The Nation Newspaper

Category: Ropo Sekoni

  • A ‘Cattle Coup’ in Akure?

    A ‘Cattle Coup’ in Akure?

     If by acts of commission or omission, Nigeria is allowed, like Somalia, to gradually drop out of the global community of public order, all sacrifice in the past to keep Nigeria one and peaceful may come to nothing.

    When Nigeria was one entity, there were cattle routes, which ran from Lake Chad to the Atlantic Ocean. When she became three regions, there cattle routes in each of the regions. When it became a state, each of the states made laws as to how to graze animals. When it became a problem in 1978 under Olusegun Obasanjo as Head of State in March 28, the Land Use Act was made. Under the Land Use Act, the President of Nigeria has control of land in Abuja only. . . . Going by this, the President of Nigeria is not in any way planning to give land to Fulani herdsmen anywhere in Nigeria, because by the provision of the Land Use Act, the President controls no land in the country, except in Abuja.—Senator Ita Etang, representing President Muhammadu Buhari at the South-South Interactive Meeting of Buhari Support Group in Port Harcourt on February 10. 

    The face-off between Fulani herdsmen and Ondo State public servants in Akure a few days ago may soon add a new lexicon to the federation’s geopolitical encyclopedia, if similar events are not quickly discouraged by constituted authorities.

    With the sacking of Akure South Local Government headquarters, the Nigeria Factor continues to develop several layers like an onion. The first coup-like action was in the 1960s when the government of Western Nigeria was sacked through declaration of emergency that suspended operation of all forms of government in the region. It was not called a coup then because it was just a political sacking of a government of a political party that was the country’s main opposition party. However, the sacking of the government of Action Group in the region marked the beginning of events that eventually led to another coup that was unmistakable as a forcible change of a duly constituted government. The January coup was essentially a military one which involved the use of military violence to remove duly elected national and regional officers. Many other coups took place between 1966 and 1994, and the rest is history.

    The newest form of ‘coup’ in a post-military polity is one in which groups of civilians with access to weapons of destruction use such power to prevent civil servants from doing the work assigned to them. What happened in Akure South Local Government last Monday is an example of an unusual coup that results not from Fulani herdsmen/farmers clash of cultures, but from Fulani Herdsmen/ Public Servants face-off. Angry members of what acted like a local militia of pastoralists removed from office on Monday workers of Akure South Local Government. According to reporters, it took the intervention of the Commissioner of Police in the State, and the Commandant of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps to restore peace, but not before the local government had been shut down.

    Watchers of government affairs reported that normal government activities returned to the local government 24 hours after sacking of the local government. It is unnecessary to remind patriots in power that Boko Haram started in a small way until it developed into taking over of local government areas and turning them into caliphates without caliphars, until most of such terrorists got killed or pushed back into Sambisa Forest to allow normal life to return to most of the North-East region of the country.

    With what now appears as Herdsmen Militia roaming the country to burn 120 acres of plantain, oil palm, and mango farm in Esa Oke, to kill and harass farmers and maim women and their daughters in Edo State, in addition periodic murders in Taraba, Benue, Plateau, Nasarawa, etc., the threat to security in the country is getting more dangerous than ever. Should farming communities choose in the spirit of self-defence to organize their own militia, Nigeria may be at risk of becoming a country of camps of war lords, such as have turned Somalia from cosmos to chaos over the years. This tragic scenario seems to be brewing already in Akure.  Ojomu Olaleye’s eye-witness account of herdsmen/horticulturists face-off in Akure: “The cows were eating and destroying the vegetables we planted on the field. As Mr. Simon tried to stop them, one of the herdsmen brought out a cutlass and attacked Simon. He (Simon) brought out his own cutlass and they started fighting” should worry all patriots and true believers in united democratic Federal Republic of Nigeria. If by acts of commission or omission, Nigeria is allowed, like Somalia, to gradually drop out of the global community of public order, all sacrifice in the past to keep Nigeria one and peaceful may come to nothing. More specifically, many soldiers and civilians who had made ultimate sacrifice to prevent disintegration of the country will have been made to accept that they had fought in vain.

    Now to another matter that cannot wait till next Sunday because of the tight timetable of INEC in respect of issuance of permanent voter cards (PVC). In more peaceful parts of the country than places under the threat of violent pastoralists, especially Lagos State, citizens are expressing difficulties in getting their Permanent Voter Cards (PVC), just as many did four years ago. Complaints range from too few registration units, late resumption of INEC staff hired to process PVC to undue slowness of workers resulting in frustration of applicants seeking to obtain a document without which they cannot vote. The experience of a family that I described on this page in 2015 is being repeated in 2018. A close family member who voted in 2011 could not vote in 2015 because INEC officials at the MKO Abiola Garden registration centre could not locate a PVC that her spouse sighted when he went to collect his own PVC, a few days before the wife returned from a foreign trip to ensure collection of her card before the 2015 election.

    The same woman is now having difficulty in 2018. She had gone to the INEC unit closest to MKO Abiola Garden and each of the three days she had visited the centre, she had picked respectively number 140, 148, and 158. Unlike when there was an INEC registration unit in the Abiola Estate four years ago, there is no such place to attend to residents of an estate with about 400 housing units with an average of three adults per unit. INEC needs to avoid being responsible for disenfranchisement of citizens as it happened in 2015. If civil servants get to office for 9am, nothing should prevent INEC staff from doing so, particularly in a matter that has deadlines. In other climes, voter cards are mailed to applicants who are also allowed to register online. This is how to grow and consolidate democracy.

    Without doubt, Lagos State needs more registration centers to serve the teeming population of one of the world’s most populous cities. Secondly, INEC staff ought to be incentivized and mandated to resume not later than 9 a.m. for a service that closes around 5 p.m. Further, staff strength in each registration unit ought to be increased and given a supervisory cadre that can enforce efficiency.

    Just like the importance of prompt intervention in the herdsmen/farmers culture clash, the imperative of giving PVC to every citizen eligible to vote can never be over emphasized. Many citizens died in the anti-military pro-democracy struggle of the mid-1990s in the country, so that all eligible citizens have the right to determine who rule them. All citizens of voting age who make efforts to get their PVC need to be encouraged, not frustrated. Political folklore in the Southwest in respect of 2015 elections claimed (and still does) that the region was deliberately under-registered to prevent voters in the region from voting for change. A government voted into power to bring change can’t afford failing to insist that INEC do its best possible to ensure 100 percent  registration of eligible voters, wherever they may be.

    • Roposek@msn.com
  • Over-policed, yet under-secured

    Over-policed, yet under-secured

    Contradictions are not strange to anything that involves government/citizen interaction. And this situation is not unique to Nigeria, but it seems to many Nigerian citizens that contradictions overwhelm consistency at every level of experience: police/citizen interaction, citizen/utility providers engagement, citizen/customs interaction, etc. And this is despite rich rhetoric about citizen-centred governance across regimes and party ideologies. Understanding this tension would have been easier if our social scientists and development journalists had given more attention to research on views of citizens about how they are governed, apart from periodic anecdotal evidence from media pundits on how citizens feel about politicians and political parties. Policing is one area that stretches patience of citizens to the limit.

    It sounds illogical to say that Nigeria appears overpoliced, just a few weeks after the IGP announced plans to hire 150,000 police for a special law enforcement initiative that will post policemen and women to their natal communities. He ought to know the staff strength in relation to manpower needs of the Force better than anyone else. However, the signs out there give the impression that the country must have more police and para-police staff than it requires. Despite President Buhari’s announcement early in his administration that use of police as maiguards for big men and women should stop, hundreds or thousands of police are still deployed as personal security for members of the over-privileged class, at the expense of community and individual protection.

