The Nation Newspaper

Tag: restructuring

  • Why Nigeria should consider restructuring

    SIR: Recently, when the call was made for restructuring of the country by former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, the nation was split among those for and against. This is natural and actually shows that we are in a democratic milieu.

    The fact of division as to the propriety or otherwise of the call means that the call has its merits. Among those who echoed the same sentiment, some called for the implementation of some of the recommendations of the National Conference organized by former President Goodluck Jonathan. Yet, on the 2014 National Conference, the argument was that it was not organized or held in good faith but for the purpose of furthering the 2015 political ambition of the former President.

    Bearing in mind the huge cost of hosting the 2014 conference and the fact that along the line, the conference became a serious affair, acquiring a life of its own, the nation could look at the recommendations of the conference and other similar conferences as it relates to the often-talked about issue of restructuring and adopt aspects of it that can move the nation forward. Before this adoption, a national committee of respectable and knowledgeable persons, answerable to the President and the National Assembly and appointed by the sitting President should look at these aspects and make recommendations on their implementation.

    It should be noted that restructuring is akin to making changes and adjustments to see how Nigeria can arrive at a union of constituent parts, which not only works efficiently, but which encourages national economic prosperity and patriotism in the citizenry towards their country. The mess which President Buhari found on taking office in May 2015 and his realization that the nation cannot survive if it continued on the same path, are pointers to the natural place of restructuring in the life of any nation. The British after years in the European Union discovered that continued membership would not advance their interest of what they want their country to be and now they would start a painstaking programme of changing institutional practices and governance to reflect their national aspirations away from what obtained while they were part of the European Union.

    It is interesting that recently, the Federal Government reached agreement with governors on the condition of federal highways in the states. Though not totally conversant with details of the agreement, the Federal and the States have now agreed that States should take over the construction and maintenance of federal roads in the states to be reimbursed later by the central government for their expenses! These are all in line with restructuring or adjusting the status quo, in the face of prevailing realities.

    The way it is with the economy and with road infrastructure, it should be with the politics and government structure of the nation, notably the matter of the relationship that should exist between the central government and the governments of the constituent parts of the federation. Adopting restructuring or changes in one area, and neglecting it in the other will only create confusion and frustration and ensure that the set goals are not achieved. At the earliest possible time, we should look at the way we are and be true to ourselves whether with slight adjustment we can be better.

     

    • Mohammed Jibrin,

    Othman Dan Fodio University, Sokoto.

  • Restructuring and Military Avengers

    For many credible voices in our nation, the answer to our unresolved national question is a return to our 1954 structure, negotiated by our founding fathers ‘to promote the unity of Nigeria and protect the interest of diverse elements that make up the country’, with some modifications to reflect current realities. The open endorsement of agitation by some restive groups for self-actualization and ‘less centralised, less suffocating and less dictatorial’ central government by Atiku Abubakar seems to have brought a new focus on an old issue. The former governor of Kaduna State and leader of the Conference of Nigerian Political Parties, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, has added his voice. According to him, ‘a return to regional arrangement, where each region can create states they can cater for, would certainly reduce injustice and inequality among the people’. Emeka Anyaoku, the former Commonwealth Secretary-General has also renewed his call for ‘a return to the regional structure practiced in the First Republic, with the country’s six regions forming the federating units’. For Gen Akinrinade, “anyone that wishes Nigeria well and wants our states to develop will join in the growing agitation to restructure the country”. And reacting to the opponents of restructuring who have consistently said ‘Nigeria unity is not negotiable’, Wole Soyinka, regarded by many as the conscience of the nation has said the basis of our association needed to be renegotiated if we are to prevent a disastrous disintegration. Agreeing with him, The Guardian in an editorial in its edition of June 26, submitted “The present structure has bred identity politics of ethnocentrism, undermined national unity and patriotism, institutionalised corruption, violation of the rule of law and a dehumanisation of the people – antinomies that have led to state-led violence and enduring separatist impulses on the part of many nationalities that make up the country”. But long before now, other patriotic Nigerians such as the late Pa Tony Enahoro, Pa Adekunle Ajasin, two of our founding fathers, as well as human right activists such as Alao Aka Bashorun and Beko Ransome-Kuti, engaged in a life long struggle for a restructured Nigeria.

    While many concerned Nigerians agree with these patriots that Nigeria is just not working as presently constituted, the Nigerian military and their apologists who after destroying the inherited superstructure, imposed a unitary system, abridged the political socialization process, insisted on teaching Nigerians that started party system in 1923 how to form political parties, decimated the political class which was replaced with military- baked new breed politicians that bred nothing but corruption and wanted to maintain the status quo.

    Beyond these self-delusions, the Nigerian military have other reason to sustain the status quo. Studies have now shown that like their counterparts elsewhere in West Africa, who joined the military to climb the social ladder, they harboured deep-rooted hatred for the dominant groups in society such as the politicians, the civil servants and intellectuals they saw as the source of their marginalisation.

    In fact those first recruited by the British into what eventually became the Nigerian military from the north according to Ahmadu Bello ‘were slaves who ran away from their masters and labourers from the market places’. The status of a soldier was not better in the east. Professor Adekanye, quoting N. J. Miners called our attention to one Major Eze, who writing in the 1963 issue of old Nigerian army magazine after the Second World War said: ‘The army was a place for the illiterates and criminals whose duties were to kill and be generally brutal”. In the west, those who joined the military were considered rascals. Adekanye also told us the poor image of the military can be measured in terms of low remuneration; the army recruit was paid less than unskilled daily paid government labourer and the army members of the NCO earned less than their counterparts in the police.

    Like their counterparts in West Africa such as Liberia where Sergeant Doe, after taking over power, lined up, shot and dragged 11 bodies of President Tubman’s associates on the streets only to get himself  integrated into their Whig Party he had accused of corruption, Nigerian military also first murdered their benefactors, threw the political class into disarray, destroyed the bureaucracy and the university system ostensibly because of corruption but ended up paying themselves higher salaries,  awarding salaries for life to their Generals while many retired into life of opulence as owners of banks, captains of industries and owners of oil wells after murdering   benefactors they had accused of being ‘ten per centers’.

    The new acquired status provided Obasanjo an opportunity to appoint the 49 wise men that drafted the 1979 constitution which traded our inherited parliamentary system for a presidential system that unlike the former allowed him to be crowned President even after his rejection by his people.

