The Nation Newspaper

Category: Ropo Sekoni

  • Restructuring without stampede (2)

    Many of the callers for restructuring assume that construction of a new constitution is inevitable

    To ensure the strengthening of national peace and cohesion, the peace group urged that ongoing efforts to reach out to leaders from various parts of the country should be broadened into honest dialogue with all segments of the Nigerian population to ensure that ordinary citizens get the opportunity to convey their views to government at the highest levels and get carried along in the formulation and implementation of government policies….We also need credible institutions, an economy that guarantees a fair deal and outcome for hardworking people, better physical infrastructure and an enabling environment in which citizens can thrive…The National Peace Committee, therefore, calls on State governments to commit to developing their own people more and relying less on Abuja to fund their consumption through monthly allocations.— Statement by the National Peace Committee in response to agitation for change in Nigeria
    Agitations for restructuring the governance framework for Nigeria can only be done through the alteration and amendment of the 1999 Constitution. I wish to say, that the House of Representatives and indeed the National Assembly is ready to do its part in terms of amending the constitution when consensus have been reached on any matter by stakeholders and Nigerian citizens.—Yakubu Dogara, Speaker of House of Representatives

    Last week’s column drew attention to the danger in rushing into restructuring. What now seems like thawing of the ice on restructuring through acknowledgment of calls for restructuring by some of those (like General Babangida or General Danjuma), hitherto glued to the immutability of the status quo, should not be viewed as readiness on the part of all who see the current structure as promoting their interests and thus has to be kept intact. Having waited this long, it is worth making sure that a structure that is friendly to the circumstances of our multi-ethnic nation-state is created to nurture unity and progress for eternity.

    There is no need to take a fast-food or quick-fix approach to a situation that requires proper preparation. Calls by various organizations for assembling recommendations of 2005 and 2014 national conferences from which to select ideas for restructuring the polity and economy may end up serving the interest of speed of action rather than holistic consideration of considering re-designing the country for equality, equity, and justice that subtend unity and stability in multicultural societies.

    Currently, two problems are being confused unnecessarily: restructuring and creation of a new constitution. Many of the callers for restructuring assume that construction of a new constitution is inevitable. Others think that identifying specific powers to be devolved to subnational governments and embedding such changes in the 199

    9 Constitution should be enough. Furthermore, far-sighted campaigners for 2019 presidential election are worried about anything that can delay change of the baton of power in 2019 in the guise of wholesale overhaul of the polity. Such impatient political power seekers had their way in 1999 when the choice before the nation after the death of Abacha and Abiola was between changing the political culture that made annulment of 1993 election and other acts of domination of one part by the other possible and just sending military rulers back to the barracks to yield governance to civilians. We all seemed persuaded by the latter option, to the extent that we went into an election before having a constitution proclaimed by departing military rulers on behalf of all citizens. And the rest has become history for our nation-state to the extent that various anti-marginalisation or anti-domination groups are now proffering solutions that vary from restructuring of the polity and economy by leaders of thought in the Southwest and South-south to call for secession or separation by self-appointed leaders of the Southeast.

    There is no better way to clarify the position of calls for restructuring than to have a constituent assembly designed to look at the issues from various sections of the country pertaining to creating a new befitting architecture of governance that can sustain unity. There are people in various sections of the country who believe that the best way to sustain the country’s unity is through the current structure and the constitution that legitimises it. Contrarily, others believe that a new structure requires a new constitution to reflect the highlights of the new architecture in the fashion of integration of form and content, while others prefer that changes to the current constitution that arise from restructuring should be left solely to elected lawmakers to handle by way of amendment. The second quotation overleaf abstracted from a recent statement by Yakubu Dogara, current speaker of the House of Representatives, is the most recent reinforcement of the school of thought that sovereignty rests solely in the legislature.

    The position of the Dogaras in the legislature presupposes that the current constitution is a product of consensus. But this not the truth of the matter. The consensus that should have preceded construction of a modern constitution freely agreed to by citizens or nationalities coming together to belong to one multi-ethnic polity and society was not a factor in the authoring of the current constitution. Under the current constitution, all that is needed to throw away recommendations for amendments is for any 24 states to agree or disagree on any or all such recommendations. What is unmistakable in calls for restructuring is the need to do what the country had not done since attainment of independence in 1960: sitting together of citizens representatives of constituent nationalities to discuss and agree on what should constitute the core of the country’s Grundnorm. This appears to be the safest way to create sustainable federal democracy in a nation that seems to have been fumbling with lock to the door of democratic governance for about five decades.

    It is not in the interest of sustainable unity for restructuring to be left to the devices of the kind of intra-elite negotiations in the past which had led to structures that appear to have failed to achieve its purpose: rancour-free, harmonious co-existence of people of diverse worldviews: cultures and religions. The vision that created the current structure resulted from intra-elite negotiation within groups of military rulers. The survival of such structure after the exit of military rule has been made possible by intra-elite negotiation within the group of politicians jockeying for the template of power management relinquished by military rulers. The latter group has even found adequate support by citizens who have had privileged access to the lucre made possible by oil boom and the rentier state it has thrown up. More than ever before, the average citizen now needs to be involved in an inclusive process of searching for the answers to challenges of living in a productive economy that is likely to lack the easy flow of foreign exchange from sale of petroleum, the country’s manna for the past fifty years.

    Thus, insisting that all that is needed to restructure the country is to assemble recommendations from all conferences is a risky thing to do. All the conferences in the past from 1979 constitution to 2014 national conference were guided by the vision that money from oil sale could solve all the country’s problems, regardless of how rational or irrational the design of governance is. Just as the National Peace Committee posited a few days ago: “State governments need to commit to developing their own people more and relying less on Abuja to fund their consumption through monthly allocations,” those to be charged with constructing new pillars of unity need to be weaned off the parasitic economy that informed most of the recommendations of previous national conferences. A political elite—legislative, executive, or judicial—that has gotten used to feeding fat on easy flow of revenue to the federation account—whether in Abuja or Abakaliki—need to be given a chance to listen to citizens about what kind of federation they believe can bring out the best possible for the country.

    Nigeria needs a restructuring exercise that combines the ideas and wisdom of leaders and followers, not a ‘panel beating’ of the current constitution or of previous recommendations that may have outlived their relevance. Opting for a federal constitution that has the promise of new wine in a new bottle is what is needed, to replace the culture of putting new wine in an old (or wrong) bottle.

    Roposek@msn.com

  • Unity: between ritual and purpose

    Why are they cagey or defensive when citizens raise issues with a constitution that has de-federalised the country?

    Today’s piece is being republished today for obvious reasons. The intensive use of the word Unity in the past few weeks has given the concept more mysticism than ever before. Just about every member of the federal government from president to legislative backbencher and those in charge of cultural institutions, from monarchs to ulamas and pastors prefer to turn their sermons into calls for unity, to the extent that emphasis during religious festivals that symbolise sacrifice is turned into a unity ritual.

    The North appears as if it is the one that should carry the can for Nigeria’s unity and this is not acceptable anymore. If Nigeria is beneficial to all Nigerians, so be it, but Nigeria should not be kept while the North is being blackmailed and that Nigeria’s unity should be at the expense of the North. So, this is not acceptable anymore. So, the North is ready for dissolution, anytime. ANGO ABDULLAHI

    I have quoted Ango Abdullahi in the epigraph above principally because he has been consistent about national unity and the identity of the North. Unity has always since 1966 attracted an impish character in all government events, thus giving the impression that the foundation of the country is shaky. But it seems to this writer that unity has been (and is still being) used rather ritualistically.

    Between the attainment of self-government in Western and Eastern Regions in 1957 and the military coups of 1966, the ideology that drove governance was regional development. Each of the three founding fathers: Awolowo, Azikiwe, and Bello provided a vision for his region, hoping that development of the three regions would add up to national development and this almost happened or would have done so, were it not for interruptions by forces that made a career of unity mongering before and after the Nigeria-Biafra War.