    For example, I live on a street that has just about 20 housing units. But the street can boast of 10 policemen waiting in front of houses of maigidas or ogas ( those to whom the fortunes of the country had flowed and those who would prefer to be counted among them). The police men wait with guns positioned as if to intimidate neighbours taking their morning or evening exercise. This writer took a suicidal venture one morning to ask three impeccably dressed anti-riot policemen in well-starched, well-ironed uniforms and shining black boots “if they were still working for the Nigeria Police Force.” The answer was brief and confident: “Of course, daddy, why do you ask, you think we look fake the way we are?” said the self-appointed spokesman running his eyes up and down the visage of his colleagues in uniform, while using his left hand to demonstrate his own sartorial authority. I became further suicidal: “Who do you work for in this quiet and seemingly safe estate, if I may ask?” Some silence from the three law enforcers for a few seconds, during which the gate to the house was pushed open from inside. A Chinese man in his early sixties emerged from behind the gate, and the three policemen disappeared into the SUV as it sped off. One strange thing about these police is that they live in the house with the Chinese factory owner and change into mufti in the evening to play ayo or ludo in front of their oga’s house. They seem to be on 24-hour duty in and out of uniform. They might as well have been addressed as maiguards or omoodo in police uniform.

    In three other houses on the same street, the maigidas being given special protection are Nigerians whose pictures I have not seen in any of our newspapers or on any of our television stations to indicate they are current or former ministers or commissioners. Most times it is the wife of the privileged Nigerians on the street that hand their bags to policemen waiting to carry the bags to the car. The owner of the bag walks behind the bag towards the door that the policeman rushes to hold for her to enter, while ensuring that no part of madam’s wrapper hangs out after closing the door. A neighbour’s daughter’s eyes caught mine one day during the mini drama of a privileged woman moving from her gate to her car. The teenager gave me a nod that was overloaded with disgust, saying with contempt: “Who the hell are these people moving policemen all over the place and treating them like houseboys?” She would not allow me to walk off before she added: “What kind of country is this and under the nose of an elected government of change?” From that brief interaction, it became clear that the contempt for police is not only about the bribe they demand from citizens but also about loss of professional dignity. Citizens who see the police in such obsequious states cannot but disrespect officers who look like them.  It is also clear that a tiny minority of residents on similar streets with twenty houses and 10 policemen on private beat enjoys the benefit of police protection denied to millions in a country in which police have no fuel in their vehicles to respond to emergency calls from citizens on time and most citizens still require high walls, heavy iron gates and windows barred with iron rods for protection.

    As if the new Inspector-General of Police sensed that citizens were feeling harassed on urban roads and highways, he, like many others before him, announced that policemen on urban streets and inter-city roads would not have the usual “wey your particulars beat” during the government of change. If the IG has the time to travel in vehicles, he will be surprised at the number of his men and occasionally a few women still occupying the roads and expressways: from Shagamu to Ore (average of 20 police stops), more miserly stops of five between Lagos and Ibadan, about 10 police check-points between Ibadan and Ondo, and about 12 between Ibadan and Akure. This does not include military barricades erected between Ore and Ondo, between Ifetedo and Ondo, and between Ondo and Akure. Anyone entering Ondo State from any direction would think that the state is at war.

    As if the highways linking cities in the country do not have enough check-points to frustrate travellers, Customs men (usually without women, like their police counterparts) also have check-points of their own, not near Lagos, Warri, Calabar, Port Harcourt but in the middle of the forest between Ibadan and Ondo, Akure and Ibadan, Shagamu and Ore, etc. A few days ago, I had the misfortune of being on one of these roads. Two customs officers in uniform stood in front of my car to signal to the driver to park. The driver quickly obliged, only to be asked for customs papers paid at the port of entry through which the car entered Nigeria. I quickly gave the officer original copies of registration, insurance, and road worthiness (whatever that means). He verified that the copies tallied with those pasted on the windscreen. He then asked for papers given to me at the port when I cleared the car. I told him I bought the car in Lagos ten years ago and brought out copies of my annual registration papers for the past ten years. After going through this, he asked me for the receipt given to me by the vendor of the car. I pretended to view him as law enforcer but refused to answer his questions for fear of losing my patience and provoking him to activate Nigerian police of Dane Gun. He ignored us for over ten minutes before waving us off to enable other cars to take positions on the park and search queue.

    A few metres from where the Customs had stopped us, three burgundy-capped traffic police men of the FRSC fame stopped our car to ask for fire extinguisher and “triangular sign.” The two items were provided immediately after which we were waved off. A few minutes after, we entered Akure only to be flagged down by VIO men in white shirts who asked for the same thing and looked around the car before allowing us to go. This was not before asking us to open the trunk of the car to ascertain its content. I asked the VIO man whether he would like to see the driver’s licence; he ignored my question and waved us off.

    With the culture of policing described above, it should worry citizens that it is the central police described above that has been authorised to create Community Police across the country in its own image. How much more ironical can design and practice of law enforcement get in our multiethnic ‘federation’?

    Today’s piece is republished in view of the news that the Nigeria Police is getting ready to design a Community Police system for the entire country.

    Roposek@msn.com

     

     

  • True federalism in installments?

    Thus far, we have not heard rebuttals of the recommendations. Rather, there has been a lot of hysteria triggered by seeming disbelief that a party in power at the centre is proposing true federalism. In place of a counter-narrative or alternative position on true federalism, what we hear is that the recommendations are coming too close to the elections. If something is desirable, surely the imminence of elections should not render it unappealing. The reality is that restructuring is a nation-building opportunity. There is now no significant constituency against the idea that states should exercise consequential powers, assume more responsibilities and control resources. It is time to make it work, for the benefit of the peoples of this country.—John Odigie-Oyegun, APC Chairman

    When eventually the El-Rufai restructuring committee reaches the senate, it will be photocopied to 109 pieces and shared to the senators to use as Toilet paper. If there are extra copies, it will be shared to Suya and Akara hawkers outside the National Assembly to use it to wrap their products. El-Rufai restructuring report will be shredded and modify to serve as a good toilet paper for senators. If there’s seriousness in restructuring it could have started in 2015.—Shehu Sani.— APC Senator
    We are not practicing true federalism in Nigeria. The last time we practiced it was during the time of late Chief Obafemi Awolowo. The issue of federalism has nothing to do with ethnicity but a fight between the wealthy and poor people. The APC promised to practice true federalism but yet to do so. I believe that a continuous advocacy for true federalism will definitely yield the desired results soon.—Abiola Ajimobi.—APC Governor

     

    With the recent release of the report of All Progressives Congress’ Committee on True Federalism under the chairmanship of the Kaduna governor, Nasir el-Rufai, the author of the phrase “Nigeria as a federation without federalism,” what many thought would calm the nerves of federalists is likely to sharpen the debate on restructuring. Regions seeking federalism are likely to complain about attempts to restructure on the template employed by military rulers to de-federalize the country: piecemeal restructuring, if advocates for true federalism stick to their demand for a new Nigeria, as a union of user-friendly relationship between national and subnational governments. In a way, the three quotes overleaf signal the debate that the country is likely to experience after digestion of the long-awaited report.

    One good news about the report is that the ruling party has finally accepted the need to heed the pledge in its manifesto: “Initiate action to amend our Constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to states and local governments in order to entrench true Federalism and the Federal spirit.” For those whose idea of restructuring is captured by this promise, the report of the committee may seem good enough, even though the first step in what ordinarily is a tortuous process is being taken almost at the end of the third year in the first tenure of four years. Such people are likely to heave a sigh of relief that it is better late than never. And the committee’s decision to prepare an executive bill to take the few devolved powers and functions to the National Assembly shows an intention on the part of the committee to make up for lost time.

    Some advocates for federalism have since the release of the report expressed a measure of relief about what they see as progressive response to devolution: establishment of state police, re-recognition of the fact that local governments are part and parcel of states and should not be separated from state to constitute a third tier of government, establishment of state court of appeal, some measure of resource control that re-establishes the dichotomy between onshore- and offshore petroleum, even though both damage the environment with as much vigour; leaving registration of business names to states, etc. The committee has identified some items for devolution, but it is an exaggeration for anybody or party to claim that the few items marked for devolution are enough to return the country to a truly federal system. It is still arguable that what the APC has done is to move the country from nominal federalism to cosmetic federalism.

