Whether by reading its lips or by observing its body language, we now understand that Lagos State has become indifferent, if not entirely opposed, to the idea of recreating the Western Region as a political and economic zone. However, few knew how virulent the state’s opposition to regionalism was until last week when it publicised its position on the matter at the ongoing national conference. Ondo State is also quite contemptuous of regionalism which, in one of its obfuscatory masterpieces, the Olusegun Mimiko government described as either unessential or at any rate not the exclusive preserve of All Progressives Congress (APC) states. But where Ondo was evasive and tentative, Lagos was trenchant, adamant and conclusive. Since the idea of regionalism took root a few years ago, both Lagos and Ondo have pussyfooted dexterously. In fact both states have remained unfazed by the inspiration the Southwest’s embrace of regionalism has given to other regions, particularly the South-South.
The Lagos position is mercilessly frank on regionalism. Hear the state: “We do not support, nor do we think it feasible, to return to creation of regions as governing sub-national units in Nigeria. We also do not recommend the creation of new states at this time or in the foreseeable future; viability and cost are two of the immediate reasons that militate against the creation of states. There are said to be six geopolitical zones in the country: this nomenclature is unknown to the Constitution and yet it continues to feature in national discourse. We do not recommend that the said zones as a feasible structure for government for Nigeria. It is folly to believe that the coincidence of geography dictates anything but convenience; we recommend that Nigeria should adhere to constitutional federalism which to date only prescribes states, and desist from the use of zones for planning or execution of constitutional authority.”
Declaring that its opposition to regionalism goes beyond merely refusing to support it to doubting its feasibility, Lagos suggests that the creation of states during the Yakubu Gowon years ended the era of regionalism. It does not say why it thinks that that era could not be recreated or why the post-states creation era is cast in granite. Perhaps it believes that the issue of viability and cost that militate against the creation of more states also affect the recreation of regions. Viability is of course no deterrent to regionalism, for in fact all the defunct regions were viable. And if cost, what says that the regions must retain the present states structure within their boundaries? Lagos, it must be admitted, did not directly tie its opposition to regionalism to cost and viability; nor could it, for it can indeed be argued persuasively that regionalism may even lower the cost of running not only the regions but the country itself.
It is shocking that Lagos describes anyone who thinks that “the coincidence of geography dictates anything but convenience” as foolish. The state has exercised its right to oppose regionalism, and cannot be described as foolish in doing so. Why must the state describe those who support the idea, who see substantially and creatively beyond geographical coincidence, as foolish? I am persuaded that those who think regionalism holds a lot of promise have given the idea much thought. Even if they were misguided – and I don’t think they are – they are certainly not foolish. On the contrary, it is actually Lagos that has shown a surprising inability to understand the advantages of regionalism. The state has never been enthusiastic about regionalism, perhaps because it erroneously thinks the idea imposes certain obligations on the coastal state, compelling it, like Germany to the European Union, to bear a disproportionate burden for the region’s sustenance. Instead, it appears to prefer isolationism for reasons other than cost and viability, and meanwhile has only reluctantly participated in regionalist activities. Lagos, I believe, is short-sighted.
I suspect that under Mr Fashola Lagos has begun to see and cultivate a distinct identity for itself different from the rest of the Yoruba people of the Southwest. The well-travelled governor probably envisions Lagos as a megacity, massive, multicultural and great by dint of its own attributes. He envisions a state that stands on its own, holds its own, and is not encumbered by others or beholden to others. If the governor and the elite of the state who carved the state’s opposition to regionalism had expanded their vistas a little beyond the unpopular revisionist view of Lagos held by some non-Lagosians, they will recall the unsuccessful battles leading Southwest elites fought before and during the First Republic to incorporate Lagos into the Western Region. While those elites acknowledged the avant-gardism of the city and its role as a cultural melting pot of limitless possibilities, they also saw it as an effervescent conglomeration of the Western Region’s politico-cultural liberalism. To them, Lagos was not just a secular city growing phenomenally, as the current Lagos government appears to think, it was a philosophical representation and manifestation of the civilizing attributes of the days of empire.
While Ondo is a normless aberration in regionalist terms, Lagos, the navel of the Southwest, now seems to think its shared history with the region/zone is less important than its future goal as an individualistic and multicultural megacity. This is a misreading of what the state represents. Much of the present Lagos State was of course a part of the Western Region. Its nascent individualism, or if you like, aspiring multiculturalism, is not, therefore, mutually exclusive of its regionalist credentials. Given the fragmented nature of African politics, not to say the evolution or unraveling of Nigeria, Lagos needs the cultural and political sinews of the Southwest both to survive and to thrive in a harsh and unjust country. It is inconceivable that Kaduna and Kano, for instance, would opt out of regional arrangements in the north should the need arise; or Maiduguri deny its historicity as a northeastern avatar; or Enugu and Port Harcourt deny themselves as southeastern and South-South entities respectively. Lagos was once federal capital, and it seeks a special status. Does its place as a regional city make it ineligible for that special consideration?
Cities and states need thinkers and statesmen in order to keep renewing themselves: the former to open up new theoretical vistas for their states, and the latter to forge the skills to trudge, navigate and give a practical feel to the new paths. Many Nigerian cities, apparently including Lagos, struggle to find men who can help them bridge the chasm between the past and the future, and in particular to help them formulate a great identity that incorporates the inspiring elements of the past and the ennobling virtues of the future. They have not always been successful.
I do not know where Lagos got the idea that Nigeria has outgrown regionalism. This is not only a fallacy; it distorts history in ways that make the lessons of that troubling history intellectually inaccessible. Regionalism is of course not incompatible with federalism, seeing that it stands between confederation and unitary government. It doubtless suffered problems and experienced many setbacks in the past, but successive constitutional arrangements have suffered even worse setbacks. Lagos, like many others, inappropriately uses federalism in other parts of the world as a yardstick to condemn regionalism in Nigeria. But have they asked why the developmental synergies needed to grow the economy, create wealth and narrow the gap between the rich and the poor have proved difficult to forge in these parts? No one who has perused the regionalist programme of the Southwest states can fail to appreciate the tremendous social, economic and political lift it would bring to the zone. Why Lagos is unable to understand the great leap forward that regionalism could foster is hard to explain.
It is impractical to expect that the many nations existing in Nigeria can be subjected to the kind of federalism practiced by, say, the United States, where an amalgam of people was grafted upon a new land, so to speak, or by Germany of essentially one nation whose homogeneity and enlightenment have made its federalism fairly easy to practice. Lagos is wrong to denounce regionalism, and wronger still to dissociate itself from the Southwest’s call for regionalism. The Lagos position is short-sighted and counterproductive, and it ignores the dangers of stripping itself naked and vulnerable in a country where social, political and economic fair play counts for nothing.