Continued from The Second Amalgamation of Nigeria, under Obasanjo: PRONACO is why the Federalists always win,
Part I
Alternatively, you can contribute to the deliberations
from without by following quasi-parliamentary protocols to avail the Conference with your views in hard copy. I
doubt that the conferees will ignore a written submission laid before them by a Soyinka or an Enahoro, and even the eloquent Ojukwu, whose own submission
will surely outshine all others in both presentation and substance. Even a viscerally stubborn Obasanjo will take presidential notice thereof, and he has
already shown early promise and uncommon democratic mien by nominating two of these distinguished Nigerians to
the ranks of the Conference delegates. Ignoring all these and resorting to issuing acerbic press releases and grandstanding
before an adversarial press won�t cut it but will only mar credibility and motives, and strengthen the President�s
lone ranger status and moral authority on hot button issues like
the indivisibility of Nigeria and resource control. And whenever the President looks this good or gets politically
burnished by default, well intentioned contrary opinions from men and women of goodwill begin to sound like shrill
catcalls and filibuster. And that is when Nigerians begin to polarize and obfuscate to the greater likelihood of
yet another deadlock on issues that a more civil debate and responsible political behavior from our statesmen would
have dispensed with without breaking much sweat. The alternative, which is to permit PRONACO to proceed with a �sovereign� conference of �nationalities� is pretty scary, to say the least.
Look at what happened to Soviet Union after a politically weak and overly idealistic Gorbachov allowed his fine political restructuring agenda to slip from his control into the hands of ethnic
nationalists like Yeltsin, and pseudo-democrats from the Balkans and the other outlying possessions in Soviet Asia.
They banded together like �braves-in-council�
and marooned poor Gorbachov to the lonely grandeur of the Kremlin from where he
reigned over the escalating ruins around him like a puppet. The pros and cons of Soviet disintegration are besides
the point here. What really counts is the anarchic dimension it later assumed under Gorbachov�s watch, the global vacuum that came forth in its wake, and most importantly, the Soviet-wide nostalgia
for a return to the old order after the "cookie crumbled.� Do we really want Nigeria to break up just like
that? Even if some of us want Nigeria to break up, we should not expect Mr. President who swore to defend the constitution
to unwittingly cheer us on. That will be an impeachable offense, if you will; or barring that, a bizarre act of
political self immolation. That he even wants a conference is very telling that he truly cares about the future
of Nigeria.
We have had certain moments in Nigerian history when
national conferences of
|
Advertise here
|
|
|
similar coloration and �no go� areas unexpectedly produced some results Nigerians later applauded. Despite all
his faults, Abacha gave us a conference or a constituent assembly that
produced the concept of the six geopolitical zones, thanks to his number one threat at the time, Chief Ekwueme, who agreed to participate despite his well founded
reservations. That Abacha projected his own views and nominees much more vigorously
and dangerously than Obasanjo is stating the obvious. I do not believe that the
jury is still out on the verdict that the six-zonal structure is the best yet of all prior attempts Nigerians had
made to have a semblance of a widely accepted political formula that brought some order in the distribution of
federal political largesse from top to down. That tens of disparate tribes and tongues in the South South can now congregate under one political umbrella to demand the Presidency with one voice is a better weapon against the cankerworm
of ethnicism than the several doses of state creation standing
alone. You may disagree with IBB and his
complex political models, but his own conference(s) or bureaus gave Nigeria a two-party system that saw the best
election this nation had ever conducted since the McPherson Constitution. I doubt if Abiola would have made it if he had had other fringe parties eating away at his core base in both the
North and South, and costing him a few critical election-winning votes. After all, it took the absentee ballots
of a few American GIs on overseas tour of duty and a handful �butterfly ballots�, or �hanging chards�, and a partisan
Ms. Harris for Bush to clinch the election against Gore. Sometimes it can be a close shave like that, but rather
that than the contentious and obscenely overwhelming margins of our own. Contrast the two-party Nigeria with the
legalized multi-party system of post-IBB Nigeria.
