In search of foundations
By
I READ Sola Adeyeye's article, "Foundational principles for Nigerian renaissance. One reason was that his name sounds like someone I interacted closely with many years ago, perhaps as a classmate or schoolmate. The other reason was that Adeyeye appeared in the article to be engaged in a type of exercise to which I can say I am now addicted, namely, trying to describe as briefly, clearly, and precisely, as possible, what Chinua Achebe would call "the problem with Nigeria".
I engage in this exercise from time to time to test my sanity in light of what I fear could be the destructive impact of our current national situation on one's body and brain. The impact on the body we can see and feel, but the impact on the brain may just be treacherously insidious. I adopted a similar test of sanity when I was in detention several years ago, by constructing, from first principles, the validity of the Pythagoras' Theorem and, whenever I was really down, by demonstrating that the sum of the three interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.
An obviously angry Adeyeye said that "Nigeria is a big mess". I agree. He said that there is need "to begin an immediate rescue mission for our fatherland". Again, I agree except to say that I would have substituted "land" for "fatherland". He said that the latest talk about "optimism" in Nigeria was "nothing but falsehood, decorated by courts of professional bootlickers, paid image makers, sycophantic crumb grazers and toadying trumpet blowers in the periphery of power". Strong words, but I agree. He said that the mission to rescue Nigeria must begin "by enshrining certain bedrock principles that are indispensable to peace and progress in a pluralistic society like ours". I agree that certain "bedrock" or "foundational" principles must be enshrined in the constitution. But we have to ensure that what is enshrined is actually foundational, that no foundational principle is left out, and that those that are included are well constructed. And we must also not forget that the process of enshrining the foundational principles will be a bitter struggle, perhaps going beyond electoral politics and parliamentary debates.
Adeyeye presented the "problem with Nigeria" under five headings: The principles of secularity; the principle of true federalism; the principle of justice, the rule of law and accountability; the principle of constitutionalism; and the principle of building bridges. This was how Adeyeye described the principle of secularity: "Nigerians must be free to believe or not believe in God. Likewise, those who choose to believe in God must be free to worship Him or Her in whatever way they choose so long as their own freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others".
Now, if you feel scandalised by any aspect of Adeyeye's declaration, or if you feel your sensibilities or pretensions assaulted, in any way, then you are not likely to be a democrat; but, beyond that, you are not likely to be a true believer or practitioner of any religion based on the belief of God. You are more likely to be a political manipulator of religion. Adeyeye argues that "a heterogenous country like ours must not risk the centrifugal divisions of rabid proselytising", that "religion should not become a contrivance for heating the polity and sowing strife". Well, I have nothing against the professor's "big grammar". All I am saying is that at this stage of our history, our democracy must be secular and republican, or it is not democracy at all.
Adeyeye's argument for the secularity of the Nigeria state reminded me of an encounter I had with my late friend and colleague, Andy Akporugo. As Executive Consultant of The Guardian Press, and of course as a senior professional journalist, he used to attend the meetings of the Editorial Board of The Guardian. One day in 1991 or 1992, after a particular hot debate on aspects of Babangida's transition, Akporugo said he would continue the argument with me later at home. Our resumed debate turned out to be an anti-climax for nothing new was offered on either side, nor was there any shift in positions.
But I went away with a remark which I have never forgotten. Akporugo asked me why I expected everyone on the Editorial Board, or in Nigeria, for that matter, to be a "progressive". It was of course, a rhetorical question, so no answer was given as there was none. After about two other questions, all conveying the same message, he concluded his remark somewhat like this: "Nigeria is for all of us: progressive, conservatives, capitalists, socialists, democrats, fascists and feudalists. Without this mix, there would not be Nigeria, and if there was, it would not be an interesting place". This was, for me, more than a lesson in tolerance. It was philosophical realism. I thought of asking him to address the compatibility of pluralism and hegemony, but dropped matter.
In arguing for the inclusion of the "principle of true federalism" as a foundation for a new Nigeria Adeyeye appealed to the principle of "complementariness of structure and function", with which, according to him, scientists are conversant. He argued by way of analogy: "At all levels of biological existence, from a tiny cell to an ecosystem, function is inescapably impaired whenever structure is defective". Then, a strong statement: "No president, king or emperor will make Nigeria work until we evolve a truly federal system". My only comment here is that to be able to say that a certain function is being impaired by a defective structure, we must be very clear about what the function is supposed to be, or what the ideal function is, or what function is desirable.
Next is to determine how, and to what extent, the structure can be changed to remove the "impairment". The hidden element here is that when we move away from natural sciences to social systems, we see that it requires more than a good "structure" to make a system function properly, or as desired. Ideology, culture, history, etc, all come in. One can, of course, argue that in a given circumstance, structure is a decisive or determinant factor. But this has to be demonstrated convincingly if we desire to carry others with us.
To put this matter differently: I am in support of the principle of true federalism. But I want to be sure that the projected structure will bring this about and that under this new structure the human condition in general will be improved, and self-realisation by the masses (not just the elites) in particular will be enhanced. Not only must we not pursue shadows, we should also not pursue objects that are half-shadows. Let me quote Adeyeye: "We need to terminate the virtual omnipotence and omnipresence of the Federal Government which cause the epilepsy of our power supply, paralysis of our railway system, incapacitation of our police, ruination of our educational system, pollution of our environment, corruption of our polity and strangulation of our economy."
The question is: Are we sure that all these ills and social maladies are caused by the "Virtual omnipotence and omnipresence of the Federal Government"? Are we sure that the character of the ruling classes is not partly responsible for these ills? Are we sure that even if every ethnic group becomes an autonomous unit in a true federation, these ills will not be reproduced in each of them, with the relative conditions of the popular masses remaining unchanged, or only marginally changed, perhaps not even for the better?
In support of the "principles of justice, the rule of law and accountability", Adeyeye gave what a journalist would call a "quotable quote": "Justice is the only glue that keeps a country together". He went on: "Unfortunately, ours is a country where justice is often denied, continually perverted and habitually mocked". I agree with the professor on both counts. The little problem I have arises from my addiction to definitions.
We are talking, not of justice in general and in the abstract; but of justice in a concrete social formation called Nigeria, a segment of the real world with specific history and experiences, a deeply patriarchal society with real, not imaginary, class, ethnic and gender cleavages; a country which provides a very strong case study of the national question and internal colonialism. We should be very concrete when we talk of justice in such a society. I should perhaps refer Adeyeye to the distinction which Chief Anthony Enahoro drew between democracy and equitocracy. Democracy conveys the idea of equality between individuals; equitocracy refers to equality between groups. Combining the two concepts, with apology to Enahoro, we arrive at a concept that can be fully elaborated: Equitocratic democracy.
I agree with Adeyeye's main submissions on "the principles of constitutionalism", namely, that the present constitution is a "forgery foisted on Nigeria by a cabal of military adventurers", that "we must replace it with a testament that emanates from the sovereign wishes of our people". He replaced the popular "Sovereign National Conference" with "Sovereign Conference of Nigeria Peoples". If the reason I attach to this change is the same as his, namely, that the rulers and power blocs may be prevented from cynically presenting themselves as "national", then I have no objection.
The "principle of building bridges" which Adeyeye enunciated in the closing paragraphs of his article is subsumed in his earlier principles. An important "foundation principle" left out by Adeyeye relates to fundamental human - and peoples' - rights: economic, political, social, etc. These are so important that they cannot be subsumed under any other heading. Indeed, if we are allowed just one principle, I would vote for fundamental rights - as many other principles issue from there.
May 2004