The agitators

By  Niyi Akinnaso

It has become central to Nigeria’s political tradition that disagreements, group demands, spiritual supplications, and even prophesies multiply as the presidential election draws near. Although the election is still about two years away, several factors have converged to make this political tradition rather toxic this time around. The undercurrents are brewing that the election may be disrupted because of a convergence of negative factors: (1) Growing insecurity (marked by Boko Haram insurgency, banditry, rustling, herdsmen-farmers clashes, kidnapping and robberies); (2) the coronavirus pandemic; (3) weak governance; and (4) economic decline, resulting partly from the economic effects of the pandemic, partly from pervasive corruption, and partly from poor implementation of government’s economic policies. This has resulted in rising inflation and rising costs of living.

These developments have led to serious social, political, and economic consequences. On the international stage, Nigeria ranks very low (in the bottom pile) on ALL recent international indices (Corruption Perception Index; The Poverty Index; Global Terrorism Index; Human Development Index; Chandler Good Governance Index; and Fragile States Index).

At the domestic level, unemployment has soared and many more citizens have joined the band of the poor, making Nigeria the twin capital of youth unemployment and poverty. Hunger and anger combine to push many a youth to crime, while persistent insecurity, lopsided appointments by the President, and his uncharitable aloofness to pressing national problems have pushed many citizens to advocate alternative paths to self-fulfillment or self-determination.

Accordingly, two main groups of agitators have emerged. On the one hand, there are agitators who want Nigeria restructured through legitimate means, by calling for the modification of the existing constitution, the development of a new constitution, or reversal to the 1963 constitution. What will the reconstituted country look like? Should the four regions of old or the present six geopolitical zones constitute the federating units? Or should the present 36 states stand? These are the various options on the table.

The ultimate objective of the restructurenists is to ensure that the federating units have more powers and more resources, including the control of the police and local governments in their territories in order to better secure the lives and livelihoods of local populations. Essentially, they are calling for true federalism, involving the devolution and decentralization of powers, resource control, and a revenue sharing formula that favors the federating units, rather than make them dependent for survival on a center often unresponsive to local problems. Will their aspirations be met? How soon and by what means? These remain open questions. Whatever the outcome might be, the vast majority of Nigerians, including most Governors support the agitation for restructuring the country. Following the boost given to the agitation by the 17 Southwest Governors across party lines and heavy-weight political leaders in the region, many more Governors from other parts of the country have joined in.

On the other hand, however, there are agitators who are advocating the breakup of Nigeria so they could go their own separate ways. They’ve grown so tired of the futile calls for restructuring that they want to restructure the country on their own terms, by creating nations of their own. These separatists have lost faith in the contraption called Nigeria and they are in a hurry to leave. There are currently two such separatist movements-the Indigenous People of Biafra in the Southeast and, more recently, the Ilana Omo Oodua in the Southwest.

However, both separatist groups are roundly rejected by the governments in their respective states.  They are and remain non-state actors. How will they leave Nigeria? Will Nigeria allow them to go? If they unilaterally declare independence, are they ready to face the consequences? Are they aware of what happened to Catalan separatist leaders in Spain?

While international observers acknowledge the seriousness of these developments, they are not in agreement on their implications for the status or future of the Nigerian state. This disagreement is best illustrated by two recent articles on Nigeria, one by Robert Rotberg and John Campbell, published in Foreign Policy (May 27, 2021), and the other by Fola Aina and Nic Cheeseman, published in Foreign Affairs (May 5, 2021), in reaction to Campbell’s book, Nigeria and the Nation-State, published last December. The May 27 article makes basically the same argument as the book.

While Rotberg and Campbell see a failed state, Aina and Cheeseman called for caution against “doomsayers”. The latter anchor their caution on Nigeria’s resilience and what they call “more inclusive and sustainable” political system.

Aina and Cheeseman are right about Nigeria’s resilience. However, what they see as more inclusive and sustainable political system is more of a mirage than the lived realities of Nigerians on the ground. To be sure, there are policies and principles aimed at greater inclusiveness, such as the Federal Character Principle enshrined in the constitution. But such policies are observed more in the breach than in implementation. Only recently, Southwest Governors had to call on the President to federalize key appointments as required by the constitution.

True, Campbell had sounded the alarm before as election approached, but the situation was never this dire. This time around, he is pretty close to how Nigerians at home and abroad feel about their country today. It is difficult to reach any other conclusion from the combined whammy of negative factors and unfavourable international assessments highlighted above. They place Nigeria squarely in the “Failed” category, when evaluated along the theoretical dimension of Strong-Weak-Failed-Collapsed states. The data simply do not fit anywhere else.

Interestingly, Aina and Cheeseman are concerned that categorising Nigeria as a failed state “can be used to justify the imposition of external solutions-for example, foreign state-building efforts that emphasize militarized solutions at the expense of socioeconomic and environmental ones”. But it is important not to deceive the Nigerian government about the current situation of the country.  Complacency could move the country from the Failed to the Collapsed category.

It is worth emphasizing that things have never been this bad in Nigeria. Not even during the civil war (July 6, 1967 to January 15, 1970) was the entire country gripped by the current degree and varieties of persistent insecurity and economic strain. If Buhari’s term were to end today, he would have left Nigeria in much worse shape than when he assumed power. Unless he wants that to be his legacy, he must act now to restructure the country. He must also ensure that the separatists do not disrupt the 2023 election as they have boasted.