Post-National Conference Nigeria
By
The piece, on The national conference refers. It was
contributed by one Olorunnimbe Farukanmi. In the piece the author tried to look beyond a national conference for problems likely to confront a post-conference
corporate Nigeria and to proffer solutions. He believes that a national conference cannot possibly produce a panacea for all the problems of the nation. He
posited that the best a national conference can probably do is to lay the foundation for a permanent solution. Then future generations can build on that.
The author is projecting that the national conference would "thrash out contentious issues… and consequently fashion
out an acceptable Constitution for Nigeria". He is taking that for granted, an incurable optimists that he is. Given the acceptable (to all sides)
Constitution the author has ready omnibus solution for all problems that may arise thereafter. The recommended elegant solution lies in that magical thing that
the author calls "attitudinal change" or "attitudinal adjustment". By that the author is suggesting that people would ‘adjust’ or ‘change’
their basic human nature or attitude to accommodate the newly-fashioned "acceptable Constitution". In other words, basic human nature or propensity will
be the variable in the equation. The Constitution would have already been fixed.
The solution looks so elegant, so romantically easy. One’s first reaction was to say: "how easy, why haven’t I
thought of it?" Then one remembers what one mathematics lecturer told one that when a mathematics problem appears to have a temptingly or ridiculously easy
solution one must watch out, there must be a catch. There is a catch in this elegant solution proffered by Mr. Farukanmi to this problem that has defied solution
since 1914. It is either that the national conference would never be able to craft a Constitution acceptable to all, to which all would then bend their attitudes
and basic nature as the federating units. Or alternatively the mechanics for effecting "attitudinal change" or "attitudinal adjustment" may
not be as simple as the author may imagine. In other words, the author might have over simplified the problem.
It is certainly not easy as the author would like to make it look on paper to persuade the various ethnic blocks to shed their
primordial attitudes concerning "intolerance, self-interest, ethnic jingoism, religious fanaticism, etc.", the traits identified by the author. How does
the author intend to make those concerned give up these traits overnight? What means has he devised to make a leopard shed its spot? We need to be assured that he
has been able to come up with some technique for making "attitudinal change" or "attitudinal adjustment" happen fast.
Take, for instance, the case of the Yoruba people. The Yoruba people, by nature and by tradition, subscribe to the philosophy
of mastery of life. Hence they say: "Onikaluku l’oga ara e" or "aparo kan o ga ju kan" or "ori o j’ori". Therefore Yoruba people
would never seek to dominate others. By the same token, they abhor and would resist any attempt by others to lord it over them. The question now is how is the
author going to go about it persuading Yoruba people to adjust or change their attitude and thereby make themselves amendable to domination by others? The answer
is blowing in the wind.
The Hausa/Fulani group on the other hand is known for the group’s born-to-rule syndrome. How is the author going to be able
to convince this group to consider giving up what they take to be their birthright so as to consider others for rulership. The Igbos on their part believe in
their God-given prowess for dominating all others around them in commercial activities anywhere they are found. They must elbow all others aside, including their
host community and appropriate monopoly to themselves. How can the author be able to persuade the Igbos to adjust this their attitude? The adjustment will make
for giving up monopolistic tendencies in the matter of commerce. One can go on and on. Any Constitution whose provisions go against the grain of Yoruba
traditional norms or attitudes will never be acceptance to Yoruba people. So also it is for the Hausa/Fulani, Igbos and all others.
One major flaw in the analysis of Mr. Farukanmi is the absence of consideration of the possibility of an unsuccessful national
conference and non-emergence of a "Constitution acceptable to all" and thereafter no business as usual. What if his much-touted national conference
cannot reach a consensus on some major issues? The author’s analysis has nothing to offer there. Yet that is one possibility that no serious analyst should
ignore. Where should we go from there? If things take the other turn how will "attitudinal change" or "attitudinal adjustment" help us out? In
projecting beyond the national conference the author should have endeavored to cover all foreseeable eventualities. He should not have taken a successful
national conference for granted. He should be realistic. His projections should have included one that in the event of an inconclusive national conference people
should agree to go their separate ways peacefully. It would only mean that the mistake of 1914 cannot be corrected.
The author got his calculations all wrong because they were based on some wrong assumptions. The first wrong assumption is
that the national conference will be able to "fashion out an acceptable Constitution for Nigeria". That is the position of an incurable optimist, not a
realist. Following that is the assumption that peoples attitudes or basic nature could somehow be adjusted or manipulated overnight to be in line with a given
fixed Constitution. The assumption is that it is not the Constitution that should be crafted with peoples’ fixed attitudes and basic nature taken into
reckoning. The author has assumed in his calculations that the formula approach is better than the approach of working from first principles.
There is this other assumption that the Constitution we are to settle for must provide for true federalism. Other arrangements
such as confederal arrangement or even outright breaking up must not be put into reckoning. The author’s projections zoned out the possibility of the conference
being able to agree that we continue as on single united country. All the assumptions are based on sentiment, not on the reality we have on the ground. It is the
same sentiment that gave birth to the idea of one indivisible nation or the notion of non-negotiable unity. People forget that this is business, serious business.
And as such they say that there is no room for sentiment in business. When the author looked ‘beyond a national conference’ he was able to perceive only a
part of the problem that a post-conference Nigerian could face.
January 2002