The case for Statelessness

“A man hunting an elephant does not stop to throw stones at birds.” A Cameroonian Proverb

It would have been interesting to hear what the outcome of the aborted North-East Summit would say about issues such as the clamour for additional State(s) in the south-east, or on the demand for “true” federalism. Alas, the powerful Governors torpedoed it by simply staying away, and hinting that the Summit could be hijacked by hostile interests. It will be safe to assume that some words would have been directed at both issues, particularly given the fact that they appear to be just about the only core demands of the south-east and the south-west. The south-south has taken a non-negotiable position around the protection and possible extension of its demand on retaining the bulk of the oil and gas resources by host communities. The Governor of Kano State says the south-east has no monopoly of grievances over number of states; and its insistence that the creation of additional state(s) is the only acceptable evidence that the Nigerian nation intends to treat Igbo people with justice is unjustified. He says noisy politics alone is not a sufficient basis for creating new states. Going by population and land mass, he says, Kano State should have two or three more states created out of it.

There are indeed many groups waiting in the wings with their well-prepared arguments for additional States, and they do not appear well disposed to make room only for one or two States in the South-east. Even from the south-east, the clamour is for more than one state, and there is a huge argument over where the one or two states may be created from. There are demands from the north, ranging from one the nation is being told the Senate President must have; to one from the volatile Kaduna State, (provided the people there can sort out who will have the state capital) to any three or four from the large States in the Northwest and Northeast. There will also be a few from the many communities in the North-central zone, a region where you could create thirty more States, and simultaneously create genuine grounds for creating another thirty as a result.

So what are the prospects that the current attempt to review the constitution will yield a resolution to create one or two States from the south-east so that principles of justice, equity and partity will seem to be satisfied? At this stage, these prospects are not very promising. A case for one or more additional State(s) from the south-east will have to survive local competition; kill the clamour from scores of competitors from other parts of the nation, or make strong cases for them as well; and be thoroughly negotiated with other regions and interests.

Chances are many States are likely to be proposed, and the cumbersome and near-impossible requirements for creating new States will combine to defeat the clamour for more States in the south-east. Actually, the case for a lone additional State from the south-east is possible, provided the entire Igbo political elite can agree that it is its irreducible minimum requirement for a just federal system, and it can negotiate this against resource control with the south-south; against regional autonomy with the south-west; and against myriad issues around resource control and the nature of the federal system with northern governors and sundry interests.

Is the need for an additional State from in the south-east vital enough to pay such a huge price by the Igbo in today’s Nigeria? One more State in the East may have deep symbolic significance, but what does it translate into in practical terms? It will mean a heavier cost of governance for the citizenry, and one more opportunity for some rich politician to become a governor. It wont give the Igbo more land, more opportunities to expand into, more security for life and property, or more political clout. It may give Igbo people three more Senators and a few members in the House of Representatives who may or may not even think or operate as protectors of pan-Igbo interests. It will mean a brand new Government House and possibly a new State secretariat, but citizens of the new State will live like they have always done: relying on their own efforts and on their own communities to make life tolerable.

The clamour for additional States is a gimmick of the political elite to carve the country into smaller and smaller pieces so that they can have something to hold on to. New States create illusions of progress and development: State capitals spring up with paved roads; new political leaders and bureaucrats swim as big fish in small ponds, and eye-catching, single-city based structures and institutions are created to provide the façade for a new life. But the overwhelming majority of the population in the new State lives as if nothing has changed. They have new leaders, but same old policies and programmes. They have a new State, but live exactly like the poor in the old State they were part of.

Perhaps it is a reflection of the collapse in quality of political leadership across the length and breadth of the nation that we have a situation today when Igbo leaders insist that a new State is a non-negotiable demand. Truth is, the people in the south-east need to hear other voices, including many from the area who are terrified of swimming against the tide. The south-east does not need one or more States. In fact, no one in Nigeria today should live with States. These creatures of adventurous military governments have become major liabilities. States should be collapsed into the six geo-political zones, which should form regions. The Igbo will have parity with the Yoruba when they each live in regions which predominantly reflects their ethnic stock. Everyone of the six regions should have substantial powers and responsibilities which the federal government presently has no business exercising, devolved to them, as well as additional funding which now goes to the federal government. They can create fewer sub-regions (local governments) on the basis of need, geography and social co-existence. They will plan, mobilize and develop resources at regional levels, and enact laws and regulations consistent with the interests of their own people.

The issue of creating new State(s) in the south-east and other parts of Nigeria will serve a negative, diversionary purpose, at a time when Nigerians need to address the fundamentals of the federal system we operate, and the limitations of our democratic system. The south-east will be the biggest loser if this current round in attempts to amend the constitution comes to nothing, because it alone has a single agenda of state(s) creation. Neither the south east nor any part of Nigeria need new, or even the old States. The nation should be shielded from being continuously carved up to satisfy very narrow elite interests, which the clamour for State creation represents.  

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.