    In contemporary political lexicon, the federalism that can be restored with the few items in the section of devolved powers is Permissive Federalism or Picket Fence Federalism, a situation where the central government decides which powers to transfer to subnational governments. In this situation, the federal government is the giver rather than a fellow sharer of powers with subnational units. Others may call this administrative rather than constitutional federalism, for the simple reason that, like the 1999 Constitution, final decisions of the powers to devolve does not include representatives of the federating communities with mandate to negotiate with representatives of the central government and the ruling party. Of course, the choice of permissive federalism by the committee is in consonance with the party’s campaign manifesto, which is not to restructure but to devolve powers. APC recommendations or concessions that the party is ready to give at this point should not be with any prejudice to continued demand for a new union by advocates for restructuring.

    It seems that the party has made some proposals that can give the impression of fulfilling its election promise to devolve powers, duties, and responsibilities to states, not necessarily that it has done anything to restore true federalism. For example, the simplest demand: restoration of secularity to the Nigerian State has been put on hold in a country that is already polarised by sectarianism. Anybody that reads the current constitution cannot but have the impression that Nigeria is an Islamic country even though this is far from the truth of the history and contemporary reality of the country. A constitution that describes the country as an Islamic State has its own tension in a multi-religious society. Tax payers’ money is being spent to send government representatives to several Islamic organisations, apart from federal and state funds committed to support both Muslims and Christians to go on religious pilgrimage to Mecca and Jerusalem. It is therefore surprising that the APC committee has chosen to ignore wishes of those it surveyed on this matter.

    With approval of all the recommendations, the status quo crafted by decades of military dictatorship will still be intact, despite the few devolutions recommended by the committee. For instance, there is no certainty about how to reconcile resource control with fiscal federalism. Those who want fiscally independent states or regions not dependent on monthly allocation from the federal government are likely to be disappointed, as much as those who prefer that the central government is made much leaner than it is at present. Giving freedom to states to merge if they so desire on the one hand and retaining a system in which the federal government allocates money to states on the other hand makes nonsense of the demand for regionalism that can save the country from 37 bureaucracies that the states have become. It is, therefore, not surprising that the issue of regionalism has also been put on hold, like that of secularity of the polity. Railway and transmission of electricity remain on the exclusive list in the 21st century. A core of the calls for restructuring is the negotiation of a constitution to replace the 1999 Constitution that discountenanced the right of citizens to participate in creating the constitution by which they are governed.

    There is no doubt that the APC committee has given deep thought to the items it has chosen to examine in relation to the intention to entrench the federal spirit. If all the recommendations are approved by the party and the president, and are subsequently constitutionalised by the legislature, Nigeria will be taking the first step in a thousand-mile journey to true federalism. It is premature to turn the proposals from the APC committee on True Federalism into a campaign matter as the chairman of the party has done in the quotation overleaf. Those who say the only major devolution is law enforcement. The functions on the Concurrent List shared by the central and state governments are still intact, apart from state police and state court of appeal. Citizens must find it curious that the same committee has recommended giving more money to subnational units without noticeably reducing the workload of the central government. Certainly, APC can do better than this.

  • Obasanjo’s special statement and its silence

    With a flurry of anti and pro-Obasanjo comments on his Special Statement in the last few days, many people would agree that enough has been said about Obasanjo’s latest letter and his history and brand of epistolary politics. The focus of today’s column is not on Obasanjo the messenger. Instead, it will be on his message, particularly the meaning of implication of his silence for the polity and society.

    Of course, Ad Hominem commentators have reminded Obasanjo about his credential as a bad messenger which Buhari and his supporters need not worry about for hundreds of reasons:; he is worried about having any president after him have two terms; he deployed troops to kill innocent men and women in Odi on account of the killing of soldiers by militants from the Niger Delta; he has been too busy moving across the globe in response to several invitations  from external bodies that have attracted him after leaving office in frustration over failing to secure tenure elongation;  he had made a habit since the end of his post-military presidency to criticize his successors unnecessarily in order to be seen as the life-long doyen of the country’s presidents, the poster-child of good governance in the country and the only one that should be seen as the kingmaker to appoint and judge his successors.

    As bad as these descriptions may sound, OBJ, to call him by the name preferred by his friends and foes, still has a constitutional freedom to express his opinions, regardless of how unpopular they might be. And he had done this before to fellow military dictators and fellow civilian presidents. Relatedly, his statement deserves to be analyzed in terms of both remote and immediate causes of what the former president has characterized as poor governance under the current president, just as it was under President Goodluck Jonathan that preceded President Buhari. One thing that OBJ’s critics have overlooked or forgotten is his role in the evolution of the country from federalism to unitarism, an evolution that he left out of his assessment of President Buhari. It is Obasanjo’s omission to establish a link between the system or structure under which Buhari has governed Nigeria thus far that is referred to in the title as Silence.

    Obasanjo’s Statement includes a guiding thesis, analysis of data at his disposal, and a conclusion that also serves as recommendation or call to action. His overall thesis is poor governance arising from inadequate leadership skills: “I believe the situation we are in today is akin to what and where we were at the beginning of this democratic dispensation in 1999. The nation was tottering. People became hopeless and saw no bright future in the horizon. It was all a dark cloud politically, economically, and socially.”

    Is Obasanjo’s description of the state of the country today and in 1999 true or false? His opponents will say false while his supporters will say true. I believe that his description is accurate and that his conclusion is forced. Certainly, there is as much anxiety today as there was when Obasanjo assumed power as a civilian president in 1999. What is not clear is why OBJ cited his adoption of what he called a near government of national unity as what prevented his own government from failing. Is this an oblique way to recommend a government of national unity to President Buhari or to prepare the country for governance of Nigeria at the instance of Coalition for Nigeria? Surprisingly, Alhaji Balarabe Musa made such recommendation a few weeks ago. OBJ has omitted an important point: what is the remote cause of Nigeria tottering before the 1999 and 2015 presidential elections? Even the two elections between Obasanjo’s and Buhari’s brought back the anxiety that had characterized elections since 1979. And Obasanjo had played a substantial role in why elections have been moments of fear for Nigerians since 1979. This does not have as much to do with leadership as it has to do with military dictators’ de-federalization of the polity and citizens’ recognition of the dangers of re-designing the country away from its original consensus on the character of the Union. When citizens asked for sovereign national conference to re-negotiate the Nigerian Union during Obasanjo’s first term, he poohpoohed such demand and set up a conference of political reform that was designed to distract citizens without making any dent on a flawed structure.

    One way Obasanjo believes that the country can bounce back is to do away with the status quo that had produced a Buhari: “We have only one choice left to take us out of Egypt to the Promised Land….Change that will mean enhancement of living standard and progress for all. A situation where the elected will accountably govern and every Nigerian will have equal opportunity not based on kinship and friendship but based on free citizenship.”  The aspiration captured by this statement could have come from leaders who have been calling for restructuring since 1999: Ben Nwabueze, Alani Akinrinade, Ayo Adebanjo, Ndubuisi Kanu, etc. The most unlikely question that Obasanjo can be asked is whether his call for a change that will enhance the life of all Nigerians and save the country from dependence of politics of kinship (parochialism) and free citizenship (opportunity for self-government within a federal Nigeria) includes returning the country to the pre-military constitutional ethos? In other words, is Obasanjo calling for removing all sections of the country from the shackles of unitary governance that had made kinship to thrive and freedom for citizens to wane?

    In the final section of his statement, Obasanjo calls for formation of Coalition for Nigeria (CN) to take Nigeria out of Egypt to the other side of River Jordan, i.e. from enslavement to freedom and from poverty to prosperity: “CN must be a movement to break new ground in building a united county, a socially-cohesive and moderately prosperous society with equity, equality of opportunity, justice and a dynamic and progressive economy that is self-reliant and takes active part in global division of labour and international decision-making.”

    If these sentences were created by someone else, they would have been interpreted as a call for restructuring. But coming from Obasanjo, the father of Nigeria’s unitary governance, no one should be deceived by the vision of CN. It must be for the avoidance of any doubt that Obasanjo omitted words like restructuring, federalism, negotiation of a new constitution, etc. Federalists and autonomists need to be warned about the danger in getting carried away by the words of hope and renewal in this season’s four-yearly sermon. It is not for those who are convinced that only a federal Nigeria can make progress and give hope to all citizens, regardless of their ethnic, religious, and social background. If anything, Coalition for Nigeria must be a strategy to prevent the collapse of a governance model that has oversize capacity to corrupt those in government, disorientate leaders, inflate the importance of those in charge of power, and in the spirit of winner-take-all make a culture of nepotism defensible to those who practice it. For example, would there have been killing of Taraba, Plateau, Benue, and now Ondo states, where, people are being killed for protecting their ancestral land, if the country had been restructured between 1999 and 2015?

