muslim masses are interested in their religion more than any other thing, including the ongoing political hype called democracy.
Our scholars who thought that religion has ceased to be relevant to our civic affairs should better come into grip with this mountain of reality before it is late. Events like this has proved that efforts to inculcate secular values on the population after a century of effort, characterized by a brutal combination of terror, waste of resources and subtle persuasion, have not been better than chasing a shadow. Nigeria has gone full cycle in the centennial clock of history.
I believe that it is time for reevaluation of the structure on which our polity is built. Muslims have every right to demand for an Islamic government, not only its legal system – the shariah. They also have every fact to prove that their experience in belonging to the modern Nigerian ‘federation’ by giving up their cultural values and adopting a secular system of governance has proved to be a disaster. After a hundred years, this exotic system has, one, failed to move Nigerians from the position of excruciating subservience to their colonial conquerors in terms of economy, technology and military prowess. The gap is ever widening, making sham of our independence. Two, simple social guarantees that should have been given to all citizens in the past thirty years have proved illusive. Most governments performed miserably in this respect through administrative incompetence and selfish material accumulation. Successive governments have failed to secure the lives and properties of citizens. Thousands of Nigerians lose their lives daily in avoidable eventualities that include disease, poverty, road accidents, robbery, etc. An aggregation of incompetence, ignorance and craze for control over material resources has reduced to a mirage the actualization of a social equilibrium that is necessary for peaceful coexistence, progress and happiness.
The whole nation has remained a captive of some elite, who with access to western education have monopolized resources and hoarded them away from the majority. Their intra-class conflicts and contradictions have many times caused untold hardship to common man, sometimes costing him his life and property.
I also believe that all this misadventure is caused by nothing but the fanatical adherence to the dogma of a single, ‘united’ Nigeria that must remain at all cost secular in substance and unitary in configuration. It turns a blind eye on the peculiarities of our nationalities that have existed for centuries. Overnight, the sponsors of this doctrine among the military and the intelligentsia meditate that we will acquiesce to live in the vacuum of secularity and forsake centuries of our heritage, all in the name of nationalism.
Well, if it is possible for other nationalities to capitulate and regard the present orchestration as progress in the right direction, many parts of the North, and I believe a good segment of the Southwest also, have discernible rationale to object and thus remonstrate genuinely. If others were living in perpetual anarchy, without a common leader ever in their history, this part of the country has lived for centuries under organized governments with all the political structures and complexities that characterizes a modern state. No doubt the system has been subject to abuse at some times, as any other in the past or present, depending on the personalities running it. However, an indisputable fact is that it had provided the necessary social protection and economic security for its citizens. Under such protection they led a productive living to the extent of exporting their industrial products to other parts of the world. At its best periods, even British explorers like Clapperton have confessed that it was so successful that even a woman could safely walk in the land carrying a basket of gold without any fear of molestation. Today, even the brave cannot sleep in his house with both eyes closed.
To think that people will continue to accept the imposition of the present impotent system is simply either a manifestation of an elitist tyranny and their insensitivity. Independence means choice and so does democracy. The only way to peace is to acknowledge our differences and respect them. Trivializing them will only breed frustration and discontent, the precursors to violence.
It is important that our elite realize that no nation can be sustained by obligation. There has to be a shared identity that is strong enough to bind its contradicting parts. It could be language, religion, history and so on, varying from one society to another. In its absence, no ideology or force could avert disintegration in the face of the slightest challenge.
In Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union, we have seen the rise and fall of communism, the utopian creed of egalitarianism based on dialectical materialism. Today, these one time great nations have disintegrated along their ethnic and or religious lines despite the futile effort of maintaining them at the immense expense of lives and property. The strength of creed, despite the brutal application of state terror and propaganda, has failed to sustain them. China on the other hand is still kicking with continuously revised forms of the ideology. It is largely saved from similar ruptures due the relative cultural harmony of its ethnic groups. America, which may appear as an exception to the rule and a model for our dreaming intellectuals and power brokers, is held together by the common history of its dominant white population and the sophistication of its technology. Should anything throw a spanner into the works of its security system, it will definitely witness the most destructive and the most rapid disintegration of a civilization to be recorded in history. Most European nations however, unlike America, have for centuries remained demarcated on ethnic affinities rather than trade or ideology. Where different ethnic groups have to live together by imperatives of geography they appreciated their difference and went for a confederation in order to remain together.