    Babangida demonstrated his own complex by hilariously calling himself President after his palace coup, executed not because of his lofty vision for the nation but according to Buhari, to protect Gusau who was accused of corruption by the Buhari military junta. He humoured himself as the ‘Maradona’ of Nigerian politics, manipulated the political class, decreed two parties, institutionalized corruption through SAP, took the nation through eight years of fraudulent transition programme at the end of which he annulled the most credible election ever conducted in our nation won by his friend MKO Abiola.

    Abacha reduced the political class to comedians. For his own fraudulent transition, his five decreed political parties described as ‘five fingers of a leprous finger’ by the late Bola Ige were falling over each other to adopt him as their presidential candidate until he was visited by death, the leveller.

    General Abdulsalami Abubakar, using the same military tactics humbled the political class. The highly respected caustic mouth, Bola Ige who was credited with writing the PDP, APP and AD constitutions long after the military had decided to impose Obasanjo as President was no exception. He was tricked to lower his guard by Obasanjo’s patronizing “Bola Ige is the only Yoruba man I fear’ during the 1999 election he was programmed to win. His assassination as Attorney General of the federation inside his room remains unresolved.

    And of course Obasanjo did not disappoint his military constituency. PDP party chieftains became ‘garrison commanders’. Leaderships of the party as well as those of the two legislative houses were routinely shuffled like cards. The highly compromised legislatures often resorted to military tactics to outwit party members each just as the current leadership did in June last year.

    The nation cannot move forward with restructuring. The military and their fronts who become multi-billionaires in their late thirties, the senate where members who routinely pass resolutions to cover up alleged fraud, the lower house currently enmeshed in allegation of massive padding of the budget cannot be regarded as patriots that care about the future of our nation.

    We are therefore left with President Buhari who had restructuring as part of his 2015 campaign manifesto. He was voted President because Nigerians trusted him. He must remain faithful to his contract with Nigerians. Once a victim of betrayal by his military colleagues, he should know wealthy retired Generals and their fronts who insists “Nigeria Unity is not negotiable’ do not have history on their side. With those who have served jail term for corruption and others facing corruption charges in court openly canvassing for votes, it must be clear by now to the President that his lasting legacy will not be fighting corruption but a restructured Nigeria that prevents a disastrous disintegration.

  • Restructuring: pontifications, excuses, and a way forward

    But pro- and anti-restructuring regional spokespersons need to mobilise and consult those they claim to represent before presenting positions on their behalf

    Rhetoric in support and against restructuring or return to true federalism has become rife in the country’s political space. The stridency of the rhetoric is almost as strong as it was between the annulment of MKO Abiola’s presidential mandate and the death of General Sani Abacha. There is virtually no day that newspapers don’t carry news on this topic, an illustration of the growing importance of federalism to various interest groups and of opposition to federalism to others. Restructuring has become a new formula for dividing the country ideologically, just one year after a national election that majority expected to unite the country in preparation for a change-making president.

    Restructuring is not new to Nigeria. The Midwest region resulted from restructuring just as the 12 states created under General Gowon. Chief Obafemi Awolowo made federalism an abiding part of the country’s political conversation for decades between the 1950s and the 1980s. Sovereign national conference for the purpose of restructuring came into public conversation at the instance of late human and civil rights lawyer, Alao Aka-Bashorun in the late 1980s. The concept got popularised by the Movement for National Reformation at the instance of such figures as Anthony Enahoro, Cornelius Adebayo, Baba Omojola, etc. And Afenifere as the nucleus of NADECO became a major populariser of demand for restructuring during the struggle against Sani Abacha’s usurpation of the mandate given by majority of Nigerians to MKO Abiola. The concept became part of the national and international campaign of NADECO against the rule of terror that Abacha adopted to sustain himself in power and to coerce the country to accept his self-transformation from military dictator to civilian president.

    Recent calls by Afenifere for restructuring is therefore in character even though details of the organisation’s demand may be debatable. The recent characterisation by Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) of Afenifere as agent of diversion from more pressing national problems on account of renewing calls for restructuring smacks of a deliberate attempt to underminethe constitutional rights of citizens to express themselves in a democracy and pooh-pooh expression of political desires of citizens. The highlight of Arewa’s communique: “ Nigeria now faces more serious security challenges, social and economic problems, such as the destruction of oil pipelines by the Niger Delta militants, Boko Haram insurgency, youth restiveness, drop in oil revenue, unnecessary killing and kidnapping etc that require everyone’s input, rather than diverting the attention and resources of government on an issue that could be tackled by our democratic structure” illustrates an attempt to call a dog a bad name in order to hang it.

    All the problems catalogued by Arewa in the quotation above must have adverse effect on the country. But it is surprising that Arewa has not given these problems the critical thinking they deserve. Is it not conceivable that all the problems graphically described by Arewa, apart from the fall in oil revenue, can also be perceived by others as being caused by the existence of a flawed structure of governance in the country, especiallydestruction of conducive relations between national and subnational governments and communities?How illogical is it to see as diversionary efforts to critique a system of funding 36 states and 774 local governments from revenue from one single commodity whose price is determined beyond our shores?   Is there any evidence that devolving more power and functions including fiscal federalism or autonomy to subnational governments cannot solve many of the problems currently facing the country?

    Nigerians have been distracted for too long from coming to terms with what they perceive as negative outcomes of gradual de-federalisation of the country, via creation of fears about the Nigerian by State by one section or their supporters in power from time to time.  For example, Unity as a mantra was deployed to induce political crisis in Western Nigeria immediately after independence. Awolowo’s decision to remain in opposition in the belief that a strong opposition is crucial to survival and consolidation of democracy became a problem for those who thought the best way for the country to be properly united was to create a one-party state. Later, threat to national unity by General Aguiyi-Ironsi’s decree to turn the country into a unitary system from the federal system that defined the country at independencebecame another mantra that became irrelevant shortly after the second coup. Fighting corruption provided a basis for the third coup, and many others that happened on and off between 1975 and 1998. All this time, very little time or energy was left for planning for sustainable national development, as efforts to critique the structure of governance was overshadowed by problems identified by rulers as urgent national problems.

