Constitutional amendments: a northern agenda.

“When a lion becomes weak, he is a toy for little flies.”

Ethiopian Proverb

If history is a useful guide, very little will come out of the planned amendments of the 1999 constitution. A lot of money voted for the exercise will be duly spent during hearings. Much heat will be generated around contentious issues, and most will cancel each other as groups put forward conflicting positions and adopt unyielding postures. Sectional and narrow interests will jostle for positions with others who think it is time to subject the 1999 to a most rigorous scrutiny, and rid it of inherent and accumulated liabilities. The Senate and House of Representatives will put forward itemized issues they want addressed. The President already has the justice Alfa Belgore Committee report, which he had charged with the duty to avoid settled issues in recommending amendments. Governors will wait to shoot down unfavoured options. In the end, we may end up with very little accomplished.

Virtually all organized interests will go through the motion of presenting and defending memoranda. In spite of the listing of “areas” and “issues” which the national assembly will like addressed, the real issues which will capture attention are few, but profound. These will be the issues Nigerians will be told are vital to the health and survival of Nigeria. Broadly, the south-east will insist on one or more additional states to assure it of parity, equity and justice with the other parts of the nation. The south-west will dangle the nebulous concept of fiscal federalism as its core demand. Decoded, it will mean that it wants to organize Yoruba people into a more cohesive group with some distance and greater autonomy from other Nigerians. The south-south will insist on stronger safeguards for retaining more and more of the benefits of oil and gas in a federation increasingly dependent on these resources.

Of course, all three zones will also adopt positions around some or all of the listed issues and areas, and they will use these to negotiate with, or avoid situations where other groups’ positions harm their basic interests. The real question is whether the three zones in the North recognize that they have common and unique interests to take common stands on some vital areas in the manner the constitution may be amended. There will be many voices which will argue that a political north does not exists anymore, as time, rising consciousness among its plural population and massive unresolved issues around religion and bitter competition around scarse resources such as land and political power have destroyed the old fiction of a united North. Others will argue that the imperatives of identifying the core interests of northerners in relation to the rest of Nigeria have never been more compelling. They will argue that only a common front, informed by shared challenges and the need to salvage a federal system which is fast disintegrating around cleavages erected around single ethnic groups, or particular resources, will do the interests of northerners justice.

In the next few days and weeks, northern political groups, elites and politicians will run from pillar to post to adopt positions which they think will serve the interests of the north most. A useful starting point for all these groups will be the recognition that the planned constitutional amendment will not substantially affect the current state of the north, or alter its long-term position in Nigeria. A sceptic may even say it is a red herring which will expose the disarray and confusion of the north, as well as its lack of quality political leadership. A constitution, even a good one, does not guarantee good governance or rapid economic development on its own. It requires good politicians and leaders, and citizens willing to insist that elected people operate within the letter and spirit of a good constitution to have decent nation. Northern politicians also need to think strategically, and avoid walking into predetermined agendas and outcomes. The listing of issues or areas by the Senate or House of Representatives, or even the exclusion of issues from the exercise which President Jonathan says are settled, should be treated merely as one agenda. The approach of the North to the amendment exercise should also be holistic, but focused. If the constitution is to be reviewed, no one should tell Nigerians what they can ask to be reviewed, or issues which are no-go areas. Thirdly, the north needs to identify its priorities and core and secondary goals in this exercise, and engage other sections and groups in an enlightened interface that allows it to negotiate productively. Finally, the north does need some forum which will Marshall its basic interests and put them forward, in the same manner other zones have such for a.

The constitution basically assigns two responsibilities to the state: protect and secure the lives and property of citizens, and pursue their welfare. The positions the north takes must therefore be informed by the question: is the Nigerian state protecting the lives and property of northerners, and promoting their welfare? The answer to this will not be difficult to find. All northerners, Muslims and Christians, all ethnic groups, all political affiliations have been getting poorer and more insecure. The reasons for this are less important than the objective reality that this is a fact. There is no citizen, hamlet or city which has not felt the impact of the spreading insecurity in the north in at least the last three years. This state of insecurity and the specific nature of its source and dimensions have also polarized communities and triggered additional political problems for the people of the North. Security problems have also seriously crippled the northern economy and the capacity of the state to pursue the economic well-being of citizens. Poverty has been worsened by endemic insecurity, and a huge burden of the cost of supporting 19 states and the majority of the 774 local government areas in the country and their massive, parasitic paraphernalia. The state therefore, for the north, is neither a guarantor of peace and security for citizens, nor a facilitator of economic progress of communities and citizens.

The basic question to ask therefore is how the constitutional amendment exercise improves the capacity of the state to provide greater security, and improve the economic well-being of citizens? The answer can be found in the manner the state is restructured to achieve two basic objectives. One is to reduce the burden of governance, and move resources away from massive political structures and bureaucracies that merely absorb resources without commensurate output, and invest them in economic infrastructure and development of human resources. The second is to address those issues which improve the quality of leaders, makes them more accountable, and shields the political process from massive corruption, which directly feeds most of our basic sources of insecurity.

These issues also affect all Nigerians, but they are more acute in the north, where deepening poverty and insecurity is isolating the region from the rest of the nation, and creating additional pockets of crises and desperation. An enlightened approach by the north therefore should focus on its twin core problems of poverty and insecurity, and assess all issues and every element in the exercise towards reducing them. It could take up some of these positions in this regard:

(a)      The north and the nation do not need States. They are too expensive to maintain, and do not help to accelerate economic development of citizens. States should be collapsed into the six geo-political zones to form six regions. Six regions will reduce cost of governance, improve mobilization and utilization of resources better, and enhance the functioning of a federal system which has a healthy balance between a center and federating units. This will entail a radical review of allocation of responsibilities and resources as well, and address core issues in devolution of powers and responsibilities. We should also have a unicameral legislature, with each region haring representation reflecting its population.

(b)      Local Government Areas should have full political and economic autonomy under the six regions. They should have elected leaders, and regions should create their own L.G.As using the criteria of population, geography and capacity to improve social co-existence. They should be fewer than they are now.

(c)      Fiscal federalism is more than just about the southwest. It is central to the manner all federating units feel part of a greater whole, while retaining some benefits and advantages unique to them. The north should encourage a thorough exposition of the various positions, and adopt a flexible and informed position on some of its elements, such as current disputes around resource control; devolution of powers; restructuring of the federal system and related issues. At all cost, the North must avoid rigid positions in negotiations with others, except the indivisibility of the Nigerian nation.

(d)      Issues such as State Police, Land Use Act, Residency and Indigene Provisions are matters which can be discussed with other regions and positions taken which should strengthen the federation, not weaken it.

(e)      The north should pursue improvements in the quality of our electoral process, because it is paying a much higher price for rigged elections than other regions.

There are very important reasons why the North should put up a united front during these discussions on amending the constitution. It has unique problems which will not be taken up by other sections of the country, and cannot be resolved by bits and pieces of the north speaking across each other. If people of the north have ever needed unity in the past, there is no better time than now to work for it.