    For example, Awolowo believed that the basic federal system in place at the time of independence provided a basic condition for sustaining national unity and could have been strengthened through creation of regions for ethnic minorities in the West, East, and the North.  Awolowo also provided citizens in his multiethnic region with a governance mission that emphasised the need to provide a good life for all citizens, regardless of their place of origin, birth, faith, and socio-economic status. With the vision of public education for all, he made it clear to forces of semi-feudal rule in the region, euphemistically referred to as tradition rulers, that modernity was at hand and a government of change under him was in place. And he did everything within the power of his government to initiate the process of fundamental social, cultural, economic, and political change in his region.

    Azikiwe, who was philosophically pro-Unitary government in his political rhetoric and had pleaded that the diverse groups in the country should forget their differences, also agreed to make do with the basic federal structure agreed to at the constitutional conferences between 1946 and 1958. He mobilised the people of his region to sharpen their achievement orientation and gave all energy to competition with the Western Region, despite his region’s leaner purse. His experiment demonstrated the capacity to do “very much with very little for his region, especially in the days before petroleum.

    Bello too did not whine about unity, having said categorically that the nations within Nigeria should not attempt to forget their differences but strive to understand them. As the premier of the most plural region in terms of ethnic and religious diversity, the Sardauna put the federal system to good use. He opened doors of opportunity available in Northern Region to the Fulani, Hausa, Bachama, Gwari, Nupe, Kanuri, Igala, Idoma, Yoruba and other nationalities, to the extent that long after Bello’s exit, it was easy and realistic for many of the region’s leaders to invoke the spirit of One North, despite ethnic and religious differences, a concept that was brought back to life last week at the meeting of traditional and modern rulers of the 19 states carved out of Northern Region. Bello did not promote the rhetoric of fear preferred by vendors of perpetually fragile national unity, which subsequent military and civilian leaders from the region seem to have made a career of promoting as a national ideology and an excuse to create what in folk idiom is referred to as landlord/tenant dichotomy in the country.

    The point of this historical hop and jump is to emphasise that fear mongering was not a part of the vision and mission of the three founding leaders who were separated by ideology: Awolowo with social democracy, Azikiwe with pragmatism, and Bello with strong regionalism. The defeatism that made fear mongering or bogey creation out of the concept of unity had no space in the mental landscape of the three founding fathers.

    Recently, I went to give a lecture in Ondo on Ideology and Governance. A management studies undergraduate at Wesley University of Technology asked me about my “take on unity or lack of unity as an obstacle to development in the county.” I threw the question back to him in Socratic style: “Give me your own understanding before we do comparative thinking on the matter.” Undoubtedly, the young lady is a bright student. Before we knew it, our two-person front-yard seminar had grown into a small classroom. The consensus at the end of the seminar was that the matter of unity is exaggerated to occlude poor governance and faulty architecture of governance or what the Chairman of the Northern Governors’ Forum referred to last week as “management of multiculturalism and heterogeneity as a litmus test for leadership, good governance and progress in Northern Nigeria.”

    If truly our leaders not only in Northern Nigeria but also the entire country have the extra vision to apprehend unity as the country’s basic problem, why have they not pushed further to discover the root cause of the appearance of disunity in any region or in the country? Why are they cagey or defensive when citizens raise issues with a constitution that has de-federalised the country?  The rhetoric of unity is not limited to any region, it occurs almost everywhere, especially in the presidency, where it has acquired ritual potency since May 29, 2015. Just about every minister and media manager in the Buhari administration finds refuge in the word UNITY.

    For example, if citizens from southern states complain about number of positions given to northern states in security or other sensitive sectors, such people are exhorted to think about the unity of the country. If Fulani herdsmen (from Nigeria or abroad) kill Christians in Southern Kaduna or Taraba and survivors of those killed also killed Fulani people they could reach, officials are likely to quickly urge both parties to be mindful of the role of unity in the country, just as it happened in Kaduna last week. If a section of a community experiencing inter-faith or inter-ethnic crisis complains about partiality of security staff sent to maintain law and order, such people are encouraged to think nationally, as if the Nigerian nation goes beyond aggregation of all the people(s) inhabiting the Nigerian space.

    The obsession over unity by political leaders seems more to reflect a ready access to an impish bogey. The problems facing regions and the country are too legion for unity to be the most recurrent decimal in the nation’s political discourse. For about half a century since the coming of military rule and military-authored constitutions, unity as a word seems to have lost its meaning. It has become a scare tactic to stop calls for change, probity, equality, equity, and justice, all sine qua non of sustainable unity and multiethnic democracy. Any political system, especially in a multicultural nation-space that smacks of dominance (real or imagined) of any group over others automatically mangles unity. Unity in other federal democracies is nurtured by principle and practice of governance that makes a religion of tolerance of difference and accepts equality of all, something that seems to be lacking not only in post-Bello Northern Region but also in the entire country.

    Presentation of Unity as a call for uncritical acceptance of the status quo is dangerous for any multi-ethnic and multi-religious state. Whichever shade of meaning of unity is intended by its ritual users: “oneness, harmony, continuity without deviation or change as in purpose or action,” requires invariably common acceptance of purpose of living in the same country, equality, equity, justice, and tolerance for difference, if unity is to germinate, grow and bloom.

    • To be continued

  • Restructuring: of the polity or the mind?

    Given the political history of Nigeria, it is conceivable that many of its leaders, especially those of military background would find problems of underdevelopment of the country in people’s mindset

    Recently, General Olusegun Obasanjo added his voice to the ongoing debate on restructuring by calling for restructuring of the mind of the Nigerian persona, rather than of the polity and economy of the country. Characteristically, whatever utterance the former president makes is bound to attract attention, not necessarily for his profundity but mostly with regards to the former president’s unique participation in the governance of the country in two capacities: military dictator and elected president. His latest contribution to the debate has, justifiably, been a topic for discussion, especially on the social media. While it is surprising that newspaper interviewers have not gone back to the former president to make him elaborate on his diagnosis of the country’s problems, the former president seems to have said enough to engender further discussions of his new theory of poor or ineffective governance in the country.

    Whatever nuances may have inhered in President Obasanjo’s theory of mental restructuring, it, in its denotative form, calls for major change of mindset of the country’s citizens, from top to bottom. In any community where there are problems, it is not unusual for perceptive leaders to attribute such problems to the mindset of citizens. Such buck passing is common, particularly on the part of leaders who want to shift the failings of their performance on followers. Only few leaders in history like to accept their own share of blame for consequences that arise from legacies bequeathed by them, particularly when citizens complain about such projects or visions.

    Given the political history of Nigeria, it is conceivable that many of its leaders, especially those of military background would find problems of underdevelopment of the country in people’s mindset. It is thus not surprising that of all the military generals that have had opportunity to participate in the governance of the country, only an infinitesimal minority had shown understanding of the role of political structure on the ineffective governance of the country. Such leaders cannot be up to ten percent of the hundreds of military men who had served as head of state, governors, ministers, and leaders of government agencies. The reason for this may be that just a few of such former military officers in political power had the opportunity to restructure their minds, to the extent that they are able to recognise the role of the architecture of governance between 1966 and now on peace and progress in the country. The change in the consciousness of former military leaders, such as retired Admiral Kanu, Lt-General Akinrinade, and even General Babangida and a few others who recently got converted to the imperative of restructuring of the polity shows that mental restructuring being promoted by General Obasanjo is not as exotic as it may sound.