These are the hard facts that cannot be denied by the parroting ideologues of our present secular and unitary ‘federation’. We neither have the common identity for such a structure nor the resources to maintain it. Our ancestors in the past knew very well that when empires are made of different ethnic groups, maintaining them under a single line of command from the center becomes onerous, eventually leading to their collapse. Hence, the founders of the Sokoto Caliphate opted for a federation of states, recognizing the long-standing history of their peoples and cultures. The flags were symbols of their large degree of autonomy from the center. This strategy worked for a complete century without challenging the position of Sokoto as the center. It was a true federation despite the common identity of Islam as a religion.
Colonialists also kept the Northern Protectorate distant from the other regions for quite some time. The decision to amalgamate them was not received without opposition in Britain. After it was done, it has been sustained only with a staggering amount of fatigue. Thus all the major ethnic groups have at one time or another showed their interest to de-amalgamate.
The Southwest and ‘Biafra’ are making noise on restructuring for reasons best known to them. The Muslim North, with the Shariah development, will soon find that this is its best time to cave in. No sensible leader can afford to abuse the aspiration of the unbelievable crowd that voluntarily gathered in Gusau last month. Shariah is our life. If restructuring is the only thing that will warrant its full implementation, so be it.
My only hope is that the doyen of American democracy, the secular ideologue and those who benefit most from the present unitary structure including the so-called minorities, will allow the water of our yearnings to flow along the steepest gradient of the political landscape. To do otherwise is to fight against the indomitable force of gravity. It will require enormous energy, something they are losing fast. In the long run however, they must accept the bitter fact that a stone thrown at the sky will only end up back on earth. We wish it a safe landing.
If any politician in the country is challenged to gather a voluntary crowd of a million people in support of any secular issue, not to share loot, but say democracy in Nigeria, the obvious answer is that he will decline to take it up. It is just impossible. The so-called two million-man march held during Abacha did cost the nation a big fortune. Yet, the attendance, by any honest estimate, was only some few hundreds of thousand. The pro-democracy rally that followed in Lagos was a more dramatic failure.
On October 27, 1999 however, the Zamfara state government did gather a crowd of well over a million people. No one could claim that the people who trooped the city of Gusau from near and far that day were sponsored. Their transport, feeding and accommodation arrangements were all personal. The governor himself could not hold back his tears at the unimaginable and unexpected assembly. Those who would like to know what the Muslims masses in the country care for most should give this event the relevance it deserves. There is no doubt that the incident alone shows that Muslim masses are interested in their religion more than any other thing, including the ongoing political hype called democracy.
Our scholars who thought that religion has ceased to be relevant to our civic affairs should better come into grip with this mountain of reality before it is late. Events like this has proved that efforts to inculcate secular values on the population after a century of effort, characterized by a brutal combination of terror, waste of resources and subtle persuasion, have not been better than chasing a shadow. Nigeria has gone full cycle in the centennial clock of history.
I believe that it is time for reevaluation of the structure on which our polity is built. Muslims have every right to demand for an Islamic government, not only its legal system – the shariah. They also have every fact to prove that their experience in belonging to the modern Nigerian ‘federation’ by giving up their cultural values and adopting a secular system of governance has proved to be a disaster. After a hundred years, this exotic system has, one, failed to move Nigerians from the position of excruciating subservience to their colonial conquerors in terms of economy, technology and military prowess. The gap is ever widening, making sham of our independence. Two, simple social guarantees that should have been given to all citizens in the past thirty years have proved illusive. Most governments performed miserably in this respect through administrative incompetence and selfish material accumulation. Successive governments have failed to secure the lives and properties of citizens. Thousands of Nigerians lose their lives daily in avoidable eventualities that include disease, poverty, road accidents, robbery, etc. An aggregation of incompetence, ignorance and craze for control over material resources has reduced to a mirage the actualization of a social equilibrium that is necessary for peaceful coexistence, progress and happiness.
The whole nation has remained a captive of some elite, who with access to western education have monopolized resources and hoarded them away from the majority. Their intra-class conflicts and contradictions have many times caused untold hardship to common man, sometimes costing him his life and property.