Is contemporary Nigeria not quickly becoming a one-party structure in practice, if not at law? Is that not telling
enough that Nigerians are by political behavior averse to multiplicity of parties? Yet when IBB claims that he understands what Nigerians truly desire,
some people still laugh him off as presumptuous. Any candid pundit, however anti-establishment is likely to agree
that there is now a widespread and ethnically neutral nostalgia for the brief political order and predictability
enjoyed by the nation during the halcyon days of IBB�s two-party
interregnum. It is beyond the scope of this discourse to dwell on the legalities of annulling the subsequent election,
the result of which was most probably singularly made possible because only two parties were allowed contest. The
pertinent point is that Obasanjo�s own conference might produce a similar surprise, even
if of a different impact, but one with ramifications that may well comport with the true wishes of Nigerians from
differing political and ethnic divides. That Obasanjo
wishes to redline some people and their issues and force some cohesion and orderly conduct reveals a genuine concern
he has long harbored for the future of Nigeria. And it is his duty to do so. That he stretched an olive branch
to his tormentors strengthens the proposition that the man has the requisite character and fitness to govern even
handedly. Even when he clambers at it, you still "gotta"
give it to him for mostly scoring a perfect ten in managing to slitter through the many mines and inanities that
litter our political landscape.
It makes a lot of political sense and bespeaks of uncommon
spunk to have a leader like Obasanjo
who does not blink from taking strong responsibility for the future of his nation. And what better way to do this
than to convene a national political conference that will give him the forum and quasi-legal cover to bring the
rest of his programs to some fruition. Recall that Obasanjo
is not handing down a decree of sorts, or careening some half-baked bill through an arguably discredited and neutered
National Assembly. Rather, he is bringing people with complex personalities together to discuss the future of Nigeria,
and as should be expected, not the dismemberment of Nigeria. Or would you rather he presents the Conference with
terms of reference that included some outlines on dismemberment of Nigeria? See how that sounds? Not good, right?
That he desires to influence the course and content of deliberations or contribute indirectly to it by appointing
some men of similar political leaning or �verified federalists� is merely presidential and should be acknowledged
as such, pure and simple. To do the opposite will be politically irresponsible because unelected men without any
privities to security reports will have a field day attempting to constitute themselves into a de facto constituent
assembly (read: "sovereign conference") to decide the future of Nigeria within the narrow purview common
with anti-establishment organizations. Such extremes can only be expected to occur in anarchic polities, such as
we saw in the former Eastern Bloc nations after the fall of Soviet Union; or in blood-letting revolutions like
the Bolshevik garden variety in Russia. The Romanov Czar
of the era was not a bad man but he allowed Lenin much leeway, and paid with his life and that of his children.
Another way of looking at this whole issue is to press a William Jefferson Clinton to invite renegade bands of
Klansmen and Black Panthers to jaw-jaw on the issue of race relations in America across the street from the White
House. If you are domiciled in the continental United States, you might as well gather your loved ones and take
a quick transatlantic hike back to motherland Nigeria in advance of the conflagration that must occur when men
of such diametrically opposed and non-mainstream views are convened to talk it out. Nigeria has not come to that
point of degeneration yet, and I do not believe that Nigerians will intentionally attempt to restructure their
country through such potentially regressive and mischievous mode of conferencing, or even tolerate a leader who
permits that to happen. But should a popular uprising for revolutionary change arise some day, even an Obasanjo with all his famous political skills and all the apparatus
of coercion under his command and control cannot prevent it. If he tries, some very bad banana pills will sure
be waiting for him. Despite his sub-continental dreams, Nehru could not prevent the partition of India largely
because the time was right.
Therefore, we should not by instinct be too wary of
Nigerian federalists of the Canadian genre, or �amalgamationists�
- my �Nigerianese� coinage and parlance, if you will - for describing
people like Obasanjo and his ilk who continue to espouse a ramrod commitment
to the concept of "One Nigeria" with a strong center that will make Lord Lugard and the Great Zik smile
from their mausoleums with admiration and pride. In a uniquely heterogeneous society like Nigeria, men like these
can also be the best guarantors of state or regional autonomy, real or watered down. They tend to be politically
smart enough to reckon that some form of state or regional autonomy is both necessary and expedient to the survival
of any federation as complex and populous like ours. Whether that autonomy is more of a fiscal or political nature
is merely a matter of ideology and political concessions. And compared to those with the opposite view, federalists
are the ones with the credibility to deal effectively with the divisive issue of devolution of real power between
the center and its constituent units. In the United States, it was the federalists, not their opposites - the confederates
or separatists who saw fit and also had the requisite clout to pass the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This Amendment and a few others like it relinquished autonomy to the states on certain fundamental matters that
Nigerian regionalists, or even separatists cannot even presently contemplate.