    Furthermore, after the exit of military rule in 1999, words like unity and burnishing of the country’s image internationally came back to silence calls for re-federalisation.  Non-negotiability of the nation’s unity and diversification of the economy nationwide are the latest mantras being pushed by ACF and kindred groups to crowd out calls for consideration of the nation’s political structure. Arewa’s directive on how to solve Nigeria’s problems and its call on Afenifere and other groups to remain silent until Arewa perceives the country ready to hear other voices exudes political intolerance that is not acceptable in a multicultural society and polity. It is too late in the evolution of the country for any group to blackmail others and pose or act as landlord by viewing others as tenants. Arewa’s recent bullying of Afenifere seems like an excuse for stopping others from addressing issues that can ameliorate what they perceive as diminishing their chances to make life and living better for themselves and their children. Directing Afenifere to pass its demands to the legislature is also failing to recognise the fact that a constitution that did not originate from citizens and without their consent may be an aspect of the project of restructuring.

    Nothing in today’s piece should be construed as supporting Afenifere’s call for restructuring entirely. The organisation’s fixation on Jonathan and recommendations of the conference he convened on the eve of the last presidential election raises doubt about the goal of the organisation and others like it in other parts of the country. Assuming that Afenifere is speaking for the Yoruba rather than for its members, is it accurate to insist that the federal system that the Yoruba want is synonymous with recommendations from the 2014 national dialogue arrived at by delegates handpicked by Jonathan? Essentially, Afenifere and Arewa are groups of self-appointed leaders or spokesmen for their own sections of the country, and their views pro and con of restructuring should not be seen to go beyond claims and demands that have not been presented to citizens for whom they claim to speak.

    While calling for restructuring of the Nigerian polity can be presented in the vocabulary of overt or covert partisanship, strategies and activities that can gain traction among citizens, especially in the Yoruba region will have to be at best bi-partisan or supra-partisan, in the fashion of a movement in which members see re-federalisation as an ideological goal that must be achieved before proper political and economic development can be achieved in the country. Some template for turning restructuring into a people’s demand in the Yoruba region was created three years ago under the aegis of the Yoruba Assembly convened in Ibadan by retired Lt-General Alani Akinrinade. The project of establishing a supra-partisan Yoruba Constitutional Convention that ensued from the Assembly is still waiting today for endorsement of Afenifere and kindred organisations. There may be no genuine restructuring without a negotiated constitution. At present, Nigeria has a constitution imposed on it by military dictators and designed to make far-reaching amendments of such constitution impossible to accomplish. Consequently, proponents and opponents of re-federalisation should note that creating a de-militarised constitution that enjoys the consent of citizens is part of the campaign for restructuring.

    Arewa should note that, apart from Afenifere’s fixation on Jonathan’s conference recommendations, Afenifere and other groups calling for restructuring have not done anything to derogate from President Buhari’s promise to: Initiate action to amend our Constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to states and local governments in order to entrench true Federalism and the Federal spirit. But pro- and anti-restructuring regional spokespersons need to mobilise and consult those they claim to represent before presenting positions on their behalf.

  • Season of restructuring

    Since May 31 when Atiku Abubakar, former vice president, latched onto restructuring, the Federal Republic has been in a whirr.

    Alhaji Atiku, debonair, suave, polished and cosmopolitan, may well be earnest; or was simply gaming, with a crafty eye on 2019.

    But it is legitimate skepticism, demurring to hold the former vice president to any fixed core of beliefs, the way you would hold an Obafemi Awolowo to ethnic federalism (upon which 1st Republic theory and praxis the present clamour for regional federalism rests); or a Bola Tinubu, with fiscal federalism (the most impassioned but reasoned challenge to Olusegun Obasanjo’s unfazed imperial presidency, that birthed this 4th Republic, 1999-2007).

    Yet, almost across the board, a near-unanimous roar has lauded Alhaji Atiku: the near-elixir — in the books of many — that may make the difference between Nigeria floundering from ruin to bust, and final disintegration; or cobbling some functional solution to the eternal crisis of federalism — and nationhood.

    It would be absolutely fallacious to accuse Afenifere, the Yoruba socio-political pressure group, of jumping on the Atiku latest bandwagon.  On restructuring, it had been there from Genesis; and there is no Revelation yet that it would end its clamour.

    Still, after its rather rash political sinking with Goodluck Jonathan, and its election-eve National Conference of 2014, Afenifere has, with both hands, seized Atiku’s latest activism for self-revalidation and relevance.

    Its younger cousin, the Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG), has also weighed in — no surprise at all — though its members are part of the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC); and President Muhammadu Buhari has poured ice-cold water on the idea.

    But the surprise really, is from the Eastern front, where Nnamdi Kanu’s Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) and vandal militancy, from the mainly Ijaw corridor of the  South-South, are in great tizzy.

    Why, even good, old Ike Ekweremadu, controversial deputy president of the Senate, is also talking the talk!  But central sinecure at all cost, which his rather soulless essence as Nigeria’s first minority deputy senate president underscores, is violently contradictory to restructuring.

    Indeed, the Eastern buzz has been most virulent, most truculent and most animated, many a time bordering on the explosively impassioned and uncivil, especially in the social media, the Nigerian cyber-jungle with savage lingo.

    Yet, the Eastern political elite, with their northern counterparts, as eternal central power collaborators, have been the most responsible for the current Nigerian bind!

    Still, it is good the Eastern Saul, hitherto unfazed power player in Nigeria’s consumptive federalism, of office sharing and central pork, is turning, under our very eyes, into a radical Paul, hollering and hectoring at Nigeria’s future redemption, in productive federalism!

    Why this radical change?  Simple.  Each time a vital segment of the Nigerian elite loses power and privilege, some dramatic activism births.

    True, this may be less true of the South West, with its penchant, before the advent of the Buhari Presidency, for opposition politics.

    At the trenches back then, in trenchant clamour for a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) to resolve the ‘National Question’, were the late Alao Aka-Basorun, with his braves.  Though that campaign boasted other pan-Nigeria names like Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, then president of the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), the spirit was clearly South West’s and its opposition politics hell-raising.

    But not even all that, with the grave injustice of June 12 and the Sani Abacha anti-South West iron purge, could stop the South West softening somewhat, on the altar of vicarious power, towards Obasanjo’s devil-may-care imperial presidency.  That explains Obasanjo’s foxy snare of the South West political mainstream, and the Alliance for Democracy’s electoral burial of 2003.