    Federalists are again at a stage reminiscent of 1999, when the opportunity to insist on restructuring was missed. Admittedly, the temptation to just agree with any suggestion to create a new government to share power is noticeable, but such choice has its own danger. Suspending the struggle for re-federalization and de-militarization of the country’s constitution as we did in 1999 in a bid to escape from Egypt to the Promised Land can be counterproductive. It can drain energy needed to push for the change that can take country back to a functional multiethnic federal democratic state constituted by people with different worldviews, perceptions of reality, and divergent attitude to modernity and globalization.

    Federalists need not be distracted. Buhari as a person is not the problem of Nigeria’s failure; he is just one of its symptoms. The problem is the obsession of former military dictators and their civilian collaborators with a system designed to homogenize, colonize, and subjugate the various nationalities in the country under a leviathan or behemoth central government made possible by military rulers’ damaging of the political structure upon which Nigerians willingly  agreed to live together in 1960.

  • Dwindling denialism vis-à-vis our polity?

    Dwindling denialism vis-à-vis our polity?

    Unlike many months ago, the crisis between farmers and herdsmen in Benue has pushed many leaders and organisations to start examining governance problems. 

    Northern progress and Northern unity were uttermost in their [Tafawa Balewa and Ahmadu Bello] thought processes while administering this large expanse of territory which was more than half of Nigeria. They ensured even development, justice and fair play for all the citizens. It was a period devoid of religious and ethnic bigotry where people from the numerous ethnic nationalities or creeds, held each other in mutual respect.
    “Corrupt practices by both politicians were very minimal. Things like inflation of contracts or favouritism in the award of contracts were virtually non-existent. In short, the Northern Nigeria before January 15th 1966 was a territory that was characterised by visionary leadership and tireless dedication to duty to the community. Leaders were known for their integrity, their sincerity and their humility.—Ibrahim Coomasie at Arewa Consultative Forum meeting.

    Much of Nigeria has been gripped by the flu of denialism (or burying of heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich) since the beginning of the country’s post-military era in 1999. During the Abacha dictatorship and after, many sections of Nigeria called for de-militarisation of the polity. Such calls included (as they still do) restoration of federalism to the country and unfettered negotiation by representatives of federating units of a constitution that reflects the kind of Union various nationalities or communities believe can protect life, property, and happiness while sustaining democracy and unity in the country. Many Nigerian communities, particularly from the northern part of the country felt otherwise and were honest in expressing their opposition to such demands.

    Even before Goodluck Jonathan’s national conference of 2014, various northern organisations, such as Northern Elders Forum, Arewa Consultative Forum, and many opinion makers identified what they thought to be causes of overt and subdued ethnic, religious, and political tensions militating against democratic and federal governance in the country. Theorists and pundits argued that there was nothing wrong with the structure of governance in the country nor in the military-inspired governance culture erected by the last military head of state, particularly the 1999 Constitution. Some blamed poor or wrong leadership for the country’s post-military administrations from Olusegun Obasanjo to Muhammed Buhari. Others attributed poor governance to massive political and bureaucratic corruption. Some stressed (and still do) that Nigeria’s unity is more important than good and acceptable governance structure. Even President Buhari, the man celebrated in various quarters as the country’s most honest leader, recently posited that the poor governance and rising tension among various constituencies can be rectified by giving more attention to process rather than structure. Consequently, the regions continued (as they still largely do) to talk at cross purposes while the country was basically inching day by day to the inferno.

    The massacre in Benue on the first day of 2018 brought what seemed to have been part of the country’s political subconscious into the open and set several organisations and associations thinking anew about the past of the country in nostalgic ways. The recent description of the era of Ahmadu Bello and Tafawa Balewa as the North’s golden era at a recent lecture “The North and the Challenge of Leadership” organised by ACF is an instructive reminder of the negative impact of military re-engineering of the country during the many decades of military dictatorship, particularly between 1975 and 1999.

    On the one hand Coomasie’s veneration of Ahmadu Bello and Tafawa Balewa can be interpreted as acknowledgement of the power of force of personality on good governance that Coomasie would want to be a part of today’s governance culture. But given the glee with which the Yoruba speak of Awolowo’s era in Western Region and the Igbo do of Azikiwe’s governance of Eastern Region, it is conceivable that there must have been some impact of the structure of governance of the three regions on the four founding fathers born and raised under different worldviews and value systems.

    But what federalists may find exciting about ACF’s nostalgia for the old Northern Region is that it was governed as a multiethnic region in which the various nationalities within the region felt at home according to Coomasie. And what autonomists have been asking for and for which they have been poohpoohed by many northern cultural and political leaders is a Nigeria in which the federating groups can feel at home and have the peace and power to realise their expectations to the fullest in a multiethnic state without fear of domination in whatever form..

    Unlike many months ago, the crisis between farmers and herdsmen in Benue has pushed many leaders and organisations to start examining governance problems. The statement about the former Northern Region is one such manifestation of doubts or fears about the way Nigeria is governed. There is no doubt that Bello, Balewa, Awolowo, and many others in their generation were great men and leaders with large visions, but the problems facing the polity on-and-off in the last two decades suggest that there may be more than just problems of personality flaws at the root of the country’s intermittent political and social turbulence. Problems such as Boko Haram, Niger Delta militancy, Herdsmen and Farmers clashes, massive corruption, political godfatherism, and impunity may have been sparked or deepened by structural problems inherited from military rule.

    Each of the leaders of the pre-coup era had no central government with powers to do and undo as has been the case since 1975 when political centralism became the norm and grew in magnitude from one military ruler to another.  The political structure that drove friendly competition among regions and nurtured cooperation between central and regional governments when Ahmadu and his contemporaries governed the regions had given way to something akin to a central government with the powers of colonial master. The presidential system that grew out of military rule had also created heads of state with powers reminiscent of those of emperors. Half of the power bestowed on post-military presidents by a military-authored constitution was not available to any governor-general, not even Frederick Lugard.

    For example, Ahmadu Bello did not have to wait for handouts from the central government. He had the freedom and power to generate revenue for the development of the North and the citizens were made to understand their role in governance. For example, no federal government had the power to tell the premiers where to put bridges in their regions, the way Babatunde Fashola was told that he could not put an overhead bridge on Lagos-Ibadan highway to enable citizens cross over to the Lagos State Secretariat in Alausa. Premiers (equivalents of today’s governors) did not have to run to the central government for monthly allocations. On the contrary, it was the region that assisted the central government. Each premier had the freedom to initiate and implement development programmes and, in the process, establish a government driven by constant consultation with citizens. Premiers had adequate power and freedom to do great things, such as Bello did in the old North and Awolowo and Azikiwe did in the old West and East.

    It is not clear how much negative influence a suffocating central government may leave on citizens’ morale in a multinational state. What seems clear in the experience of Nigeria so far is that a central government that has the capacity to suffocate subnational governments can cause alienation between citizens and the government close to them as well as hostility among fellow citizens, not because such citizens are necessarily bad but because they operate in a socio-fugal political, economic, and social environment, such as decades of military dictatorship had left Nigeria with.

    It is, however, reassuring that many cultural leaders from the north are ready to look for answers to problems facing good governance in their region, just as some of their counterparts are trying to do in the south. There is no better time to pay attention to the nexus between governance structure and political culture. It is a wrong attitude for anyone or group to insist that the military structure and constitution imposed on Nigeria are cast in stone and must remain an albatross around the necks of Nigerians for eternity. This is a good time for all Nigerians, particularly those in the north to compare ideas from the lecture “The North and the Challenge of Leadership” with those raised in  Friends of Democracy’s paper: Restructuring Nigeria: A Northern Position.