One of such is the autonomy of the states to exclusively control law enforcement within their own territory, except
for offenses committed within the clear jurisdictional reach of federal authorities, or in other words, on federal
property; or other offenses that border on commercial intercourse between the states, such as wire fraud. Thus,
between "suspected" regionalists like Odumegwu-Ojukwu
or Musa Ahmed Yerima on
the one hand, and "trusted" federalists like Obasanjo
or Orji Uzor Kalu on the other, who will make a more credible or less
threatening case for the establishment of state police? If the operative word is �credible�, then Nigerians might
as well dismiss such case as malicious and mischievous if presented by the former, but benign and patriotic if
made by the later. You will as soon hear many say �Ojukwu wants state police as a ruse to bring back Biafra� and
�Yerima wants a state police that will defend his Sharia dreams.�
And then conversely, that �Obasanjo
or Orji Uzor wants
state police for a stronger and indivisible federal Nigeria because they hold the concept of One Nigeria to be
self evident and inviolable.� See what I mean? It is a no brainer after
all. And there is more.
The Sarduana
declined a legal right and opportunity to become the federal Premier in 1960 because he was politically smart and
considerate enough to reckon that the South was too uncomfortable with his notions on regional autonomy. He instead
sent Tafawa Balewa, less
of an icon but unquestionably, a federalist to the core, with whom the South found a comfort level. Igbo army officers
led by Odumegwu-Ojukwu who held the fate of Nigeria in their hands
after the fall of Balewa gathered to not only lead the second "coup"
that prevented Nzeogwu from ruling Nigeria but rallied behind Ironsi because
they figured that the other regions deemed Nzeogwu to
be an ethnic champion as contrasted to Ironsi�s
federalist or centralist record. They were Igbos with ethnic sentiments in their veins but they overcame that to
pursue a goal that
put the entire nation first. If not for the suspicious "secessionist" flag the impresario Murtala was flying at full mast on the grounds of the military
cantonment from whence he launched his successful "third" coup, Gowon, the Northern Christian and federalist by comparison would not have had a chance at the top job.
He was the best and probably the only officer of Northern extraction of the era his region, the North could offer
the rest of Nigeria to prove that they were not on a course for ethnic cleansing and serious about national reconciliation.
Umaru Dikko, the
avowed regionalist as well as the NPN frontrunner
for the Nigerian Presidency made the South so queasy and electability
so uncertain that a junior scion and neophyte in the person of Shagari got
lucky and had his meteoric rise to federal power, largely on account of his perceived centralist or federalist
appeal. One of the best kept secrets on the motivation for overthrowing Buhari was because he appointed a fellow Northerner and a Muslim to boot as his deputy, which without
more, placed him under perennial suspicion as a "log cabin" regional champion. This is partly why Nigerians
of great political intellect like Awolowo,
Bola Ige, and Odumegwu-Ojukwu
have had a hard time trying to be elected to rule Nigeria. Nigerians may carry on with lively debates and animated
calls for ethnic autonomy but when the opportunity truly presents itself they abandon ship and hanker down to the
better collective security offered by national unity and strong federal government. Without appearing to exclude
other reasons, this is why the Northerners who were the forerunners of secession quickly backpedaled to battle
against it, and the West and other minor parts demurred in tow, leaving Ibos out in the cold feeling guilty and
finessed as the only secessionists. Taken further, I do not believe that the gains made by the South South both on the political arena and the courts of the
land on derivation, resource control, and onshore/ofshore dichotomy
would have been possible without the tacit nod of a pragmatic Obasanjo,
who deployed his stellar federalist credentials to assuage the concerns of our Northern brethren. Again, contrast
that with the paltry appropriations he gruffly set aside for the oil producing states during his first coming as
a military Head of State, and then see whether you will not reconsider your assessment that the man is unresponsive
to changing political tides. He is responsive indeed but he goes about it with such endearing lack of elegance
to the point of driving some men of even temperament crazy enough to jettison their good political manners and
congregate to obstruct and dare him needlessly.
