Viewpoint

January 20, 2012

AFTERMATH OF FUEL SUBSIDY PROTESTS: A new Nigeria of our dream

AFTERMATH OF FUEL SUBSIDY PROTESTS: A new Nigeria of our dream

Subsidy protesters at Gani Fawehinmi park , Ojota, Lagos

By  Ben Nwabueze

THE crisis over the removal of petroleum subsidy, which has just ended, though it threatened the basic amenities and comforts of life of all of us, especially the common people, is only a symptom of a much more basic and fundamental malaise that threatens the very life of our dear country.

The petroleum subsidy and its removal is only symptomatic of the all-pervading rottenness that exists in every aspect of the administration of public affairs in the country, engulfing nearly everyone involved in government. The rottenness is indeed so all-pervading : it has penetrated every relations, every dealing and every activity of government.

It has broken loose of all legal barriers and restraints, and become completely buccaneering; a plunder brazenly perpetrated. Even the so-called petroleum subsidy is a colossal manifestation of this rottenness. A New Nigeria of our dream must be cleansed of this rottenness.

The cleaning process requires that the Nigeria State be re-designed and re-built, not just re-branded. It requires, not its break-up into its component parts, but a more healthy integration of all its parts and groups into one solid entity, firmly united in its diversity – the new creation is the New Nigeria of our dream.

The re-building of an existing rotten State, like Nigeria, requires that its super-structure be re-designed. The super-structure of a State is its constitution. The present Constitution of Nigeria is defective and unfit for use for the purpose, not only because it is not a People’s or democratic Constitution, having been made, not by the People, but imposed on them by the military rulers, just as its predecessors were imposed on us by the colonial masters.

Defective Constitution

The Constitution is defective and unfit for the no less unacceptable reason that the federal system which it establishes for the government of the State, while generally accepted as best suited to the circumstances and needs of the country, is too lop-sided and unbalanced by over-concentrating too much power and financial resources at the Centre at the expense and to the detriment of the States which comprise the ethnic nationalities.

It thereby fails to establish and maintain a proper balance between the needs and demands of building a nation and the preservation of diversity in a multi_ethnic, multi_religious and multi_ cultural country. It therefore throws to the wind the virtues of multi_culturalism which, as is said by Professor Samuel Beer, “is basic to the national outlook.”

The rationale underlying the Constitution that over_concentration of power and revenue at the Centre would assure or conduce to national unity has been proved by events since 1979 and 1999 to be a ruinous delusion.

Far from that being the case, the over_concentration of power and revenue at the centre has tended to alienate the ethnic nationalities from the Nigerian State. It has intensified the struggle for the control of the federal government, pitching tribe against tribe and, in consequence, undermining the unity, peace and stability of the country.

The main bone of contention in the struggle among the ethnic groups for the control of the federal government is the over-powerful and juicy office of the president of the country. The failure of the Constitution to assure to the ethnic nationalities, grouped in Zones or Regions, equal access to the office is rightly perceived as a source of great injustice in the polity.

Injustice, especially injustice arising from deprivation or denial of what is considered as one’s rightful due, arouses indignation, which expresses “a sense of not being regarded as worthy of consideration. Injustice betokens an absence of respect, and manifests a lack of concern.” For this reason, the occurrence of injustice, especially if it is on a wide scale, immediately puts the “unity and coherence of society under strain.”

Subsidy protesters at Gani Fawehinmi park , Ojota, Lagos

Justice is thus rightly regarded as the “bond of society,” the “cornerstone of human togetherness.” It is the condition in which the individual can feel able “to identify with society, feel at one with it, and accept its rulings.” An unjust society cannot maintain its unity and cohesion, because it cannot arouse in its members a strong enough feeling of loyalty and allegiance.

Injustice not only alienates the individual’s loyalty, what is worse, it also arouses him to disaffection. An individual, more so a racial or ethnic group, denied recognition by society cannot but feel alienated and disaffected. “Justice,” wrote James Madison, “is not only the end of government, it is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”

There is just too much social injustice in the land, which undermines the foundations of the New Nigeria of our dream.

Boko Harram menace

The Boko Harram menace, featuring bomb explosions all over the place, a new phenomenon in our national life, is, at bottom, not a religious thing, as it is commonly said to be. It is, on the contrary, an organized action master_minded by those behind it, protesting their grievance against the injustice of being denied what they consider, rightly or wrongly, the turn of their Region to occupy the presidency. Its origin clearly attests to this.

The Constitution is again defective in not addressing squarely and by affirmative provisions, the issue of the rotation of the presidency among the ethnic nationalities, grouped in Zones or Regions. It does, no doubt, contain in section 14(3), a provision aimed at addressing the issue. The subsection says as follows:

“(3) The composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few States or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that Government or in any of its agencies.” (emphasis supplied)

A similar provision is made in subsection (4) as regards a State Government and a local government council.

But it is not enough merely that the “federal character” of the country is reflected in the composition of the government and its agencies and in the conduct of their affairs unless the application of the principle results in “ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in the government or in any of its agencies.”

It is not enough that each group is represented in the organs, councils and departments of the government if the government is more or less permanently dominated by one group or a combination of the same groups. The prevention of domination, more than mere participation by representation, is the central objective of the federal character principle in the Nigerian Constitution.

Now, domination arises not so much from numbers as from control of the key positions where vital decisions regarding policy, financial disbursements, appointments, award of contracts, etc. are made; where, in short, the business of governing takes place.

The messengers, artisans, clerks, the technicians, executive officers and the middle cadre officers are undoubtedly an indispensable part of the machinery for the administration of government. They all contribute vital inputs to the total material on which decisions about government are based. They are even more vital in the execution of decisions. Yet they are no more than supports with very little real power to affect the conduct of government.

They cannot dominate, whatever their number. Domination is material at the level of the permanent secretary or director_general and his deputy, minister and, above all, head of government. It is at these levels that the actual governing takes place.

In terms of representational value, the permanent secretary, director_general or minister counts for almost as much as the rest of the staff in a ministry put together. Indeed, under the presidential Constitution of Nigeria the President is, to all intents and purposes, the executive government. So was the Head of the Federal Military Government (FMG) in the military administration. It is such key positions particularly that the federal character principle requires not to be dominated by any one group.

The principle requires, therefore, above all else, that the headship of the government should move round, and be rotated between the geo_political zones in the country according to an arrangement to be agreed among the ethnic nationalities grouped in zones.

It is predicated upon the view of a multi_ethnic society as a house on many pillars, and that the edifice will begin to wobble and its stability imperiled if the headship of the government is not made to move round the groups. Although the provision of section 14(3) above is a clear enough constitutional authorisation for rotation, yet for the avoidance of doubt, rotation should be written into the Constitution in explicit, affirmative terms.

The rotation of the presidential office among the geo_political zones should be combined with a single, non_renewable term of five years, with an explicit bar against previous incumbents, who have been in the office for two years or more, including those who occupied the office, however it may have been designated, under a military or non_democratic dispensation.

A single, non_renewable term of five years is pre_eminently necessary and desirable to facilitate the rotation of the presidential office among the zones, and to create in them a feeling that their chances of acceding to the office are real and not too remote, since the turn of each zone will come sooner than under the system of two terms of four years per term.

Anyone elected to the office will have to apply himself assiduously and conscientiously to his responsibilities, knowing that he has just five years to try and accomplish his programme, and he will have only his incompetence to blame if he is not able to do so. It is believed that five years is enough time for an energetic, dynamic and well-focused President to accomplish his programme.

Professor Ben Nwabueze (SAN) is chairman of The Patriots and Project Nigeria.