  • Cattle and citizens

    Cattle and citizens

    This is the third time this piece is appearing on this page, each time with the same thesis but with different emphasis. The problem of Fulani herdsmen versus non-Fulani farmers seems to have reached a dangerous stage in the recent massacre of men, women, and even children a few days ago in Benue State. With the spate of killing that has made people refer to Nigeria as a place of genocide, it seems that the search for solution is now imperative, given the speed with which the Minister of Agriculture announced a policy change— from ranching to establishment of cattle colonies.

    Tim Marshall in a recent book, Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Tell You Everything You Need To Know About Global Politics has a conclusion that could have been written specifically in relation to politics of cattle production in today’s Nigeria: “As the twenty-first century progresses, the geographical factors that have helped determine our history will mostly continue to determine our future…. Of course geography does not dictate the course of all events. Great ideas and great leaders are part of the push and pull of history. But they must all operate within the confines of geography.” This quote, like the rest of the book, has lessons for the whole world but now more immediately for Nigeria that is under serious stress of coming to terms with nature in a century of high culture and science.

    Desertification may be a remote cause of the problem between herdsmen and farmers in states below the Sahel belt in the northern Nigeria but desertification is not peculiar to Nigeria. About 900 million people in the five continents live in zones that are threatened by desertification.  But most countries adopt new techniques to cope with such challenges of geography. Nigeria must find ways to acquire such knowledge to save itself from creating easy solutions that may create similar or worse problems in the future for its citizens and its cattle.

    Indiscriminate cattle grazing has not always been a problem in the country. Those who were born before independence would know that up to the 1970s when the Sahel had not moved down as radically as it has in the last twenty years, it was unheard of that herdsmen harassed farmers in the South and largely in the middle-belt. One immediate cause of herdsmen/farmers clash is the fear of Fulani herdsmen to accept the unworkability of the old system of roaming with cattle across states as well as the fear of adopting new modes of cattle raising. Just as many Nigerians are mourning with Benue State over recent killing of men, women, and even children allegedly by Fulani herdsmen, the officers of Fulani socio-cultural organization, Gan Allah Fulani Development Association of Nigeria (GAFDAN) are insisting that it is only annulment of Benue State’s Anti-Open Grazing Law that can prevent violence. The Organisation’s Secretary General, Alhaji Saleh Bayeri, indirectly holds the government responsible for the recent tragedy in Benue: “Naturally, the government should know that the Fulani that keep multiplying in human population and their animal, should know that they need a space to occupy and carry out their legitimate business.”

    Bayeri’s call for a space for herdsmen to occupy and carry out legitimate business raises two issues that the federal government must address fast. One is demand for a space for herdsmen and the second is what type of space and why. The interest of GAFDAN seems to be in favour of the pre-colonial mode of cattle farming: nomadism and roaming. The second problem concerns government’s readiness to intervene intelligently and equitably in the clash of interests between animal and plant farmers in different parts of the country.

    So far, it appears that the federal government’s latest intervention is to create “cattle colonies.” The Agriculture Minister, Audu Ogbeh, has attempted to distinguish between cattle ranch and colony: “Ranching is more of an individual venture for those who want to invest, but cattle colony is bigger in scope and size. … Cattle colony is not using Fulani herdsmen to colonise any state. It is going to be done in partnerships with state governments that would like to volunteer land for it. Federal government will fund the project and those wishing to benefit from it will pay some fees.”

    As the old saying goes: the devil is in the detail. But there are already many devils in the federal government’s mission to create cattle colonies. The fact that herdsmen in the past had moved before the spread of the Sahel from one area of the north to another does not mean that herdsmen should continue to be encouraged by the federal government to move all over the country in search of pasture and water for their cattle. The geographical conditions that made nomadic cattle farming necessary has been overcome by advances in science and technology. Most countries of the world produce cattle through the ranch model. Even Qatar currently has ranches that specialize in beef and dairy products. The challenge is for those calling for colonies to convince cattle farmers that it is in the latter’s interest to migrate from cattle roaming to ranching.

    The distinction between cattle ranch and colony befuddles the federal government’s policy on this urgent matter of economic restructuring. How big must a ranch become to qualify for a colony? Is the federal government planning this late in the ethos of market economy to run cattle farms or colonies in partnership with states or individuals? Why would the federal government feel comfortable with privatising telecommunication, electricity, banking, fertilizer, and even education while calling for restoration of government/private partnership in cattle business? Is the federal government now ready to return to mixed economy mode it had stopped since establishment of Bureau of Public Enterprise? FG’s decision to pay for space to serve as colonies and charge cattle farmers “some fees” smacks of special subsidy to cattle farming? Is this policy going to be extended to other forms of farming, especially farmers in non-cattle producing states of the federation? What is the extent of involvement of the National Assembly in formulation of this policy so far?

    With or without climate change, the world is changing in geographical terms and is likely to continue changing. Undoubtedly, science and technology are now deployed to assist humanity to cope with constraints of geography. The federal government needs to get more scientific input from global best practices in cattle farming. Given the recent tragedy in Benue, policy wonks cannot afford to go to sleep. But while they are doing necessary comparative studies on raising cattle in states vulnerable to desert encroachment, the government should pay immediate attention to investigation that can lead to prosecution and punishment of those who had given Nigeria the worst name possible in international relations: a country practicing genocide.  Policymakers need to benefit from two Nigerian proverbs. The Igbo proverb says roughly in English “life is like a dance, you need to follow the dance in order to enjoy it.” The Yoruba version says, “it is the contemporary dog that is used to chase the contemporary rabbit.” Both proverbs promote adaptability to new modes and methods. The challenge for the ministries of agriculture and the environment is how to fight desertification frontally and how to adopt new ways to produce cattle.

    If herdsmen were children of upper or middle-class men and women in our country, they would have cried foul for being hired to nurse cattle for the rich at great risk to their being. If the country had created an educational system akin to what exists in Kaduna today—free and compulsory basic education for all—it would have been impossible for current owners of cattle to find herdsmen to follow cattle to the length and breadth of the country.  Such difficulty must come to cattle owners if part of the goals of national development and integration include ensuring equality and equity. Having herdsmen in the 21st century should be discouraged; potential herdsmen should be in school like the children of the cattle they are hired to herd.

  • Lessons from Spain: coping with the multinational State

    People with the mindset that pushed Nigeria from federal to unitary system are not likely to be persuaded easily with superior arguments alone. 

    Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. The word Nigerian is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria from those who not.—Obafemi Awolowo in Path to Nigeria Freedom, 1947
    The task now at hand was to devise new modes of human co-existence – arrangements that would replace or by-pass the nation-state. The hegemony of the nation-state and its totalist claim on the individual could escaped only by recognising that nation and nation-state were concepts embedded in a particular age. If only thought could be diverted from the nation-state and re-orientated around a more sensible parameter, the co-existence of nations and nationalities in Europe and elsewhere could start to be restructured on federalist and autonomist principles.—Peter Alter in Nationalism 1989.

    Obafemi Awolowo wrote about Nigeria when globalisation was cutting its teeth while Peter Alter wrote largely about Europe at a time that globalisation had become a toddler, but both did  the same thing: interrogate the universality and immutability of the Western model of the nation-state, not only for Europeans but also for Africans and Asians once colonised by European nations. The ongoing controversy about restructuring, particularly President Buhari’s new dichotomy between process and structure certainly requires making connections with efforts in other parts of the world in a global ethos that is struggling with change on many fronts. Globalisation is taking more attention away from individual nation-states than before; transnational organisations are causing more problems for individual nations than before; and citizens across the globe are struggling to juxtapose two major issues of globalism: marrying local and international identities and struggling to sustain both.

    It is saying the obvious to argue that Nigeria has been a product of the Western model of the nation-state. Colonisation led to creation of Nigeria through amalgamation of several nations and nationalities that had not shared language, culture, religion, worldview, and even aspirations until they were ‘discovered by Frederick Lugard and found qualified for amalgamation, not necessarily for their own reasons or perhaps for a future unknown to the nations at the time they were fused. Even though the United Kingdom, though a multinational state at the time it sent nation builders to West Africa, acted as a typical nation-state within the tradition of Western nation-states, practised as far as it could a unitary system of government at home. But the British chose to think outside the box by choosing to encourage a governance mode sensitive to multi-nationality.

