|
Consensus on National Conference
By Chukwuemeka
Ezeife
Many years ago, I gave my ideas on how to
re-structure Nigeria, at the Yoruba Tennis Club, Lagos. A national
dialogue was indicated. The ideas have been incrementally refined. And
Nigeria is crawling closer to a dialogue through a National Conference
(NC). By May 2001, at the Leaders of Thought Meeting in Abuja, four zones
came out clearly in support of (Sovereign) National Conference, the
delegation from one zone was evenly split and the delegates from the
remaining zone said they had no mandate. Today, the hen has come home to
roost. It has not quite been so declared, but a consensus seems to have
emerged on (Sovereign) National Conference. Those who did not want to hear
the phrase "(Sovereign) National Conference" are considering the most
effective approaches to it. Any residual opposition is like the Nigerian
weather man's "scattered thunder storms", always there! In my own
progression, there have been semantic and substantive changes.
Semantically, we have moved from "re-structuring Nigeria", through
"re-organising Nigeria", to merely "re-touching the polity".
Substantively, we have traversed various degrees of closeness and
separation among the federating units.
From the worst-case scenario
of a break-up, which we never really believed, we have arrived, today, at
"Nigeria as an Economic Union" as the worst case, and minimum basis of
association. Only emotional fools will choose disintegration when Economic
Union is available. Today, the "scattered thunder storms" stand for only
vague fears of change, some lack of trust, residual mutual suspicion,
intellectual inertia and some timidity. It takes no great courage to take
this bull by the horns and declare the consensus on (sovereign) National
Conference, taking care, though, to smoothen the rough edges of the
diamond! Come along; let's see how much we agree.
Why the
conference?
The conference is needed to
affirm one Nigeria and agree on the basis of association. To go beyond
this simple statement and make a comprehensive case for (Sovereign)
National Conference is not necessary. How happy are we with Nigeria today?
Indeed, never had Nigerians declared their opting for one Nigeria, nor
have they ever before, really agreed on the basis of association. When
Nigerians agree to be Nigerians, Nigeria will cease to be a mere
geographical expression. The political elite and, worse, the military,
have always used the name of Nigerians without the expressed consent of
the people. Even General Abdusalami's Constitution would claim: "We, the
Peoples of Nigeria..." No, lie all! Yet, it is important and good that the
peoples of Nigeria should affirm one Nigeria and show that they are
Nigerians by choice, not like peoples occupied after conquest. Some
international organisations have received letters from groups in Nigeria
who declare their desire to opt out of the Nigerian system as at present
organised. "Nigeria is a nullity" was recently said to affirm one Nigeria,
is basic (not to re-affirm, for we have never really affirmed before). It
is also basic to agree on the basis of association.
Why not National Assembly
deal with all the matters?
The issues to be dealt with at
the Conference are beyond the mandate of the National Assembly. The
National Assembly can maintain and manage the house; it is beyond its
mandate to tear down and rebuild the house. Only the representatives of
the people, specifically (s)elected for the purpose, can make basic
system-changing proposals to the people for approval or rejection. It is
totally beside the point to ask how members made it to the National
Assembly. They are there, they are there. We should go deeper to the meat
of the problem. What issues need to be dealt with by the National
Conference? They include: the federating units, their number; whether
there should be a Senate, a House of Representatives or the two combined
in a unicameral legislature; (if there should be a Senate, what powers,
what composition?); fundamental devolution of powers; reversion to the
parliamentary system or continuation with the (American) presidential
system? It is clear that such basic issues are outside the mandate of the
National Assembly. How do they decide on whether there should be a Senate?
A House of Representatives? Their powers? Their numbers? Even the decision
on the extent of devolution of powers should cause some conflicts of
interest, as members seek to protect the sectors over which they hold
oversight functions. The cause of justice is best served when people
design socio- political systems without knowing what positions they may
occupy in the evolving system. The nearer we approach such a situation,
the better. The present National Assembly members should not be given the
embarrassing job of writing themselves into the constitution. That they
may not be embarrassed can only show the extent of moral bankruptcy in our
politics.
Representation at the
Conference
It is best to have full ethnic
representation at the Conference. But, as it is often the case, the best
is seldom achievable. The second best may be to start as we mean to go by
adopting the principle of equality of federating units and letting the
existing six zones be represented on equal basis, with each zone ensuring
that, as much as possible, their ethnic groups are represented. There may
be the issue of special interest groups like Labour, the military etc as
to whether or not they should be represented, with or without voting
powers. However this is resolved, there is some comfort in the fact that
every Nigerian comes from somewhere in Nigeria. The mode of (s)election of
delegates should be flexible as long as it is not made a political party
affair.
