IF the debate over restructuring can be construed as the battle for the soul of this nation, what we have had recently is a remarkable raging of the weapons of war. And while some battles are avoidable if only there is adequate attention to grievances across fault lines so it is in the matter of the soul of the nation. For if we succeed in redeeming the soul of the nation, there is no denying that it will redound extremely well for every citizen, group, nationality or religion.
The soul of the nation is the perfect equilibrium, the eternal gift that keeps giving. We saw an inkling of it in the First Republic when each region had its optimal development of material and human resources unlike the lopsided inequitable development that we have had since 1966. Everyone knows that this is true. But not everyone feels the need to change the status quo probably because it benefits them. And why bother about others when you feel on top of the world! The reason to bother is simply that inequity breeds grievance which breeds discontent which natural breeds agitation and, ultimately, revolt. Humans are wired to complain and struggle against an unacceptable condition of existence. That is what we have been witnessing play out before our eyes. So, to the unconcerned, there is reason to panic.
What do you do if you are concerned and want to be part of the solution? You make rational moves to change the situation. Fortunately, this has been going on on many fronts by individuals and groups in the last many years. And as I discuss below, there are competing approaches which are coalescing around key proposals.
Of course, we must note that as intense as the demand for restructuring has been in the past few decades, a substantial segment of the population still resists it on the ground that the structure is good as it is. A few say it loud, many are silent resisters for fear of being branded as such and loathed. The resisters have a number of reasons ranging from blaming the operators rather than the constitution, or recommending a restructuring of the mind instead of the polity. What they don’t care to consider is that centralization facilitates corruption and undermines the development of the states.
Let us dismiss the position of the resisters as self-servicing, to the detriment of the collective interests of the nation. If it works for them, it doesn’t matter whether the nation as a whole makes progress. That’s unfortunate.
For the many who see the wobbling structure as needing repair and reconstruction, there is not one proposal but many. It is understandable and it is a good sign that we are all interested in the work that needs to be done. The challenge is that the more we delay the resolution of the many differences that set us apart, the more difficult it is to come to a resolution. And as we have come to see in recent weeks, the delay has kept open the door of disenchantment and disillusionment giving rise to calls for separation and divorce.
For those who agree that there is need for restructuring, there is also unfortunately no meeting of mind. The recent discourse is not even about the substance of the desired outcome. Rather, the focus has been on process and what is desirable to be done. Thus, some insist that what is needed is some simple work and it must be through NASS in the assurance that since APC manifesto endorses restructuring, and its committee has prepared the way, it shouldn’t be a hard sell. On this view, what needs to be done is amend the 1999 constitution to devolve power to states by removing functions from the Exclusive to the Concurrent list and providing necessary resources for states to perform those functions, possibly including state police.
There is no doubt that if there is the political will, and we are not into the territory of deception, this is the quickest way to get something done. The two pertinent questions are: First, is the will there and it’s not all deception? Second, is it just about getting something done, no matter what and how inadequate it is?
These questions makes sense given the time that has been wasted over the years, including especially the last five years since APC administration which campaigned on restructuring as devolution of power. This is what has frustrated even the most sympathetic of restructuring advocates. If you are forever preparing for madness, when will you sink your crazy teeth into a tree trunk?
Consequent upon this frustration, but also because of a much different understanding of what is needed to move the nation forward on equitable grounds, the second approach insists that what is needed is not so simple and cannot be achieved through NASS. What is needed, the argument goes, is a fundamental redrawing of the structure of the federation and not just an amendment of the 1999 constitution.
The necessary process cannot be achieved through NASS because NASS is a product of a flawed 1999 constitution which itself assumes and privileges unitarism. If unitarism is the problem, then the constitution that assumes and privileges it cannot just be amended; it must be rejected and a new federal constitution enacted. Furthermore, on this argument, the approach of power devolution is unacceptable because it is still operating within the unitary constitution when what is needed is a complete abandonment of unitarism.
Now, the NASS Constitution Amendment Committee has rightly acknowledged that enacting a new constitution is above its pay grade or even that of NASS as a body. It follows that what the second approach is demanding is outside the purview of the NASS. Only a Constituent Assembly can propose a new constitution. To this end, there have been various suggestions on how best to get this done.
One proposal is that each nationality unit conduct a referendum which seeks to know and register the constitutional preferences of its members. On the basis of its findings, each nationality should prepare a constitution of its liking. Each nationality will then meet at a Constituent Assembly to figure out through dialogue and consensus a new constitution. The idea behind this approach is the understanding that nationalities are the component units of the federation of Nigeria and they must be the ones to determine a new constitution, whatever it is that they desire. Of course, dialogue and consensus or majority decision will be the modus operandi of the national conference with the hope that a minimal consensus of a workable federal arrangement is achievable.
Between the two approaches, there is a stark difference of night and day, and without a bending of iron minds on either side, it will take some miracle for us to get anything done, which of course will be pleasing to the resisters.
While the second approach is most likely to give us a lasting solution to the challenges of governance, it is the more difficult to achieve within our present context. The stumbling block includes the existing constitution through which any act still has to be measured. NASS, a creation of the constitution, is alive and it is the 800 pounds gorilla in the room. It will have to use its constitutional authority to create a new body, a Constituent Assembly or National Conference which will then propose a Draft Constitution to be enacted by the NASS. Will it? President Goodluck Jonathan bypassed NASS in 2014 and we saw how that effort ended.
Meanwhile, is there a middle ground on which we can chew gum while we are also jogging to the finish line of constitution making? Can there be a movement that acknowledges what needs to be done urgently in the matter of devolution of power for security and other matters while not assuming or pretending that it’s all that is needed for restructuring? In other words, can we move on both fronts taking one step at a time? Reason would seem to be on this side of compromise. Otherwise, the resisters prevail in the end.
