Suddenly, there is a lull in the vociferous demand for restructuring in Nigeria. A few months ago, the demand filled the airwaves and dotted the pages of newspapers. But do not mistake this for the end of the struggle. The clamour will not go away soon. It’s probably a case of tired dancers and resting drums. Soon, all will be up again and the game will resume.
Demand for restructuring in Nigeria must be situated properly and the best way to view it is simply as a continuing process of building the country called Nigeria. Engineers say that in the world any structure that was not made by God is a product of engineering process. This should include nations, because nations, especially the nations of today, are products of economic, social, political and other forms of engineering. And these processes go on continually. Nation states do not drop off the skies, ready-made.
Nigerians understand this. Ask them and many will tell you that part of the country’s problems today is that not enough engineering was or has been done to weld together or determine the proper structure to unite the various peoples that came to form what became Nigeria.
Therefore the current wave of clamouring for restructuring in Nigeria, especially the call for a modification of its federal structure, is a direct interrogation of the terms of the federation that has operated in the country. This calls for a reappraisal of the foundations on which the union has rested so far with a view to determining whether and to what extent it still satisfies the objectives and hopes of the federating units.
Federalism has in recent times received increased attention due to the tensions that have developed in countries practising or misapplying it. The difference between many of those countries and Nigeria is that the calls for change have led to reforms in the structures. An example is Belgium. In the 23 years from 1970 to 1993, Belgium changed its constitution four times, moving from a centralised structure to one with greater degree of power devolution.
There are several reasons for which a country can adopt federalism as a political structure. And whether the structure survives or is modified through agitations for change such as Nigeria is witnessing now depends on whether that system helps the country achieve those goals.
The typical reasons given for the adoption of federalism theoretically fit Nigeria’s situation: unity in diversity and power sharing among tiers of government where otherwise higher-level authorities would subjugate others. Yet, these may not be achieved if the building blocks are not fitted properly in the fundamental engineering stages.
There is a need to examine the fundamental sources of the discontent within the federation. This will reveal the real reasons for the rising demand for a restructuring or redefinition of the terms of the union.
Often, the number of the ethnic groups that make up the Federal Republic of Nigeria- put by some sources as large as 250 is presented as a significant part of the wobbling performance of the union and the difficulty in knitting the units together. This makes Nigeria an example of a multinational federation. As noted above already, this is an example of a federal system formed to accommodate diverse nations in one.
However, federations are also formed to foster economic and security interests among the units, especially in the case of a mono-national federation. This point has often been overlooked in discussions on Nigeria’s federal system, vis-a-vis the current call for change. The point about Nigeria’s federalism is not just about accommodating diverse nationalities; it also about the economic interests of the federating units. How equitably is the economic interests of the federating units taken care of?
Therefore, while the number of ethnic nationalities in Nigeria is obviously large, the country’s challenge is not necessarily in the numbers, otherwise what would one say about India, which is probably the most diverse of federations, with ethnic groups. The trouble with Nigeria lies in the failure by our leaders to accept the fact that the ethnic nationalities have not formed a whole yet.
Nigeria’s march towards a political structure began effectively in 1900, when the British assumed total administration of the area currently known as Nigeria. For the ease of administration, it divided the area into three protectorates: Lagos Colony, Southern and Northern Protectorates. In 1906 Lagos Colony was merged with the Southern Protectorate to form the Lagos Colony and the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. This search for administrative convenience was achieved in 1914 with the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates by Lord Lugard.
From then Nigeria has changed from a two-region structure to three, and four. The country even toyed with a unitary system and later came back to federalism, now with six geopolitical zones. But the fundamental problems have remained.
One factor that will sustain the demand for restructuring in Nigeria is the lopsided nature of the country’s federal structure. As it is today, the federation is skewed in favour of the centre. A strong centre, politically and economically, vitiates the aim of federation, especially one that is expected to accommodate diverse interests that seek degrees of freedom or self-determination.
A concomitant development to power devolution in this process will be the adoption of a true fiscal federalism. This will eliminate most of the frustrations being expressed by the proponents of restructuring. This is at the heart of the strident calls from Southern and Middle Belt leaders, who are the fulcrum of the demand for restructuring.
Vincent Nwanma
