Re: Agitations for Nigeria’s restructuring
My piece is a comment on the above-authored piece by Ambassador B.M. Sani published in Daily Trust of Friday, 29th September, 2017. The writer romanticized regionalism which Nigeria practiced over forty years back. He also supported Yorubas who are now calling our reversal to 1963 constitution.
Well, that is his personal opinion, and also even the South west educated and political elites are entitled to crave our return to regionalism. However, the missing gap in that pro-regionalist stuff was inadequacies and unsuitability of that system which the writer skipped. He avoided the bitter political drama of 1963-66 as a result of the failure of that socalled 1963 constitution which he and his co-travelers now want to us to return to. Although he talked of the military incursion, he refused to reveal what reasons brought about the military intervention into our politics then? Was it something else?
The 1963-1966 period was the darkest in Nigeria’s political history. The so-called constitution did not guarantee any political stability. Apart from unhealthy regional rivalry which intensified mutual suspicion including rejection of census and boycott of federal elections in 1964, the country was ultimately plunged into 30 months of civil war. Unless the advocates of our return to 1963 constitution are hoping for the replica of such night-mare, there was nothing to enthuse about that constitution.
The 1963 Constitution provided a Westminster system which was not suitable for weaker pluralistic societies like Nigeria. The parliamentary system breed political instability that after the 1964 federal election the then president Nnamdi Azikwe refused to administer oath of office to then prime-minister Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. The country had to go without government for many days. Also the system created a situation of power supremacy between the president and the Prime-Minister. If in those days, Nnamdi Azikwe could do with the position of ceremonial president, in spite of wild propaganda that the real power was exercised by the prime-minister, we don’t know what will happen if we ever experiment it again. I bet, ethnic champions and warriors will not accept the position of a mere “ceremonial president”. The outcome will be stalemates, perhaps real political instability worse than what happened in 1964.
It is a well-known fact that it is almost impossible for a single political party to get majority seats under the parliamentary system. This normally leads to coalition of differing political parties to form government. This also is a serious problem itself. We have seen in our neigbouring Niger Republic how the coalition government suffers.
I wonder how regionalism can strengthen Nigeria’s unity. It didn’t in the First Republic, then how could it happen this time around when the country is more polarized and faces lots of agents hostile to its existence? In fact, if we ever make a mistake to go back to 1963 Constitution, the ultimate fate is that all the regions will secede from Nigeria. If you grant more autonomy and allow resource control, then what remains of Nigeria? You will just only talk of regions but not a strong, united Nigeria.
So, people like Ambassador Sani should help this country by propagating views that will help in creating a strong, united and vibrant Federal Republic of Nigeria, instead of a weak confederation.
Bishir Dauda, Sabuwar unshakablecomrade@yahoo.com Unguwa Katsina,