The first step in solving any problem is to accurately diagnose it. But are we correctly diagnosing the problems of Nigeria? For if not, we can’t find the right solutions to them.
Take critical the question of national unity, without which there can be no progress. Everyone believes there is no genuine unity in Nigeria. In fact, it’s because unity or oneness is non-existent or fragile in Nigeria that the federal government adopted TOGETHER as the theme for Nigeria’s 60th independence anniversary.
Surely, if Nigerians were united, with a sense of shared identity and common purpose, President Buhari would not devote his Independence Day speech to the recurring theme of “togetherness”, urging Nigerians to “work TOGETHER”, stressing that “if we pursue our aspirations TOGETHER we would be able to achieve whatever we desire.” The word TOGETHER appeared several times in speech in capital letters.
So, there is a problem of disunity. The next question is: why? For only when we know or understand the causes of the problem can we devise the right solution to it. But who should lead the task of accurately diagnosing this national problem and who should devise the right solution to it? Of course, it is the president of this country.
As President Buhari himself said in his Independence Day speech, Nigerians have “entrusted” him with their “hopes and aspirations for a better and greater Nigeria.” So, he has a duty to live up to that “trust” and fulfil the people’s “hopes and aspirations.” He must do this by accurately diagnosing Nigeria’s problem of disunity and proffering the appropriate solution to it. But, unfortunately, President Buhari misdiagnosed the problem of disunity in Nigeria and, inevitably, came up with a wrong solution.
President Buhari believe the problems of disunity in Nigeria have no structural causes; they are invented and magnified by Nigerians. In his Independence Day speech, he said: “An underlying cause of most of the problems we have faced as a nation is our consistent harping on artificially contrived fault-lines that we have harboured and allowed unnecessarily to fester.” Part of the “artificially contrived fault-lines”, according to President Buhari, is “the stereotype of thinking of ourselves as coming from one part of the country before seeing ourselves as Nigerians.”
This is disingenuous, of course. By reducing the acute problem of disunity in Nigeria to mere “artificially contrived fault-lines” rather than accepting that there are structural weaknesses in the governance of this country, President Buhari is self-servingly misdiagnosing the problem and, therefore, can never come up with the right solution to the problem.
Of course, given his opposition to restructuring, President Buhari could not accept there are structural weakness in the governance of Nigeria, for if he did his opposition would become unsustainable. Yet, at the heart of this country’s problems are its structural weaknesses, which induce or incentivise centrifugal forces.
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”. In Nigeria, politics takes the worst form; it is a struggle for or against domination, which drives inter-ethnic tensions, and the so-called stereotype of Nigerians thinking of coming from their ethnic group before seeing themselves as Nigerians.
But the problem is structural. As Professor Chinua Achebe said in his book, THERE WAS A COUNTRY, “The structure of the country was such that there was an inbuilt power struggle among the ethnic groups”, adding that “the easiest and simplest way to retain power, even in a limited area, was to appeal to tribal sentiments.”
President Buhari may sound sanctimonious about this, but can he say, truthfully, that he did not appeal to tribal sentiment in seeking to become the president of Nigeria? Where precisely did most of his votes come from in the 2015 and 2019 presidential elections? Can he say, again truthfully, that, in the herder/farmer conflicts, he is not more sympathetic to Fulani herdsmen, who are from his ethnic group, than to farmers, who are not? Why is it that virtually everyone in his inner circle is from his ethnic group? Why is it that virtually all the security chiefs in Nigeria are from his ethnic group?
The truth is, as Achebe said, the structure of this country is such that there is an inherent power struggle among the ethnic groups. Rather than bargaining and compromise, there is struggle for or against domination
The truth is, as Achebe said, the structure of this country is such that there is an inherent power struggle among the ethnic groups. Rather than bargaining and compromise, there is struggle for or against domination. Those in power want to stay in power!
Think of it, where there is fairness, the next president should be of Igbo extraction, given that, since 1999, no one from the South East has governed Nigeria. But, thanks to the struggle for domination, the Yoruba, which, by 2023, would have produced president for eight years and vice president for another eight years, still want to produce president in 2023. Indeed, the North wants to stay in power. Of course, the centralisation of power, coupled with the winner-takes-all politics, means that any ethnic group not in power could be marginalised. If these are not structural problems, so what are they?
Of course, President Buhari and his advisers know that these are not artificially contrived fault-lines. They are structural problems inherent in the multi-ethnic nature of Nigeria and require a proper structural solution. Nigeria’s independence leaders and the British colonialists recognised the problem and devised a solution that best suited the country.
I urge President Buhari to read the transcript of the debate on the “Nigeria Independence Bill” in the UK House of Commons on July 15, 1960. He will find that the British did not see Nigeria’s problems as “artificially contrived.” Rather, they saw the problems as structural, caused by Nigeria’s multi-ethnicity; hence they favoured a structural solution.
While opening the debate, the UK’s Secretary of State for the Colonies, Iain Macleod, said that, given that Nigeria is “extraordinarily” diverse, “it is not the least surprising that the political development it has chosen is that of a Federation in three regions, with each region self-governing in its own concerns.” Another Member of Parliament, Arthur Creech Jones, described Nigeria’s independence constitution as being “of great delicacy where various interests have had to be reconciled.” Then, Fenner Brockway, another MP, said: “I welcome the fact that Nigeria is a Federation”, adding: “It is not one nation but many”!
In an editorial earlier this week, the London Times, calling for more regional devolution in the UK, said: “The idea that the United Kingdom is one nation and not four has always been a cultural fiction rather than a political reality.” Now, if anyone said that about Nigeria, he would be called “unpatriotic.” Yet, the truth is, as Mr Brockway said, Nigeria “is not one nation but many”!
But what’s the solution? Well, as the London Times said, “devolving power to regional authorities has been the correct prescription to drive up growth and productivity.” And that’s the right model for this country. Nigeria needs regional powerhouses, not vassal states that are heavily dependent on financial grants from central government.
Successful multi-ethnic countries, such as Canada, have a regional system, a “competitive regionalism” in which regions are self-governing. But, as one Yoruba leader said, “overcentralisation brings the best down to the level of the rest instead of taking the rest up to the level of the best.” Such overcentralisation, coupled with the winner-takes-all and hegemonic nature of Nigerian politics, undermines economic efficiency and engenders political and ethnic tensions in Nigeria.
So, Mr President, the problem of disunity in Nigeria is not “artificially contrived fault-lines”, it’s caused by real structural weaknesses. And the TOGETHER slogan won’t tackle it. The solution lies in restructuring Nigeria!
