George Herbert (1593-1633), the English clergyman and metaphysical poet, stated in Jacula Prudentum (1651) that “I had rather ride on an ass that carries me than a horse that throws me.”
This rather sound advice on pragmatism is one that was heeded by General Yakubu Gowon (rtd.) when he inaugurated the Ad Hoc Constitutional Conference of September 12, 1966, which was intended to resolve the evolving political crisis and end the bloodshed and disorder that had overtaken the country since the bitter disagreements over the results of the federal general elections of 1964. In his opening speech to the conference, he had suggested that the conferees may even propose an entirely new form of government for Nigeria which is “yet to enter into any political lexicon.” Unfortunately, this conference, which was well on its way to resolving the political impasse (it had produced an interim report), was wrecked by the fresh outbreak of large scale violence in the Northern Region on September 29, 1966.
As we once again approach our rendezvous with destiny at the coming national constitutional conference, one can only hope that the conferees will, in similar vein, not limit themselves to merely tinkering with the existing political edifice, but also seriously consider whether the form of representative government long practised in the advanced societies of the Western world are, in reality, suitable for our own relatively backward societies. It is undeniably, except to the wilfully blinkered, that the quality of our politicians and the nature of our politics has considerably worsened since Sir Kitoye Ajasa (1866-1937), a pioneer lawyer called to the Nigerian Bar in 1893, uttered the following prophetic words in Lagos in 1921: “ …An election constituency is composed of men of questionable intelligence, experience and true patriotism, and is guided mostly by enthusiasm, prejudice, selfishness and sham patriotism….” (See The Nigerian Pioneer, April 22, 1921). A few months later, this former leader of the Nigerian Bar and patriot of the highest integrity, stated that “…The people are not ready or ripe enough to appreciate or benefit under any new and foreign system of electioneering ….” (See The Nigerian Pioneer, February 24, March 3 and 10, 1922).
Instead of trying to keep up with the “Joneses” in the West who are at an entirely different stage of development, and therefore mulishly clinging on to a system of government that has not delivered – and may never, on the basis of the evidence emerging, the conferees would do well to break the mould and seek an accommodation with reality. A form of government suitable for our very peculiar circumstances should be our goal. Alternative forms of government should be looked at, even if they do not accord with current Western political thought, concepts, and practice. One political model, to take just one example, that commends itself to Nigeria in particular, is some form of corporatism and technocracy which is adapted to the Nigerian environment. Corporatism is the theory and practice of organizing the whole of society into corporate entities subordinate to the state. According to the theory, employers and employees would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation. According to the proponents of this political concept, it is a system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions; and as true and proper organs of the state they, through their representatives, direct and coordinate the affairs of the state in matters of common interest. Its chief spokesman was Adam Müller (1779 – 1829), court philosopher to Prince von Metternich, who conceived of a “class state” in which the classes operated as guilds, or corporations, each controlling a specific function of social life. This idea found favour in central Europe after the French Revolution. A technocracy, on the other hand, is the government or control of society by technical experts.
In our case, this political model has the great merit of completely excluding the professional politicians and political adventurers, who are, and have always been, the bane of our society. Under this political system, the federal and state legislatures would be composed only of the elected representatives of registered professional associations and labour unions, such as the Nigeria Bar Association, Nigeria Labour Congress, Nigerian Union of Teachers, Nigerian Medical Association, National Association of Nigerian Students, etc. Service would be on a part-time basis, and only sitting and travelling allowances, etc., would be paid. The legislatures, in turn, would act as the electoral colleges (as under the Lebanese Constitution) that would elect or nominate the members of the executive – i.e. the president/prime minister, governors/premiers, and ministers/commissioners.
The conferees would also do well to put the creation of states on a rational basis, rather than in the haphazard, emotionally-driven, uneconomical, and ultimately unsustainable, fashion that has guided us for far too long to our own detriment. States/regions should be established along the major linguistic lines, as was done in post-colonial India by Jawaharlal Nehru. Under this formula, there would be 10 states/regions for the 10 major ethnic nationalities. These would be Hausa-Fulani State; Kanuri State; Nupe State; Tiv-Jukun State; Yoruba State; Igbo State; Edo State; Urhobo-Isoko State; Ijaw State; and the Ibibio-Efik-Annang State. There would also be seven multi-ethnic states/regions for the remaining minority ethnic nationalities: Bauchi State; Adamawa State; Plateau State; Central State; Niger State; Ogoja State; and a state for the non-Ijaw ethnic nationalities in the present Rivers and Bayelsa states. Most of the powers and authority of government should be transferred to these states/regions. The federal government should deal with matters of common concern to the federation, e.g. foreign relations, defence, etc. States/regions should have the power to draft their own constitutions within the framework of the aforementioned political concept of general corporatism and technocracy. States/regions should, in consonance with elementary justice and fair play, control most of the resources that they have been endowed with by nature. States/regions should, on the principle of equality of the ethnic nationalities, and regardless of population, have equal numbers of representatives in the federal legislature (as obtains in the U.N. General Assembly, but without the invidious veto powers given to the “superior” permanent members of the Security Council).
It is worth noting that China’s unprecedented growth in the last few decades was primarily due to the Communist Party’s good sense in finally opting for a pragmatic, rather than doctrinaire, solution to their country’s monumental problems. By so doing, China’s leaders measured up to Walter Lippmann’s (a notable American journalist) definition of the rational man in his book, The Public Philosophy (1955): “A rational man acting in the real world may be defined as one who decides where he will strike a balance between what he desires and what can be done.”
It is a definition that one hopes that the conferees at the national constitutional conference will similarly measure up to for all our sakes.
•Ajose-Adeogun, is a Lagos-based lawyer.
