On the Structure of the Debate

The eminent proponents of restructuring should at least be suggestible on one point: it would be helpful to first determine the structure the debate on restructuring. It might be more difficult to achieve the restructuring of the federation if there is no harmony among the voices in favour of making the Nigerian federalism more workable. There is no clear structure to the debate, which is in dire need of conceptual clarification.

Perhaps, nothing has brought the dissonance in the restructuring debate to the fore more than the rejection of the devolution of powers by the senate. For quite a while, the National Assembly has been working on the amendments of the constitution. Without using the exact words, the outcome of the exercise by the lawmakers is expected to move the constitution nearer the restructuring of the federation. Meanwhile, the senators represent the ethnic groups, zones and regions for which some exponents of restructuring are speaking with utmost enthusiasm. The members of the National Assembly belong to political parties, which have taken positions on the structure of the federation. But none of the parties has demonstrated fidelity to principle on this issue. When the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was in power, the 2014 National Conference was staged and its enthusiasts are still convinced that the recommendations of the conference would be the answer to the question of restructuring. President Goodluck Jonathan did nothing about the report of the conference, which he inaugurated. The current PDP members in the National Assembly are not known to be enthusiastic about the conference report. The All Progressives Congress (APC) promised to work towards ‘true federalism’’ during the 2015 campaigns for political power. It is, therefore, absurd that the same party is still talking about how to define “restructuring” after two years in power. The APC members in the National Assembly are not on record to have fought for their party’s position in the course of the constitutional amendment. Besides, at least one of the parties that merged to form the APC, the defunct Action Congress, had a pedigree in the struggle for “true federalism”. To put the matter simply, the political elite is not sincere in this business of restructuring the federation even when they claim to be speaking for the people.

How come there is no coordination in the debates?

The answer has been   probably provided by Bishop Hassan Mathew Kukah who once likened national conversations in Nigeria to the corporate culture of an organisation, which holds its board meetings without reference to the minutes of the last meeting. As a matter of fact, the debates on Nigerian federalism began in the colonial days and have been conducted continually ever since in various ways. If reference were made to the “minutes of the previous minutes,” it would be discovered that the debates were conducted in a more rigorous fashion in the past. The lack of structure in the present debate has left a lacuna in the political landscape, which has been turned into a virile incubator of merchants of hate speech and separatists. The whole atmosphere of the debate is polluted by these purveyors of hate and lies especially the warriors on the Internet largely defined by their shallowness and ignorance of the elementary facts of Nigerian history.

As a result, at every stage of the debate participants speak as if they are the ones initiating the debate on federalism in the nation’s history. A lot of myths are being peddled. The most prominent is the myth of “true federalism.” Is there any federalism in which the negotiation and interplay of forces between the centre and the federating units have vanished? Different camps have different mental pictures of the political map of Nigeria when “true federalism” will have been accomplished. To some, it is even a confederation. Some are calling for merging of existing states into “viable regions” while others are clamouring for creation of more states “to ensure equity and justice” among the ethnic groups. Another myth is that the terms the union of Nigeria have never been discussed. So what were Nigerians in discussing in the conferences leading to the various colonial constitutions if not the terms of the union? What were on the agenda of the various conferences of Nigerians preceding the constitutions proclaimed since 1960?

From the ex-cathedra tone of some participants in the debate you would think that nothing happened before the current voices joined the debate. In a way, 1979 was a constitutional turning point for the nation. The essentials of the constitution that came into being that  year have informed subsequent attempts at constitution making. The process of making the 1979 Constitution was rigorous beginning with the drafting by the 49 wise men (who, by the way, were Nigerians and not foreigners!) led by the late Chief Rotimi Williams. They were appointed by the military regime of General Murtala Mohammed. This was followed by a vigorous debate by an elected Constituent Assembly of Nigerians in 1977/78 during the military regime of General Olusegun Obasanjo. In fact, the old Daily Times came up with a historically important publication entitled The Great Debate on the proceedings of the Assembly. Ten years later, the military government of President Ibrahim Babangida inaugurated the Constituent Assembly headed by Justice Anthony Aniagolu. During the inauguration of the Assembly on May 11, 1988, Babangida said inter alia:  “I should also state categorically that the Assembly should not indulge itself in the fruitless exercise of trying to alter the agreed ingredients of Nigeria’s political order such as federalism, presidentialism, non-adoption of any religion as state religion and the respect and observance of fundamental human rights”. Almost 20 years after Babangida made that statement, no one seems to remember any settled issue in the Nigeria’s political order.

Significantly, there was a socio-economic content to the conversations which led to the inclusion of Chapter II of the Constitution. In the current debate, not much weight is given to this aspect of constitution making. This is a matter to be further explored.

