By TIMEYIN EJOOR
I remember Alhaji Barkin Zuwo of blessed memory. The indefatigable former governor of Kano State was a man with an unusual canniness for bringing comic relief to a rather tense situation.

If he were alive today and his opinion was sought on the continued agitation for a sovereign national conference to determine the future of Nigeria, he would most probably have replied ‘are all conferences not an opportunity to talk, drink tea and take time off normal work? Eh, let us have the conference so that the people (participants) can drink enough government tea…”

More than ever before, the agitation for a Sovereign National Conference resonates loudly. Advocates are intensifying their efforts to convince the government to accede to their request. Quite remarkably, the agitation is not coming from the political class.

Even though the conference is said to be the main panacea to our prevailing socio-political and economic issues, many others opposed to the idea are worried that a sovereign national conference would end up being a platform to partition and eventually break up the country.

Proponents of the conference and those against it have created so much space in the polity that it has itself become a divisive factor; unfortunately along the North-South lines.

I am not an advocate of the current call for a sovereign national conference. Not because I don’t want the various issues that bedevil us as a nation to be discussed and addressed, but because I know it would not work as the usual cacophony of voices and opinions from the various ethnic nationalities would never be harmonised.

I don’t even believe we will ever be able to convene one because of the unusual complexities that characterise our make up as a nation. Even if we try, the mode of representation would still not suffice.

The advocates still have a lot of work to do in order to actualise their dream. They need to articulate the idea properly through adequate enlightenment to assuage the nerves of those who believe it will lead to breaking up the country.

They need to come up with a frame work on the agenda, mode of representation and limits or otherwise of the conference. No sane sitting government would make itself vulnerable to the decisions of a conference that is sovereign.

It means that whatever decisions reached at the conference would be binding on the government of the day. So, if the conference participants agree that the President is too pot bellied or too timid to be the nation’s leader, then he has to step down, never mind the mandate he received from the electorate at the polls.

One common ground I have with the advocates is the need to restructure our economy and fiscal policies which have become so abused and debased that it would need a major effort and commitment to put back on track. Whether it is through a national conference or not, we need a framework to guide and determine our future economic outlook.

No doubt, reforms are urgently needed to salvage the future.  I will always favour any dialogue that would help clear the distortions and inconsistencies in our economic programmes. We need a conference on how the nation can be self-sufficient in food production, how the wealth generated from oil sales can be better appropriated; percentage retainable for certain key economic drivers such as high employment generating industries, reasonable revenue allocation to attain proper fiscal federation and of course, prospects for a genuine industrialisation initiative.

There is no gainsaying our economic planning lacks focus and direction. There are no strategic development goals and aspirations. Economic ideology is lacking and tactical efforts are easily snuffed out because they lack depth and the operators lack commitment.

The current situation where economic policies are carried out on ad hoc basis is nothing but a recipe for disaster in future.  I will like a clear cut strategy put on paper stating the national goals and prospects of each segment of the economy as well as set time frame for achieving them.

The first major consideration of any economic conference would be the lopsided revenue allocation formula which at least everyone agrees is skewed. Current fiscal laws give too much power to the Federal Government than the other sub governments in the federating units.  It simply means that we practice fiscal centralisation in a federal state.

With a population of over 140 million, Nigeria is far from being able to feed itself. A nation that cannot feed itself is not on the road to any meaningful growth. Since the demise of the Green Revolution campaign in the Second Republic to improve food production, no concerted attempt has been made at least to enlighten the populace on the need for an agrarian renaissance.

The Green Revolution failed because it was corruption ridden and it was based on the folly of feeding the nation through massive rice importation from Thailand. The Chinese, with over a billion and a half people account for about 21 per cent of the world population but with a mere nine per cent of arable land, are self-sufficient in food production.

A Chinese adage says: ‘an economy without strong agriculture is fragile, and a country without sufficient grain will be chaotic.’ Isn’t this the present situation we are in Nigeria? The first step the Chinese took on the road to economic emancipation was to improve agriculture.

Currently, that country is able to set aside 40 per cent of her annual crop yield into strategic reserve. So where do we stand in this regard? We are not talking of government providing fertiliser to farmers and improved crop yields. We must move from dependence on peasantry to large scale mechanised production. It should be a clear cut, well spelt out initiative to address the issues.