    The North and the South East had navigated diametrically opposed tracks.

    The North, because between 1960 and 1993, which witnessed MKO Abiola’s stupendous presidential election win, had always been in power — and looked set to be eternally so.

    Even then, at the height of the Jonathan Presidency, when seeming power wilderness gored the North, a desperate Arewa lobby called on the North to focus on own interests, outside Nigeria’s, as it is wont.

    The South East, on the other hand, ever assured of sharing power, even as junior partners, was always bellicose at the very idea of restructuring — outside the traditional power balance, of cohabitation with the North.  So was the South-South, though with less bellicosity.

    That was perhaps why, at the height of the South West campaign for the  Abiola mandate revalidation, Emeka Ojukwu, Eze Igbo Gburugburu, would claim his Abacha-era constitutional conference “mandate” was “superior” to Abiola’s historic win.  Or Okwesilieze Nwodo, as aborted 3rd Republic Enugu governor, would foreswear himself to self-exile, should MKO’s mandate be revalidated!

    But how times have changed!  In this new season of restructuring, it is the South East hollering, but the South West — aside from Afenifere, which has a peculiar motive by its activism — near-funereally quiet.

    Could the dominant political segment of the Yoruba be too busy “eating” (on account of their power alliance with the North) — and you don’t talk when you eat! — to share the East’s current  hyper-excitement on restructuring?

    But to be fair to that lobby, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo’s contribution to the debate just showed how contentious is restructuring’s definition.  In that intervention, Mr. Osinbajo kept faith with the Bola Tinubu’s school of fiscal federalism.

    Under that rubric, Lagos has found economic stability and increasing prosperity — and that is within this present system of federative ruin, that restructuring hopes to change.

    But is fiscal federalism robust enough to reform a failing system, from consumptive to productive federalism?  Maybe, Osinbajo appears to contend.  Never! The classical restructuring army barks.

    The North, in a way, would appear an entirely different proposition.

    A Muhammadu Buhari, by socialization and orientation, has been honest: he would seldom entertain restructuring. Besides, as Col. Innocent Azubike Nass (rtd), noted in his contribution to the debate, it would be quite fraudulent to hold Buhari to a restructuring agenda, ala Jonathan’s national conference recommendations, when he never made it a core campaign issue, en route to winning the presidency.

    Neither would a Nuhu Ribadu, as modern as Buhari is traditional.  Or even a Nasir el Rufai — as digital and sophisticated as they come, and never shackled, as Buhari and Ribadu, as a former member of the uniformed forces.  Yet, from his Accidental Public Servant, El-Rufai would appear as centrist, as both Buhari and Ribadu.

    So, despite Atiku Abubakar’s conversion, could centrism be core to the northern political mind, as decentralization is core to the South West’s — or indeed, the entire South’s, if the current restructuring clamour, in the South East and South-South, is not just some fad of the moment?  And why?

    Ripples believes in restructuring, and has always said so.  But not as some opportunistic clamour to assuage the loss of power and privilege,  after an election lost and won, as this present crusade suspiciously appears.

    At that crucial juncture, every party would sizzle down and talk to one another, instead of talking at one another, as it is now.

    By the way, why not frame restructuring as a campaign issue in 2019?

  • On sovereignty and restructuring

    On sovereignty and restructuring

    The noise about the structural viability of Nigeria and how this affects sane governance has now assumed a shrill ferocity. While the traditional ramparts of restructuring are still warming up, new converts have seized the battlefield.  There is a gradual hardening of positions with fears masquerading as facts and with prejudice pretending to be the unassailable truth.

    Yet one thing driving the debate which is not obvious to the partisans on both sides of the divide, is the fact that whether we choose to restructure or not, the base of leadership recruitment in the nation is too narrow and constricted, too hamstrung by ethnic bigotry and partisan pettiness to power the aspirations and manifest destiny of the greatest conglomeration of Black people anywhere in the world.

    While President Buhari has insisted times without number that the unity of the nation is non-negotiable and the sovereignty of the state inviolable, his opponents have dismissed this as mere executive daydreaming which is out of sinc with actual reality. There is no human conglomeration or national community whose unity is non-negotiable or fixed for all times, they insist.

    There is sense in which these contrasting positions once again reflect abiding geo-ethnic fault lines in the country.  While General Buhari’s position is backed by the main north and its dominant political tendency, significant sections of the South South, the South East have taken umbrage even as the South West, the old intellectual epicentre for the radical restructuring of the country, watches with quiet animation.

    Those who approve insist that restructuring is the only way forward for the nation even as the opponents maintain that it is just a decoy or mere shorthand for the precipitate dismemberment of the country. Once again, the nation is at the mercy of centrifugal forces. It is important to wade through this thicket of confusion. But first, a historical detour.

    As the new paradigm of nation-states gradually supplanted the old notion of traditional or religious fiefdoms and empire-states, the sovereignty of rulers was extended to the sovereignty of their territories.  Like the old rulers of yore whose reign was inviolable, non-negotiable and attributed to divine ordination, the new nations came to assume an inviolable, non-negotiable and almost religious aura and awe.  In some nations, the worship of the nation almost came to supplant actual religion itself. It was pious fiction; a necessary hoax. To nudge them higher telos, humanity must always believe in something.

    Since it preceded the myth of the inviolable and non-negotiable nation, it was the myth of the inviolable and non-negotiable ruler that had to go first. It exploded in memorable bloodbath as humanity hitherto thought dormant and docile rose in murderous rage to reclaim sovereignty for the people in historic confrontations which have shaped the contours of modern history. Such was the venom and vitriol of these momentous upheavals that thereafter no ruler dare to claim that he was the sum total of the state. As it was to happen in Russia, so had it happened in England, France and the Austro-Hapsburg Empire. In the case of America, the feudal order of succession was summarily banished from the constitution.

    Next to go was the myth of the inviolable and non-negotiable nation as hitherto powerful nations fell to the military might of less fancied nations and as many powerful human communities were supplanted in political and economic ascendancy by seemingly weaker and newer nations. In the process, the sun has set on many empires and nations that had thought that their God was superior to other national Gods. By this token, some nations disappeared never to be seen again while new nations appeared on the scene from the embroiled and embattled wombs of older nations.

