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
