By Oseloka H. Obaze
Nigeria is at risk unless it finds the courage to restructure. A nation in
dire straits, Nigeria has a choice, to restructure by plan or by default.
A planned restructuring will be collaborative, systematic, and redesign
Nigeria, yet keep it whole. A default restructuring, will happen,
certainly not by choice, but definitely like an uncontrolled experiment
with attendant risks and indefinite outcome. The challenge confronting
Nigeria now, is that the long overdue restructuring will happen, when the
cost of not restructuring far outweighs the cost of restructuring.
Nigeria’s federalism remains so only in name. As such, the debate to
restructure Nigeria or not is well beyond political rhetoric and ethnic
polemics. President Buhari in his campaign manifesto, promised to
“Initiate action to amend the Nigerian Constitution with a view to
devolving powers, duties, and responsibilities to states in order to
entrench true Federalism and the Federal spirit.” In all fairness, Buhari
never used the word, “restructure”; but it was implied. As the debate on
restructuring gathers steam, there’s a corollary; the gnawing fear that
equates restructuring with the break up Nigeria. Such concern is unfounded
and the notion defeatist. Nigeria has been restructured several times,
without negative consequences. The present demand is to make the Nigerian
entity and its integral parts, more efficient, more acceptable, more
productive, more functional and above all, more equitable. Nigeria
arrived at the present juncture, first, because of entrenched distrust of
the political leadership and second, because Nigerian leaders
pathologically loath political and academic analysis pointing them to
vexatious national questions. Shamefully, Nigerian leaders only react to
violent agitations; always belatedly and mostly, in very crass if not
heinous manner.
Since the civil war, Nigeria has never been as polarized as it is now.
Restructuring Nigeria, is therefore, naturally compelling for reasons,
which may include the desire to tweak management, ownership and
operational or administrative modalities, with a view to achieving equity
and efficiency. Restructuring sometimes arise from crisis situations or
the need to preempt political catastrophe. The latter is a core premise
for Nigeria. Regardless of what opponents of restructuring think, Nigeria
must restructure or risk self-destruction. What matters is whether
Nigeria’s leadership can seize the moment and save the nation. But what
matters most, is not when, but how to restructure peaceably. President
Buhari’s manifesto also recognized the need to “Bring permanent peace and
solution to the insurgency issues in the North-East; the Niger Delta; and
other conflict prone states and areas such as Plateau, Benue, Bauchi,
Bornu, Abia, Taraba, Yobe, and Kaduna in order to engender national unity
and social harmony.” Along these delineations, a casual line matrix
connecting all the flash points in Nigeria will reveal a nation steeped in
deep crisis.
The crux of the problem is that citizen alienation is rife nationwide; to
the extent that every ethnic jigsaw component of Nigeria feels
sufficiently aggrieved, marginalized and therefore, seeks equity via
restructuring. Paradoxically, before now, the call for restructuring was
one-sided. Now, restructuring calls emanate tellingly from the east, west,
south and north of Nigeria. Eminent Nigerians canvassing for
restructuring include, Ben Nwabueze, Atiku Abubakar, Balarabe Musa, Wole
Soyinka, Alani Akinrinade, Edwin Clark, Emeka Anyaoku, Ishola Williams,
Tanko Yakassai, and pan-sectional groups like Ohaneze Ndiigbo, Afenifere,
Movement for National Reformation and The Patriots. An inescapable
addition is a slew of agitating and emergent armed groups, including Boko
Haram, Niger Delta Avengers, Indigenous Peoples of Biafra, MOSSOB and
MEND.
Northern stakeholders seem averse to restructuring. However, Adamu Ciroma
in saying “I don’t agree that the North is afraid of restructuring,”
tampered that disposition. Gen. Yakubu Gowon supports restructuring,
albeit within established parameters; “We can restructure within one
Nigeria context.” Governor Abdullahi Ganduje of Kano State does not favour
restructuring as “panacea to the nation’s current socio-economic woes”;
rather he prefers restructuring of “the national mindsets” aimed at
returning Nigeria to “the path of progress.”