    The mindset that re-designed Nigeria away from its federal system in 1960 is incontrovertibly that of the military. Many commenters have argued that whatever mistakes military rulers made between the end of the civil war and 1999 was more likely to have been of the head rather than of the heart. In other words, those involved in military rule must have meant well for the country when they made policies and decrees that degraded the country’s federal system or that they could only give what they had as professionals trained to live by command. Today’s column is not about apportioning blame as much as it is about showing how mindsets can create problems and how restructured mindsets can identify solutions to such problems. Increase in the volume of revenue garnered from petroleum export during the years in which military leaders enjoyed chorusing that “the problem of Nigeria was not money but how to spend it” must have convinced military minders of the country that creating a unitary system of mini states funded principally with revenue from oil was the most creative intervention any group of patriotic leaders like them could make. That mindset stimulated the philosophy of ‘Even Development’, not in terms of what is done for citizens across the country but in terms of allocation of funds to governments of a total of 36 states and 774 local governments.

    Of course, such intervention created opportunities for many bureaucrats and professionals in the 36 states to become governors, commissioners, and contractors made possible by revenue from petroleum and reduction of the percentage of such revenue reserved for regions of origin of petroleum and other resources at independence. Even traditional rulers got their own share of the soft cake, as more crown-wearing Obas, Emirs, Obis, and Obongs were created by fiat at the instance of state governors. What the military rulers and new designers of Nigeria overlooked was that anything unsavoury could happen to revenue from oil. Many civilians benefiting from creation of 12 to 36 states did not notice if the promise of stimulating development by bringing governments closer to the people ever materialised. The kind of fragmentation of governance units in vogue under military dictators is now back among lawmakers who are bent on giving autonomy to 774 local governments enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. Those waiting in the wings to become chairmen and supervising councillors, as well as village heads aspiring to become crowned traditional rulers are not likely to see anything wrong with creating and maintaining 774 governance units in a country less than twice the size of Texas, one of 50 states in the United States. Not many civilians are likely to take time to understand evolution in the history and culture of fossil oil and the possible impact gradual or sudden changes in the petroleum market is likely to have on the polity and economy of the not so distant future. Former President Obasanjo thus deserves kudos for bringing up the importance of restructuring of the mind.

    Certainly, a mindset that created a political and economic structure that has lost its relevance over time certainly requires that the problems created by the original mindset be changed before changing the mindset itself, more so if such mindset has become so ingrained that it might be resistant to change.  It is the need to control damage that has been created by a specific mode of thinking that now drives patriots to call for restructuring of the country’s polity. This demand in no way suggests that mental restructuring is unnecessary. To proponents of restructuring, it is more logical to first do away with a structure that is counterproductive before reforming the minds of those who created such flawed design, more so that such design diminishes the quality of the lives of majority of the population.  It is not accidental that most of the military men who contributed to de-federalisation of the country believe that everything about the structure of governance in the country is already cast in stone or iron. It is human for those who created the flawed design to see their ego as being bruised by people with a different mindset about how to nurture a multiethnic nation-state into a truly federal democracy. It is realistic for those who contributed to the current quasi-federal system to believe that some parts of them and of their valued legacy projects are likely to be jettisoned in the event of restructuring or re-federalisation.

    There is no evidence that those calling for political restructuring are averse to restructuring of the mind of individuals—rulers and the ruled. If anything, restructuring of the country’s political and economic system is likely to be more efficient for exercise in mental restructuring. Just as many citizens have become inured over time to the parasitic economic model created to power a parasitic political system that people now perceive to be unsustainable, so are they likely to be incentivised to cultivate a new mindset to respond to a political and economic structure that fuels achievement orientation in individuals; productivity on the part of communities; and more freedom of thought and action with which restructuring is bound to endow all communities and citizens. Without doubt, the country will benefit tremendously from political and mental restructuring, more so if the former takes place before the latter. It should not be hard for those advocates for political restructuring and those calling for mental restructuring to collaborate, as doing so can accelerate the process of creating sustainable unity, democracy, and economic development.

    Roposek@msn.com

  • ‘It is better to live together’: how?

    It is also not clear whether farmers are those who do not want Nigerians to live wherever they choose to and herdsmen are those who want to drive out people from their ancestral homes

    The edition of The Nation of August 22 gave the title “It is better to live together” to President Buhari’s speech. This column believes this title captures the spirit of the short speech. This title is apt and could have been given to the speech, if the President or speech writer had so wished to provide a title. The ‘how’ attached to the ‘donated title’ is partly from the perspective of those Senator Shehu Sani called Restructunistas, as distinct from Biafranistas and Evictionistas.

    Today’s piece is an attempt to read the text of the president’s speech interactively, i.e. taking the speech as a seminal material for more interactions between citizens and the president and others, who, like the president, believe that it is better to live together and those who believe that it is also better to look for ways of improving the chance of living together in a democracy and a federation. Four groups are referenced in the speech.  One group is those the president characterises as “those daring to question our collective existence as a nation.”  This is the group being referred to by Sani as Biafranistas. The second group is those who want to “work out a mode of co-existence” who Sani has called Restructunistas. The third is those who do not want Nigerians to live where they choose to, referred to by Sani as Evictionistas. Other groups cited are Boko Haram, Herdsmen, and Famers, yet to be characterised by any taxonomist.  For example, it is not clear whether Boko Haram terrorists are not in the group of those questioning the collective existence of the nation or whether herdsmen and farmers will fit into the category of Evictionistas, like those who have asked Igbos to leave the 19 northern states. It is also not clear whether farmers are those who do not want Nigerians to live wherever they choose to and herdsmen are those who want to drive out people from their ancestral homes. But the focus of today’s piece is not on taxonomy or classification as much as it is on how the president’s speech shows that he is not as averse to Restructunistas as Senator Sani would like citizens to believe in his congratulatory message to President Buhari. Hear Buhari himself on restructunismo: “This is not to deny that there are legitimate concerns. Every group has a grievance. But the beauty and attraction of a federation is that it allows different groups to air their grievances and work out a mode of co-existence.”

    Some Restructunistas are already complaining that the president ignored or downplayed their concern. In fairness to him, he did not ignore restructunistas or federalistas. In fact, he confirmed that there is a space for people in this category of citizens in a federal system. Where those interested in re-federalisation of the country have a right to disagree with the president is on his proclamation: “The National Assembly and the National Council of State are the legitimate and appropriate bodies for national discourse.”  Undoubtedly, the President believes that there is no role for citizens, ultimate owners of sovereignty, to deliberate on how to choose the way they want to live together.

    The airing of grievances is, as President Buhari has himself acknowledged, part of the federalist spirit. More crucial is the culture of democracy, which thrives in an environment of freedom of expression and of choice, something that General Buhari turned into a political theology on the day of his inauguration about two years ago: “Today marks a triumph for Nigeria and an occasion to celebrate her freedom and cherish her democracy. Nigerians have shown their commitment to democracy and are determined to entrench its culture. Our journey has not been easy but thanks to the determination of our people and strong support from friends abroad we have today a truly democratically elected government in place…. With the support and cooperation he (Jonathan) has given to the transition process, he has made it possible for us to show the world that despite the perceived tension in the land we can be a united people capable of doing what is right for our nation. Together we co-operated to surprise the world that had come to expect only the worst from Nigeria. I hope this act of graciously accepting defeat by the outgoing president will become the standard of political conduct in the country…. Nigerians will not regret that they have entrusted national responsibility to us. We must not succumb to hopelessness and defeatism. We can fix our problems.

    Still drawing inspiration from political taxonomy introduced by Senator Sani, our country since the presidential election of 2015 are all democranistas, citizens who have the right to choose not only the person to govern them but also the system by which they want to be governed. Democracy does not give anyone, particularly those chosen by voters to ignore expression of grievances of those who chose such leaders over other candidates. It must be this realisation that made President Buhari confirm that in a federation, citizens have a right to express their grievances and work out ways to achieve mode of co-existence. This principle is not limited to federations, it is inseparable from democracy. In addition, democracy allows citizens to question, not just the choice of actions or words of leaders but also any aspect of the structure of governance.

