|
Confederation: A panacea for Project Nigeria
By Kehinde Okeowo
[email protected]
“Nigeria we hail thee, our own dear native land.
Though tribes and tongues may differ in brotherhood we stand. Nigerians all are
proud to serve our sovereign motherland”
Noble anthem isn’t it? But a
question which berates it nobility is, why was it changed? A possible answer to
this million-dollar question is that the architects of the change of this
former Nigerian anthem felt the pulse of Nigerians. They must have sat to ask
themselves the question, “How can a country with over 200 tribes forced
together by some feudal lords stand together in brotherhood?” They must
have further realised that Nigeria is a country where tribes and tongues differ
and therefore decided to save us the embarrassment the song has so far caused
us.
Protagonists of our continuous forced existence have hinged
it on the need to exploit the advantages in our geographical and numerical
strength, despite our cultural differences. As far as they are concerned, this
would on the long run translate to socio-political and economic strength if
carefully and properly managed. They believe the pride of place Nigeria
currently enjoys within Africa and the rest of the international community is a
function of its population, landmass and natural resources. They therefore
advocate for our continuous existence if we must continue to enjoy this. One
cannot but agree with this view, since Nigeria is like a big brother to other African
countries and a haven for investors from all parts of the globe. What these
people have however failed to explain is why our so-called strength, has not
yet translated into better life for Nigerians forty-four years after
independence. At least, the United Nations in its 2003 report has it that
Nigeria is ranked among the
poorest countries in the world with over 91million of its citizens living below
poverty level.
Others who canvass for a disintegrated Nigeria, have also
argued that there is nothing like ‘Nigeria’. As far as they are
concaerned, it merely exits in the subconscious of its advocates. Nigeria to
them is a conglomeration of nations
forced together to form a State. By this they mean it comprises people
with different history, culture, hopes and aspirations. People who are of this
school of thought have substantiated their claims with events, which either
predated or came after Nigeria’s Independence on October 1st 1960. The
British policy of Indirect Rule, which was largely seen as a total success in
the North, a partial success in the West and a total failure in the East is one
of such events. According to them, the level of success recorded in the
implementation of this policy is a pointer to the fact that Nigerians do not
want to stay together.
Some also
argued that the 1957/58 London Constitutional Conference, where the National
Council of Nigerians and Cameroons (NCNC), which represented the Eastern
region, wanted a Midwestern state created from the West and Middle Belt from
the North. Action group (AG) which
represented the West, wanted a
state created from the East and Middle Belt created from the North,
while Northern Peoples Congress (NPC), which represented the North, did not
want any state created from any region. Of course, this showed the divergence
of views among the inhabitants of the entity called ‘Nigeria’.
They are also of the view that the outcome of the
self-governance motion for Nigeria moved by Chief Anthony Enahoro in 1957
showed the mutual distrust in the project called Nigeria. While the Southern
delegates voted in favour of the motion, their Northern counterparts disagreed,
saying they would only opt for independence as soon as it was practicable. The
Nigerian Civil War of 1966 started when the Eastern Region declared a sovereign
state of Biafra. The various ethno-religious conflicts that have plagued
Nigeria in the past and present and the incessant calls for a national
conference either sovereign or not, are all symptoms of an ailing nation.
In my opinion, a cross breed of these two thoughts is what
is ideal. While I do not believe in the forceful co-existence of the various
nations that make up Nigeria, I am
also of the opinion that losing the title ‘Nigeria’ would affect
the country in no small measure. This is because for the Nigeria project to
work we need to harness the advantages in our size, while at the same time
ensuring a situation where each nation making up the Nigerian State can develop
at its own pace. If we agree that a nation comprising people with common
decent, language, culture or historical tradition whether or not they are bound
by a definite territory of a State and that what constitutes a state are
people, government, sovereignty and a definite frontier (boundary), then
calling Nigeria a nation would amount to
a fallacy, as it fits more into the description of a State. From the
premise above, the thought that people of different nations with distinct
characteristics could be forced to co-exist without the unholy union breaking
down someday is chasing shadows.
A way out might just be a confederal State where the center
(Federal) is weaker than its component units (States). This is because it would
reduce concentration of power at the center thereby making it less attractive.
A decentralisation of political and economical powers from the federal to the
regions will mean lesser competition at the center. This in practical terms
will mean that the frequent clamour for the presidential ticket by the various
ethnic groups will subside, thereby reducing violence, tension and a do-or-die
attitude that characterises our democracy today. The operation of this proposed
confederation for Nigeria won’t be cumbersome either since it is not
alien to us. It was to a great extent practised in the first republic and it
paid off. I do remember vividly that Chief Obafemi Awolowo as a leader of
Action Group (AG) and opposition at the centre in Lagos, showed more interest
in the Western Region affairs. Sir Ahmadu Bello who led the Northern Peoples
Congress (NPC) opted for the Northern Region as its Premier rather than the
plum Prime Ministerial position at the centre. Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe also looked up
to the Eastern Region for inspiration in times of trouble. The composition of
power, between the centre and these regions at that time must have been the
drive for their attitude.
With a final solution to the Nigeria question constantly
eluding our heroes of past and present, I am of the opinion that confederal
measure is a panacea for Nigeria to work again. The Nigerian State needs to be
decentralised into confederating units with each of the units equipped with the needed political and
economic powers. Through this, we would have guaranteed our continuous stay
together without force, while still retaining our geographical and numerical
advantages, which would ultimately translate to socio-political and economic
development. No matter which formula is adopted in achieving this, we need a
way out of how the ‘Nigerian Project’ is currently being run, lest
the Nigerian state boomerangs.
|