    It is a grim irony of history that African nations that are nothing but dreadful caricatures of their colonial foster fathers often invest themselves with the toga of inviolability and non-negotiable sacredness even without the sterling attributes of their heroic European forebears.  The coups, violent seizures of government, persistent armed critiques, summary executions of incumbents and dismemberments of many African nations that have characterized the post-colonial history of Africa should put an end to such grand illusions.

    The enemy in Africa is largely within.  The central contradiction of colonial nationhood in Africa stems from national armies that originated as instruments of internal pacification and rigid enforcers of the territorial integrity of the nation. In the absence of a genuine nationalist political class, the national army often stands between the nation and chaos and as the last bulwark against state disintegration in the face of unyielding fissiparous tendencies.

    But under immense historical pressures, the army often falters, relapsing into its originating summons as an army of internal occupation and instrument of extractive predation preying on national resources. In many African countries, the colonial army had to be disbanded and reconstituted for the nation to move forward. This has been the case in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote D’Ivoire, Rwanda, Uganda, Guinea, Mali, the old Zaire, Ethiopia, Somalia etc.

    As a sterling and exemplary product of the old missionary military, General Mohammadu Buhari  is surely within his right and historic brief to insist that the sovereignty of Nigerian state is inviolable and the unity of the country non-negotiable. For a civil war veteran, this is at it should be. Whenever Nigeria gets into a rough patch, the old military master class have always thrust the reins of power into the hands of one of their own.  The patriotic ardour and firmness of purpose with which the retired general has brought back the ailing Nigerian state from the edge of death in the past one year is an eloquent testimony to this superiority of will.

    Unfortunately, the sovereignty of a state and the non-negotiable nature of a country end when it is confronted by a sovereign ailment that can overwhelm it if care is not taken. This is the situation in which we have found ourselves and it requires much more than military will but creative and visionary statesmanship. Twice, General Buhari has been summoned at such critical conjunctures to bail the nation out with his political skills failing him the first time around. Care must be taken that history does not repeat itself, for the National Question has been exacerbated in the intervening thirty years.

    All nations in the course of their journey towards self-actualization are often confronted by impossible historical and political conundrums which sorely test their will and ability to survive. The talented statesmen and visionary thinkers who framed the American constitution knew what was tormenting them when they spoke to the possibilities of a “more perfect union”. It was an arch and awkward phrase which hints at the troubling tension between actuality and future possibilities. This is not just a semantic quirk but a historic aporia.

    Professor David-West was surely right when he noted the ungrammatical and quaint nature of the phrasing. But nothing can be perfectly perfect.  Under the relentless pressure of history and political developments, the perfect becomes less perfect and it is left to visionary human agency to make it more perfect. The founding fathers of America could not have imagined how the addition of gargantuan land masses of turbulent Texas, the West Coast, Florida, parts of Hispanic Mexico and even Russianized  Alaska would have gelled with the original brew, or the epic contradictions of a country transforming into a continent-nation.

    President  Buhari needs not be afraid of restructuring, but he should be wary of those who use the slogan of restructuring to preach hate and the summary dismemberment of the country. He should also be mindful of those who scream against restructuring as a strategy of keeping the nation in fossilized underdevelopment and Stone Age depredations simply to perpetuate an unjust system and its entrenched privileges.

    All countries, if they are not to perish, must undergo periodic restructuring as an ironic reaffirmation of their sovereignty. This is what has been happening in Nigeria since colonial amalgamation. For a long time after amalgamation and until the run up to independence, Nigerian was ruled as a unitary harshly centralized state in which the South did not know what the North was up to and with subsequent perilous consequences for national unity and cohesion.

    It was the first coup, the civil war, the sudden explosion in oil revenues and the military’s morbid fear of centrifugal forces which terminated the experiment with regional governance and fiscal federalism. In their notion of the nation as they understood it, and no doubt coloured by the rigidly centralized and harshly regimented vision of a vast garrison, the Nigerian military simply gathered the reins of power under a federal command.  This authoritarian regime with its abhorrence of indiscipline and querulous bids for Bohemian independence no doubt resonates with a section or sections of the country that find comfort in the certainties and orderliness of centralized feudal rule and its mutants.

    But a nation is like a growing organism and there can be no permanent quick-fix solutions to its ailments. As history progresses and as the iron law of uneven development overtakes a chaotic colonial amalgam like Nigeria, new pathologies surface and new nation-disabling infirmities emerge which can only be contained by prising open the draconian iron cage which restrains centrifugal forces no doubt but which also bottles up the creative energies of our diverse people.

    Ironically enough, the greatest enemies of restructuring in Nigeria are the political elite who reduce this vital aspect of national reengineering to partisan and execrable political gaming. When they are in power they keep mute about restructuring. But once they are outside the loop of power, they keep shouting restructuring from the rooftop as a rearguard rally for unaccountable power all over again. What is lost on them is the fact that just as federal elections in a multi-ethnic nation cannot be won by hateful ethnic jingoism, the successful restructuring of a post-colonial polity requires substantial elite consensus which involves the intricate negotiations and arduous elite pacting that more organic nations take as already given.

    Meanwhile as this political gaming and zero sum grandstanding take the central stage of our existence, many sections of the country are hurting badly in the iron cage of national disorientation. A federation must not become an instrument of flagellation. There can be no doubt that the ravaged Niger Delta requires a conceptually impregnable New Deal which must be sustained and incorporated into a new federal constitution.

    The siege on the urbanized South West coming through the labyrinthine maze of creeks and the phenomenon of urban terrorism that has infiltrated the area from all directions as a result of those fleeing rural poverty and biblical misery speak to the need for the urgent decentralization of our police force or at the very least the setting up of special security forces in the area answerable only to the respective local authorities.

    In the north, particularly after Boko Haram and the miscarried Arab Spring, it is now mandatory to set up a Special Border Guard to ward off the phenomenon of religious, economic and political terrorism coming through our porous, ill-secured borders from the larger Maghreb and the Sahelian Desert. This must be in place with an equivalent of the American Coast Guard which contains maritime threats to the nation’s territorial and economic sovereignty from source. The current trend of involving the army and the navy in purely internal security operations portends danger to nation and national institution.

    It is the prayer of many Nigerians that General Mohammadu Buhari must find within himself the inner reserves of courage and resilience to rise above petty political partisanship and ethnic bigotry in order to do what is needful for the country at this perilous conjuncture. This government has done many things right. But it has also committed unforced errors and made strategic mistakes in the political and economic sectors.