Living history

“An old man’s month may be twisted, but his words are not”. Zambian Proverb

Chinua Achebe’s latest book There Was a Country has predictably opened up a vigorous debate over some of the more sensitive aspects of the Nigeria civil war. Even before his countrymen and women have read the book, the more sensational parts of the book are being given very wide circulation. Suddenly, we are in the grip of a debate that involves many participants who were born long after the war, and a few who lived through it or participated in it. It is unlikely that key players like General Yakubu Gowon or some of the former leaders and military officers who were active in the execution of the war will join the fray. Which may be just as well, because while history has its value, there is also merit in being circumspect and avoiding maddening crowds who chase bits and pieces of history to make sense of the present.

Old man Achebe’s motives for waking up some ghosts in our chequered history may include a primordial but belated need to put himself forward as a champion of the Igbo people. For a man who has spent decades out of his slowly-decaying nation, content to throw in a condemnation here and a rejection of an honour there, history will judge him as a citizen who shines like a star that lights other peoples’ land more brightly. Perhaps this book is a form of atonement; or perhaps it is a genuine attempt to contribute to a sad chapter in the history of the nation, forty-odd years after the event. In any case, he must know that some of the positions he takes in the book will compound the current disarray at the political level, at a time when political leaders have failed to engineer a hegemony and national cohesion, and have all scurried into tribal holes.

Achebe says that General Yakubu Gowon and Chief Awolowo designed and implemented a policy of genocide against the Igbo people in the manner they deliberately starved the population during the war. The operative concept here is genocide, a now familiar and abhorrent policy of attempting, or succeeding in extermination of particular groups. At this stage of the history of our civil war, all that is left is emotion. And for a nation where quite possibly 70% percent of the population was born after 1970, and has been fed on a staple of widely-divergent versions of history, allegations of genocide against past leaders, (including one, Awolowo, who is still venerated) are bound to elicit major reactions. And reactions are coming in, thick and strong.

Apologists for the Igbo cause see vindication of the version that Igbo courage and character was defeated only by use of “inhuman” tactics like starvation, and callous connivance of Yoruba leaders against a “Hausa” (or northern) enemy. Defenders of the image and legacies of Awolowo remind the Igbo that they triggered a chain of events out of arrogance and disrespect for others, and paid a just price for their folly. If people starved during the war, they will say, it can only be part of the tragedies that all wars are, and parties in conflicts choose the safest and quickest routes to end them. Other versions of the history will highlight many of its elements that showed deeply-sensitive considerations for a nation fighting itself; for post-war reconciliation and rehabilitation; and for many wrong assumptions and mistakes made by leaders and commanders that cost thousands of lives. There are yet others who will remember thousands of soldiers who made the supreme sacrifice to re-unite the nation; citizens who will remember the incredible speed of genuine reconciliation among ordinary folks and people; and a world that still marvels at the ability of the Nigerian people to move beyond a very bitter civil war.

So Achebe’s views will join many others which compete in our minds in terms of our history. But they will do more than provide another version or insight into the history of the civil war. At a time when the nation is desperate to overcome massive faultlines emerging around ethnic boundaries, the allegations that Igbo people were a victim of callous and calculated policy of genocide by northern and western leaders cannot but deepen these faultlines. The allegation may serve to rally Igbo people around the sentiments of the underdogs of the Nigerian nation, the enterprising people we all have to conspire and put down in order to find space. It will feed a fallacy which has some political capital, but has no factual or historical credibility. The post-mortem assault on Awolowo may rekindle some age-old residue of Igbo-Yoruba rivalry and hostility, and harm some distant hope that the two most “progressive” groups in Nigeria may yet find a basis for working together to give this nation the best opportunity to utilize its considerable intellectual, economic and political potential. The dig at General Yakubu Gowon will be nothing new; and while he may not have an entire army of supporters to defend his integrity and his own version of history, there will be many in the north who will see him as representing the best in northern traditional commitment and sacrifices for the survival and unity of Nigeria.

In any case, the arguments and quarrels which Achebe’s book will generate will not drown those already engaging the nation’s attention. The book is being released at a time the nation is facing the biggest threats to its unity and security since the civil war. It will remind the nation of its current problems, some of which have parallels in the past. We have an insurgency which has tied down our entire security assets around its repudiation of the Nigerian state. We have a democratic system which is creating massive cleavages around groups and region, and an economy working to produce incredibly wealthy and tiny minority, and intolerable poverty among the vast majority of Nigerians.

If Chinua Achebe’s latest book will have any value, it will be located in its reminder that the Nigerian state has failed to produce citizens out of its many tribes. It reminds us that failures of our leaders to build genuine democratic systems and strong economies around the productive activities and needs of our people are reflected in the existence of tribe and faith as major categories in the manner we compete for, and allocate resources. If a new generation of Nigerian leaders should emerge, they should read authors like Achebe to chart a course different from those his generation charted.  

