The proposal for a national summit on the future of Nigeria has generated so much political heat, thanks to the nature of our politics and the bad blood that it has created over the years, especially since the current dispensation began. One might argue that it is the nature of politics and only an idealised version that bears no resemblance to reality may have a different take on the matter. It is also true, however, that this latest iteration of the craziness of our body politic is self-inflicted by the most visible actors in the drama that it is.
The President announced the inauguration of a committee to work out the logistics for the conference after so much vacillation. And just soon after, he introduced an unnecessary complication as if the committee’s work has not been complex enough. Apparently unperturbed by the expressed desire, indeed, demand of supporters of a national conference for one that is truly anchored in the people and birthed by the people, the President suggested that the outcome of the conference would be useful as raw material for the National Assembly’s constitutional amendment functions.
The President’s idea of a national conference is thus ages away from the demand of the people. And there is no better evidence for this than the position of the Chairman of his Advisory Committee who insists that the Committee approaches its work as if there is no constitution, which means it expects the conference to produce a new constitution.
Recently, however, it is becoming clear how the President and the National Assembly envision what would have been a defining feature of their domestic agenda. Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu has been widely reported as claiming that “the National Assembly has the power to discuss the report of the proposed National Conference”, to quote from The Nation’s version of the reports. Since Senator Ekweremadu is not only the Deputy Senate President but also wears a second hat as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitution Amendment, his comments have to be taken seriously, and they are to say the least, disturbing.
According to the Distinguished Senator, “there is going to be a debate over the outcome of the planned dialogue at the National Assembly. It is going to be subjected to a critical debate. It has to go through legislative processes.” This is partly because, NASS has to “make sure that everything is right and Nigerians agree on it.”
The logic of this declaration is mind-boggling. How can it ever be that Nigerians might not agree on what they endorse in a national conference where every nationality and interest group is represented? To defend an argument for subjecting the will of the people to a parliamentary debate is simply a deceptive way of trivialising the will of the people. It is to suggest that the representatives of the people are wiser (“they are experts in legislative processes”) and therefore more important than the people.
As if that condescending attitude isn’t grave enough, the Senate’s true intention, as revealed by the Chairman, is to pull a rabbit of a seven-year single term from the hat of national dialogue. This must be the “something fundamental that can be discovered” as Ekweremadu puts it. Though Senators rejected the idea of a seven-year term for the President and Governors, the Constitution Review Committee is hoping to propose it as an amendment item. And the reason is that in the judgment of the committee, “single term tenure would resolve the crisis arising from the competition for federal power.”
There is no doubt that there is across the board, a cut-throat competition for power and perhaps single-term tenure might help resolve that unhealthy competition. But zeroing in on this issue as if it is all there is to the national conference simply reveals the deceptive politics behind the proposal. Recall that the Senate Deputy Leader also suggests that if the amendment is passed, then the incumbent President may have two more years until 2017 and the general election postponed till then. For those who dismissed the idea of a seven year single-term as another Third Term agenda, this proposal is a non-starter. And it now appears that the opponents of the proposed national dialogue have a case.
Since I believe that there is a lot to achieve from a well-conceived national dialogue, I wish that the proposal on national conference that was vigorously canvassed and much-awaited has been presented with an honest and sincere intention.
There is, however, a much needed and more urgent summit.National Conference is for a determination of where the country is heading politically and economically. It is about how the various nationalities and interest groups relate to the centre. But assume that we get a handle on this important mode of governance and relationship, and we have a perfect federalism. Is anyone under the illusion that our national problem is solved and we are thereafter on the path of glory?
There are numerous afflictions that are internal to the various nationalities that only they can resolve. And I am not here concerned so much with the issue of internal unity within the nationalities. For instance, I have never thought that there will be ever a Yoruba unity because there has never been any such thing. But in spite of the obvious concerning disunity among the Yoruba, as among other nationalities, there was a time when certain values were commonly endorsed and enforced. That is no longer the case. The fundamental concept of hard work was a prevailing ideal. Now it’s a loafer’s philosophy that is entertained. And education and training in the traditional or modern forms have always been the centre piece of our cultures. Now we are praise singers of ignorance.
Every culture or nationality has an anomalous mode of life—kidnapping, begging, fundamentalism and fanaticism, idleness—that has emerged in the last thirty years, embraced by a significant portion of its members, especially the youth, and which have been responsible for some of the more egregious aspects of our political life, including corruption in all its aspects. And no nationality can or should be proud of its internal malaise. But what is being done? When one reads about baby factories, one wonders, where is the traditional family? Stories of young students even in rural areas skipping school and doing drugs raise concern about parental responsibility. Doing something is crucial and cannot wait till or tied up with a national dialogue or conference. There is an urgent need for every nationality group to look inwards and dialogue with itself so it does not fall into oblivion.