    The post-colonial state in its current incarnation in Nigeria is too weak and dispirited to attempt a radical surgery on the nation without losing the patient to the forces of ungainly and bloody dismemberment.  Nobody ever thought the rot was this humongous and deeply systemic. It is not helpful to the current Global Order for Nigeria to go down in smoke and chaos. They will do everything within their power to prevent this even if it means radical surgery of their own.

    But once the nation is economically stabilized and morally sanitized, the Buhari administration must confront the crucial and critical need to revisit the current anomalous structure of the country. If however it chooses to be a one-issue government and mono-agendum intervention, it is absolutely within its democratic prerogative——until 2019 that is.

  • Reconciling democracy and restructuring

    Reconciling democracy and restructuring

    I take seriously the reactions and responses of readers to my weekly contributions and I take time to digest them and, if necessary, respond. It helps also that they have been few and far between. They have also been generally thoughtful and thought-provoking. The latest, on last week’s column, is not an exception. While I find the tone of the comment mature and reasonable, and its general stance agreeable, I think that the logic of the argument is shaky. It is because I sympathise with the commentator’s fundamental position that I have chosen to respond to the flawed logic of the argument.

    The comment is interesting for at least two reasons. First, the author took the time to dig from the archives my column of January 16, 2015 to interrogate my position in the column of July 15, 2016. Quoting from my January 2015 column, the author wonders why I should now maintain my current position. In fairness, the commentator did not directly accuse me of inconsistency. Still, I suspect that there is a sinister aspect to his or her point: If that was your argument then, why worry now? You wanted the elections. You got the elections. Now live with it. For the commentator, it was a got you moment. Here, below, is the comment and in its totality.

    ‘“Fifth, if restructuring is an important issue for the polity, it is not too much to ask the presidential candidates to explain their positions on it to the voters before they (voters) head for the polls. Hopefully, candidates will have opportunities for debate on issues because such is an occasion for the electorate to get to know more about their prospective leaders. However, if voters don’t care about issues of restructuring and constitutional amendment, we cannot force them and we must be reminded about the inviolability of Lincoln’s wisdom: “Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.” (Riding Out the Gathering Storm (2) January 16, 2016.” The people have decided. Why are you worrying?’

    What is my response to the question: why are you worrying? First, I am not worrying. Rather, I am concerned about the future of the country that we all claim to love. With all the negatives that she has drawn to herself especially in recent times, does this country have a robust future that makes nations great? My intervention, through this column, has been generally focused on issues surrounding this question. Last week was not an exception.

    Second, the commentator seemed to infer that if I pitched my tent in favour of conducting a democratic election and letting the people vote their conscience, and they eventually did, then I should not be in a position to re-litigate the case for restructuring. “Why are you worrying yourself?” means “ You argued for the election to go on in lieu of restructuring before election. Why are you now arguing for restructuring?”  A fair interpretation of my column under reference and the one that preceded it cannot come to this conclusion. It’s worth recapitulating.

    The man of God, Pastor Tunde Bakare, had in a powerful submission, suggested the postponement of the presidential election to avoid what he referred to as “the gathering storm.” He recommended instead first dealing with the restructuring of the country. I differed respectfully while acknowledging the thoughtfulness of the pastor’s intervention.

    Surely, there was a gathering storm. But to my mind, that storm would have become a Level V hurricane if the election had been halted. And in view of the revelations since then, I still firmly believe that it would have been a huge mistake. I then suggested that a debate could be organised for the candidates with restructuring as the major issue. This is how democratic elections are conducted. If this is a matter that people cared about, they would make up their minds on the best candidate based on their evaluation of his or her position on the matter of restructuring. It was from this mindset that I brought in Abraham Lincoln who had suggested that citizens will have to live the consequences of their vote.

    Now, what contradiction is there between asking democratic elections to set the stage for restructuring, and now, after elections, asking for restructuring to be placed on the front burner? I certainly don’t see any.

    What is more, it was also clear that the antecedent of my suggestion, namely a debate on restructuring as the major issue of the campaign never received the blessing of electoral authorities. Therefore, there was no way to know what citizens’ preferences were. They went and voted presumably on other matters, including the proverbial and detestable stomach infrastructure appeal for which all parties competed with gusto.

    If the platforms presented by the political parties were evaluated through the medium of a political debate, and the people chose a candidate who rejected restructuring, the commentator would at least have a point. But since that was not the case, the logic that the argument relied upon is deeply flawed.

    But there is more. Assume what is not the case—that the people actually went to the last elections on the basis of an informed understanding of the candidates’ positions on restructuring. Assume further that with such an understanding, the majority chose to elect a candidate who rejected restructuring. Would the commentator then have a valid argument against me? Would I be found guilty of inconsistency? The answer from my humble opinion is “No”. The reason is quite simple and there are two parts to it.

    In the first place, democratic elections do not sentence a country and a people to a life-time of helplessness or hopelessness. When elections are conducted and won or lost on the basis of ideological positions, the losers do not as a result choose to fall on their own swords. They brace themselves up for the next time hoping that their position will attract more voters and secure a majority.  Therefore, while democracy is against imposing a position on the people, it is not against a persistent appeal to them all-year round and at every election cycle on behalf of a position that one truly supports. Consider that as my present position on the matter of restructuring.

    The second part of my response is quite simple. My last column takes the All Progressive Congress (APC) up on its declared interventions by way of its documented platform as contained in its manifesto. The point I made was simply that while I concede that the party did not make any direct pronouncement on restructuring, it should start fulfilling its promises on at least the three items that were clearly articulated in its manifesto. These included the matter of restructuring the police force with an emphasis on community policing, reforming the Land Use Act to encourage freehold or leasehold, and refocusing the economy, with particular reference to a new approach to mining.

    Is there any inconsistency in upholding the sanctity of democratic elections and calling on the victorious party to act up to its promise? I see none. Suspending an election in a democracy could be more problematic to the polity because it would create a dangerous precedence. The nation missed the opportunity for serious debate on restructuring through a sovereign national conference in 1998 prior to the return to civil rule. Of course, the military had also then been traumatised as an institution and was just too eager to quit the political scene. We can moan that missed opportunity for ever. But we cannot make up for it by intervening in the democratic process without appearing to favour one party or the other.

