It is dangerous to be right when government is wrong.
Voltaire
The Nigerian Question or the National Question has refused to go away. Rightly so, for it has not been addressed. Regime after regime the issues around this important question have been either evaded or swept under the carpet. These issues range from equity in resource allocation, equal access to power, social justice, transparency and probity in governance and census figures, citizenship, national unity and cohesion, devolution of powers etc. The list tends to get longer with time just as the exigencies and anxieties accentuate with the decline in the quality of governance. In other words bad governance only accentuates the national question. It is important to understand the aetiology of this problem, for in tracing the source we shall appreciate better the context, so that we can address both text and context in taking up the issues.
The scope of this contribution does not, however, give us the liberty to attend to details, important as some of them may be. We may therefore have to be content with gross facts. Many will concede that the Nigerian union had weak, some would say faulty, foundations from the start, being a colonial enterprise and pulling, forcefully and rather abruptly, diverse groups under one roof. To be sure, wars, famine and drought could have similar effects in the history of state formation. The difference here was, perhaps, the ‘divide and rule' tactics of the colonial authorities, which ensured that diverse groups would never come together to “gang-up”, as it were, against the colonial overlords. It may well be here that the seeds of mutual suspicions and ethnic rivalry were sown and nurtured to endure long after independence. By the early seventies, it became necessary to introduce the NYSC scheme to address the absence of cohesion and the deteriorating relationships among the peoples of this country.
Before the NYSC scheme started yielding its fruits, prolonged military rule was undermining the rule of law and institutionalising arbitrariness, wastage and corruption. Monumental corruption, bad governance and evasive politics, a la maradona, naturally elicited anxiety and panic, and groups were rushing to grab what they could ‘before it was late'. Clamour for new states, local governments, securing appointments for kith and kin became the major preoccupation of the nation. As everybody appears to be for himself, more people were recoiling into their primordial shells, local champions and ethnic leaders were emerging and the confidence that the centre could hold was fading rather fast. This erosion of the confidence and the consequent credibility gap between the centre and the periphery further accentuated the different identities and fuelled the agitation for more fractionalisation of the country.
By 1990, everybody appeared to be bracing up for a national conference, sovereign or otherwise. The Citizen Communications, the publishers of the then Citizen Magazine were clearly responding to this popular clamour when they decided to organise a ‘Citizen Dialogue' in 1992. The topic was obvious, the ‘National Question'. In that Dialogue, the discussion was dominated by the sharing of a national cake which baker's have been feeding fat on while the rest of the nation has been going hungry. It is significant that 12 years later we are once again back to another dialogue on the same question and are bound to raise the same issues. Thus in 12 years we have not moved one inch, at least on this count. Therefore, even more important than the National Question is the question: what have we been doing all these 12 years? Why have we not been able to address these issues all this while? Is it the dearth of political will? Or we simply lack the courage and sincerity to face our problems? Or what is it really?
It is tempting to ignore these questions and dismiss them as an academic past time, but we must resist this temptation. For our failure to address issues of the gravity that we have been faced with is to me more fundamental than the National Question itself. In other words, if we are not worried about our complacency over such an important issue then, perhaps, we may not worry about the issue itself. In yet other words, until we can identify the cause of our failure to address important issues we may not be able to deal with the issue even if we agree on what it is and how to go about it. If I may ask, of what use is this perennial exercise if, at the end of it all, it will come to naught? Could it be that the source of this complacency, some would say stupidity, is in fact the real disease of which the National Question is only a symptom?
At the risk of sounding monotonous, I wish to fathom this further, for the significance of the matter calls for it. We often get shocked when our police win medals in peace keeping operations in Bosnia or such other trouble spots. We also get shocked when we are told that the health care system of many southern African states will collapse if Nigerian health personnel pull out suddenly. Even in the USA, if we take stock of our doctors and engineers doing very well even in the famous NASA and the US military, we get surprised. What this tells us is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Nigerian person as such. At least we have no intrinsic disability which makes us any worse than other peoples. But this then means there is something wrong with the way we do things in Nigeria. At the root of this is our lack of respect for and therefore our impatience with procedures and processes. Let me give a few examples.
Let me start with the first thing first, our constitution. From its colonial antecedents to date, Nigeria can be said to have had ten different constitutions. But none of these constitutions can be said to be a constitution, which the people of Nigeria through their representatives have given themselves. These documents represent not the wish of the people but the imposed will of our captors. This is because after the people have decided what they wanted, British colonial authorities and later the military umpires have always tempered with this sacred document behind closed doors, before proclaiming it.
