The only place where there is availability of work is the north because it produces a greater percentage of the food we eat as well as those used by some of our industries.
As this column had observed several times in the past, regionalism is creeping back into the country’s political lexicon, and justifiably so. The latest region to enlist members of its elite corps in the choir of progressive regionalism is what used to be called The Northern Region before the fragmentation of the country’s four regions into 36 states, affectionately referred to by admirers of unitary governance as the country’s new federating units. The three top members of the region’s elite who have chosen to expand the conversation about regionalism are the Emir of Kano and a former governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, former Vice Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University and Spokesman of the Northern Elders Forum, Professor Ango Abdullahi, and former Vice President of the country, Abubakar Atiku. The views of these three vertical figures will form the core of today’s discussion.
Regionalism, a word that defined Nigeria until 1966, gradually went into extinction during the decades of military dictatorship in the country. Regionalism and other synonyms: true federalism, regional autonomy, restoration of federalism, and re-federalisation crawled back into the country’s political vocabulary in the 1990s, particularly during the pro-democracy struggle against annulment of MKO Abiola’s electoral victory in 1993. But these words featured prominently in the circles of politicians and pro-democracy activists from the southern states. Regionalism until recently remained a word that was hardly used by politicians and political activists in the northern states. Most recently, Abubakar Atiku is referenced as the first major political figure from the north to popularise the concept of regionalism since the Sardauna of Sokoto.
Atiku had acknowledged the importance of regionalism since the coming to power of President Mohammadu Buhari and the recession that has trailed his assumption of power: “Our current constitution does indeed concentrate too much power and resources at the centre, which has, in my view, impeded national development, security, peace and stability…. There is no doubt that many of our states are not viable, and were not viable from the start, once you take away the federal allocations from Abuja. We have to find creative ways to make them viable in a changed federal system. Collaboration among states in a region or zone will help.
Atiku’s pro-regionalism rhetoric became more strident when he said: “It is clear to me that the resistance against restructuring is based on three interrelated factors, namely dependency, fear and mistrust. Dependency of all segments of the country on oil revenues, fear of loss of oil revenues by non-oil producing states or regions and mistrust of the motives of those angling for restructuring. And his conviction about the importance of re-federalisation and de-militarisation of the polity acquired more vigour when he advised: “We have a unique opportunity now, with all the agitation and clamour for restructuring, to have a conversation that would lead to changes in the structure of our federation in order to make it stronger, enhance our unity and promote peace, security, and better and more accountable governance.”
Of course, Atiku has been criticised by many for attempting to take political advantage of calls for regionalism in the southern states as someone known to be interested in contesting for the presidency in the event of a vacancy in Aso Rock. And his analysis of the disadvantage of unitary governance in the country would have remained as playing to the gallery in the south if two other vertical figures in the north: Emir of Kano and Professor Ango Abdullahi had not raised issues about the source of underdevelopment in the north.
With specific reference to human development indices in the north, the Emir affirmed at a recent conference in Kaduna: “We are in denial. The North-west and the North-east, demographically, constitute the bulk of Nigeria’s population. But, look at human development indices, look at the number of children out of school, look at adult literacy, look at maternal mortality, look at infant mortality, look at girl-child completion rate, look at income per capita, the North-east and the North-west are among the poorest parts of the world….As far back as 2000, I looked at the numbers, Borno and Yobe states, UNDP figures… Borno and Yobe states, if they were a country on their own, were poorer than Niger, Cameroon and Chad. Nobody saw this because we were looking at Nigeria as a country that averages the oil-rich Niger Delta, the industrial and commercial-rich Lagos, the commercially viable South-east, and you have an average. Break Nigeria into its component parts and these parts of the country are among the poorest, if it were a country. And, we do not realise we are in trouble.” Of course, this statement does not canvass for return to regionalism the way that Atiku’s statement has done, yet it certainly has started to engender controversy in the north for giving the north a negative profile
Unlike Atiku, Sanusi’s analysis of the situation of the north does not emphasise the issue of federalism. It, however, focuses on cultural or ideological problems that had inhibited development in the northern states (and other parts of the country) during the decades of unitary governance across the country. Unlike in the era of autonomous northern region of the 1960s, the region in the days of fragmented 19 states is seen by the former CBN governor as characterised by under-development that has arisen from northern leaders’ adoption of wrong values. However, the Emir has been forthcoming on the need for northern leaders to change governance philosophy and practice as well as their values. Relatedly, a special conference of political and cultural leaders of the 19 northern states convened a few months ago in Kaduna also addressed some of the issues raised by the Emir of Kano, without drawing a lot of flak.
Perhaps, the issues raised by the Emir would have remained an intra-regional matter if Professor Ango Abdullahi had not brought up the imperative of breaking the country to allow the north to realise its huge potential arising from land, natural and human resources. Abdullahi’s claim: “The greatest advantage of the north over other regions is that 75 per cent of land in Nigeria comes from the North; agriculture contributes 45 per cent of the GDP against oil, which contributes 14 per cent. Apart from the foreign exchange which oil provides, which in fact has always been stolen by the leaders, there is nothing much to talk about. Presently, there is potential of oil in many parts of Northern Nigeria. Let me tell you that oil money is idle money, which Nigeria has not worked for. The only place where there is availability of work is the north because it produces a greater percentage of the food we eat as well as those used by some of our industries. In any case, there are countries that said they are not moving forward and decided that the best thing to do was to divide. So, what is wrong in dividing the country?” raises the issue of a new form of regionalism, one which allows the North to become an independent country free to exploit its abundant resources. This position contrasts with the view of southern leaders on the type of political structure that can advance the status of Nigeria as a country.
Two issues that are referenced with varying emphasis by all the three positions are leadership and structure. These two concepts are often considered to be alternatives, especially by lovers of the political re-engineering of Nigeria during the decades of military dictatorship and the authors of the 1979 and 1999 constitutions. For example, references to the golden age under Ahmadu Bello, Obafemi Awolowo, and Nnamdi Azikiwe often ignored that these founding fathers also worked under a different structure, one which allowed each to be creative in governing his region and accountable to those they governed, without undue interference from the central government. It is ahistorical to emphasise the quality of individual leaders in the first republic at the expense of the quality of the structure in which they operated.
The import of the divergent views of the three commenters on development of the north is not the absolute rightness of one or the other but the open expression of such views in a region often considered inviolably monolithic. A region that has cast itself as the father and protector of the unitary model of governance and fragmentation of states that had sustained unitarism for decades of military and post-military governance seems to be moving away from the belief that there is nothing wrong with the north, and by extension, other parts of the country. The divergent views of the three northern leaders referenced in this column certainly suggest the beginning of change in vision and orientation required to galvanise a national conversation on the way to change Nigeria in a way that encourages open debate about how best to redesign Nigeria for sustainable political democracy and economic development.