    Meanwhile, however, there is a moral justification for calling upon a political party to fulfil its promises to the electorate because, as Hobbes would say, justice is keeping promises voluntarily made. That was my message to APC. And if the party refuses to keep its promises, well, there is always a next time coming. I respectfully rest my case.

  • Bakare, Ositelu okay restructuring

    Bakare, Ositelu okay restructuring

    The Superintending Overseer of the Latter Rain Assembly, Pastor Tunde Bakare,  has called for the restructuring of Nigeria to prevent the nation from drifting into anarchy.

    Pastor Bakare spoke while answering questions from reporters after delivering the 50th-year anniversary lecture of the founder of the Church of the Lord, the late Prophet Josiah Olunowo Ositelu, at the Rufus Okikiola Ositelu Multipurpose Hall, Ogere Remo, Ogun State, at the weekend.

    The topic of the lecture is “The Crisis of Christianity and the Challenge of the Church”.

    He said: “There is no alternative to restructuring of Nigeria . We must go back to the basics . We must prepare the foundation of many generations.

    “In the past, people in their regions maximise the potential of their land and contributed their quota to the Federal Government. We must go back to the regional system if we are not going to continue to see unrest.

    “And there is no negotiation, there is no way out of it. We must go back and raise that foundation, restore and repair the bridge and then the increase of his government and peace will be experienced in our land’’.

    In the same vein, Primate Rufus Okikiola Ositelu, said the only way to rescue the country was to  restructure it and allow the regions grow at their pace .

    He described the federal system as absurd , saying the country must be restructured to let the zones manage their resources.

  • Youths condemn calls for restructuring

    Youths condemn calls for restructuring

    •Back Buhari anti-corruption war

    Thousands of youths yesterday kicked against the agitation for restructuring of the nation.

    To them, the agitation is a distraction to the anti-corruption war of the current administration.

    The youths stated these during a march on the National Assembly under the aegis of Coalition of Patriotic Nigerians Both at Home and Diaspora in Defence of Democracy.

    They also passed a vote of confidence on President Muhammadu Buhari in his fight against corruption.

    Addressing reporters during a solidarity match for President Buhari, national coordinator of the group, Sunday Attah, said those calling for Nigeria’s restructuring were enemies of the country.

    He said: “Anyone that continues with this hostility of using demand for restructuring or any other excuse to distract President Buhari is an enemy of Nigeria.

    “Protests, calls for break up and violence against economic infrastructure may intensify but we know we will overcome the enemies of Nigeria.

    “These insurrections, separatists’ agenda, economic sabotage, terrorism, unbridled theft of public resources and other criminal acts are the planks that paid agents are using to canvass the restructuring of Nigeria.

    “They call it restructuring but enlightened people realise that it is a cover for negotiating the partitioning of Nigeria to feudal lords who are waiting to rule enclaves in which they want to keep the rest of us as slaves.”

    He said those calling for restructuring were the same people that sabotaged the economic growth of the country, adding that Nigeria must remain united.

    He explained: “Irrespective of what fine words they couch their evil intentions in our belief in the unity of Nigeria is not negotiable and we will do all the law prescribes to maintain the unity of Nigeria.

    “While some may think the economy is struggling, these very vices that have been at the root of all other problems are the real problems to be tackled.

    “Once they are properly addressed we will all see a new Nigeria arising out of the ruins that it has been plunged by previous regimes.”

     

  • Restructuring and elite consensus

    Restructuring and elite consensus

    Saturday evening, July 2.  Rendezvous: Jazzhole, upscale culture mart, in upscale Ikoyi, Lagos.

    Wale Adebanwi, en route to a new professorial chair at Oxford University, England, had gathered a lean but powerful assemblage, for a select reading of his new book, The Nation as Grand Narrative: The Nigerian Press and the Politics of Meaning (NY, USA: University of Rochester Press, 2016).

    That gathering was minute.  But it was well and truly distinguished.

    Kunle Ajibade, the convener, Prof. Niyi Osundare, ace poet and public commentator, Prof. Adigun Agbaje, famed professor of political science, Basorun J.K. Randle, the grand old man of numbers and letters, Erelu Bisi Fayemi, critical voice in gender and development studies, and Nike Ransome-Kuti, she of the great Ransome-Kuti clan.

    Also in-house were Jimi Agbaje, charming, urbane and avuncular, Yinka Odumakin, young Afenifere warrior, Tunde Fagbenle, until very recently, a columnist with The Punch, Funke Awolowo — and son — daughter of Segun Awolowo I, and eldest granddaughter of the great Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Laolu Akande, from the Presidency and delectable spouse, and a certain Fafa Princewill, a bearded gentleman who somewhat, and with relish, regaled the house with his brand of Ijaw-centric history, in the context of Nigeria’s troubled nationhood.

    After tributes to Adebanwi’s scholarly genius, focus and fecundity, the house moved into the business of the evening.

    Prof. Osundare, serenaded journalism — one of at least three areas of study that tickle Prof. Adebanwi’s genius, the other two being political science and anthropology —  pronouncing it “superior to history”.  Whereas history mops up the past, he reasoned, journalism laps up the present, in preparation for the future, which history dutifully records as the past!

    Going back to the era of the Tatler and Spectator, of David Steele and Joseph Addison, pioneers of British journalism (18th century), which by the way shaped journalism as we know it today, he insisted that journalism — news, features and even the column — constituted invaluable sources to the historian, as (s)he thrives to capture the true spirit of the epoch.

    Tributes fully paid, Adebanwi proceeded, reading from his book, the media recording of critical junctures of Nigeria’s political evolution: the 1953 media excitement after Anthony Enahoro, on 22 July 1953, in the House of Representatives, had raised the self-government motion by 1956; the June 12, 1993 presidential election annulment, and the  follow-up media crisis of infidelity to truth and principle, and, of course, the 1999 transition to civil rule election, which presidency Olusegun Obasanjo won.

    At these critical junctures, Adebanwi noted, citing notorious facts of history as his research revealed, the Nigerian press was no sole bastion of perceived common truth, or principle or even felt ideology.

    Rather, they were captives to interests — group interests — which regrettably, the author grimly noted, was fast morphing into individual interests, with the collapse of ideological politics (no thanks of Ibrahim Babangida’s experimentation with new breed politics, of the late 1980s and early 1990s).