Someone may still ask, but what is the problem here? In fact there are, at least, three problems. Tempering with a sacred document which the people have given themselves is a desecration of that document which at once violates its sanctity and diminishes its esteem and therefore undermines its legitimacy. The second problem has to do with the process. Altering a document, which has gone through a process, is the violation of that process. In constitution making the process is more important than the product itself, because a constitution derives its strength and inviolability not so much from its content like from its process. Tempering, even if with best of intentions, therefore robs it of a good measure of that inviolability and sends the wrong signals to the citizens. If leaders cannot show deference to that process how do they expect their followers to? Thirdly there is a problem of ownership. The people of this country, or any people of any country, for that matter, cannot own a document which has been tempered by people they have neither elected, nor consented to have their mandates. This creates not only the problem of ownership but also the problem of trust.
Some of these things may look little or trivial but as many of us have learnt from the primary school days; “a little thing may be a little thing, but faithfulness in a little thing is a great thing”. This lack of faithfulness and transparency, elicits doubts and mistrust between people and their leaders. As leaders continue to breach process, disrespect procedures, they unwittingly encourage others to do same and the result is that this breach and disrespect gradually becomes the norm. Just as children look up to and copy their parents so do citizens their leaders. Or as Ibn Khaldun, the renowned philosopher of history, would say, the vanquished always looks up to and copy the victor. This is simple psychodynamics that we should have no difficulty appreciating. The more leaders call on the citizenry in their speeches to respect laws and keep to procedures and process but themselves ignore same, the more people ignore their leaders and become cynics.
This habit of doing things wrongly, with no respect for the rule of law, has so permeated our thinking and our behaviour that many have given up on the country and resigned to fate. This surrender, as it were, itself creates a fertile ground for everything to go wrong without limits and without questions. Newly trained police, for example, are given arms and thrown on the streets without any salary or allowances for six months and yet no one cares to know how they survive. Some newspaper publishers leave their reporters with out pay for months and they don't want to know how they survive and send them the reports they publish daily. Living above legitimate means becomes so much the vogue that those who keep within their legitimate means are seen as either unsuccessful or misfits. Young people are given the impression that life is about grabbing as much as you can, whenever you can, however you can. All these are the “fruits” of the continuous breach of procedures and processes which begins with our constitution and then spreads into our psyche and other areas of our life gradually if imperceptibly.
Our democracy could not have been insulated from this infection. It should not have come to us as a total surprise that it is not working well enough to solve our perennial problems as fast as we thought. But, even then, many of us did not envisage the rot it has become in so short a time. That in an election contested between A and B, INEC would declare C, who did not even contest, as the winner. Or that INEC would declare D to have lost an election and yet D, with the full support (or is it connivance?) of his party, would proceed to take a seat in the National Assembly! What is more, that this same D would proceed to take an elective post in the National Assembly. As far as we know, no bye-election has been held, INEC has not formally changed its result, posted on its website, nobody in INEC has protested or resigned, the parties, the press and the entire civil society are quiet, one is forced to ask, is this now the norm? How many people will be prepared to invest (or is it waste?) their time to vote next time? How long can such a democracy last?
I am concerned because I am not sure how much time we have to rectify this before the bubble bursts. But I am sure we don't have all the time in this world, certainly we don't have till eternity. I am worried because I have seen nations that have dilly dallied and have gone bananas or to pieces, the Haitian, Somalian and Yugoslavian examples are too fresh to ignore. I know Nigerians believe in prayers, but I am not sure if we can rely on those god-fearing ever praying people in the presidency. I would rather, we first secure democracy for if nothing else it will give us the space and freedom that even the timid may be able to rise and speak against the rot. But to secure the democracy itself we have to address the infection that seemed to have paralysed every arena of our national life. This is why we have to address our complacency and timidity if we are even to take the first step. And this is why I found it necessary to spend this much time on the issue at the risk of boring everybody.
Perhaps we can now return to the National Question. A lot is going to be said by my senior colleagues speaking at this dialogue. This is enough reason for me to confine myself to only an aspect. If we reduced it to what it is, the National question boils down to three issues: power sharing, wealth sharing and the management of our diversity. Over the years a number of formulae have evolved for power-sharing and wealth-sharing. The establishment of the Federal Character Commission, as impotent as it may now be, and the establishment of Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission, operating an evolving revenue allocation formula, are both significant steps in addressing these areas. These formulae may be far from resolving the contentions but the start which has been made can continue to evolve with time, especially when, the terrain, by its very nature, is dynamic. To sustain the evolution of these formulae one factor appears to be critical and that is the people's trust in leadership. Leadership here is not restricted to the federal executive, it involves the executives at all the three tiers of governance, the party leadership as well as the legislature.
