The National Conference is under way. Delegates represent a variety of interest groups-ethnic nations, professional associations, trade associations, political office holders, political parties, student groups, among others. Every group, but especially the ethnic nations, has interests to protect and promote. Thus far, this has played itself out in the matter of the adoption of procedural rules. Thanks to the wisdom of the elders, it did not explode. The expectation of the president as convener is for delegates to think of and privilege the national interest in all their deliberations to the point that were there to be a conflict between the private interest and the national interest, the latter must prevail.
The question that has not been addressed is “what is the national interest?” and how does a delegate or group of delegates know it when an issue is presented to them for deliberation and decision? Take a concrete example: Whether they are for it or against it, resource control is certainly a burning issue in the minds of many delegates and the groups that they represent and it will surely come up in the following weeks or months. What exactly is the national interest in this matter? And how might a delegate be guided by considerations of national interest in his or her contributions on the matter?
This is an age-old issue.In the age of monarchical rule that preceded our republican constitution, the national (aka community) interest was variously interpreted depending on the balance of power in the community. With a powerful ruler, the community was the king. This was what Louis XIV of France meant with his infamous “L’ tat, c’est moi” (I am the State) declaration. He meant he was the absolute ruler who had the authority to determine what the national interest was. That was not the case in most traditional Yoruba communities where the king was surrounded by a traditional council of chiefs capable of dethroning him and requesting his demise. Our military past was not radically different from the Sun King’s idea of the state as the property of the ruler. While one single military ruler may not have been in a position to make that claim, the supreme military councils came close, if not in words, at least in practice. They determined what the national interest was. That explained why a nation that deliberately went for a federal structure at the dawn of independence was transformed into a unitary system almost overnight.
Thankfully, we passed that stage, and I am confident that no delegate to the National Conference would wish the country go back to the era of dictatorial pronouncements on national interest in our new, even if imperfect, democratic setting. If this optimism is shared by all, the question then is “what is the national interest and how is it to be determined?
A simple answer is that the national interest is NOT the interest of an abstract entity called the nation because there is no such abstract entity. The nation is “US”, the flesh and blood human beings that make it up. Our interests constitute the interest of the nation, that is, our interest, if you forgive the tautology. An abstract entity doesn’t have an interest simply because an interest is something that only sentient beings have.An interest is a generalised means of satisfying our wants. It is what Philosopher Rawls refers to as “primary goods.” In this sense, a foremost interest of any one citizen of this great country is security. For security is a generalised means of satisfying each citizen’s wants. And this explains why when government fails to provide adequate security, individuals find their own ways of ensuring security for themselves and their families.
We engage in myth-making when we proffer the idea that there is some “national interest” located in some ethereal realm beyond the loci of individual interests. Surely, the interests that we have as individuals are many and may run into conflict. For a politician to win an election his opponent has to lose and the satisfaction of one interest cancels out the other. What should not be lost out of consideration in this apparent conflict of interest situation is that they both have a common interest in the system of elections.
National interest, then, is nothing more than the common interests of the nationals. Nigeria is a nation of individuals and groups. President Jonathan invited these groups and individuals to meet to fashion out a road map for the Nigeria of their dreams. They will come, indeed must come, to the conference hall with their various interests at the top of their minds. To expect the opposite-that they will drop their individual and group interests at the entrance to the conference hall-is to expect a miracle. It will not happen.
What we can expect, and must demand of the delegate, is to be prepared to negotiate in good faith, focusing more on their common interests than on the divergent wants and desires. For it is the nature of interests that each is capable of serving as the means of satisfying many divergent wants and desires.
Let us take the extreme example of resource control. The question is how has the policy of federalising or centralising the control of resources served individuals, states, and communities well in the almost fifty years since it has been adopted as national policy in the “national interest?” We know that prior to 1966 every state was almost, if not totally, financially solvent. Each was doing well educationally and industrially. We adopted resource control as a means to uniting the country and we ended up with resentment and visible division along ethnic nationality lines. None, except those closest to power at the center, can claim to have benefitted from the policy of nationalising resources. The dictate of our common interest as national interest appears clear in this regard.
How about security? I must assume also that there was good intention behind the centralisation of security. Fractious political climate in the First Republic was a serious concern for the military leaders that took over. Of course, it was under their watch that hell broke loose and a civil war ensued. Their prescription for unity and peace was for the central government to take charge of security because the states were “politicising” police functions. We continue to hear this same charge even when it seems clear that the federal government cannot conscientiously absolve itself of culpability in the matter of politicising the police. Since we all have a common interest in adequate security of life and property, delegates must set aside their political affiliations and come to an agreement on the decentralisation of the police with effective antidotes against politicisation.
Education is another area of interest and it should be clear that every group and family have an interest in good education for their children. But it is an understatement that our educational system has crumbled completely under the weight of over-centralisation. The president recently expressed his frustration with state governors for not doing much about primary and secondary education while expressing satisfaction with the federal government’s handling of tertiary education. We know, however, that the number of universities established by the federal government is just one aspect of the story. Another aspect deals with how these institutions are faring. What types of students are they producing? Do they have the resources they need to do their job well? Delegates to the national conference have a responsibility to rub minds on this important issue of how best to educate our children and prepare them for the 21st century economy.
Finally, it all boils down to national (common) interests in the issue of restructuring the country.If we ask the question: which individual, group, ethnic nation, religious group or denomination, gender is benefitting from the present centralisation of resources and administration of the country since 1966, I am sure only a few citizens can answer in the affirmative. The North has clearly stated that it has suffered more than other regions with the present arrangement. It is time then to let our common interests, rather than our fear of the unknown, chart the course of the future. This is national interest.
