by Akin Ogunlola
| akinso96@yahoo.com Chicago, Illinois, USA  he political show of shame which is better characterized as military federalism and power grab that is presently going on in Nigeria between Jonathan’s federal government and the elected representatives of the people in Rivers state is yet another classic example of everything that is wrong with the adoption and operation of federalism in Nigeria. What we have in Nigeria is military federalism, federal tyranny and oppression as opposed to a true federalism which is probably what prompted the United States National Intelligence Council in 2005 to forecast that Nigeria might finally cease to exist as a nation-state by the year 2020.
The Nigerian President, Jonathan Goodluck in a desperate bid to settle personal scores with the elected Governor of Rivers state, Rotimi Amaechi, allegedly acted through his cronies and paid agents to ensure political unrest and acts of vandalism in River State. When they failed in their bid to have the governor impeached, the minority lawmakers apparently acting on the instructions and with the backing of the presidency later resorted to acts of violence and unruly behaviors in the state legislative house thus causing so much chaos and destructions. Armed with the current unpopular and military-imposed Nigerian Constitution, the federal government through the House of Reps Abuja, apparently acting under the remote control of the President quickly jumped on the much awaited opportunity and sacked the elected representatives of the Rivers state people and took over the legislative powers of State House of Assembly as a necessary first step towards directly getting at the State governor.
Voting overwhelmingly to take over the Rivers States House of Assembly legislative powers and responsibilities, the Nigerian House of Representatives in Abuja cited section 11(4) of the 1999 Constitution as source of their power to do so because according to them, the fighting among Rivers State lawmakers constituted a threat to democracy. One would think however that the very threat to our democracy and federalism is that same Section 11(4) of the constitution which vested the center with so much power to sack, dismiss, and appoint new people or even out rightly take over the legislative powers of elected representatives of the people in a federal system of government marked with so much socio-cultural diversity as Nigeria. This is a constitutional aberration and an unthinkable constitutional arrangement under any other normal federation in the world. Moreover the historical frictions and constant conflicts with high level of suspicions and fears of domination that characterized the relationships between and among component units of Nigerian federation in the past certainly make the provisions of section 11 (4) of 1999 Constitution unacceptable in the particular case of Nigeria. This provision would never have made it into our constitution if various Nigerian tribes and nationalities were duly consulted and given the opportunity to freely debate and contribute to its making prior to the constitution coming into effect. The implication of this is that a strong party which controls only the center can wake up one day and sack the state legislature that is controlled by a minority or opposing regional party and then assume governance of that state in the name of national unity. This is laughable but certainly unacceptable.
The word “federation” is derived from the Latin word “foedus” which means an “agreement”. Federalism therefore refers to that system of government based on written agreement (Constitution) among and between the federating units whereby the units come together to surrender some of their powers to the central government for national unity and common good but retain some other powers for themselves over certain areas in order to preserve their autonomy. In a federation, there are usually at least two levels of government (center and regional) with each having legislative powers over certain spheres and with neither being subordinate to the other. Federalism is therefore a combination of shared rule for general purposes and some kind of self-rule for regional or local purposes in countries with so much diversity among its people.
Late Chief Obafemi Awolowo once said that ‘‘from our study of the constitutional evolution of all the countries of the world, two things stand out clearly and prominently. First in any country where there are divergences of language and of nationality- particularly of language- a unitary constitution is always a source of bitterness and hostility on the part of linguistic or national minority groups. On the other hand, as soon as a federal constitution is introduced in which each linguistic or national group is recognized and accorded regional autonomy, any bitterness and hostility against the constitutional arrangement must disappear. In every civilized federations of the world, there must be federal principle which refers to the method of dividing powers so that general and regional or state governments are each within a sphere, co-ordinate and independent of one another. It is the principle that recognized and emphasized the concept that neither the central nor the regional/state government is subordinate to the other.