Our leaders appear to live in a completely different world from that of the led. The excessive display of power which borders on intimidation, by our leaders at every level, is one thing that does not accord with the fact that the victims of this display are the very people who voted them into this power. If the military, who usurp power behave like that it may be easy to understand. A psychologist may be tempted to think that democratically elected leaders behave like the military because they also usurped power through means other than the gun; a behaviour which the lack of legitimacy and the breach of processes engenders. Our leaders have the longest convoy, the largest retinue of staff around them and the longest protocol list that I have ever come across. Watch the cable television and see how leaders of powerful countries move and walk to podiums with out ADCs and visible security men and finish their addresses take their seats or leave. The megalomania of our leaders, with their long chieftaincy titles and spurious honorary degrees only betrays this emptiness and a power they neither have nor deserve. We have long ago learnt that empty cans make the most noise. Margaret Thatcher was reported to have said, “being powerful is like being a lady, if you have to say you are then you are not.”
Any such attempt to draw their attention to this unfortunate reality is immediately dismissed as the past-time of the opposition and the frustrated, especially the academicians, amongst us. Surrounded as top government officials are today by psychopants, professional and veteran liars of Babangida and Abacha's fame, potential contractors and hangers on, they keep plunging into this self-delusion unabated. Completely insulated, constantly pampered by courtiers, it is difficult for them to see that people no longer believe government. And why should they? These people see government officials connive to commit all manners of crime under their noses and the following day these same officials will be on the television screen giving sanctimonious speeches like priests just graduated fresh from a seminary. Our leaders blame Nigerians for misuse and abuse of religion, but they fail to see where the inspiration is coming from.
How can we restore or begin to build this confidence and trust between the leaders and the led which is critical even for the evolution of the wealth and power sharing formulae? I leave this to the audience /readers to ponder.
As for the management of our diversity, let me first state the obvious, that diversity is natural, for nature is diverse. Diversity is also useful, in genetics as well as agriculture, diversity is strength and so is society. With globalisation and the shrinking of the world, diversity is brought to the fore, making the future diverse and diversity the future. I don't therefore think we should be surprised much less worried that we are diverse. To be more precise, by diversity here we are talking of religion, culture and values. Admittedly, these, unlike wealth and power may not lend themselves to arithmetic, so it is not easy to share them, in that sense. Furthermore, because they are primordial, they predate wealth and power, which are later acquisitions, and therefore appeal to our emotions. We need a lot of composure to be able to discuss these issues dispassionately. In doing so, I wish to look at only three aspects of the management of our diversity. These are: understanding values and culture; the realities of globalisation; and effective communication.
Understanding Values and Culture – it will appear that on this count at least, we are victims of our own ignorance. The more educated and the more exposed among us ought to know that it is futile to argue that one culture is better than the other, because such judgements are subjective. Cultures and values are not logical or to put it better, values and culture have a logic of their own. What values and cultures require is not competition but accommodation. I am not aware of any effort aimed at making the different cultures to appreciate each other and to therefore build lasting bridges of understanding that will obviate these tensions and conflicts.
Many will point to the NYSC and unity schools where young people mix with other cultures. The idea is no doubt novel and holds great potential in building bridges of understanding. But it is too often forgotten that because of the pervading cynicism that we referred to above people don't believe these efforts and you cant blame them for even the government officials that ran them don't believe in them. I would like to believe that even the presidency does not believe in this idea. At least when it comes to finance Mr president was until recently having an accountant general, auditor general, central Bank governor, defacto minister of finance all from his own tribesmen. This kind of tribal chauvinism does not inspire confidence in a country where no tribe can claim monopoly of knowledge or probity. Government has to wake up to the fact that people have simply lost what ever trust or confidence they may ever have had in it. This only worsens by every passing day. While government is embroiled and culpable we can't leave the job of promoting understanding across the cultural divides. This may have to be taken up by an NGO made up of credible people who will not use the position to get government jobs or simply curry favour, for only then can people believe them. But it is important, if we really wish to move forward, on this count that some body dedicates itself to demystifying claims of superiority of cultures and promotes understanding among the peoples of this country. Government, for now, hasn't the credibility to do it.
Effective Communication – One hardly needs to argue the dangers of poor or lack of communication between the different cultures in this country. It has sparked many riots which has led to loss of lives and property, a disaster which was not only unnecessary but which never needed to happen. Part of the task of this non-governmental efforts should be to encourage people across cultures to communicate effectively. Too often when we speak across cultures it is either a shouting match in which no ones listens to the other or it becomes a dialogue of the deaf in which no one really understands, much less appreciate what the other is saying.