Meanwhile, a step towards devising a structure for the debate could, therefore, be a rigorous review of all the previous debates. These would include constitutions, conferences, panel reports and landmark studies. The nation would need to make a distillation of all these in order to properly define the moment and make realistic projections into the future.

Of Tribes, Radicals and Mantras

In his work entitled Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, the Marxist Literary Critic, Raymond Williams, observes as follows: “ Every word I have included (in the volume) has at some time, in the course of some argument, virtually forced itself on my attention because of the problems of its meaning seemed inextricably bound up with the problems it was being used to discuss.”

In the book, the Welch scholar illuminates on the origins of over 100 words while he takes the reader through the trajectories of their meanings over time within the context of culture and society. Although the approach of Williams was essentially cultural, it is worth noting that the changes in the meanings are politically and ideologically loaded.

If Williams were to conduct his research in today’s Nigeria, he would probably be interested in how the meanings of some words are changing almost imperceptibly. These words which could be veritable candidates for Williams’ Keywords include “tribe,” “radical” and “mantra.” The cultural, political and sociological implications of the meanings of these words ought to interest our cultural theorists and social scientists. Doubtless, these problematic words are used to discuss serious problems of the Nigerian politics, economy and society.

Perhaps the most sociologically problematic word used in everyday conversation in Nigeria is the word “tribe.” It is often assumed to be complimentary when you openly acknowledge a Nigerian as “detribalised.” Meanwhile, no one bothers to tell us if the person being praised  was ever “tribalised” before the process of “detribalisation” allegedly began. In official documents, provisions are still made in 2017 for Nigerians to indicate their “tribes.” When you make statements to the police, you are asked to indicate your ‘tribe.” People proudly introduce themselves as belonging to the tribes of Ijaw, Igbo, Tiv or Fulani tribes. Here we are sometimes talking of nationalities of tens of millions of people! Commentators seem united in proclaiming “tribalism” as a major problem of Nigeria. So to achieve national integration, our leaders should be “detribalised” in exercising powers, so goes the advocacy. The word “tribe” is used by people who are seemingly oblivious of the derogatory import of that sociological category.

Yet, eminent political scientist, Okwudiba Nnoli, has thoroughly dealt with the misnomer that is called “tribe” in the Nigeria’s political language in his seminal book entitled Ethnic Politics in Nigeria. According to Nnoli, it is utter misuse of words to be talking of “tribes” in modern Nigeria. What we have in Nigeria are ethnic groups, nationalities (and some even now talk of nations!) and certainly not tribes. The colonialists pejoratively refer to the “natives” as belonging to numerous tribes. And 57 years after independence, members of the elite have uncritically adopted this insulting label fit only for those who lived in primitive societies. Members of a tribe might not even be aware of the existence of other tribes a few kilometres away in the primitive society. Indubitably, none of the over 250 ethnic groups in Nigeria should be referred to as a tribe.

On another note, it has almost become a dangerous thing to do in some quarters for one to introduce himself or herself as a “radical.” In the ideological dimension of the “war against terrorism,” the West has almost equated radicalism with the religious claims of terrorists. So we hear of “radical Islamists” and the attempts to “de-radicalise” those of them in custody in places such as the American detention camp in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The word radical originated from the Latin word radicalis meaning “root,” hence, the botanical word for the root of a plant is “radicle.” So a radical is a thinker who goes to the “root” of the problem in his analysis. A radical believes that you cannot solve a problem without going the fundaments of the issues. The radical criticism of the conservative and liberals is that they avoid these fundaments in philosophical terms. There was a time when an economist could be introduced as radical, without anyone raising eyebrows, to distinguish him from his professional colleague who holds conservative or liberal views about policies. It was common place to introduce the late Dr. Bala Usman, in his days, the media as the “radical historian of the           the Ahamadu Bello University.” That could be an etymologically correct thing to say years ago, but today it might be a politically dangerously thing to do because of the meaning now associated with the word “radical.” You might unwittingly be provoking the authorities to arrest the scholar and “de-radicalise” him.

• The third word in this instalment on changing meanings of words is “mantra.” Its origins are traced to Hinduism and Buddhism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “mantra” as “a word or sound repeated to aid concentration in meditation.” The dictionary also defines it as “a statement or slogan repeated frequently.” However, when used in political polemics, the word “mantra” is hardly complimentary. It is often used to dismiss the arguments of the other party in a heated debate. That is when mantra is used to mean a statement often repeated without deep thoughts attached to it or sincerity of purpose for that matter.
• In Nigeria, the meaning seems to be quite different. Stalwarts of the All Progressives Congress (APC), the party in power and chieftains Peoples Democratic party (PDP), the main party in opposition, refer to the policies of the federal government as “mantras.” For instance, it is understandable if Governor Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti State dismisses the anti-corruption policy of the Buhari administration as a mere “mantra.” But there is something problematic when Information Minister Lai Mohammed talks gleefully of “the anti-corruption mantra of this government.”