Naming the
Conference
What is needed is that the
decisions of the Conference, which must not affect the powers, activities
and tenure of office of the incumbent government, shall be final, and not
subject to review or change by anybody or authority, except the Conference
itself or its successor. It is important to elaborate. First, the
deliberations of the Conference shall not affect the powers, the
activities and the tenure of the incumbent elected office holders, at all
tiers of government. Therefore, the decisions of the Conference should
come into force after the tenure of the incumbent governments. Subject to
these, the decisions of the Conference may be presented to the people for
approval or rejection, but no authority outside the Conference itself or
its successor can alter the decisions. This is where the sovereignty of
the Conference begins and ends. If this is understood and accepted, there
is no reason to insist on "Sovereign" being in the name. Therefore,
National Conference it is! We know where sovereignty resides, but,
pragmatically, it is not now relevant.
Worst case scenario, or
minimum basis of association
The fear has been expressed
that the National Conference will provide the opportunity for some groups
to opt out of Nigeria. This requires that before going into any serious
business of the Conference (NC), a minimum basis of association, agreeable
to every group, should be established. Assume that Biafra succeeded and
became independent of Nigeria in, say, 1970, and that somehow, in the same
period, Odua, Arewa and Bendel Republics emerged. Now this question: would
it have been a great surprise if a Nigerian Union, composed of all those
republics, celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2004? Why surprise? Emotions
may be quite strong, but the pull of economic forces is stronger. Look at
the European Union; check their history. By 1984, after the small Nigerian
republics would have enjoyed their independence for 14 years, and emotions
have been mitigated by economic realities, the pull of economic forces
would have drawn them to the conference table! There, intelligent
representatives, concerned only with their group self-interest, would have
agreed that it made eminently good sense to accept Nigerian as an Economic
Union, and settled for that.
Should we not, therefore, accept Nigeria as an Economic Union, as
the minimum basis of association?
This acceptance should be clear before even the convening of the
Conference. While the terms of the Union may be elaborated, it is better
for the delegates to agree to return to detailing the content of the
Nigerian Economic Union, if and when it becomes absolutely necessary to do
so. That says that the worst disagreement among the delegates should lead
to the elaboration of the terms of the Nigerian Union. It must be
realistically expected that some difficulties will be experienced and that
serious efforts, and a lot of patience, will be needed to persuade some
groups to accept a common set of conditions for closer association. The
truth is that, objectively, the changes that need to be made are nothing
earth-shaking. The people of Nigeria should affirm their choice of, and
commitment to, one Nigeria, if even, as an Economic Union, and begin
discussion. We should now proceed to discuss those necessary changes.
The federating units
There is need to reconcile the
Federal System which was operated in the First Republic with the Federal
System we operate now. The former could be regarded as the negotiated
preferences of Nigeria political leaders. The latter resulted from
impositions by the various military administrations; the first imposition
resulted from the needs of the civil war. System effectiveness and
efficiency call for larger federating units, because larger federating
units make it easier to apply the federal principle and deal with some
issues, which appear very difficult today. Those who operated the initial
three-region federating system complained that the regions were too large
and strong. Today, the states are clearly too small, too many, too weak.
The consensus on federating units has crystallized as follows:
1. The existing states will
continue as sub-federating units and must be re-organised, as such, in the
constitution.
2. The existing, if informal,
six political zones will become the principal federating units. The three
zones of the so-called major ethnic groups will be adjusted to bring into
these zones, those elements of their ethnic groups which are contiguous to
them but are, at present, outside those zones. Similar adjustments may be
necessary in other zones.
3. Those who aim at diluting
ethnicity have suggested that the six zones, as adjusted above, should
each be carved into two, to give twelve principal federating units. This
is an idea.
Constitution for new
Nigeria
The main thrust in the new
constitution for Nigeria is the adoption and application of true federal
principle.
Return to federal principle
The reconciliation of the
Federal System of the First Republic with the Federal System of today will
lead to a federal arrangement where the federating units are by far
stronger than they are today, but not as strong as in the First Republic.
The clearly federal functions: weights and measures, currency and money,
interstate commerce, external relations, defence, customs and excise, etc
should form the minimum content of the Federal Exclusive List. What
functions are to be added to this minimum Exclusive List or kept in the
Concurrent List will be a matter of careful deliberation and negotiation.
One area, namely, cultural autonomy, must be treated specially. The
principle of cultural autonomy of groups should be given prominence in the
constitution. This principle should cover ethnic groups or
sub-nationalities from the largest to the smallest. People should freely
display and develop their culture, subject to the movement of factors of
production not being impeded thereby. In spite of greater application of
the federal principle and emphasis on cultural independence, it is agreed
that the Federal Government must remain strong enough to project virile
Nigerian nationhood to the rest of the world.
Devolution of powers
Devolution of powers will
reflect the extent of the adoption of the federal principle. While there
is consensus on greater application of the Federal principle, it is not
clear what the consensus is, if any, on the extent of actual devolution of
powers. Clearly, larger federating units make efficient and more
justified, greater devolution of powers from the centre to the lower tiers
of government. The larger federating units, with the states, can handle
most governmental functions, without the appearance of a chaotic
multiplicity of systems. Economies of scale can be exploited, yet
government is near enough to the people for their true aspirations to
impact on government policies.
�To be
continued
|