    Adebanwi’s unflattering verdict?  From the 1950s to the present, the Nigerian newspaper press has declined from being captives to group interests to now, captives to individual interests!

    By some freak of history though, the Nigerian newspaper appears heading exactly where it started.

    Great owner-editors of the Lagos (and therefore, Nigerian) early press, John Payne Jackson, and successor-son, Thomas Horatio Jackson of the Lagos Weekly Record, James Bright Davies, the brave soul who owned and edited Times of Nigeria, and even Herbert Macaulay, of the Lagos Daily News, pushed legitimate personal interests, even if those interests, according to Fred Omu in his Press and Politics in Nigeria, 1880-1937, commingled with perceived collective good, particularly regarding the economic domination by the European merchants of their day.

    Even the so-called ‘wrap around’ adverts, which many a journalism purist still regards as editorial heresy — completely pawning your prime news pages for crass commerce — had some echoes from the past.  Back then, the convention was to devote the front page to adverts, shipping and other commercial news, in the early Nigerian newspapers in Lagos.

    There appears a big difference, though.  Whereas the old masters could lay some claim to nobility of purpose, at that crucial juncture of Nigerian press history, it would appear a cynic’s haven for the present players: the advertiser that slams his message in your face because he has the cash to splash, the newspaper investor that projects nothing but brazen self-interest, just because again he has the cash to drive the business, and of course, the ethnic pressure group that, through the media, screams injustice! — not when that ‘injustice’ favours it, but only when it hurts its interest!

    That, of course, brings the discourse to “elite consensus”, which at once animated the gathering.  But how can that be, in a people who seldom agree on any basics?

    In the glory days of regionalism, which nolstagia is firing the present clamour for restructuring, the Sardauna’s government named key projects after the northern premier: Ahmadu Bello University, Ahmadu Bello Stadium.

    But could Awo, in the West, have named the University of Ife and Liberty Stadium (both which ironically now bear his name) without the West convulsing with an earthquake of “nepotism and cronyism”?  Or, for that matter, Zik, in the East?

    In the waste years of military rule, Sani Abacha’s grand thievery was settled.  Yet, to this day, landmarks named for him still stand.  It’s doubtful if such could hold in the South West.

    Even in the present corruption hurly-burly, not many Yoruba would rationalize Baba Olu Falae’s alleged obtainment.  Yet, a good number of Igbo would jump out demonstrating that “our brothers”, Olisa Metuh and Ike Ekweremadu, are being “persecuted”, even in a case before a court of law!

    How can you secure elite consensus, under such violently differing fundamentals?

    Although Adebanwi submitted that was still possible, citing the Awo era elite consensus of persuading parents to free farm hands to enjoy free primary education, in a basic agrarian society, Ripples insisted that, for Nigeria, that might just be a bridge too far.

    Yorubaland is like the Brits.  Though the English, the Scots and the Welsh may have differences, they are all tribesmen in the British nation.

    But Nigeria?  Not unlike putting Poles, Russians, the French, the Iberians, the Slavs, etc, in the same geographical enclave.  The natural elixir for that, it would appear, is federalism.

    Though Prof. Agbaje would play the purist, “complexifying” (in his own very words) the subject; and insisting Nigeria was technically no federation as Ripples had maintained, that hardly vitiates the point that the ideal, for a country like Nigeria, is federalism.

    At the end, however, even that little gathering could not agree on a consensus on elite consensus!  That, as it were, showed how complex the Nigerian situation is!

    Still, there are settled virtues, that make humanity thrive: honesty, diligence, fair play, equity, justice, empathy, etc.  If only the Nigerian elite are settled on these fundamentals, Nigeria’s so-called complexity may, open sesame, just disappear!

  • Osinbajo: Nigeria needs diversification not restructuring

    Osinbajo: Nigeria needs diversification not restructuring

    Vice President Yemi Osinbajo said at the weekend that Nigeria needs diversification of the economy and not restructuring because the Federal Government controls the bulk of the resources.

    Osinabjo attended the second Foundation Lecture of the Elizade University, Ilara-Mokin in Ondo State, and delivered a lecture entitled: “The Future is Here Earlier Than We Thought.”

    He urged Nigerians to embrace technology as a vital key to development.

    During the question-and-answer session, Osinbajo said: “We are not earning enough from oil and taxes anymore, the nation is blessed, every state can feed itself and also export if we engage in agriculture.”

    On restructuring, he described calling for restructuring of the country simply because the federal government controls a bigger portion of the resources, may not be helpful or make a difference.

    He said: “Even if states are given half of the resources of the federal government, the situation will not change; the only change is to diversify the economy.”

    In his lecture, he said understanding the way technology works and thinking out of the box is the way to go in the world of today.

    He stressed that the path to greatness and development is in critical thinking and coming up with innovative ideas.

    A statement by the Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Laolu Akande, quoted Osinbajo as saying: “Whatever you choose to do, be technology savvy and understand its best uses in your chosen discipline.”

    Osinbajo also listed major and global advancements attained through technology and innovative ideas including how some Nigerians have taken due advantage of it.

    He noted that people can no longer just be, for instance, an economist, an accountant, a graduate of international relations, Mass Communication or Performing Arts, but “Create a network of peers where participants interact and share in the value creation. Multi-skilling is crucial today.

    “You must learn to be a versatile operator not a mono-skilled graduate…everyone has a right to be rich, age is not a barrier.”

    He pointed out that the old way of doing things are gone with the advances of technology.

    Recognizing the central role innovation and technology play for national economic growth plan, he said, that the federal government provided extensively for technology and innovation in the current budget.

    “This year we are establishing technology hubs across the country. Two super hubs in Abuja and  Lagos and six regional hubs in the six geopolitical zones. In partnership with several technology companies the hubs will be fully resourced with infrastructure and capacity building,” he said.

    He added that the federal government will also train a pool of 100,000 software developers, hardware service professionals, animators, graphic artists, building services professionals, artisans and others.

    The government, he said, has further launched a special presidential initiative on technology and start-ups and that 50 of the most innovative technology start-ups would soon be invited to the Presidential Villa to meet with major technology and innovation companies as well as to collaborate with the federal government.

    While in Ilara-Mokin, the Vice President visited Oba A. A. Adefehinti, the Alara of Ilara-Mokin.

    He also inaugurated a Divisional Police Station in the town.