Nigeria as a political enclave came to be when the colonialists amalgamated the South and North protectorates on January 1, 1914. Flora Shaw, a British journalist called this enclave Niger Area, which later became Nigeria. The merging of the defunct protectorates (North and South) was done with the aim to bring the diverse cultures or ethnic groups and fatherlands and unite them politically as one people, which are heterogeneous in many respects. These consist of pluralism of language, religion, socio- political and economic formation as well as administrative styles, social norms and personality types. There are equally diversities among them resulting from factors of historical evolution, disproportionate population sizes, unequal economic resources and educational attainments, as well as range of social needs, preferences and talents.
The integration of the north and south by the colonialists was intended to achieve certain specific objectives. Perhaps, this was meant to serve as a steering mechanism for a collective identity and distributive politics. To meet with the demands of the complex composition of Nigeria, federal structure was introduced to ease the act of governance in the polity. Since federalism is a standard concept of government units based on area to cater for racial, religious linguistic and other differences, it succeeds in bringing several nations within the Nigerian polity together, although with a heavily centralized power.
It is argued that in a ‘deeply’ segmented society like Nigeria, equity is one of the strongest means of establishing confidence among the groups. For it is through it that the citizens can feel the sense of belonging and so commit themselves to the continued existence of the union. Despite its shortcomings, the federal character as equity principle is an integrative principle if arrangements are made to respect it in a political set up. Perhaps a brief survey of Nigeria’s experience suggests that the equity principle, through public office appointment and equal sharing of economic benefits and other social goods is realisable.
There is no doubt that Nigeria is largely segmented within the ethnic divides based on the influential tripod tribes, that is, Hausa in the north, Igbo in the east, and Yoruba in the west. Sad enough, the tripod structure often emphasize political rivalry, unjust distribution of the common good, strife and competition. Many Nigerians tend to identify themselves with their tribal distinctiveness and preference than seeing themselves as Nigerians whose goals should aim at transforming the possibilities for a more solid national identity. Indeed, these ethnic groups pay allegiance and consider the good of their respective nations before the good of the entire Nigerian nation.
Moreover, we have to contend with the fact that ethnic consciousness or ethnicity is one type of political groupings within the framework of the modern state, which often function as informal interest groups involving elements of rational goal-oriented behaviour and affective attitude.
Since ethnicity owes its continued vitality to the keen nature of the struggle for power and resources in a context of scarcity, insecurity or lack of confidence in official norms and regulations, as informal groupings, it cannot function in the same way as trade unions or other professional associations. Thus, ethnicity is characterized by a common consciousness of being one in relation to the other relevant ethnic groupings. Exclusiveness is also an attribute of ethnicity. Ingroup and outgroup boundaries emerge with it and, in time, become marked, more distinct than before, and jealously guarded by the various ethnic groups. This fact of exclusiveness is usually accompanied by nepotism and corruption; merit is sacrificed on the altar of ethnic chauvinism and solidarity.
Such politics of ethnic loyalty fans the amber of sectional struggle in the distribution of rights, opportunities and other social goods among the various ethnic groups thereby weakening the zoning principle that is designed for fair or equal representations.
Although, it has been argued from different quarters that the federal character principle or the zoning system formula stresses the need for ethnic-balancing as a necessity for ensuring less acrimonious relationships amongst the diverse cultures in Nigeria, it has however been established that the doctrine is not free of some glaring shortcomings. It is imperative to consider the weakness of the federal character doctrine, which will enable us to suggest alternative forms of social justice for Nigeria.
The apostles of meritocracy are seemingly the strongest opponents of federal character; this group holds that only merit is good enough in determining who gets a public appointment or admission. In the civil and public services of the federation, it has been noted that as a result of the undue application of quota and the lack of regard for merit or competency in the application of zoning principle, standard and professionalism are compromised and endangered.
The quota system as applied in education leads to lowering of standards against national interests, and also bastardized the whole educational system as a whole. Decline in educational standards in Nigeria could be traced to the nation’s policy on education which seeks to upgrade underprivileged regions to catch up with those who are educationally advantaged. Such policies like catchments area or quota system in education exclude some competent or qualified candidate to secure admissions.
The quota system or zoning doctrine which aims at satisfying the quest of representativeness and proportion in allocating resources, and also, in making appointment among various interest groups, has indeed become morally reprehensible, and an act of injustice, because in many ways the policy has not been adopted appropriately towards achieving meaningful goals. In areas such as education, the concomitant effect is more glaring than what it sets to achieve.
Hence, it is assumed that successful regimes have made efforts to address some national questions in the Nigerian federation through state creation, federal character or quota system, and of recent, rotational power sharing or power shift among the six geo- political zones of the country; however, still persist are the endemic problems of ethno- regional, religious and sectarian bigotry which the federal character principle was tailored to address. Rather than checking the various factors of mutual distrust and rivalries among the diverse groups and interests in Nigeria, the principle constitutes serious threats to the survival of the Nigerian federation which retards the march to nationhood as well as enthronement of a stable democratic socio-political order.
Finally, unless quota system principle conforms with Rawls complex egalitarian doctrine of fair-play totally, it would continue, as it is the case, to spurn meritocracy in politics, public sector, educational system; and deny other rights or the basic liberties of the disadvantaged group (especially the minorities), as well as imbalance on the sharing formula on economic benefits and other social goods among the geo-political spread of the country.
- Oladeji writes from Lagos.