I also believe that all this misadventure is caused by nothing but the fanatical adherence to the dogma of a single, ‘united’ Nigeria that must remain at all cost secular in substance and unitary in configuration. It turns a blind eye on the peculiarities of our nationalities that have existed for centuries. Overnight, the sponsors of this doctrine among the military and the intelligentsia meditate that we will acquiesce to live in the vacuum of secularity and forsake centuries of our heritage, all in the name of nationalism.
Well, if it is possible for other nationalities to capitulate and regard the present orchestration as progress in the right direction, many parts of the North, and I believe a good segment of the Southwest also, have discernible rationale to object and thus remonstrate genuinely. If others were living in perpetual anarchy, without a common leader ever in their history, this part of the country has lived for centuries under organized governments with all the political structures and complexities that characterizes a modern state. No doubt the system has been subject to abuse at some times, as any other in the past or present, depending on the personalities running it. However, an indisputable fact is that it had provided the necessary social protection and economic security for its citizens. Under such protection they led a productive living to the extent of exporting their industrial products to other parts of the world. At its best periods, even British explorers like Clapperton have confessed that it was so successful that even a woman could safely walk in the land carrying a basket of gold without any fear of molestation. Today, even the brave cannot sleep in his house with both eyes closed.
To think that people will continue to accept the imposition of the present impotent system is simply either a manifestation of an elitist tyranny and their insensitivity. Independence means choice and so does democracy. The only way to peace is to acknowledge our differences and respect them. Trivializing them will only breed frustration and discontent, the precursors to violence.
It is important that our elite realize that no nation can be sustained by obligation. There has to be a shared identity that is strong enough to bind its contradicting parts. It could be language, religion, history and so on, varying from one society to another. In its absence, no ideology or force could avert disintegration in the face of the slightest challenge.
In Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union, we have seen the rise and fall of communism, the utopian creed of egalitarianism based on dialectical materialism. Today, these one time great nations have disintegrated along their ethnic and or religious lines despite the futile effort of maintaining them at the immense expense of lives and property. The strength of creed, despite the brutal application of state terror and propaganda, has failed to sustain them. China on the other hand is still kicking with continuously revised forms of the ideology. It is largely saved from similar ruptures due the relative cultural harmony of its ethnic groups. America, which may appear as an exception to the rule and a model for our dreaming intellectuals and power brokers, is held together by the common history of its dominant white population and the sophistication of its technology. Should anything throw a spanner into the works of its security system, it will definitely witness the most destructive and the most rapid disintegration of a civilization to be recorded in history. Most European nations however, unlike America, have for centuries remained demarcated on ethnic affinities rather than trade or ideology. Where different ethnic groups have to live together by imperatives of geography they appreciated their difference and went for a confederation in order to remain together.
These are the hard facts that cannot be denied by the parroting ideologues of our present secular and unitary ‘federation’. We neither have the common identity for such a structure nor the resources to maintain it. Our ancestors in the past knew very well that when empires are made of different ethnic groups, maintaining them under a single line of command from the center becomes onerous, eventually leading to their collapse. Hence, the founders of the Sokoto Caliphate opted for a federation of states, recognizing the long-standing history of their peoples and cultures. The flags were symbols of their large degree of autonomy from the center. This strategy worked for a complete century without challenging the position of Sokoto as the center. It was a true federation despite the common identity of Islam as a religion.
Colonialists also kept the Northern Protectorate distant from the other regions for quite some time. The decision to amalgamate them was not received without opposition in Britain. After it was done, it has been sustained only with a staggering amount of fatigue. Thus all the major ethnic groups have at one time or another showed their interest to de-amalgamate.
The Southwest and ‘Biafra’ are making noise on restructuring for reasons best known to them. The Muslim North, with the Shariah development, will soon find that this is its best time to cave in. No sensible leader can afford to abuse the aspiration of the unbelievable crowd that voluntarily gathered in Gusau last month. Shariah is our life. If restructuring is the only thing that will warrant its full implementation, so be it.
My only hope is that the doyen of American democracy, the secular ideologue and those who benefit most from the present unitary structure including the so-called minorities, will allow the water of our yearnings to flow along the steepest gradient of the political landscape. To do otherwise is to fight against the indomitable force of gravity. It will require enormous energy, something they are losing fast. In the long run however, they must accept the bitter fact that a stone thrown at the sky will only end up back on earth. We wish it a safe landing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)