If federalism is a system of government which has created, by written agreement, a central government to which it has distributed specified legislative powers called the federal government on the one part, and regional governments, sometimes called provinces or states governments to which is distributed other specified legislative powers on the other part, and by this definition it is understood that federalism presupposes an agreement, usually voluntary and in written form, among and between the federating governments, the existence of at least two levels of government: central and regional, and a level of autonomy for each level of government over those areas or matters granted in the agreement, it logically follows therefore that federalism is based on the recognition of diversity that exists within a country or state so that many countries adopt federalism as a method of governance in multi-ethnic contexts. Countries with diverse population in the form of tribes, languages, cultures, traditions, religious belief and practices etc are usually better served with federalism as a form of government. The need for federalism is therefore enhanced in countries with ethnically distinct regions or groups where the accommodation of these distinct groups of people is of paramount importance. For these countries including Nigeria, federalism is a combination of shared rule for general purposes, and some kind of self-rule for regional or local purposes for the peaceful co-existence and territorial integrity of the country to be preserved. In a sense therefore, federalism represents the political equilibrium which results from the appropriate balance between shared rule and self-rule.
Nigeria adopted federalism due to its size as well as ethno-linguistic, cultural and religious diversity of the country. Despite the acknowledged diverse nature of the country and adoption of federalism by the country since 1954 however, the past and present leaders of Nigeria continue to run the country as a unitary state with too much power concentrated at the center and no resemblance of autonomy for the component regions/states or any respect for the people that made up the federation in the first place. The result is that the country remains a federation only on papers but a unitary state for all practical purposes. Nigeria is operating a federal system (both political and fiscal) in a terribly awkward manner which is regrettably backed by a lousy, unpopular and military-imposed national constitution.
Admitted that no two federations are exactly the same anywhere, and no model of federalism is of universal application, it is without doubt that for a system to truly qualify as federalism, certain basic principles must be present. For example, (1) there must be diversity among the component units or people in the country and this diversity must be respected as means of inclusiveness. More than anything else, respect for diversity is the cornerstone of not only a democratic polity, but also of a federalism; (2) there must be the desire on the part of the people to preserve their cultural, language, religious beliefs and identities within the federation; (3) there should be adequate guarantees for some measure of local or regional autonomy to ensure the unity and territorial integrity of the country; (4) there should be some kind of agreement (Constitution) reflecting the collective desire of the people to live together as equal partners within the geographical entity – commitment to peaceful co-existence in the federation. This demands that different cultures must not only be tolerated; they must be understood and even appreciated by each other in the spirit of living together; (5) there should be at least two levels of government with clear powers over certain areas or subjects without one being subordinate to the other, (6) in terms of constitutional amendment, no level of government should have undue monopoly or power over the amendment process to the exclusion of the other in addition to (7)having a very independent judiciary to act as an impartial arbiter in times of constitutional conflicts.
Although relative political stability in a plural society is a function of several societal factors within a country since a state of absolute stability may not be attainable in any society, federalism remains a preferred institutional solution in a country of extra ordinary diversity as Nigeria. Thus for a plural society that is defined by divergent interests especially on territorial basis, the adoption of political arrangements and institutions that allow for co-operation and harmonious relations between and among different groups and nationalities or between two levels of government becomes an imperative for relative political stability to exist.
Federalism does not provide a panacea or silver bullet for all the problems of a multicultural society but it does offer a greater capacity for solving those problems. The ultimate success of any federalism depends on how a country copes with the group rights and cultural rights of its diverse people, and how it creates a feeling of security among them. Any power-sharing arrangement must also empower the minorities and reduce their fear in the face of natural power of the majorities. These were the concerns of the Nigerian leaders at the inception of federalism in the country until the military came into power to concentrate so much raw political powers at the center and destroy the very fabrics of a true federalism in Nigeria. Rather than reverse the destructive trend, the successive civilian regimes in the country engaged in power grab for the central government, followed the missteps of the military, continued the jungle federalism mentality and ultimately rendered other tiers of government so irrelevant and inferior to the extent that what we now have is imminent collapse of the country as a nation-state.