Problems of communication can be very tricky like this true story illustrates. An advertising company was asked to produce an advert to sell a new washing powder in the Arab world. They produced the standard advert which consists of a picture of the dirty cloth on the left, in the middle a picture of the dirty cloth immersed in the washing powder and at the right, very sparkling clean cloth being dried. Despite this, the product was not selling. Experts were flown in to find out what was happening. They immediately discovered the problem; the Arabs read from the right to the left, so what they see in the advert was clean cloth immersed in this new product and they come out squeezed and dirty on the other end. Which Arab will buy this product? So with any communication, it is not enough to say what we wish to say, we have to ensure that the other gets what we wish to say.
Realities of a Globalising World – as has been alluded to earlier, advances in communication technology and the growth of globalisation are everyday making the globe to shrink, bringing peoples of different races and cultures ever closer and making them ever dependant on each other. The people of this shrinking globe are ever being presented with the option of either to sink together or swim together. The more this reality is understood and appreciated the more visible the big picture becomes and the more ridiculous the obsession with our little differences become. Once we realise the bigger issues of survival in an increasingly competitive environment and developmental challenges confronting us we shall put our little difference where they actual belong, at the background. We must also realise that globalisation has a momentum of its own and will not wait for us. Once we are caught on the wrong side of the digital divide or even overtaken by the AIDS scourge, the issues we shall be facing is one of survival and would not have luxury of discussing our differences.
You may have noticed that I have not at any time called on government to do anything. This is not because of my lack of faith in government. Rather it is because this calls for governments to do this or that appears to be misplaced or perhaps a carry over of the military days when government alone does things. I feel if we wish to get certain things done in a democracy there are at least three institutions that we have look at.
First we have a parliament, the National Assembly, where we have representatives of the people who are paid to represent us and have a constitutional responsibility which they have sworn to uphold. Our representatives have a heavy responsibility to see that the interest of the people of this country is secure. If they appear to be dancing to the tune of the executive, we must not sit and lament we have a responsibility to protest and ask them to do what they are paid to do, to protect our interest not that of the presidency. When they count as part of their achievements, peace and harmony with the executive we ought to remind them that that is not why they are there in the first place so that cannot be an achievement. They are there to check and balance the executive arm of government and stand up for the ordinary people who voted them. We have to find creative ways to pressure the legislatures do their job even if it means reporting them to their constituencies, in the way we do governors and local government chairmen by publishing what they receive every month. If we are not prepared to do what it takes to get legislatures do their work we should then stop complaining accept our fate.
Second, the political parties. Those of us who belong to parties have a responsibility to ensure that parties are run according to their constitutions and taken to task on their manifestos, no matter how poorly written this two documents may be. The popular attitude of dismissing the party of being made up of thugs and murderers doesn't help us, it only helps the thugs and riff-raffs who have hijacked the party. If we want things to improve we must participate in the parties, like Aristotle would say those who don't like to join politics will have to put up by being ruled by people far inferior. I don't find this attitude of the very nice and clean sensible people who fold their arms and watch from a comfortable distance and complain particularly impressive. If we really care about this country then we must put a stop to this elitist excuses and get into those murky terrains and wrestle the party and therefore our future from the street corner boys.
Third, there is the civil society which has a heavy responsibility. I don't know if they need to be told that the magnitude of the problems we are facing is not any less than the time of Abacha. Some, would say Abacha times are even better for he made no claim to any special relationship with God and certainly no claim to democracy and its accompanying niceties like transparency and due process. The first mistake of the civil society was to have rested on its oars too early; the consequences are there for everybody to see today. The second mistake is to fail to respond to calls to stand up to the nonsense that is passing for democracy today. I am not sure the civil society will get a chance to make a third mistake for one is not sure if democracy will survive long enough for them to do so. The civil society had invested much more into the realisation of this democracy than the politicians themselves. I know it is painful to see these same Abacha faithfulls who we had to battle with in conference halls especially in Europe and the US today being more catholic than the pope in matters of democracy. But this is no reason to give up, it is all the more reason why we should go back to the trenches and mount the barricades again.
Finally, perhaps I should remind all of us here that, some of us have gone grey trying to climb up this greasy pole. We can say with certainty that to move forward we must be prepared to make sacrifices. If we are not prepared to make sacrifices, we should simply stay at home to await our fate (or is it our death?).
Usman Bugaje
