THE OPTIONS BEFORE NIGERIA
Godwin Etakibuebu argues that the country must negotiate the terms of staying as one
My article, published elsewhere, last week and captioned “As Nigeria breaks: pains, agony and tears of saying goodbye” has been interpreted differently by different people and groups, and understandably so. Some believe that l jumped to the wrong conclusion that Nigeria has broken into pieces already. Others said that the caption is total reflection of the reality of today’s Nigerian ethnic agitations. Yet, there are those that agree with the caption in its totality.
It is for this reason that l am returning to the discussion today. In so doing, however, the fact must not be lost on the realities of events as currently applicable in the Nigerian enterprise to wit: that things have fallen apart, in the words of the late literature icon Chinua Achebe, and the centre could not hold. In fact there is no centre in Nigeria any more to hold anything – that is the sad reality we must accept as a people.
The escalation of the debate can therefore be justifiable if it presents alternative options in finding solution to the political predicament at hand. It [the escalation] will also reveal my true heart desire on this topic, albeit my prayers that Nigeria remains one indivisible country. It is in one indivisible country that the potential of greatness can be actualised. It is in attempt of bringing into fruition one united Nigeria that I am presenting three options for our collective evaluation.
Each and every one of these three options is material of negotiation. It means we, the people of Nigeria, must be prepared to negotiate wisely a one united country where equal respect for all the ethnic nationalities remains a cardinal place of honour. The catch here is mutual respect for all the ethnic nationalities. It means that the arrogance of the three major ethnic nationalities of Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo, needs to be eradicated forthwith and with immediate effect.
The Creator who brought the minor ethnic nationalities into this geographical piece of land “around the Niger” and made them [the minority tribes] the economic backbone for the survival of the three majors [Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo] is wiser than any human predators. If the truth must be told, it is the arrogance of the three major tribes in seeing themselves [each] as owners of the country, an antic which is predatory by nature and interpretation that is responsible for the approaching calamity.
The minority tribes are the everlasting glue God has created to hold the country together. That must have been the reason why the wise Creator did not concentrate them in one axis. He instead spread them across the land. Minus the minority ethnic nationalities, the three majority tribes are doomed. With this knowledge, let us go to work of making Nigeria one workable entity through the instrumentality of negotiation.
Option one - Negotiating the unity of Nigeria in a restructured format. God, in Genesis 1:26 said, “let us create man in our own image and our likeliness”. This quote is incontrovertible evidence that the Creator of mankind started his good work from discussion/negotiation, albeit bringing man into existence. This confirms that man’s wisdom of negotiating things into and out of existence is a cue inherited from the Creator of heaven and earth. The platform being erected for this option is to the extent that we can negotiate the restructuring of the Nigerian federation to suit the exigency and reality of our times.
If possible, let us denounce the phrase that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable to accepting that everything in this world is negotiable. So often, within the past 50 years or thereabout, we have heard from our political leaders this one phrase that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable. It remains an over-used expression, more especially when it falls flat on the face of historical reality.
Nigeria as a country did not come into existence until after the amalgamation of 1914, which brought both the North and South Protectorates together. That itself was after discussions and negotiations between the people of the north and south “area of the Niger” on one hand and with the colonialists from across the Atlantic Ocean on the other hand. Both the concept and the name Nigeria [name given by Flora Shaw – later Lady Lugard] were negotiated into existence by a people of that generation.
What the founding fathers of Nigeria gave to us through negotiations may not be perfect but it was obviously a far cry from what we operate now. They presented to us a truly fiscal federated system of government which recognised the federating units [regions as they were then] as power blocs, with emphasis on resource control. The government at the central had only three major things [currency, defence and foreign policy] under its control. It lived on royalties paid to it by the units even as these units developed at their own paces with total control over all their resources.
This was Nigeria’s way of life until the military came in January 1966, through the instigation of politicians from the three major ethnic tribes, with seemingly mandate of wiping out fiscal federalism from our country. The military there and then introduced a unitary system of government; a system that “kidnaps and steals” every earning from the federal units [from regions to states and now 36 states and federal capital territory of Abuja], presents all to the federal government in Abuja as spoils of war, while the federal government, acting as father Christmas, gives tokens to the states [original creator of the wealth].
Option one therefore is a clarion call to all Nigerians to arise in abolishing this distorted and disjointed system of government by reverting to status quo ante, albeit fiscal federalism, as we got it from our founding fathers. This is restructuring without breaking. Etakibuebu, a veteran journalist, wrote from Lagos