“Misleading federalism” can’t promote unity
Although, democracy is a very complex and vulnerable process, it takes time to develop. Democracy in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society needs a method of representation that yields stable government, while respecting to a very large degree, and possibly accommodating, minority and individual interests including those that are not directly conformable to majority interests. Still, I say that democracy is good when those in government are ready to make sacrifices for it to work effectively, and fairly.
Nigerians with liberal views on democracy will most certainly say they want a democratic Nigeria rooted in justice and fair play. They may further express their desire to have a strong, united and indivisible nation with economic prosperity, accountability and transparency. But how do we ensure fair play is achievable in a plural society characterized, as it were, by diversities and inequalities of various magnitudes and dimensions? This is one question that confronts Nigeria’s policy makers and leaders of thought right from the colonial days to the present moment.
Since independence, every regime – be it military or civilian – has made efforts at fashioning out what it considers “appropriate” response to addressing our diversities and inequalities in Nigeria. Currently resonating is the issue of marginalization which perhaps, led to the downfall of the First Republic. Marginalization has resurrected again and has continued to infect the nation.
Today, can Northerners boldly say they are marginalized in Nigeria? I wonder why the Arewa youths issued an order vaguely reminiscent of a military directive that the Igbos in the Northern part of the country should leave. Perhaps, it is because the Arewa youths feel frustrated due to the level of insecurity and underdevelopment in most parts of the North. Even the Niger Delta youths are allegedly saying that the northerners in their region should also leave. The Odua Coalition also are reported to “have berated the northerners and told the Yorubas to prepare for secession.”All these calls for concern.
Section 14, sub-section 3 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, however states that “the composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs should be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity and also to command national loyalty thereby ensuring that there will be no predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or any of its agencies.” I am in love with these phrases- “promote national unity” and “command national loyalty,” which are reflected in the section cited.
But the question that bothers me for almost 20 years is whether or not the federal character principle on paper can “promote national unity” and “command national loyalty”? The answer is negative. Why? The federal character principle is discriminatory and runs counter to Section 15, sub-section 2 of the 1999 Constitution which says that “national integration shall be actively encouraged, while discrimination on the ground of place of origin, sex, religious status, ethnic or linguistic association or ties shall be prohibited.” By extension, the federal character principle places emphasis on a person’s place of origin, and discriminates against such a person on that same grounds. The result is that mediocrity and nepotism are tools deployed to frustrate and deny those who are eminently qualified for an appointment or promotion on the grounds that available vacancies are not for people from their state of origin. That is why when most Nigerians irrespective of tribe or religion struggle to get a position of authority, they will first take care of people from their tribe before anybody else. If the truth must be told, there is serious ethnic discrimination in Nigeria at the moment.
My understanding of the federal character principle is that Nigerian affairs should not be dominated by persons from a few states or ethnic groups. That is why in practice, there is the application of quota system in job placements, and recruitment into the military and paramilitary services, granting of special considerations to those from educationally disadvantaged states in admission to institutions of higher learning, and geographical spread in appointment into public offices. The application of the principle of federal character has not been total as demonstrated by skewed federal government (FG’s) appointments and selection into agencies of government too numerous to mention here. But for recent outrage by Nigerians this injustice would have been swept under the carpet. A just society will be one in which everybody is treated fairly in respect of the distribution of the society’s goods.
If we are in a just society, why are the Igbos suddenly agitating they want Biafra again? Why are other major and minor ethnic groups demanding their own separate states? It is because our leaders have always been romancing the problems of ethnic imbalance in government, and shying away from fundamental issues and solutions. Over the years, any analyst who carefully weighs the principle and practice of federal character in Nigeria on the scale of social justice and fair play would find it weighing so low.
This underlines the imperative to keep spaces open for debate in order to reduce the political tension within the nation. That is why I commend the Acting President Yemi Osinbajo for swinging into action by holding meetings with leaders of thought from the Northern and Eastern parts of the nation, condemning those that made hate speeches. Meetings with leaders of thought are necessary, but not sufficient to exalt a nation that has too much power-political, economic, and administrative, concentrated at the Presidency. Nigeria needs to run a truly federal system of government. It is the “misleading federalism” that Nigeria runs for over 50 years that breeds corruption, agitations, and hatred, amongst its people. It is time for Nigeria to restructure along political and economic lines, and also, further amend several areas of conflict in the 1999 Constitution.
MA JOHNSON