    Consequently, the Nigeria obtained independence from Britain as a federation in which the central and subnational governments shared both powers and functions, best illustrated in three categories of power sharing: Exclusive, Concurrent, and Residual. Fiscal federalism was the rule of the game of governance between the two levels: federal and regional governments. Put simply, Britain left behind a political system for managing a multinational state that it did not have for England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales in its own United Kingdom. At the time that Nigeria assumed independent nationhood, there were just four federal systems in all of Western Europe: Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, and Austria. All other nations—homogenous and heterogeneous—were unitary. In fact, it took the United Kingdom another 60 years after Nigeria became a federation for Nigeria’s designer and creator, the UK, to experiment with a para- or pro-federal system for three of the Kingdom’s nations: Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.  The jury is still out on where the UK is heading in term of political and economic structure of governance.

    Nigeria was a federation in the proper sense of the word until the Biafra-Nigeria War. Financing the civil war under a military rule threw up a new system which grew between 1967 and 1979 into a cosmetic federalism that later grew into a full-blown unitary system under the 1999 Constitution that had become since its appearance a source of controversy between federalists and regional autonomists and advocates of political and economic centralism in Nigeria’s multinational space.

    Of course, the Nigerian military started as a colonial institution. Military rulers were in the UK where the proper unit of government was the nation-state. In the tradition of being able to give only what a person has, military rulers gradually re-designed Nigeria into a unitary system with the hope that such homogenisation would create the solidarity that had been a source of success for organising people with the same language, culture, religion, worldview, and aspiration into a nation-state managed generally in a unitary manner. After the first thirteen years of military rule, departing military rulers bequeathed in 1979 a constitution that had substantially de-federalised Nigeria. The second republic started in 1979 was terminated by a coup de’etat at the end of 1983, leading to another thirteen years of military rule which came to an end with the 1999 Constitution, a constitution that has since its appearance been a source of controversy between advocates for return to federalism and those who preferred unitary governance.

    One trait that featured in the various military governments between 1966 and 1999 is the belief that Nigeria’s problems came from absence of political and fiscal centralism. Each new military dictator increased the number of states until the country had 36 states, that are now referred to as federating units in what Nasir El-Rufai had once characterised as a federation without federalism. Many people had argued that military dictators who changed Nigeria from a federal to unitary system wanted a system close to military culture. Others believed that military dictators believed that a system that aspired to function like a unitary nation-state system was superior to a multinational and multicultural system.

    It is, therefore, not surprising that the two retired generals who had served as elected presidents: Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammed Buhari act and talk as if they are obsessed with running Nigeria like a homogeneous state. It is also not surprising, given the attitude of the two presidents to the mode of thought that a state that seems like a homogenised society is the one best for Nigeria, just as it is not surprising that the ambition of former military rulers serving as civilian presidents is attainment of unity and that no sacrifice should be too much to pay for unity, even if citizens have to live in an underdeveloped polity and economy; even if they lack access to electricity, good education, and other sources of social and economic progress.

    Today, Spain is similar to Nigeria in some respects. It is culturally a multinational state that its rulers since 2010 had wanted to run like a culturally homogenous nation-state, largely because of the belief by rulers in Europe and many of its former colonies that governing multinational states like a homogenous one is more likely to succeed better than accepting the dynamics of multicultural states.

    When Chief Awolowo said over 60 years that federalism is the only effective mode of governing a multinational state, he was thinking more critically than his contemporaries, rather than acting as an irredentist. He was not only historically-minded like other intellectual leaders; he was also proffering a solution to a polity that could not benefit from methods of governing homogenous societies. Today, even centuries-old homogenous states are showing interest in nudging the European Union in the direction of a super federal state for economic, social, and security reasons. It is instructive that Emmanuel Macron, the president of a country that is often cited as the poster child for creating the world’s first modern nation-state is the champion for transforming EU into a federal state for survival in a more competitive global economy.

    As this column observed last week, adopting the route of inter-elite negotiation for re-federalisation of Nigeria alone is likely to be less effective than creating a mass movement or political party. People with the mindset that pushed Nigeria from federal to unitary system are not likely to be persuaded easily with superior arguments alone. They need to be made to see where the minds of those seeking change are. They need to be given empirical evidence that millions of voters want more than unity and that there is more danger than is apparent in a system that is only able to get unhappy and poor people united and at the same time hungry. The danger in resisting calls for federalism includes creating populations that can espouse irredentism and separatism, which Nigeria can ill afford.

  • Lessons from Spain’s Rajoy and Puigdemont (1)

    That both Rajoy and Puigdemont are hoping for dialogue even after snap elections in Catalan is significant

    Our challenge is to remain united without chasing uniformity—Emmanuel Macron
    The future of our peoples cannot be based on the lowest common denominator. If we are to cultivate the desire to push ahead and ensure Europe’s progress benefit everyone, we need to constantly accommodate the driving ambition of some while allowing others to move ahead at their own speed-Macron in his Initiative for Europe

    The victory of pro-Independence parties in the recent Catalonia regional elections called by Mariano Rajoy has taken many people and countries by surprise or shock, especially those who have accepted that the concept of the modern nation is stuck in the Westphalian moment of pre-globalisation. Surprise, because the parties won even when their leaders were in jail or exile, thus showing the depth of commitment of many Catalans to the principle of self-determination in a changing multicultural world in which many people carry multiple identities with ease. And shock, because the intense feelings expressed by members of Puigdemont’s party, Together for Catalunya, kissing the ballot paper before dropping it in the box must increase the fear of those who prefer to live in the past in many parts of the modern world vis-a-vis desire for new governance architecture in individual countries and super-state structure such as the EU.

    But more specifically, the result of the Catalonia elections is bound to draw attention to the age-old rivalry between continuity and change or between hegemony and freedom in many parts of the world. For example, Emmanuel Macron’s “Initiative for Europe” seems to be calling for a new Europe, one that calls for a new structure that houses multiple cultures without compromising the freedom and identity of any in a Federal Europe, fuelled by physical and cultural security and knowledge and innovation.

    It is conceivable that if such Europe had existed before October 1, the show of force by Rajoy  and reinforcement of Rajoy’s rejection of  timely dialogue and negotiation from Jean-Claude Juncker, European Commission president: “Beyond the purely legal aspects of this matter, the Commission believes that these are times for unity and stability, not divisiveness and fragmentation” would have encouraged the Spanish government to dialogue with the Catalan leader. Even Theresa May, whose country is already on the way out of Europe, was unequivocal in her support for Rajoy: “We continue to want to see the rule of law upheld, the Spanish Constitution respected, and Spanish unity preserved” [My emphasis].  It is one thing for European or world leaders to discourage secession and another thing for them to encourage dialogue that can douse tension for both parties. right to self-rule has been taken over by the

    The first lesson in pro-Rajoy and anti-Puigdemont statements from world leaders is that the forces of old are still in control, despite the beautiful words of the United Nations about self-determination and minority rights. Those calling for secession in Nigeria need to note that African Union’s attitude to any attempt to re-draw inherited maps of African countries is not very different from Europe’s position on territorial integrity of the states in the European Union. The position of most countries of the world has not changed from what it was more than a century ago, not necessarily because they have any dislike for Catalonia but because the ramifications of globalism and rise in liberal multiculturalism (as distinct from illiberal nativism of ultra-right political parties in Europe. America, and Africa) had not been grasped by leaders of most nations who are beholden to the past.

    One lesson that should have been clear to Rajoy and Puigdemont is that the desire for independence by majority of Catalonians may not be easily quelled by human rights violation on the part of the Spanish federal government and that independence may not come to Catalan because of new majority of seats for pro-Independence parties in Catalonia. That both Rajoy and Puigdemont are hoping for dialogue even after snap elections in Catalan is significant.

    An agreement to dialogue would have prevented waste of resources on snap elections arising from Rajoy’s knee-jerk reaction to an authorised Independence referendum in Catalonia last October. Mutual respect and acceptance of dialogue would also have prevented a re-confirmation that most voters in Catalan are overtly pro-independence and are likely to resist dialogue now than last October when their leaders seemed amenable to dialogue and negotiation.