Nigerian federalism since inception in 1954 had been operating in both fiscal and political contexts. While the fiscal context consists of the mode for expropriation and distribution of resources, the political context relates to putting in place appropriate structures that would facilitate the self- realization of component units. The basic fact is that the operation of federalism in both contexts must be designed in such a way as to avoid manifest injustice and inequality among the component units (ethnic groups or regions and even between the central government and component states) in power and resource matrix. On the political context side of the equation, the current practice where the federal government is constitutionally vested with the power to unilaterally amend the constitution, and take over the legislative responsibilities of a state House of Assembly under any pretext, is diametrically opposed to the spirit and operation of a true federalism and for all practical purposes, should be declared illegal. It is only in a Nigerian federal constitution that such a laughable clause intended to completely erode regional/state legislative autonomy can be enshrined. This is because the constitution itself was not a product of any agreement by the Nigerian people. The present Nigerian constitution, which concentrates so much power at the center at the expense, and to the detriment of the federating regions or states, was neither made, debated, deliberated, nor truly adopted by the federating Nigerian people in the first place. It was imposed on the country by the military and it reflects only the thinking and fears of the ruling soldiers responsible for its making at the time. With this enabling provision in the constitution, the federal government can legitimately take over state legislative powers at will. All that is required by any unscrupulous leader at the federal government level (center) is a mere pretext or deliberate creation of confusion at the state level to utilize the constitutional provision to usurp the powers of the state as we currently have in Rivers state. The federal government is too far removed from the local people and cannot adequately represent the interest of the people at that local level particularly where the election of state lawmakers by the people of the state actually represents the necessary autonomy by the component units in a federation over their own affairs.
Without doubts, the military interregnum in the country immensely contributed to the constant conflicts associated with fiscal federalism as well as emergence of a super powerful central government in Nigeria. This gross imbalance that presently characterizes the power-sharing and resource-allocation formula between the center and the federating states in Nigeria must be promptly addressed and reversed if the prediction by the United State National Intelligence Council regarding end of Nigeria as a nation-state in 2020 is to be averted. As a matter of urgent pragmatic solution towards achieving a better Nigerian federation therefore, we need to invent a new Constitutional Order that will not only reduce the power at the center but one that will also embrace regionalism as an institutional strategy for the political accommodation of our diversity. The need for acceptable fiscal federalism in Nigeria also cannot be over emphasized.
Although Regionalism has often expressed itself in terms which are opposed to national unity and integrity, and sometimes challenging to the legitimacy of the state, it is crucial to understand that regionalism greatly compliments federalism in mature democracies of the world. More importantly, regionalism as a political structure is more compatible with the empowerment of a multiplicity of ethnically diverse groups. While it may be true to some extent that the popular clamor for regionalism in Nigeria is rooted in manifest diversity of languages, tribes, cultures, religions and nationalities which are fuelled by a sense of regional deprivation, it must equally be noted that the idea of regionalism is supported by Nigerian foremost political leaders, progressives and scholars of unquestionable patriotic integrity because of the consensus that regionalism is a necessity in Nigerian political context. Examples are the “Patriots”, “Ohanaeze Ndigbo” “Afenifere” and the “Movement for National Reformation”, which have all at one point or the other supported the idea of enhanced local autonomy based on ethno-linguistic identity and the principle of self-determination for the nationalities which is the very essence of federalism in the first place.
It must be emphasized that while Federalism is based on the recognition of diversity, Regionalism relates to internal self-determination of the diverse communities within a federated political entity. Nigeria, like most other federations adopted federalism due to its diverse ethnic groups, languages, and regions as well as the need to territorially accommodate these formerly autonomous groups. It is therefore reasonable to expect that a combination of shared rule for general purposes, and some measure of self-rule for regional and local purposes of diversity, is a necessary feature for the proper functioning of federalism, or if the unity and integrity of the country is to be maintained. There is no necessary conflict between a federalism and regionalism. The relationship between these two may be conflicting or collaborating depending on the manner of accommodation which is undertaken in a federal system; and the two may indeed complement each other for practical political purposes where the appropriate balance is maintained. Its success will ultimately depend on the level of commitment and restraints exercised by the major political actors in the country. While not completely free from its own share of internal problems, India, with an extremely diverse population of over a billion people and 1, 632 languages remains a good example of successful application of federalism and regionalism.