The motives behind restructuring vary, yet it’s well understood that
restructuring can’t be orchestrated on a sectional, basis, except by force
of violence. It’s that singular realization and the need to avoid
violence that propels the clamour for a formalized restructuring of
Nigeria. The clamour is underpinned by Machiavelli’s mantra of “the
powerful influence of necessity”. Ironically, entrenched suspicion is
still rampant that any call for restructuring is insidious and masked with
ulterior motives; primarily to Balkanize Nigeria. In truth, the
thirty-six state structure does that support that theory. Moreover,
investments by a huge cluster of wealthy Igbo elite outside their
southeast home base have made most Igbo elite embarrassingly taciturn on
restructuring issues – read fear of economic reprisals. Yet such reticence
is misconstrued, as the Igbo desire restructuring badly, so their
enterprises can continue to flourish in a united Nigeria.
If there is a common denominator for restructuring, it’s that broad
segments of the nation feel justifiably marginalized. The south-south
claim continued deprivation and blight from oil pollution, despite being
the hub for the nation’s oil wealth. The south-east legitimately gripes
that nothing will change the history of the Igbo being divested of some of
their properties and wealth after the war and being handed only twenty
pounds each; and that fifty-six years after independence, the Nigerian
presidency continue to elude the Igbo. The North has valid gripes too.
Most of Nigeria’s insolvent states are in the North; the broadest swathes
of underdeveloped Nigeria are in the North and the largest numbers of
uneducated and unskilled youths are from the north. Because northern
states are not oil producing, they also lose out on preferential
derivation from oil. These differing claims tally with Atiku Abubakar’s
recent summation: “Our current structure and the practices it has
encouraged have been a major impediment to the economic and political
development of our country. In short, it has not served Nigeria well, and
at the risk of reproach it has not served my part of the country, the
North well.” However, the natural argument that follows is that the
North’s problems are self-inflicted; if Nigeria’s misrule has negatively
impacted the north, the blame lies with Northerners who have
predominantly ruled Nigeria.
Certain realities must be borne in mind. Post-independent Nigeria had four
regions, which without the benefit of oil created wealth, were
self-sufficient in food and production of various cash crops and other
exportable commodities. The regions contributed effectively to
bankrolling the central government. Today, the reverse is the case. While
across board, segments of Nigeria’s population continue to express
“feelings of marginalization, of being short-changed, dominated,
oppressed, threatened, or even targeted for elimination,” what is most
bothersome to them is being subjected to involuntary “dependency” arising
from overwhelmingly centralized powers. So long as Nigerians feel a sense
of dissatisfaction with the state of the commonweal; so long as Nigerians
feel dependent, vulnerable, somewhat disenfranchised, and are tugged by
emotions- betrayal, disappointment, frustrations; the clamour for
restructuring will persist.
Because Nigeria is so politically polarized, rallying the nation to a
consensus on restructuring is fraught with difficulties. Yet two points
must be made emphatically. Nigerians must accept that the phobia against
restructuring is misplaced, more so when linked with a breakup. Secondly,
restructuring need not be a one-off or a this-day event. Hence
restructuring must be handled the same way one seeks equity; everyone is
obligated to come to the table with clean hands; meaning tolerance,
openness and accommodation. Nigeria’s restructuring jives with Buhari’s
‘change” agenda and campaign promises. The process calls for frank
dialogue; the dialogue proper, though unshapen, commenced with the 2014
National Confab, imperfect as it was. Meaningful strides are possible
starting with the implementation of select recommendations of the 2014
Confab Report and setting modalities for tackling the longer-term agenda.
This approach offers several dividends; it will buy the nation time,
assuage frayed nerves and convey a sense of inclusivity to Nigerians.
Finally, President Buhari having boxed himself into a corner, by
consigning the 2014 Confab report to the archives, without the benefit of
reading it, must correct that policy and governance flub. He needs to
rescind that decision and embrace the Confab report in principle, thus
tacitly supporting the restructuring agenda, while fulfilling his campaign
promise. Thereafter, he can offer his template for restructuring Nigeria.
——
Obaze, is MD/CEO of Selonnes Consult Ltd.