For democracy and federalism

For democracy and federalism

Let me begin this essay by making a brief excursion into politics in the pre and immediate post-independence Nigeria. The 1940s and early 1950s marked the birth of competitive political parties, and, therefore democracy in the country. In spite of the efforts of some politicians to emphasise the uniqueness of their regions, the divisions inherent within them were evident in the loyalties their peoples showed to different political parties.

In the North, for instance, the aspirations of the leaders of ethnocentric Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) to emphasise the oneness and indivisibility of the North were challenged directly or indirectly by the existence of political parties whose orientation were different from those of the NPC. The Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) stood for the poor people of the North by challenging the privileges of the aristocracy which the NPC upheld. The United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC) advocated the creation of a separate region for the people of the Middle Belt. Both the NEPU and the UMBC were allied to southern-based political parties.

The National Convention of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) was the dominant political party in the East, representing mainly the Igbo, but it soon met its challenge from the United Independence Party (UNIP) which drew its support from the minority ethnic group areas. There was also the challenge which emanated from personality differences and principles. The gradual transformation of party development in the East was clearly demonstrated in the Ikoku versus Ikoku contest which pitched a father against his son under the umbrella of the NCNC and Action Group (AG) respectively. By independence in 1960, the Yoruba-dominated AG had made noticeable inroads into the East and was becoming a credible opposition party in the Eastern legislature..

The West was perhaps the most porous of the three regions, as competition between the AG and the relatively pan-Nigerian NCNC were on an even-keel. Many factors were responsible for the two-party competition in the region, ranging from animosities held by one community against the other ñ such animosities emanated from the years of inter-tribal wars and land disputes between towns or villages. Disagreements over the choice of traditional rulers were known to have divided otherwise homogeneous communities between two competing political parties.

The divisions that existed in Nigeria were natural; they made democracy all the more interesting in the pre-independence era, and ensured that in spite of the threats of secession or separation by disgruntled politicians, no region could actually muster sufficient internal support to end the existence of the Nigerian federation. However, the excesses of the first generation of Nigerian politicians came to the fore after the exit of the colonial referees as "forceful" incursions were made into opposition territories, and the rigging of elections was encouraged to sustain an unpopular government in the West. The erstwhile porous Yoruba land later became a one-party region as a result of the people's belief that other major ethnic groups were out to subjugate them.

Not many will disagree that the excesses of the politicians made the intervention by the military inevitable. However, the same military had become politicised along regional loyalties. The manner in which the attempted coup of January 15, 1966 was executed and the reply to it on July 29,1966 by soldiers who believed that their own region had been undone, explain why Nigeria had to fight a fratricidal war between 1967 and 1970. That the war did not result in the break up of the Nigerian federation can be explained by factors beyond the might of federal forces.

The assumption that a diverse nation like Nigeria can only be kept together by authoritarian rule has been debunked, not only by the eventual disintegration of countries which had been kept together under such rule, for example the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, but also by the Nigerian experience under military dictators. The civil war, as noted above, can be blamed substantially on the politicisation of the military. Since the war, two events have threatened the corporate existence of the nation. The attempted coup by Major Gideon Orkar and his collaborators in April 1990 was the group's challenge to the divisive leadership system of General Ibrahim Babangida. The coupists, in their broadcast, had announced the expulsion of key states of the North from the Nigerian federation and outlined the conditions for their readmission. Again, the annulment of the presidential election of June 12, 1993 by Babangida and the crude dictatorship of General Sani Abacha united a section of the country, the Yoruba, behind the possibility of secession.

The experience of a civil war, as subsequent events have shown, is not sufficient guarantee to conclude that Nigeria will remain as a nation forever. It is the responsibility of the present and future generations of Nigerians to foresee the advantages of a united Nigeria, both at the continental and global perspectives and work at achieving unity. The influence that the Nigeria nation is capable of exercising in all spheres of international politics far outweighs what Ogoni, Oduduwa, Arewa or Biafra republics, if they are ever created, are capable of. A small nation may be wealthy, but wealth alone does not provide a loud voice and prestige in global politics.

The answer to the longevity of the Nigerian nation is in democracy and the practice of true federalism. The disputations arising from the recent American presidential elections in the State of Florida may have provided temporary joy to dictators, but the fact that the 'crisis' was resolved without a single American losing his or her life or the military intervening, is a victory for democracy, the rule of law and the practice of true federalism.

America is the great nation that should provide Nigeria with inspiration. It is both a heterogeneous and federal nation. Of course America is ethnically-dispersed, as opposed to Nigeria's compartmentalised ethnicity, but the fat that this nation of immigrants has continued to invite a limited number of nationals of other nations to take up its citizenship suggests to me that diversity per se may not be the problem. If a nation continues to seek its bearings through persistent discussion and its people appreciate the advantages of living together harmoniously, such a nation will know stability and progress.

Mr. Akinola wrote in from Oxford, England