Perhaps no one makes the point better than Late Chief Anthony Enahoro of the Movement for National Reformation when he argued that since the foundation of civil society is the agreement or constitution made by the people as to the basis on which they agree to live together, it logically follows that the first step in our quest for a better federalism is to produce a peoples’ constitution that is truly deliberated upon, agreed to, and made by “we the people” through a national conference and a national referendum, otherwise known as sovereign national conference. This is important because the durability of a Constitution necessarily depends on the extent to which the people have been involved in its making. Such a Constitution must reflect our experience, anxieties and aspirations as people in addition to clearly upholding the required local autonomy that is the hallmark of federalism. The new constitution must also recognize the various nationalities that preceded the formation of Nigeria by British imperialists as equal partners and stakeholders in the Union of Nigeria. We need a constitution that will endure and one that will reflect the aggregate aspirations and experiences of all the Nigerian people. Such a constitution cannot be produced without the involvement of the people. To do that, we must convene a National Conference where the freely chosen representatives of diverse Nigerian nationalities and ethno-linguistic groups will freely discuss, debate and adopt an acceptable constitution of a true federation. None of the operated Nigerian constitutions can legitimately claim to have been truly made by the Nigerian people in the real practical sense. They have been made and imposed on the country either by the military dictators or the ruling cliques, thus reflecting the fears and aspirations of that limited class who authored and promoted those constitutions.
Over the years, there have been real and perceived widespread political, economic and social imbalances in the federation by many Nigerian nationalities that it is only such an approach - voluntarily coming together through a national conference to create an acceptable constitution that can strengthen our unity and ultimately protect the territorial integrity of the federation on the long run. We must all freely agree on the terms of our co-existence as a nation in order to eliminate the constant frictions between Nigerian nationalities as well as that between the levels of government which continue to threaten the very existence of the country. There are real and perceived widespread political, economic and social imbalances in the federation that must be addressed for us to realize our dream of a voluntary Federal Union of indigenous people or a better federalism.
CONCLUSION
Whatever side one takes on the issue, it can be said with a measure of certainty that no one wants to see a disintegrated Nigeria. There is a widespread view that federalism as being practiced in Nigeria presently needs comprehensive rethinking and overhauling in order to preserve the territorial integrity of the country on the long run. Those who make peaceful change impossible will ultimately make violent change inevitable. We can neither repeat the mistake of 1967 nor afford to join the list of collapsed federations like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. To avoid these, we must be flexible enough to address and accommodate the popular demands of our various nationalities and component states for more pragmatic reforms to the Nigerian Federalism.
The time has come for us as a country to invent a new constitution and adopt the right political culture as necessary first step towards achieving the goal of a true federal state. We must divest the federal government of massive overbearing powers currently being used to oppress and intimidate political opponents or to destabilize the federating states if Nigeria. Also, the current practice where the center, i.e. federal government exclusively reviews and amends the Constitution such as the proposed six year term for Nigerian president and state governors which was rejected, and the proposed elimination of state independent electoral commissions etc, while the states look from the sideline as mere spectators, is not acceptable and definitely not in the interest of a true federalism. Nigeria remains a great country with enormous potentials. It belongs to us all and it is therefore our collective responsibility, especially the present political leaders who are already blinded by personal ambitions, to avoid reckless actions or conducts and abuse of power that can only hasten the disintegration of the country. God bless Nigeria.
 Akin Ogunlola is a licensed attorney both in the U.S. and Nigeria. |
No comments:
Post a Comment