Some may dismiss Obasanjo as lacking vision, forgetting too soon that "vision", like "inspiration" can
come at any time � just like a wellspring sprouting forth without any forewarnings. George H. Bush was dismissed
as lacking the "vision thing" and political will to boot (a wimp, if you wanted to be rude) until Saddam
Hussein's invasion of Kuwait compelled a rethink of global proportions. Other leaders like Gorbachov and Shah of Iran who blinked and �wimped out" or took their reforms too far succeeded
only in undermining central power and leaving their nations and the world order in tatters. Kennedy�s belated vision
of a truly desegregated America brought skeptical white men around to supporting the passage of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, thus federalizing an issue which was until then a proper and exclusive matter for state and county
policy making. And long after Kennedy�s death; the ripple effects of the integrationist (or federalist, if you
will) policy he pursued with much vigor and gusto compelled ardent racial champions and other closet supremacists
in the Dixie belt to change retrograde Jim Crow views they held steadfast for over five hundred years. It was the
ultimate rapture of sorts inspired by one man who stirred benign passions in the hardened hearts of men all because
he went about it with an uncommon commitment, grit, and a sense of messianic call to duty. The difference between
him and Obasanjo is in style and visage, and women loved Kennedy more.
History is replete with instances when the vision of one leader, and the actions (speak �conference�) he engineered
or inspired took root and trickled down to produce fundamental shifts in a nation�s future for the better. Looking
at his overall record, some may have since concluded that like the senior Bush, Obasanjo lacks the "vision thing.� But does he really? Look at his record on the restructuring of the
armed forces, his record on due process, and his record on direct foreign investment, and contrast that with what
was the case before his first inauguration.
A lot of people seemed to have too easily forgotten
that it was the same Obasanjo who
risked Iraqi-type sanctions by expropriating foreign multi-national holdings in Nigeria much to the collective
consternation of the West, which as soon pardoned him and Nigeria when he seized a moment in history to hand over
to a democratically elected government. And he went on to garner more political capital in retirement to the extent
that he looked set to become the first African Secretary General of United Nations. That says a lot about the man.
It may be sad, yet intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that to much of the rest of the world and among
a vast number of Nigerians, Obasanjo
is evolving into one of the most effective leaders the federation of Nigeria has produced since its inception,
at least in terms of political engineering. You can disagree but you can at least grudgingly concede that the man
has political skills so stark and consummate that it is increasingly becoming too difficult to ignore. That his
political skills may as yet sire the rudiments of policy shifts upon which the solution to some of our intractable
problems will be predicated is one reason he needs understanding, if not cooperation of Nigerians at these trying
times. He needs especially the understanding and proactive help of those Nigerians like the ones in PRONACO who are equally endowed; otherwise his fall or frustration
may not augur well for the orderly development of our democratic process. It is true that, sometimes, he is like
a moving train with a cargo mix of explosives and bounty. If you live within his trail or neighborhood, you better
duck for cover, or spike his trail with myriad gauntlets to your peril. But on the present issue, he has shown
some gentility and predictability that should serve to reassure skeptics. Most importantly, Nigerians need to remember
that it is the same Obasanjo who had, before now, stridently opposed any National
Conference in any shape or form that is suddenly so inspired that he is clamoring and fighting so hard to have
one. That he wants a conference now shows that he is indeed a "visionary", even if somewhat of a late
bloomer at that. The man needs a break. He needs understanding, and he deserves his day with history. He does not
deserve these growing pains, baits, and trials by fire. Those who are now opposing his methods and questioning
his motives should go back and read his speeches and see for themselves what views he long held on the instant
issue before now. It is only then they will begin to understand that this man may mean well after all. Let us permit
him his conference, warts and all and see what happens. If you are a political realist and pragmatic to boot, you
will agree that Nigerians really don�t have any other choice. As in �Shaft�, the epic remake starring Samuel Jackson,
I ask �Can you dig it�?