    A major theme in the complaints of those calling for re-federalisation is the evolution of the culture that they believe has become a problem for peace and progress in the country. A succession of military rulers changed the constitution that Nigerians freely accepted when they went into independent nationhood in 1960. Many of the military rulers who deformed the federal constitution are now members of the Council of State. The call for a constituent or constitutional assembly to work out an appropriate mode of co-existence is premised on the belief that those who de-formed the structure cannot be trusted to have the final say on how it is reconstructed. In addition, the 1999 Constitution that codifies the de-formed system did not have the consent of the people. Subjecting correction of any anomaly in the constitution to those whose powers as lawmakers depends on provisions of the constitution is like asking a thief to be the judge in his or her own trial for theft.

    The president is right to be concerned about the country’s unity. But the issue at stake is not the country’s unity but the structure of its governance. People who want to destroy the country’s unity do not need to ask for any conference to do this. Restructunistas are interested in creating an environment that can sustain unity in the country. To return to taxonomy, there are two clear categories that are unmistakable in the country: those who believe the current structure and constitution are not right and thus need to be changed and those who believe there is nothing wrong with the status quo (i.e. the architecture of governance and the constitution). It is these two groups that need to identify themselves clearly to each other so that they can understand each other well. Without using many words, President Buhari acknowledged this fact about the country when he said: “Every group has a grievance. But the beauty and attraction of a federation is that it allows different groups to air their grievances and work out a mode of co-existence.” He is, however, wrong to prefer that a group that enthrones the status quo—Council of State and another group that had sworn to protect the status quo (National Assembly) are the two groups to decide how to work out a mode of co-existence between those who believe restructuring is the answer to the country’s problems and those who believe changing the existing system will cause more problems.

    There is no better time to recall the conclusion of President Buhari’s Inauguration speech: “Our situation somehow reminds one of a passage in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

    There is a tide in the affairs of men which,

    taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

     Omitted, all the voyage of their life,

     Is bound in shallows and miseries.

    We have an opportunity. Let us take it.”

    Roposek@msn.com

     

  • Youth power: of myths and arodan

    Youth power: of myths and arodan

    When President Olusegun Obasanjo said a few days ago that young people should wrest power from old politicians, he was creating a new myth about governance of the country

    Some definitions or explanations of the two concepts undergirding today’s piece are in order. Myth according to Webster dictionary refers to “a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society, or an unfounded or false notion, or a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.”  One thing that is common to all these definitions is that myth is a verbal construct that can stimulate and even sustain a people’s belief, regardless of whether the myth has any verifiable truth value.

    Arodan is a Yoruba cultural practice that sets out to achieve nothing other than distraction of its target. It is a language game in which the sender of the message sets out to deceive the receiver.  He/she tells the receiver one thing and tells his own collaborators another thing hidden from the message receiver. The receiver is thus made to move in circles while trusting the sender of the message who, of course, does not trust him but does not make this known to him or her. In other words, the sender deliberately creates a world of diminished truth or even falsehood which the receiver hardly apprehends in his or her own innocence. Arodan game is driven by the desire of the person in authority to hide something important from his or her messenger, such as when parents want to be left to have privacy from the children or when parents and guardians desire to limit probing questions from their children and wards.

    When President Olusegun Obasanjo said a few days ago that young people should wrest power from old politicians, he was creating a new myth about governance of the country. Many credulous citizens, especially young ones have already started to discuss this myth on the social media. Some have quickly said on the social media “déjà vu.” When a few days later, the Sultan of Sokoto affirmed that Nigeria does not need any restructuring more than ensuring that the federal government develop all the dams in the country and pass them to states to run for the sake of farmers in the states, he too was creating a new myth about how to improve Nigeria’s chances to achieve sustainable unity and development. Believers in diversification of the economy away from fossil fuel as the magic wand to transform Nigeria into a modern nation-state may also have started jubilating about a dam in every state while born-to-criticise Nigerians may also be giggling and saying, “have we not heard this before?”

    Nigeria from its infancy as a nation-state had never been short of facile theories and mantras. Shortly after independence in 1960, the ruling group believed that existence of an opposition party at the federal level was inimical to national progress and unity. The Action Group suffered blows from the two ruling parties then but official or formal opposition to the federal government was weakened substantially. Soon after, a new mantra came on the political and social landscape in the form of a unitary governance model that turned the four regions in 1966 into hundreds of provinces designed to be ruled from the federal capital. This did not last, as those who cried foul about the intention of Decree 34 to distort the country’s federal system gradually re-designed the country into 36 provinces (or states) and 774 local governments, created to live off proceeds of petroleum sale.

    President Obasanjo’s theory about the imperative of young politicians taking over from old ones is not a new theory. During the military presidency of General Ibrahim Babangida, his advisers convinced him that the problem of the country had resulted from the dominance of old politicians on the political landscape. Consequently, the myth of New Breed politicians gained popularity across the country. Consequently, old politicians were schemed out of consideration for office while new entrants were supported to come in. It is those who came in as new breed that have struggled between 1992 and now to stay in power as lawmakers, governors, senators, etc., until they also seem to have come to their wits’ end to the point that Obasanjo sees nothing about them apart from redundancy. It is those individuals recruited into politics who have now aged into insignificance or irrelevance to Nigeria’s destiny to the point of making President Obasanjo to call on youths to wrest power from them.

    Unlike myth in other contexts, myths generated by political leaders in Nigeria: military, civilian, and traditional hardly succeed in sustaining belief or consciousness in the audience for long. This lack of traction has induced frequent creation of mythical narratives in the country. The ruling groups are often quick to recognise when an existing myth has expired in terms of potency and do not waste time to create new ones. The good thing is that there is always a small group of citizens who refuse to be deceived by myth makers. It is mostly when there is an indication that some citizens are perceived by members of the ruling group to have lost confidence in claims attached to such myths that they too quickly go back to the drawing board to throw up new mantra.

    Myths created in the past include the belief that Operation Feed the Nation created under General Obasanjo’s military administration was the panacea to Nigeria’s economic problems. As if Nigerians did not understand the words in Obasanjo’s policy, Alhaji Shehu Shagari came up with Green Revolution and Ethical Revolution. Both revolutions failed to happen and oil boom made green and ethical revolution unnecessary. In the days of humble Yar’Adua and Jonathan, Branding or re-branding Nigeria was the myth that took the attention of rulers and citizens until that also gradually disappeared.

    But the two myths that may soon eclipse all others are Proliferation of dams and Disrobing of old (older?) politicians by young ones. These two myths are new. One sets out to facilitate farming by making water available for irrigation in all parts of the country. With dams in every state, it is expected that food security will keep everybody occupied and satisfied. Coming from the Sultan, a highly revered monarch, the call for replacing demand for restructuring with demand for dams to drive agriculture is likely to stimulate new theories about Nigeria’s unity and development. Similarly, President Obasanjo’s call for a new generation of political leaders is already having traction in the social media. But the youths are not likely to feel unduly elated by this new theory of governance. Many of them know the importance of getting good education and having good jobs to preparing for political careers. More generally, most citizens are aware of the game of mythmaking as a device to change the prevailing argument or discourse about governance. They are also aware of the use of arodan to distract citizens from focusing on how to make Nigeria reclaim its achievement orientation that has been destroyed over the years by exaggerated role of petroleum in post-independence re-design of governance in the country.

    The time that the nation seems poised to search for solutions to its fundamental problem—running a country best suited for federalism as a unitary system— is not the time to proffer simplistic solutions. Driving politicians out for youths to take over the political space or developing dams for agriculture smack of over simplification of the issues at hand. Certainly,

    Nigeria needs the wisdom of old and young politicians to make it better. It also needs more than dams to prepare it to make more contributions to the world, not just as supplier of raw materials but also as producers of technology, the way India, South Korea, Brazil, United Arab Emirate, and others are already doing.

