We need to tinker with our constitution to accommodate new thoughts that will strengthen our nationality”. This profound contribution from former military president, Ibrahim Babangida is at the heart of the raging debate on how to guarantee a stable and progressive future for this country- a future unencumbered by the searing fission within the polity.
He shared his thoughts extensively last week following the tension that gripped the country due to intemperate and provocative statements from some groups. Babangida felt the imperative to add his voice to douse the simmering bad blood that could drag this country irretrievably to the brink.
For him, restructuring has become a “national appeal whose time has come”. He advocated devolution of powers to give more responsibilities to the states while the federal government is vested to oversee foreign policy, defence and the economy. Babangida further called for state police as the current policing framework can no longer match the prevailing level of crime sophistication in our society.
Before him, other notable Nigerians from across the divide have thrown their weight behind the thinking that re-engineering the Nigerian federal paradigm was a matter of urgent necessity to stave off the increasing recline to primordialism; strengthen its institutions and guarantee a sound future for rapid and unimpeded development.
Call it true federalism, fiscal federalism, power devolution, restructuring or whatever, the underlying idea is that the current arrangement is largely constrained and a great liability in approximating the ideals for which federalism draws attraction as a suitable governance framework in a heterogeneous society. It is argued that the federal model we operate has not only proved inherently incapable of accelerating rapid economic development but has largely stultified efforts at promoting the necessary attitudes and orientations that conduce for co-habitation and nation building.
Despite this, some people appear to have sworn not to allow any change. They would not allow new paradigms to supplant old and decadent ones even when the latter are no longer capable of addressing contemporary challenges. And the nagging issues have remained unresolved with the country paying dearly for it. Not only have we been unable to record meaningful progress within the development matrix, there is now the foreboding prospects of dismembering.
Surprisingly, despite raging consensus that our development deficits; debilitating corruption and ethno-induced competition are intricately linked to the inherent limitations of our federal contraption, you find leaders who at best, foot drag on this key national challenge. You find leaders overtime unable to muster the necessary political will to activate the processes that will not only position the country on the path to steady progress but more importantly, save it from the disillusionment of the constituent units.
Where such efforts were activated, (as was with the last National Conference), you find leaders disparaging its vital conclusions on some trite and largely tenuous grounds. And you ask, if we agree there are certain decisions we must inevitably take to strengthen and make our federal project less rancorous, why can’t we go ahead and adopt them irrespective of how they were arrived at? Why do we have to throw away the baby with the bathwater each time far-reaching recommendations are made for constitutional change?
It is against this background that the position of Babangida and others before him have to be situated. It is not a matter of reminding him of some of his unpopular actions of the past as some are wont to do. Neither is it sufficient to disparage his views because of old prejudices no matter the pains. The very clear and convincing manner he put across his position cannot but endear him to true lovers of the unity and progress of this country. Democracy the world over is a continuing project subject to constant evolution and debate, adapting to and accommodating emerging developments.
The problem we face is a result of clinging to old ways and stereotypes even when they are no longer relevant to our situation. We loathe change instead of coming to terms with the reality that nothing is as constant as change. A lot of people have expressed optimism in the capacity of this country to overcome the current pass. It can only do that by listening to the voices of reason.
Before now, there have been damning predictions about Nigeria becoming a failed state by 2015. Even as that deadline has elapsed, current events indicate we are not yet far from it. That is why we stand a great risk if we ignore the turn of events that still, irredeemably point to the same catastrophic end.
The National Assembly has come to terms with the need to tinker with the structure of the federation. So also are the APC governors’ forum and their PDP counterparts. The remaining angle is the presidency. We need the position of the executive even as we admit the constraints of the acting president. Fortunately, the campaign manifesto with which Buhari sought for and secured the mandate of the people of this country promised true federalism.
So it would appear the coast is now clear for the necessary action to seriously address those systemic dysfunctions that have stood against the progress of our federal order. There are extant recommendations the National Assembly can work on without our having to waste much time and resources empanelling another national conference. And the overall good of this country will be better served if they incorporated into the constitution of the country.
The US ambassador to Nigeria, Stuart Symington’s statement that every time his country faced such challenges “we overcame the danger because we had visionary leaders committed to the union and citizens committed to ensuring justice for all” is very instructive. For him, Nigeria is fortunate to have such leaders and citizens. That is where he missed the point.
The country is in short supply of visionary leaders committed to the union. Were it not to be so, we should not have been facing the embarrassing challenge where the right options to our collective progress are not in doubt, yet we continue to falter for reasons that boarder on the parochial and the mundane. You cannot reasonably speak of such a leadership as being committed to the union. Neither is the rehash of such precepts as the unity, indivisibility and non- negotiability of the nation’s sovereignty sufficient indication of commitment to upholding such ideals. Commitment to them would entail the implementation of the relevant policies that will provide the needed ambience for the union to flourish.
If that condition really exists, we would have been saved the embarrassing reality where the central authority is still in constant competition with primordial cleavages with the latter posing serious danger to the authority of the former. Our deficits in visionary leadership have come with such debilitating disorientations that produced citizens who place self and clannish interests over and above collective good. Such leadership is ill-equipped to ensuring justice for all.
We are in the present pass because of acts of omission and commission by some of our leaders. Though the prevailing agitations for self-determination and restructuring predated the Buhari regime, they were reinforced and given impetus by the actions and utterances of the regime. Those who ask why the pro-Biafra groups were not that vocal during the regime of Jonathan when they claimed the Igbo held key political positions, can now find the answer. They could as well ask why the agitations and sabotage of the Niger Delta militants were tamed during the regime of Yar’Adua.
Babangida seemed to have captured this contradiction when said “It is not in the place of leadership to fuel and hype conflicts nor should we allow losers and gainers of our governance regimes to make pronouncements and threats that exploit our ethnic, religious and geopolitical constructs”. The point has been made.