    More importantly, a dialogue could have encouraged both parties to make do with a return to the full Autonomy Statute of 2006 which was watered down in 2010, the immediate cause for renewal of demand for Catalan independence. In other words, restructuring would have prevented illegal independence referendum and the threat to peace and stability of Spain, as well as violation of human rights that drew negative global attention to the Rajoy administration. In a federation, whatever is done to diminish the autonomy of any part is a quick cause for instability, and Rajoy ought to have sensed that reduction of Catalan’s autonomy can create a need for those dispossessed of power to ask for restoration, in order to force a dialogue and compromise on  appropriate structure that protects and promotes the integrity of a multicultural society.

    Apart from Catalan’s rush to independence referendum last October, the recent elections leave many lessons for millions of people calling for restructuring in Nigeria, particularly those who present themselves as leaders of communities and regions leading demand for restructuring. For example, calls for autonomy or independence in Catalonia, like that of Scotland, is not packaged as inter-elite negotiations between socio-cultural organisations and leaders of the federal government.

    Unlike in Nigeria, leaders and ordinary citizens in Catalonia organize themselves into political parties that announce their intentions and present manifesto in support of their goals. Such political parties organise openly to participate in democratic debates and elections with a manifesto for self-government for federating units or for specific regions that believe their development depends on freedom to move at their own pace. An open contest for power between pro-federalist and anti-federalist politicians and voters need to be properly structured in Nigeria.  Demand for political and constitutional reforms ought to be a part of the larger democratic process, especially electoral process. With leaders of Catalonian pro-self-determination parties in exile and jail, their parties still won snap elections, largely because of ideological consistency of their parties and co-ownership of the parties by members of the grassroots.

    The current cynicism about multi-party politics in the country and the noise about two strong parties should not be allowed to frustrate the need for formation of ideologically driven political parties. Regionalism is an ideology of governance, just like any other. Already, there are over 60 registered political parties and many other applications are under consideration for approval according to INEC. As undemocratic as the process of organising political parties seems at present, particularly the insistence that parties must have offices in at least 24 states before they can be registered, there are still tens of parties with far less ideological relevance to the country’s future than federalism or self-rule on INEC’s book. In a country with Chop and Chop Party as a registered party, it must be possible for a party focused on ideology of sustainable democracy and unity in a federal system to survive on members’ financial contributions.

    Leaders of thought of states or regions interested in re-federalization of the country need to put their money where their mouths are. Apart from Spain, many countries have political parties that are organised to push reform of the polity popularly known as restructuring in Nigeria. The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) in the United Kingdom is an example that must be familiar to Nigerians. Putting re-federalisation as the core of the platform of a party for change is a more effective way to push for restructuring than leaving this important political demand in the hands of socio-cultural societies, clubs, and fraternities. The claim that political parties are too expensive to sustain is largely a myth. Political parties can be driven by members who subscribe to ideologies they consider relevant to the future of their children.

    I wish my readers a sparkling New Year in advance. Let us reassure ourselves that we live in a country with huge potential for greatness.  Next week will focus on the need to re-conceptualise the nation-state or state-nation in an age of globalisation.

    To be continued

    Roposek@msn.com

  • Our year of luck, efforts, and misunderstandings

    Our president whose health brought concerns to citizens got well faster and better than expected, even by people who did not know what his health challenges were

    “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”—Gloria Steinem
    “For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”—Nelson Mandela

    So many good things happened in our country during 2017. Our president whose health brought concerns to citizens got well faster and better than expected, even by people who did not know what his health challenges were. His recovery encouraged his party members to gift him what seems like an automatic ticket for second term.  In addition, the president, despite his absence from the country for about 145 days, has managed to break the back of Boko Haram and is still determined to improve on this, as most of the governors have voluntarily in the spirit of rare bi-partisanship resolved to transfer $1 billion from the federation’s Excess Crude Account to the presidency to annihilate Boko Haram and the spirit that caused it- over radicalisation or mindless indoctrination. Since everything revolves round the president in a presidential system, he has also tamed corruption and remains resolute to fight corruption, recently calling on the country’s clerisy to assist in his efforts to end political and bureaucratic corruption.

    Even on the economic side, international institutions have publicly acknowledged that Nigeria has overcome (or is overcoming) recession, thus giving the country’s National Bureau of Statistics a round of applause that can silence those already used to ignoring claims by the country’s central data gathering and storing institution. So much for luck and efforts and the hope they have built in citizens toward 2018.

    Yet, the country was also marked by misunderstanding of issues relating to how the country should manage matters of concern to its future. For a country that has become a global poster child for having nine lives, one simple word has caused more division in the country than any in its post-independence era, apart from the first call for Biafra in the late 1960s. And that word is not the Biafra of IPOB or Kanu, as unsettling as that has been. The word that has polarised the country during the outgoing year is Restructuring. Today’s piece focuses on demystifying a word that is dividing the country unnecessarily.

    Frequency of use of the word restructuring increased phenomenally in 2017, one year after advocates for restructuring realised that the ruling party’s election promise to amend the constitution to entrench the country’s federal system had been put in abeyance. As one citizen who had used, along with many others, restructuring almost ad nauseam during the year, I had followed in print, online, and in the air, definitions of restructuring by those who claim to understand what the word means. In its generic use, restructuring has been used to mean re-design, re-form, re-arrange structural relationships between parts and whole of a thing. In contextual terms, users of the word have explained restructuring to mean, operationally, returning federal model of governance to the country’s constitution and by implication political and fiscal life. Many even say that restructuring means bringing an end to a constitution that is unitary in intention and spirit and replacing that constitution with new rules that bring balanced sharing of powers and functions between national and subnational governments in the country.

    But all these definitions do not appear enough to let a critical region of the country grasp what the intentions of those calling for restructuring are. Spokesmen of regional socio-cultural groups including Northern Elders Forum under the leadership of Prof. Ango Abdullahi asked repeatedly for the meaning of restructuring.  Later, expression of lack of understanding of restructuring was replaced by the Forum’s new leader Paul Unongo’s statement that the North is not afraid of restructuring but that it would not be stampeded into any action.  Sequel to this statement, many groups including the ruling party at the centre, All Progressives Congress, and the Northern States Governors’ Forum and the Northern Traditional Leaders Council’s Committee on Restructuring has established think tanks to study calls for restructuring and make recommendations on how to respond to such calls.

    But individual members of Northern State Governors and Traditional Leaders Council have been offering new views on restructuring, without giving any impression of speaking think tanks set up to make recommendations. One such statement is Kashim Shettima’s: “People are talking about artificial intelligence, other nations are talking about nano technology or robotics engineering but unfortunately, the topical issue in Nigeria is restructuring. Restructuring my foot! The Nigeria that can meet the needs of its citizens and humanity in general, like other countries that produce robotics and nano technology, seems to be what is after the hearts of those demanding restructuring. They, like Shettima, do not want a Nigeria that is frozen in time and hobbled by obsession with traditions. Proponents of restructuring want Nigeria to join the group of successful nations that are innovative enough to solve various human problems. In addition, they also want an end to Nigeria’s failure to transform nomadic herdsmen into ranchers and farmers into technology-assisted growers of crops and vegetables.  They believe that the current structure is the obstacle to creating a more enabling structure that gives various constituencies of Nigeria more freedom to grow and innovate, rather than losing many of its citizens to enslavers in Libya and to ocean waves on the Mediterranean.

    Even in the last month of the year, the chairman of Northern Governors Forum and Traditional Leaders Council on Restructuring, Aminu Tambuwal, shows in his own words a fuzzy idea of what restructuring means: “I think we should first, as a country, agree on a mutual definition of the term restructuring. In my view, if restructuring means taking stock of our arrangement to ensure that no state takes a disproportionate amount of the resources, or most of the available space in the education or job sector, or subjugate the others’ culture or religion. Or lord it over the other so that the number of the poor and uneducated, whose future is circumscribed by their circumstance is shared proportionately, then we are game….” Tambuwal has a good idea of some of the goals of restructuring, and without doubt advocates for this political action should have some of the goals in their plan. But Tambuwal is still a little bit evasive on the nature of restructuring as a noun that describes an act. The goals that Tambuwal identifies must have a cause or causes. Calls for restructuring are meant to remove such causes. They believe that a flawed structure is objective and can be discontinued much more easily that bad character or personality disorder in leaders. It is not weaknesses of those in power that concern those asking for restructuring; it is the weakness in governance architecture that decades of military dictatorship had saddled the country with that is at issue.

