The fear of ethnic domination and conflict over power and resources are at the heart of the recurrent inter-ethnic tensions in Nigeria. In his book, ‘Political Restructuring in Europe’, Professor Chris Brown of the London School of Economics argues that in multi-national states, politics “at best takes the form of group bargaining and compromise and at worst degenerate into a struggle for domination”. Sadly, in Nigeria, politics takes the worst form.
The problem is both structural and behavioural. Professor Chinua Achebe wrote in his book ‘There was a country’: “The structure of Nigeria was such that there was an in-built power struggle among the ethnic groups”, adding: “And, of course, those who were in power wanted to stay in power”. Achebe was right. Nigeria’s structural imbalance makes inter-ethnic power struggles inevitable, but self-interested politicians selfishly exploit the imbalance for personal and ethnic advantages.
For instance, left to many Northerners, the North should rule Nigeria almost indefinitely. And, despite calling themselves “Omoluabi”, implying having a sense of fairness and equity, some Yoruba would want power to rotate mainly between the North and the South-West!
Recently, Governor Mala Buni, acting national chairman of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), said that the party’s 2023 presidential ticket could go to anyone in the party, implying that another Northerner could succeed President Muhammadu Buhari. And, in the South-West, some APC politicians are actively campaigning for a Yoruba president in 2023,clearly believing the South-West should produce the next president.
Last week, Southern Governors said at the end of their Lagos meeting: “The Forum unanimously agrees that the presidency of Nigeria be rotated between Southern and Northern Nigeria and resolved that the next president of Nigeria should emerge from the Southern Region”. However, the Northern Elders Forum (NEF) quickly fired back, rejecting the Southern Governors’ position. The NEF said in a statement: “The North would not be threatened, intimidated or blackmailed into giving up its right to a democratic office”.
In a multi-ethnic country like Nigeria, power rotation is a pragmatic solution to the fear of ethnic domination
But if the South unites and speaks with one voice, the North’s political hegemony would end. The North needs at least one Southern geopolitical zone to produce president. To date, it has produced president by dividing the South, picking off one geopolitical zone, currently the South-West. But if the South can unite and speak with one voice, there will be balance of power, and a healthier and more consensual relationship between the North and the South. But the South is unlikely to speak with one voice when it comes to elections.
Take the Southern Governors’ position on rotational presidency. It was a fudge, masking a deep division among them. They said the next president should emerge from the South. Fine, but where in the South should the next president come from? Is it South-West or South-East or, even, South-South? That issue would have divided the Southern Governors. Some of the South-West governors want the next president to emerge from the South-West, certainly at the expense of the South-East.
Yet, truth be told, neither a president from the North nor from the South-West is acceptable in 2023. This is not because either would be unconstitutional, but because it would be unfair, inequitable and likely to deepen disunity and instability in Nigeria. Surely, the right position is that power should rotate between the North and the South, but also rotate among the geo-political zones. Thus, when the presidency returns to the South in 2023, it should go to the South-East, which hasn’t produced president since 1999.The Igbo would, rightly, be aggrieved if denied the presidency in 2023.
Let’s face it, like the issue of restructuring, the Igbo Question won’t go away until it’s properly tackled. You cannot describe the Igbo as a “dot in a circle”, as President Buhari did recently, who would be forced to stay in Nigeria, and yet reduce them to second-class citizens who cannot produce president for the country. That would be morally unjust and fuel unimaginable discontent.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that, in a true federal system, no part of the federation should be “so dominant that others have little opportunity to provide national leadership.” But there are real concerns that both structural and behavioural factors can deny the Igbo the opportunity to provide national leadership in Nigeria.
In a speech last year, Senator Pius Anyim, former Senate President, urged the Igbo to pursue the presidency in 2023, saying: “The time has come, and the time is now.” But in an interview in 2013, Dr Alex Ekwueme, former vice president, said: “It appears that there is a concerted effort to prevent a particular zone (the South-East) from achieving the highest office of the land”, adding: “and it is not going to be a very healthy development for the country.” We must wish that the late Dr Ekwueme was wrong. But the omens are not good!
Consider the current situation and likely scenario. By the next election in 2023, Nigeria would have had uninterrupted democracy for 24 years. In those 24 years, the North would have ruled for 11 years, South-West eight years and South-South five years. If the South-West gets the presidency in 2023, they will, presumably, do two terms of eight years. Power will then return to the North, which will do its own two terms of eight years. So, by 2039, the Igbo would have been kept out of power for 40 years!
Now, does anyone think it’s fair and, indeed, sustainable for the Igbo to be on the sidelines, unable to produce president for 40 years? Isn’t that a recipe for discontent or, as Dr Ekwueme put it, “a very unhealthy development for this country”?
To be clear, I do not, intellectually, believe in zoning or rotational presidency. I prefer competitive politics, where everyone, regardless of ethnicity, can run for president at any time on a level-playing field. But in Nigeria, there is an entrenched structural imbalance and, thus, the lack of a level-playing field, which means that, without affirmative action, some ethnic groups will never produce president. In any case, in a multi-ethnic country like Nigeria, power rotation is a pragmatic solution to the fear of ethnic domination.
In his 2013 interview with Premium Times, Dr Ekwueme put it pungently: “I don’t think any Nigerian will be happy if his regional or ethnic block is seen to be excluded from attaining the highest office in the land for whatever reason.” He was right!
But some would say politics is a game of numbers. Indeed, it is. Yet, it can also be a product of normative consensus. In 1999, Olusegun Obasanjo did not become president primarily because of numbers; he became president, first and foremost, because of a national consensus that the Yoruba should produce the president to assuage their feeling of injustice over the annulment of the presidential election of June 12, 1993, won by MKO Abiola. That national consensus led to the two main parties, People’s Democratic Part, PDP, and Alliance for Democracy, AD, fielding Yoruba presidential candidates, Olusegun Obasanjo and Olu Falae, respectively.
Surely, the potential injustice of denying Igbo the presidency for 40 years, due to realpolitik and structural barriers, necessitates a national consensus, an affirmative action, like in 1999. In this scenario, both APC and PDP will field Igbo presidential candidates. But here’s the snag. Would the APC give its presidential ticket to the South-East, where it’s historically weak, at the expense of the South-West, which gave it power twice? It’s doubtful!
So, here’s an alternative: APC fields a Yoruba candidate, PDP an Igbo. If the South-East presents its best – an utter imperative – we would appeal to the nobler motives of Northerners and, indeed, of all Nigerians to support the Igbo candidate. Fairness demands that Nigeria’s next president comes from the South-East!
