By Edwin Madunagu
 |
| From left, Obafemi Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, Nnamdi Azikiwe, and Tafawa Balewa |
In this concluding segment, as we are approaching the end of the year, I shall merely summarise what I still have to say. Elaborations will follow in the weeks and months ahead.
Suppose a known Nigerian, in publicly reviewing the political history of the country in the period 1950 to 1966, that is, from the beginning of decolonisation up to the collapse of the First Republic, irreverently but evenly indicts Tafawa Balewa, Obafemi Awolowo, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Ahmadu Bello, Ladoke Akintola, Michael Okpara and Dennis Osadebay: what reactions would you expect from each of the present six geopolitical zones and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja? Would you expect variations in public reactions across the country? How would you explain these differences?
In Turkey today, it is a criminal offence, bordering on treason, to refer to what happened to Armenians in 1915, as the Ottoman Empire was collapsing, as genocide. Why? The state of Turkey, the successor to the Ottoman Empire, is ready to go to war, or at least threaten a break in diplomatic relations should a foreign state make such a declaration or tacitly approves such a declaration. (Recent example: France) Why? And in Israel, as well as Germany, it is a criminal offence to deny the holocaust, that is, to deny that what happened to millions of Jews in Nazi Germany (1933-1945) actually took place or that it is actually genocide, rather than something else. In the event that this denial is made outside the borders of Israel by a state or non-state entity, it would immediately enter the black book of the state of Israel. Retribution will be carried out in the fullness of time by whatever government is in place. It is as serious as that. Why?
Probably the BBC radio programme I enjoy most and struggle not to miss is called Witness, a 10-minute programme broadcast every weekday between 8:50 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Witness re-visits actual historical events that took place fairly long ago. On November 23, 2012, I think, Witness re-visited the assassination of the American President, John F. Kennedy, exactly 49 years earlier. This was almost four years before the start of the Nigerian Civil War. The question is: Of what interest is the Kennedy re-visit to the BBC and its listeners when the man in question died almost half a century ago? Did the BBC intend to “re-open old wounds” or sabotage the current attempt at compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans? Finally, was every BBC listener expected to agree with everything that the BBC said on the assassination of President John Kennedy?
This essay is about The country ‘we wish to see.’ Hitherto, my picture of the country that I would wish to see emerge from the present has been implicit rather than explicit. I now wish to the explicit. Before 1986, or more explicitly, before I was appointed into General Ibrahim Babangida’s Political Bureau on January 13, 1986, my propositions on the national question had been ideological education and socialist transition. It was while in the Bureau, in the course of touring the country, observing the “national debate”, reading thousands of memoranda and discussing with colleagues, that the idea of geopolitical restructuring came to me. My concrete propositions on this question, as well as allied questions, were included in my own report - some called it Minority Report - at the end of the year-long national debate on the political future of the country.
This idea of geopolitical restructuring - which I shall come to presently - was further developed in 1990 after the abortive coup d’état of April 22 and the unstructured national debate on the national question. In the course of this latter debate, I encountered the late Chief Anthony Enahoro. Later, I encountered the views of Dr. Anthony Akinola on rotational presidency, whose historical and political premises are closer to my views on this aspect of the national question as I had previously thought. From the very beginning, from 1986, my proposition on the national question has been inseparable from my proposition on the socialist transformation of Nigeria. Although my views on both issues have individually developed over the years, their inseparability has remained.
I may now sketch the integral picture: Nigeria should become a 5-tier governmental structure: federal, regional, state, local government and neighbourhood. This governmental structure corresponds to the following geopolitical restructuring: The Federal Republic of Nigeria; 8 regions; 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory; 774 Local Government Areas; and as many neighbourhoods as there are Council Wards in the country. To those who may immediately shout that this is a crazy idea given that the cost of running the current 3-tier structure is considered too high and ultimately unsustainable, I respond that within the framework of socialist transformation (or at least popular democracy) the cost of running the proposed 5-tier structure will actually be much lower than the percent cost of running the existing 3-tier structure.
Clarification and Elaboration 1: What is being proposed here is a 5-tier presidential, secular, federal, and republican democracy, broadly following the “federal principle” as enunciated by K.C. Where in his book Federal Government: “By the federal principle, I mean the method of dividing powers so that the general and the regional governments are each, within a sphere, co-ordinate and independent” (Fourth Edition, 963, page 10). I did not worry to check up the latter editions of the book or latter reviews of this author. What is given here completely satisfies my needs in this essay.
Where based his principle on a two-tier federal structure: general and regional? What I am, however, proposing here is a creative extension of the principle to a 5-tier Nigerian structure. In other words, there will be five federating levels of governance. The question of “stronger” or “weaker” level or levels does not arise here. In the general principle of federalism that I subscribe to, (there are rival principles, in fact) there is no “stronger” or “weaker”. The spheres of each tier should, however, be clearly spelt out and inscribed in the country’s Constitution. If you push me to the wall and demand that I must introduce the term, I will reluctantly say that in my scheme, the federal should be “stronger”. Finally, there will of necessity be a Constitutional Court, as distinct from the Supreme Court.
Clarification and elaboration 2:
To obtain the 8-tier structure, you only need to split the present South-South geopolitical zone and the present North-Central zone into two each. This, I call the principle of triple balancing: between Lugard’s North and South; between East and West; and between “majorities” and “minorities”.
Clarification and elaboration 3: There will be an Executive Presidential Council of 8 members, one representing each zone or region. The Headship Chairship of this council rotates every six months between the members - so that in four years (presidential council term of office), the position would have gone round the 8 members. The members are equal in status except that in the case of a tie, the head or chair has a casting vote. The same arrangement is creatively replicated at the other levels of governance. The philosophy of revenue allocation and the principle of derivation remain but their applications are to be adjusted according to the responsibilities and functions allocated to the various levels. Matters such as state police or even state army will make sense and will cease to be a shouting match only after the basic structure and some other fundamental questions have been settled.
The other “fundamental questions” include People’s rights and freedoms, political economy, state and religion, principles of state policy and duties of citizens. My views and arguments on each of these questions have remained the essence of this column since it started early in 1985. I don’t need to repeat them here. You may have a glimpse of the social transformations I am talking about, together with the cost of its administration (relative to what we have now), by visiting or re-visiting what we did in Calabar (the present Calabar Municipality and Calabar South and Akpabuyo local council areas) under Bassey Ekpo Bassey’s headship between March 1988 and May 1989.
I am passionate about the unity of Nigeria; but not unity at all costs. It must be unity on the basis of the interests of the long-suffering, long-cheated and long-abused masses of Nigeria; not the unity of the cemetery or the unity of predator and state robbers against the masses. However, I am painfully aware that Nigeria can disintegrate. But should that tragic eventuality come to pass, let it not be because of the failure of the Nigerian Left to do its duties; let it be in spite of its strivings.
(Concluded)
Related Posts:
The country ‘we wish to see’.......Click Here!
The country ‘we wish to see’ (2)......Click Here!
THE COUNTRY ‘WE WISH TO SEE’ (3).......Click Here!
No comments:
Post a Comment