  • Restructuring and National Unity 101

    A call for restructuring is not a call for anything antithetical to national unity

    If one were to count the number of times that Restructuring and National Unity occurred in the country’s newspapers and broadcast news in the last few months, it would certainly be a huge task. It is no exaggeration for such counters to discover that no other words rival these two, apart from the name of President Mohammed Buhari in relation to the progress he has been making with his medical treatment in the United Kingdom. Today’s piece is a response to a regular reader of this column who has asked that I ‘break down’ a recurrent phrase in this column: restructuring to ensure that national and subnational governments in a federal state share power and sovereignty with the intention to stimulate and sustain unity of the parts or national unity.

    National unity has two connotations in the country. When it is used by members of the ruling group and their clients, it signals an effort by such people to conflate national unity with uniformity of ideas on keeping the existing structure of governance intact. It does not give attention to whether average citizens feel a sense of belonging to the state and to each other as citizens of the same country. In other words, whoever demands any change that may reduce the powers and benefits of those in the saddle of federal power is believed to be working against national unity, where national unity is synonymous with demonstration of consensus on the immutability of an existing system of governance. There is a sense in which this view of national unity and the rhetoric constructed around it is reminiscent of what Ibn Khaldun, an early expert on Arab history, once called Asabiyya, a ruse by members of the ruling group in many Arab countries to keep power for their use and discourage or prevent any move by citizens to reduce the size of power needed by the ruling group to sustain the status quo.

    Many politicians who have emphasised national unity as a concept in the last few months that the tempo of calls for restructuring have increased show more concern for keeping the current structure of power distribution intact. In fact, many of such people have deliberately conflated two contradictory demands by individuals in different sections of the country: secession/ disintegration and restructuring/re-federalisation. It is Asabiyya at its worst for any politician to discuss call for secession and re-federalisation in the same breath. It is obvious that those asking for restructuring do not want to secede from the rest of the country while those calling for secession do not want to be a part of the country.

    A call for restructuring is not a call for anything antithetical to national unity. On the contrary, it is a call for a commitment to reinforce national unity, where unity means creation of a system that facilitates and enriches a sense of belonging among various entities in a plural society. National unity is not a concept reserved for those in power alone; it is one that applies to all the people who inhabit a plural society. Correspondingly, restructuring is a concept that has value by promoting and safeguarding a sense of belonging among various components of socially and culturally plural society through creation of practices that set out to advance social and economic interests of members of the community or society. The phrase ‘members of the community or society’ refers not to representatives of the people but to citizens as principal stakeholders in a democratic polity.

    With respect to restructuring, it is wrong to assume that calls for change to the architecture of governance suggest efforts to water down national unity. In a federal democracy, no political group—national or subnational—should have a right to define terms of association. When politicians and their pundits refer to restructuring as an attempt to undermine national unity, such people are thinking like colonial masters to federating units that perceive the existing structure to be too suffocating for their own progress and happiness. No group in the country—be it in the executive, legislature, or judiciary—has such power over other groups in a federal democracy, regardless of the size of its population in relation to other groups.  Federations result from agreement of all parts to co-habit for mutual progress.  It is failure to sustain an agreement that can be dangerous to national unity. This explains why all federal governments that have succeeded had ensured that they created constitutions that citizens had a stake in from the beginning. That constitution of 1960 is a local example. With such constitutions arrived at by consensus of federating units, both rulers and the ruled are protected from any destabilisation of the political system. When some of such federating groups have reasons to feel uncomfortable with the extant system, they ought to have freedom to call for restructuring or renewal of the constitution.

    Let us examine a few provisions in the current constitution that citizens calling for restructuring may consider inimical to creating an enabling constitutional environment for states to respond to the needs of citizens and residents in the states. Restructuring is, more than anything else, removing existing practices that may be perceived as negative to interests of federating units or adding new practices that can enrich such interests. For example, the current law that allows the federal government and private companies to generate and distribute electricity while forbidding states to do the same can threaten national unity. How does such a law as the Power Reforms Act of 2005 enhance unity, if states cannot generate and distribute power, even if states need to create mini-grids for that purpose? What is so sacred about the national grid that no electricity generated by states must pass through it, the way the energy produced by Enron under Lagos State at the beginning of the 4th Republic had to be appropriated by the federal government, even if such law leads to darkness for citizens whose tax money was used to pay for megawatts? How would giving states the power to generate and distribute power to its citizens endanger national unity? Why in the first place should states need to ask for permission to generate electricity for its citizens in a federal democracy?

    Similarly, the current structure puts railway on the Exclusive List of Functions, thus making construction of rail lines and operation of rail transport by states illegal. If a state can provide rail transportation for its citizens, why should there be a constitutional provision that insists that only states in which the central government is interested in building rail transport system that can have it? How does this kind of provision enhance national unity or how would putting railway on the concurrent list hamper national unity?  Furthermore, a matter recently raised by Femi Falana regarding the federal government’s disobedience of the Court of Appeals’ judgement that the “federal government lacks the power to  authorize dredgers to mine any resources in the intra-inland waterways in Lagos State” draws attention to the danger inherent in wholesale importation of decrees created by military dictators into the 1999 Constitution. Why should control over intra-inland waterways in all parts of the country not be under the control of states in which such waterways are located? How does changing such decrees (converted into constitutional provisions) constitute danger to national unity?

    Moreover, why should construction of school curriculum in a federal system—ethnic or territorial—be in the hands of the central government? Put differently, how would leaving education at all levels in the hands of the states in Nigeria, as it is in Germany and the United States, be deleterious to national unity? Why must revenue for any form of sales tax first be sent to the central government for distribution to states? In what ways can leaving such revenue in the states from which it is generated endanger national unity? What advantage to national unity ensues from making registration of business a federal function?

    There are several other provisions in the current constitution, especially in respect of items on the concurrent list that those calling for restructuring may believe to be in the interest of development at the state level where governors and state legislators have direct relationship to citizens, a situation that does not exist for the federal government.  As elementary as the examples provided here may seem, they illustrate the concerns of those calling for restructuring, which by any stretch of imagination should endanger national unity. On the contrary, changing such provisions are, more likely to sustain and enrich national unity.

    Now that the ruling political party and governors of various regions have commissioned committees to study demand for restructuring, it will be of benefit to all saddled with such responsibility to assume that such calls are, unlike those for disintegration, not intended to destroy national unity but to promote it.

  • Devolution or federalism: which way for Nigeria?

    Devolution or federalism: which way for Nigeria?

    It is not the incumbent central government that should determine unilaterally which power to transfer to regions or states.

    Today’s piece first appeared in April 2014. It is being republished today for obvious reasons. First members of the National Assembly, according to the Senate President voted against devolution of powers because they are not sure of the difference between devolution and restructuring. Second, the ruling APC federal government has established a special committee to understand what restructuring is about. Third, governors of the 19 northern states have commissioned a task force to study calls for restructuring. Other groups including lawmakers in the Senate and the House are even saying the reason some people are asking for restructuring is that the central government is not doing enough to make citizens happy enough not to worry about restructuring.

    The conference modalities (2014 National Conference) passed by the Secretary to the Federal Government to delegates and the day-to-day response of delegates to the modalities continue to deconstruct the unitary constitution from which the central government and the President derive their powers to discuss the problems that have made the country’s unity and peaceful development precarious over the years.

    Delegates are not freely chosen representatives of their people; they are nominated by the President and governors at the instance of the federal government. They cannot determine number of committees nor choose chairpersons of committees. More importantly, delegates are not free to determine what they deliberate on; they are handed a list of topics to consider by the agency that convenes and sponsors the conference. The rules to guide the conference include what conference delegates cannot discuss: dissolution of the federation. Conference rules also include what delegates can discuss: devolution, federalism, regionalism, etc.