Mubi killings: let us talk

“It is easier to wake a person who is asleep than a person who pretends to be asleep” Ugandan Proverb

It will be dangerous to get over anger and indignation at the impunity and provocation which was at the heart of the killings of anywhere between 26 and 46 students in Mubi, Adamawa State. Too many signposts and turning points in the violence against Northerns and Nigerians have been ignored in the past, and we have reached a tipping point in this nation at which we must take a stand. Even a brief recall of similar massacres is a painful exercise: massacre at a market in Damaturu, routine slaughter of Christians at their places of worship, unending mayhem in the fast-depleting towns of Damaturu and the ancient city of Borno, high profile bombings and assassinations, shrinking economy in many parts of the north, and an entire people living in permanent fear. Terror has gradually taken over lives of people in the north, and we are at that dangerous point where people could resign themselves to live (or die) with it.

This should not be allowed to continue. It is time to stand up to this threat, and turn the tide. Which is why we should not stop being angry, but we should turn our anger into constructive energy. What did the people who woke students up in the middle of the night, and calmly and systematically shot or slaughtered those on their list seek to achieve? Perhaps we may, in due course, get to know what they wanted to achieve, but we can safely conclude that their action was pre-eminently contemptuous of our government and the security agencies, and an act of supreme provocation against the community and all citizens. We may also conclude that they intended to trigger further bitterness and conflict between religious and ethnic groups in the northeast and in the whole of Nigeria. Above all, they may have wanted to send a signal that peace-loving Nigerians have lost the war against terror. The lesson from Mubi, from recent events Zaria and Kano, from Damaturu and Borno and many other parts of the north is that citizens should be prepared to die. It could be you, your children, your wives, your economy, and your values. But this war you are losing will get you in one way or the other, sooner or later. And there is nothing you or your government; or your community can do about it. You could be muslim or christian, civilian or soldier, poor or rich. It will get you when it wants, how and where it wants.

The people are losing this war because the federal government is ill-prepared, ill-equipped or poorly-committed to fight on our behalf. Perhaps the federal and state governments do not understand the nature of the enemy, in spite of billions of Naira invested in logistics, intelligence and equipment. Perhaps they are using the wrong weapons against the enemy, in spite of countless suggestions that force alone will not defeat it. Perhaps they are fighting more than one enemy, going by numerous allegations that rogue elements and other opportunistic interests are hiding behind the Boko Haram franchise to pursue their own objectives, which may include weakening the Nigerian state. Perhaps there is too much money chasing the insurgency to bring it to an end; and the very forces fighting it are not too keen to see to its end. Perhaps both those who terrorize the people and those who terrorize them in the process of protecting them recognize the hopelessness and powerlessness of the civilian population.

Well, it is time to stand up to both. And since it is very obvious that the people in the north are in for a long haul, those who have responsibility to facilitate or find solutions to their problems must act now. The first line of action must be our governors, people who are living at our own expense, and who swore to protect and defend us. They must convene a high-level, all-embracing forum of political, traditional and religious leaders, academics and other citizens with relevant and useful insights and experiences to examine the entire situation of the North, and the options available to it. Just in the event the governors say they have in place a Committee on Peace and Security, or a contraption with a similar name, they need to be told it is not what is needed. The North needs to holistically and honestly examine itself under its present circumstances; examine its challenges in relation to its governments, including the federal government; examine its limitations and opportunities; and consider what steps it needs to take to address short and long-term challenges.

If the governors will not do this, either because they are satisfied with what they are doing, or are afraid that such a forum will indict them as part of the problem, then a coalition of politicians, elder statesmen, civil society groups, academics and other citizens should convene their own forum to discuss the current situation of the North, and how it can solve its own problems and engage the rest of Nigeria. This forum should examine the genesis, dimensions and manifestations of all security threats, including JASLIWAJ (a.k.a. Boko Haram); its impact on the Northern political economy; the roles of governments and security agencies and the community, and practical steps that need to be taken to arrest the decay and disintegration which is evident in the North and Nigeria respectively.

If our politicians are too busy looking for opportunities to field themselves or surrogates as presidential candidates in 2015, then patriotic citizens from the North and other parts of Nigeria who recognize the manifest danger which Mubi signals for the nation should convene a platform which should dispassionately discuss national security and the survival of the Nigerian state. This would be a forum convened by Nigerians who recognize that the unity and survival of the nation are worth fighting for. They should believe that our current challenges transcend partisan, ethnic and religious divides. They should believe that a failed Nigerian state which is staring us all in the face will be an unmitigated disaster for everyone, and the pathetic barricades being put up against each others’ “problems” are parts of the problem. They should be well schooled in the history of our nation, and draw inspiration from past triumphs over serious challenges and threats to our security and unity.

Mubi should be where the people in the North and Nigeria draw the line. There is very likely going to be many more killings, but for every life or limb lost henceforth, our voices must be heard. It is time to put our heads up from our holes and act. This is one war we should not leave to the government and security agents to fight. We need to get more involved. The young people shot with such impunity and callousness in Mubi are our children. Not to do anything anymore will consign more of them to similar fate.