    Similarly, Senator Bukola Saraki has provided a personalised or customised definition of restructuring: “My own restructuring is when we educate our children so that they can realise their full potential and partake in the promise of the future. My own restructuring is when we place a premium on delivering good governance, fight against corruption, valorise honesty and live to serve the people – without betraying the trust reposed in us.”  Believers in restructuring do not seem to have any issue with the noble goals that Saraki expects restructuring to produce.  The fears of advocates for restructuring is that the current structure has failed over half a century to assure our children that Saraki’s high hopes can be achieved, without a new design that is more life and freedom-affirming than the status quo.

    2018 is the only year between now and presidential and general elections. Patriotic leaders who are interested in the future of the country more than in its past need to realise that the average Nigerian sees through time wasting and obstacles courses that the fight over definition of restructuring has become. It is high time that honesty of purpose is given a chance across the country on this sensitive matter. The questions to be answered by all in the new year are the following: Is a unitary system masquerading as a federal one good for a multiethnic nation? Is it right for any group of citizens to insist that a structure created by military dictators should be accepted as immutable? Is a constitution that was created without input from all sections of the polity the best instrument for democratic federal governance? Advocates of restructuring need to create a manifesto for their demand in all Nigerian languages, to save citizens in the new year from struggling with the meaning of restructuring.

  • ‘Cows without milk’: urgency of Knowledge over Cultural economy

    ‘Cows without milk’: urgency of Knowledge over Cultural economy

    Having herdsmen in the 21st century should be discouraged; potential herdsmen should be in school like the children of the owners of cattle they are hired to herd

    The recent picture of cows in President Buhari’s Daura ranch speaks volumes. The cows look good and comparable to cows in Argentina and Texas. Similarly, the recent decision of government leaders to start exchanging ideas with communities of herdsmen and farmers also indicates government’s readiness to deal with culture clash that may water down achievements in the country’s bid for economic diversification. I am republishing today’s article, first to congratulate President Buhari’s efforts to demonstrate that ranching produces better cattle than nomadism, and second, to encourage herdsmen to press governments in cattle-producing states to assist them to migrate from the nomadic to the ranch model of animal farming.

    Today’s title is borrowed partly from the current minister of agriculture who said recently that most of the cows in the country cannot produce milk because they do not have enough water to drink. This observation by Chief Audu Ogbeh captures the contradictions in the country’s agricultural system, just as it does for every aspect of the country’s way of doing things. Under the regime of diversification, it is appropriate to juxtapose preoccupation with development on the steam of tradition with development on the battery of innovation in respect of agricultural revolution.

    When people try to have milk without the cow, goat, or sheep, such people attempt to achieve the impossible. But when people have cows but cannot get milk, then the problem is one of relying on wrong ways of doing things. Nigeria is in a good position to be the epicentre of dairy production in West Africa, in addition to producing enough beef for its huge population. But the country has increasingly been constrained by the fast pace of desertification that has robbed cattle, goats, and sheep access to adequate feed and water. This challenge is not unchangeable if the political will is there. But the kind of will needed does not include being beholden to outmoded methods. It requires a sincere commitment to modernisation and belief in new technology and techniques as a way of overcoming constraints imposed by nature and culture, especially outmoded tradition.

    Of course, desertification is not peculiar to Nigeria. About 900 million people in the five continents live in zones that are threatened by desertification.  But there are new techniques to arrest desertification in other parts of the world, and Nigeria must find ways to acquire such knowledge in order to save itself from expending energy in pushing easy solutions towards complex problems and, in the process, create new, and perhaps, bigger problems.  If United Arabs Emirate, Quatar, and Las Vegas can get modern, cattle producing states in Northern Nigeria should have no excuse. Indiscriminate animal grazing has not always been a problem in the country. Those who were born before independence would know that up to the 1970s when the Sahel had not moved down as radically as it has in the last twenty years, it was unheard of that herdsmen harassed farmers in the South, a point made recently by General Obasanjo when he said that “cattle grazing was a rare sight except when a big person died in the community.” In those years, cows were brought to the south to sell, not to graze. But with raging desertification in the picture, all states are becoming cattle producing or feeding stations. The problem of desertification is not going to go away by itself; it requires sincere intervention that includes borrowing ideas and techniques of reducing desertification from other countries. In other words, policymakers need to think less about traditional ways of cattle farming and more about new knowledge that could allow cattle farmers to do so with relative ease than having to walk cattle through cities and villages.

    By cultural economy, I am referring to the role played by various forms of material and non-material cultural practice in the organization of the economy or to cultural dimensions of economic activity—the design or marketing of any product or service. The fact that herdsmen in the past had moved from one area of the north to another before the spread of the Sahel to over 10 most northern states does not mean that herdsmen should continue to be encouraged to keep moving all over the country in search of pasture and water for their cattle. When some people argued that many of the herdsmen that caused trouble in many parts of the country came from outside Nigeria, many pundits dismissed this idea. It is conceivable that some of the herdsmen could have been foreigners from countries north of Nigeria with worse experience of desertification. Regardless of the nationality of herdsmen, it is the menace they cause to farming communities and the not-easy-to-foresee consequences of incessant clashes between herdsmen and farmers that needs to be addressed rationally.

    At the rate herdsmen are searching for food and water for their flock, the tendency is high that most cattle farmers may end up moving to the south, should the Sahel continue to inch further south, and no serious intervention comes from those holding levers of power to respond to a serious environmental problem. Anti-grazing statements may not have been put in a politically correct manner in some areas, but grazing is a serious economic problem that must not be allowed to transform into a political one. Solution to the problem of grazing must not be borrowed from the model of creating NECO when policymakers thought that WAEC was not working well for Nigerian students. Transferring problems created by desertification to other states is not a solution. The challenge for the ministries of agriculture and the environment is how to fight desertification frontally and how to adopt new ways to do animal production.

    To put this differently, moving away from the limitation imposed by traditional animal farming at a time that over 10 states in the North are experiencing shortage of water requires embracing what is referred to as Knowledge Economy in this piece. By knowledge economy, I do not mean just the digitization of experience made possible by artificial intelligence in what is considered by sociologists as the third Industrial Revolution. Knowledge economy in the series under this title refers to the culture of relying on advances in science, technology, new ideas and techniques for increasing production, improving quality of products and services, and reducing the use of human or animal muscles to create value or add value.

    With respect to calls for a new look at the way of raising cattle, it is the view of this writer that the time has come to find out how other countries that once used the model of moving cows and goats to wherever they can find food and water shifted to a new way of animal farming that takes whatever the animals need to them in ranches. If herdsmen were children of upper or middle-class men and women in our country, they would have cried foul for being hired to nurse cattle for the rich at great risk to their well-being. If the country had created an educational system akin to what exists in Kaduna today—free and compulsory basic education for all—it would have been impossible for current owners of cattle to find herdsmen to follow cattle to the length and breadth of the country.  Such difficulty must come to cattle owners if part of the goals of national development and integration include ensuring equality and equity. Having herdsmen in the 21st century should be discouraged; potential herdsmen should be in school like the children of the owners of cattle they are hired to herd.

    The most reliable way to stop reproducing herdsmen is for the governments to commit to replacing imperatives of tradition with principles of knowledge economy in planning, designing, and organizing animal and other forms of farming. It must be part of the remit of a government of change to prepare all citizens for competitiveness in a global village that is already experiencing third industrial revolution.

    The pictures of President Buhari’s mini ranch illustrate that new knowledge and method can also improve on products that used to be driven by old knowledge and method. A special re-orientation for herdsmen sponsored by the federal ministry of agriculture can change the worldview of herdsmen hobbled by tradition.  Instead of creating grazing corridors, we need to create ranches that can make Nigeria more competitive in cattle production. To avoid the pain of blockade or sanctions from sister Arab countries, Qatar is already running a modern ranch with imported cows, and the cows are producing rich milk and tender beef.