    Exercising control of the power of signification characteristic of unitary governments, the federal government even chooses concepts that delegates should examine. An example of such semiotic confusion or control is the listing of federalism under Devolution of Power and also under Political Restructuring. As trivial as this may sound or look, it has the capacity to create confusion for delegates and reduce their focus on what should be the matter at hand: freeing the country from unitary model of governance and endowing it with a federal system. It is important for citizens observing the proceedings of the conference and waiting for some results to know ahead of conference deliberations that Devolution is not synonymous with Federalism. It should not even serve as a set that includes federalism as subset.

    Devolution does not automatically lead to federalism. It is, simply put, the shedding of functions belonging originally to any central government – unitary or federal— to subnational government levels. A unitary government that feels overburdened or over-pressured can choose to transfer some of such functions to any subnational government, without losing its superintending authority over implementation of transferred functions. So can a central government devolve new functions (not previously shared with subnational governments) to subnational governments to carry out in compliance with whatever standards the central government establishes for performance of such functions by the tier of government to which new responsibilities have been devolved or transferred. Such devolved functions are funded through grants or special allocations from the central government. France is a good example of a unitary government that devolves a lot of functions to other levels of government. China is another example. Closer to home, Ghana operates a unitary system that delegates some functions to provincial governments that are defined as subordinate to the central government. An abiding aspect of devolution without federalism is that the central government reserves the right to take back whatever functions it delegates to subnational governments. Such devolution is generally not embedded in the constitution and is not subject to negotiation between federating units.

    If delegates had been elected as representatives of communities, they would not have been under any obligation to base their discussion on the paradigms handed down by the central government. They would have been given issues to negotiate by their communities. Elected delegates would have been briefed that the crux of the matter and raison d’etre for the conference is federalism, not mere devolution of responsibilities by an overarching central government. It is still not too late for delegates to be reminded of citizens’ assessment of the cause of the failure of the central and most state governments to deliver public goods that can enhance the quality of life of citizens. It is obvious that communities have no power to hold delegates accountable, having not had a hand in how they get to the conference. But it is proper for delegates and conference convener to know that citizens have the ability to detect subtle efforts (via modalities handed to and adopted by conference leaders) at constraining discussion at the conference.

    What was taken away by military autocrats and sustained by post-military constitution and rulers is proper relationship between the central government and subnational governments. Federalism has been removed since 1979 from the form and content of government in the country. This cannot be remedied by mere devolution. It can only be restored through establishment or re-establishment of federal system of government. Whether this is called political restructuring or restoration of federalism, what is at issue is having a proper sharing (not devolving) of powers between the central government and regions or states (as federating units).

    Proper relationship between national and subnational governments in a federal system should be a case of give-and-take between the two levels in a context of free negotiation between the two tiers. Thus, the relationship between national and subnational units must be framed as constitutionally guaranteed interaction and transaction between coordinates, rather than between superordinate and subordinate. The two levels are not to share just functions; they are to share sovereignty including resource sovereignty. It is not the incumbent central government that should determine unilaterally which power to transfer to regions or states. It is both levels of government that should negotiate which powers to leave for the central government for the common good and which to leave for regions or states for effective delivery of public goods and services to citizens. These are the central issues that pertain to constructing a federal polity.

    Knowing that the ongoing national conference is not sovereign and does not have the power to determine what to discuss and how to turn the outcome of discussion into a constitution, the only thing left is to appeal to delegates to find time to listen to members of their respective communities about what to do to re-invent Nigeria. For example, agreeing to just transfer a few functions from the current Exclusive list of the central government to regions or states and adding 5% to funds from the federation account to subventions to states may not solve the problem that stimulated convening of the ongoing conference (or other conferences).

    Restructuring is about constituting a new federal government that is based on guidelines from citizens of the various federating units—be they regions or states. Unlike devolution, restructuring involves deliberating on new terms for a new structure of governance distinct from the one believed or perceived by citizens as too flawed to be sustained, thus requiring of a new form to be negotiated by representatives of citizens from various federating units. For the avoidance of doubt, terms of sharing of responsibilities and powers between the central government and federating units need to be constitutionalised to replace the constitution that citizens believe to have outgrown any usefulness in terms of keeping components of the federation together. The call for a new architecture of governance requires creation of a new constitution to reflect the consensus of those who negotiate for the new design. Those who believe it is their sacred duty to amend the constitution being overhauled through restructuring should have no duty to perform in respect of constructing a new constitution for the new design unless citizens choose to assign that duty to them through a referendum.

    Roposek@msn.com

  • Fagunwa, homeland-diaspora synergy and development

    Was he a spirit because of the way he died or was he just a man of stellar achievement, turned material for mythification?

    University of Ibadan served a few days ago as a site for discussion of many issues pertaining to development—aesthetic, cultural, social, political, and economic. A presentation of a book: Celebrating D. O. Fagunwa: Aspects of African and World Literary History provided a graphic illustration of the huge potential inherent in formalised collaboration between Yoruba diaspora and the homeland in Nigeria. Apart from launching the book, the event raised many issues that should be of interest to readers of this column and those responsible for governing the Yoruba region.

    The book presentation celebrated major Deliverable from an intellectual journey started four years ago in Akure, at the instance of Fagunwa Study Group (FSG), a consortium of scholars teaching in “Ivy League, Big Ten, and Pacific Eight” universities in the United States, where these institutions are synonymous with academic excellence in teaching and research and a small group of public intellectuals at home who also share with the FSG a commitment to research on the role of art and culture in development. The event also highlighted the need for further collaboration between the Yoruba diaspora and people of old Western Nigeria in particular and of Nigeria in general.

    Given the peripheral attention given by government to mother tongue education in the Yoruba region for the past few decades, it will not be a surprise if many of the readers of this column do not have an idea of who Fagunwa is (or was). Fagunwa was an educationist in pre-independence Western Nigeria and the first writer of full-length novels in Yoruba language:  Igbo Irumale, Igbo Olodumare, Ireke Onibudo, Adiitu Olodumare and other writings. His novels examine, among other issues, two recurrent themes: human progress and love. Readers of this column who want to know more about Fagunwa and why he should be celebrated more than half a century after his death should get their hands on some of Fagunwa’s books and the latest research on his works by some of the world’s finest writers, culture scholars, and public intellectuals too many to list in this piece.

    A book event that focused on a man who made a career of creating fiction that examines the universal theme of   human progress through the local motif of transition to modernity, transition from Animist to Christian religion and wrote in a language that was pronounced a vernacular by the principal agents of transition from orality to literacy must have reasons to look at the man from plural perspectives. Did he write in Yoruba to make money from younger readers under a pedagogical regime that aggressively de-programmed them from communicating in Yoruba while learning English? Did he write to subvert such pedagogy, or did he write to see beyond the tunnel vision of the imperialist design of colonial education in Nigeria, to predict an emerging new reality of double consciousness not so obvious to those creating and consuming an education that appeared concerned largely with upward mobility at that time? Was he a spirit because of the way he died or was he just a man of stellar achievement, turned material for mythification? There were many stated and unstated questions at the book launch, but one answer that emerged from the celebration is the consensus that Fagunwa as man or human deserves to be transformed into a monument.

    Attendance of representatives of many Yoruba governors at the event further underscored the growing belief that D. O. Fagunwa is ripe to become a monument to the future of promotion of art and culture in the Yoruba region of Nigeria. Former governor of Fagunwa’s state of origin, Ondo and the current governor emphasized the need to use celebration of Fagunwa’s literary success story to inspire new creatives and to incentivise new readers. It is not just through construction of physical monument (such as museum) in Oke-Igbo in Fagunwa’s honour but also through attention to intangible monuments that include commitment to a new pedagogy that will increase the market for artistic and cultural production that can add value to aesthetic and economic experience of fans of Fagunwa’s works. Celebrators of Fagunwa came from far and wide, the Southwest and the old Western Nigeria which Fagunwa served as educator, civil servant and knowledge promoter before his sudden death, which Mama Fagunwa referred to as “the death of a man and not the disappearance of a spirit.”

    To return to a key word in the title of today’s piece, Homeland-Diaspora Synergy, the Yoruba diaspora scholars who made substantial intellectual and material contributions to the Fagunwa Project, like all other community-oriented diapora groups, did not see their project as over with public presentation of the book. They made references to increasing collaboration between Nigerians in diaspora and those concerned with development initiatives in their communities of origin. Of course, there has been for decades, especially since the exodus of professionals to Europe and the Americas in the wake of Structural Adjustment Programme and other forms of harsh military rule, cooperation between Nigerians in diaspora and their kith and kin at home in Nigeria. Home remittance has been the most cited in the media.

    For example, in the last year, about $20 billion entered Nigeria in the form of home remittance. Undoubtedly, about one-third of that must have entered Western Nigeria for obvious reasons. Western Nigeria started the first free primary education scheme in Sub-Sahara Africa through government’s investment in education and access to education, thus leading to production of one of the largest manpower groups per kilometre in the world. The region during Nigeria’s Second Republic also initiated the first free secondary education programme in Nigeria. Unfortunately, many of those who benefited from these public education programmes under Awolowo, Akintola, Ajasin, Bola Ige, Ambrose Ali, Bisi Onabanjo, and Lateef Jakande had to go abroad to look for new means of livelihood when it was clear that the governance of Nigeria was no longer conducive to their livelihood, and the rest is history.

    But what is not history, which became evident during the celebration of Fagunwa in Ibadan, is the desire of many of those who emigrated to look back and give back to their homes of origin, not only by taking up an important function of government in modern societies but by creating platform for knowledge transfer or exchange between the two Nigerian communities. Various Nigerian communities in diaspora have generously performed informally the function of social security for their relations left behind for decades, but the Fagunwa Study Group has also added the responsibility of stimulating ideas that can revitalise a region and even a country that have potential to become a site for home remittances to other countries.

    Some of such ideas, expressed on and off the floor, include a new vision of governance in the region that valorises safeguarding and promoting arts and culture through investment of public funds in cultural infrastructure. It is people with proper education about their culture that have the capacity to become producers and consumers of cultural products. The more sensitive formal and informal education is to art and culture, the higher the possibility of emergence of talented people to reflect and refract that culture in objects that are pleasant to experience by consumers of such products. Fagunwa, Soyinka, Tutuola, Osofisan, Ofeimum, and many others too numerous to mention had benefited from governments (in and out of Nigeria) that invested generously in art and culture for budding artists.

    The vision that art and culture do not pertain to only creation of beautiful objects pleasant to experience but also to economic production was not alien to governments when many of Nigeria’s talented producers of culture were growing up. Understanding of the role of investment in the art and culture value chain, to use today’s vocabulary, was integral to education planning in Western Nigeria, even in the years before independence. The template used by Action Group and later Unity Party of Nigeria to nurture art and culture through a holistic approach: access to education, creation of agencies for cultural production (such as Book Council), and provision of grants to budding artists can be retrieved (for renewal) from the archives.

    Diversification of the economy to include, as in other countries, growth of the region’s creative industry requires, more than before, readiness of governments in the region to invest in education as building blocks for culture industry to stimulate production and consumption of art and culture. Currently, many Nigerian communities have their legs in two civilisations as a result of post-independence emigration to other societies that care for art and culture and in a homeland rich in talented citizens and a huge market to sustain a thriving cultural economy. Nigeria and Western Nigeria in particular have no excuse for not becoming viable for cultural and eco-tourism. It will be a welcome idea of Yoruba in science and technology currently in diaspora replicates the efforts of their humanities counterparts. The region direly needs their intervention too.

    Roposek@msn.com

  • Are former governors actually double dipping?

    It is difficult to believe such claims, because they contradict all constitutional and administrative laws in all countries of the world

    The article below first appeared one year and one week ago on this page. Now that it seems that some wing of our separated powers are interested in double dipping, the piece is being republished to enable former senators, governors, and ministers performing new roles see the ethical deficit involved in such acts, if they exist.

    Between traditional and social media, Nigerians are daily bombarded by avalanche of news stories—mediated and non-mediated by professional news reporters. Many public affairs commentators habitually respond to both types of news reports, particularly when such news stories pertain to political and social information that governments on all levels choose to move from public notice. One news item with variants on both traditional and social media is about pension benefits for legislators and governors.

    National Assembly’s efforts to legislate generous pension payments for principal officers of the two houses have already received the response they deserve from citizens. But it is worth repeating that any move by lawmakers to add another perquisite to the already bloated basket of benefits, already being perceived by citizens to be unjustifiable in a developing country that takes development aid from other countries, certainly needs to be stopped. Not to do this is to insult citizens and push them to start thinking like Arab Spring makers in Tunisia and Egypt. Enough insults have been heaped on Nigerians since the beginning of the current post-military democracy. They were made to elect the first civilian government in 1999 without a visible constitution. When the constitution was unearthed, it claimed to be a document made by the people, though not seen by the people. For almost twenty years of post-military rule, salaries and benefits of lawmakers have been treated as classified information, the kind of information that should be hidden from citizens under the guise of protecting national security and promoting national unity.

    Added directly or indirectly to lawmakers’ benefits is what is referred to as constituency allowance. This authorises lawmakers to obtain millions of naira to dig wells, provide transformers, roof or paint existing classrooms, hang solar panels, and buy cars for people considered as major political stakeholders in their communities. It is a surprise that all these are not enough to spark any social revolt or protest by members of the underclass who scrounge to feed their families, largely because this demographic group has been deadened by gospels of prosperity and miracles from some churches or promise of multiple virgins waiting for fanatics and terrorists from some mosques. There is always a straw that can break the camel’s back. Lawmakers should not continue to take Nigerians for granted. With our current economy hobbled over the years by corruption, political leaders with enlightened self-interest need to know that many Nigerians, if not most, are already on edge and can flip over any time with the slightest irritation. Observant citizens who pay attention to contortions on many faces on the street need not consult social psychologists to provide them with any esoteric reading of the mood of the people. So far, Buhari’s change has been about identifying and prosecuting those who stole from the treasury in the past. When and if the government gets to re-structuring institutions that have been conducive to corruption, it will be easier than it has been to separate legality from morality in determining who is elected or appointed to public office.

    Despite proliferation of what commentators see as information overload coming from the social media, governments in general in our country are too reticent about what they do or don’t do with respect to public funds entrusted to them. One such example is the news item principally in the social media that former governors now serving as senators or as ministers are double dipping by receiving pensions approved for them as former governors and salaries plus benefits provided for them as serving senators or ministers. Citizen journalists on the social media have for instance reported as follows: “21 senators currently receiving pensions from government as ex-governors and deputy governors and four former governors in Buhari’s cabinet are receiving generous or extravagant pensions and benefits approved for them by their state assemblies while also receiving salaries and allowances from the federal government.”

    It is difficult to believe such claims, because they contradict all constitutional and administrative laws in all countries of the world. It is common sense that no individual can double dip from the same source and that receiving pension from state government while receiving salaries from the federal government or any government agency is still double dipping. Even retired military officers serving the government after retirement can choose only one source of revenue and not both at the same time. For example, the president who retired as a general in the army and had once been a head of state and thus qualified for two forms of retirement benefits cannot claim more than one of the three streams of benefits available to him: military pension, pension for former head of state, and salaries/benefits for serving president. If President Buhari is able to comply with the law of the land on this matter, no one else should be encouraged to feel above the law, regardless of how much value such individuals can add to governance. This has nothing to do with the financial health of the country and of its governments. It is a condition that holds true for all times. If truly there are governors that are drawing their pensions from their states and receiving salaries, such governors are in the wrong, and there is no better government to stop this or prevent it from happening than the Government of Change under President Buhari.

    Furthermore, the government of change ought to take full advantage of its e-governance facility to provide citizens with information that can save citizens from confusion vis-à-vis veracity of the claim in social media that almost 25 senators and ministers are acting as double dippers. It is dangerous for the government to ignore such news stories, as doing so may be interpreted as silence that accepts veracity of such claims or as silence designed to avoid dealing with such claims. It is too late in the history of citizen journalism and the social media for governments to disregard such ‘news’ about individuals currently serving the government. Doing so ought to make citizens feel that such governments are deliberately acting irresponsibly, more so at a time that citizens believe that they have voted for a government that can sanitize the Augean Stables, left behind by decades of venality in government in the last half a century.

    Social media is also overflowing with innuendoes that most of the people in government—executive and legislative—apart from a few— President Buhari and his Vice President Yemi Osinbajo and some unnamed ministers— have not declared their assets as required by law. If this is true, President Buhari would need to intervene immediately and ensure that every minister and lawmaker is made to declare his or her assets. To further boost citizens’ confidence in the government of change, each of such declarations should be accessible to the media and citizens that wish to exercise their right to know. No room must be given to make citizens believe that some individuals in government are sacred citizens who can be excused for not doing the right thing. Our new government of change and rule of law cannot afford to overlook any lapse on the part of anyone who is required by law to declare his or her assets. Such attitude is capable of eroding trust in a government that citizens see as their last hope in the war against venal behaviour on the part of government officials—executive, legislative, or judicial.

  • Restructuring without stampede (2)

    Many of the callers for restructuring assume that construction of a new constitution is inevitable

    To ensure the strengthening of national peace and cohesion, the peace group urged that ongoing efforts to reach out to leaders from various parts of the country should be broadened into honest dialogue with all segments of the Nigerian population to ensure that ordinary citizens get the opportunity to convey their views to government at the highest levels and get carried along in the formulation and implementation of government policies….We also need credible institutions, an economy that guarantees a fair deal and outcome for hardworking people, better physical infrastructure and an enabling environment in which citizens can thrive…The National Peace Committee, therefore, calls on State governments to commit to developing their own people more and relying less on Abuja to fund their consumption through monthly allocations.— Statement by the National Peace Committee in response to agitation for change in Nigeria
    Agitations for restructuring the governance framework for Nigeria can only be done through the alteration and amendment of the 1999 Constitution. I wish to say, that the House of Representatives and indeed the National Assembly is ready to do its part in terms of amending the constitution when consensus have been reached on any matter by stakeholders and Nigerian citizens.—Yakubu Dogara, Speaker of House of Representatives

    Last week’s column drew attention to the danger in rushing into restructuring. What now seems like thawing of the ice on restructuring through acknowledgment of calls for restructuring by some of those (like General Babangida or General Danjuma), hitherto glued to the immutability of the status quo, should not be viewed as readiness on the part of all who see the current structure as promoting their interests and thus has to be kept intact. Having waited this long, it is worth making sure that a structure that is friendly to the circumstances of our multi-ethnic nation-state is created to nurture unity and progress for eternity.

    There is no need to take a fast-food or quick-fix approach to a situation that requires proper preparation. Calls by various organisations for assembling recommendations of 2005 and 2014 national conferences from which to select ideas for restructuring the polity and economy may end up serving the interest of speed of action rather than holistic consideration of considering re-designing the country for equality, equity, and justice that subtend unity and stability in multicultural societies.

    Currently, two problems are being confused unnecessarily: restructuring and creation of a new constitution. Many of the callers for restructuring assume that construction of a new constitution is inevitable. Others think that identifying specific powers to be devolved to subnational governments and embedding such changes in the 1999 Constitution should be enough. Furthermore, far-sighted campaigners for 2019 presidential election are worried about anything that can delay change of the baton of power in 2019 in the guise of wholesale overhaul of the polity. Such impatient political power seekers had their way in 1999 when the choice before the nation after the death of Abacha and Abiola was between changing the political culture that made annulment of 1993 election and other acts of domination of one part by the other possible and just sending military rulers back to the barracks to yield governance to civilians. We all seemed persuaded by the latter option, to the extent that we went into an election before having a constitution proclaimed by departing military rulers on behalf of all citizens. And the rest has become history for our nation-state to the extent that various anti-marginalisation or anti-domination groups are now proffering solutions that vary from restructuring of the polity and economy by leaders of thought in the Southwest and South-south to call for secession or separation by self-appointed leaders of the Southeast.

    There is no better way to clarify the position of calls for restructuring than to have a constituent assembly designed to look at the issues from various sections of the country pertaining to creating a new befitting architecture of governance that can sustain unity. There are people in various sections of the country who believe that the best way to sustain the country’s unity is through the current structure and the constitution that legitimises it. Contrarily, others believe that a new structure requires a new constitution to reflect the highlights of the new architecture in the fashion of integration of form and content, while others prefer that changes to the current constitution that arise from restructuring should be left solely to elected lawmakers to handle by way of amendment. The second quotation overleaf abstracted from a recent statement by Yakubu Dogara, current Speaker of the House of Representatives, is the most recent reinforcement of the school of thought that sovereignty rests solely in the legislature.

    The position of the Dogaras in the legislature presupposes that the current constitution is a product of consensus. But this not the truth of the matter. The consensus that should have preceded construction of a modern constitution freely agreed to by citizens or nationalities coming together to belong to one multi-ethnic polity and society was not a factor in the authoring of the current constitution. Under the current constitution, all that is needed to throw away recommendations for amendments is for any 24 states to agree or disagree on any or all such recommendations. What is unmistakable in calls for restructuring is the need to do what the country had not done since attainment of independence in 1960: sitting together of citizens representatives of constituent nationalities to discuss and agree on what should constitute the core of the country’s Grundnorm. This appears to be the safest way to create sustainable federal democracy in a nation that seems to have been fumbling with lock to the door of democratic governance for about five decades.

    It is not in the interest of sustainable unity for restructuring to be left to the devices of the kind of intra-elite negotiations in the past which had led to structures that appear to have failed to achieve its purpose: rancour-free, harmonious co-existence of people of diverse worldviews: cultures and religions. The vision that created the current structure resulted from intra-elite negotiation within groups of military rulers. The survival of such structure after the exit of military rule has been made possible by intra-elite negotiation within the group of politicians jockeying for the template of power management relinquished by military rulers. The latter group has even found adequate support by citizens who have had privileged access to the lucre made possible by oil boom and the rentier state it has thrown up. More than ever before, the average citizen now needs to be involved in an inclusive process of searching for the answers to challenges of living in a productive economy that is likely to lack the easy flow of foreign exchange from sale of petroleum, the country’s manna for the past fifty years.

    Thus, insisting that all that is needed to restructure the country is to assemble recommendations from all conferences is a risky thing to do. All the conferences in the past from 1979 constitution to 2014 national conference were guided by the vision that money from oil sale could solve all the country’s problems, regardless of how rational or irrational the design of governance is. Just as the National Peace Committee posited a few days ago: “State governments need to commit to developing their own people more and relying less on Abuja to fund their consumption through monthly allocations,” those to be charged with constructing new pillars of unity need to be weaned off the parasitic economy that informed most of the recommendations of previous national conferences. A political elite—legislative, executive, or judicial—that has gotten used to feeding fat on easy flow of revenue to the federation account—whether in Abuja or Abakaliki—need to be given a chance to listen to citizens about what kind of federation they believe can bring out the best possible for the country.

    Nigeria needs a restructuring exercise that combines the ideas and wisdom of leaders and followers, not a ‘panel beating’ of the current constitution or of previous recommendations that may have outlived their relevance. Opting for a federal constitution that has the promise of new wine in a new bottle is what is needed, to replace the culture of putting new wine in an old (or wrong) bottle.

    Roposek@msn.com