The volatility of the developmental traits of the present civilian regime has the potency of misleading most curious observers into the danger of intellectual suicide and public reproach.

Skepticisms about the interests represented in the calls for, and by the callers of, a Sovereign National Conference may lead to repugnance. This is not unconnected with creative biases and misconceptions of the clarion calls for a Sovereign National Conference and the undermining of the infiltration of the "Nigerian Factor" syndrome into our political process and overestimation of the present administration.

One may be misled into a rash verdict and conclusion about the capabilities of the elected public office holders to deliver good governance and erase the calls for a conference.

Ironically, the journey so far is yet to elicit indices of attaining good governance in the short run. Rather, governance has been characterised by various forms of political anarchy and malcontent. elected public officers have elided their promises to the masses and indulged in personality clashes and booty democracy. Their interests have become diagonal to the interests of the masses. Since this compendium rendered my conclusion erroneous, the premise no longer holds, hence a re-visitation of the calls for a Sovereign National Conference.

It is apposite to posit that it is a nativity to construe the quests for a Sovereign National Conference as one of the beauties of democracy, this episode predates the contemporary democratic governance. The persistent advocation for a sovereign National Conference demonstrates that this quest transcends the maladies of autocratic rule. It suggests that there are fundamental and burning issues which the present democratic arrangements are either not interested in, or incapable of resolving. So the people want to sort these issue out themselves, they want to talk them over.

The bizarre about this Sovereign National conference episode is the polemic of President Obasanjo that he took the oath of office to defend the unity and corporate existence of Nigeria (sic). Thus, no to Sovereign National Conference. The corollary is that Sovereign National Conference is concomitant with disintegration. How true is this? The reminiscence of the 1990 Sovereign National Conference in the Republic of Benin is informative of the consequences of this political practice.

It is on record that Mathieu Kerekou ruled Benin Republic from 1972 to 1990 as a military dictator and as a civilian autocrat of communist One Party State. With the permeation of the Third Wave of Democratisation into the political atmosphere of Benin Republic, the Beninois took decisive actions in 1989 to get rid of all forms of autocratic rule. This culminated in the 1990 Sovereign National Conference being put in place by President Mathieu Kerekou.

One fascinating thing about this Confab is that people like Nicephore Soglo, Tovoedire, Adrien, Gatien Hougbedji, etc., who were in exile as a result of opposing the autocratic regime were asked to return home and participate in the conference. Also, all incarcerated politicians formerly in opposition to Kerekou were released, some of who participated in the Sovereign National Conference. It was broadly grassroot mobilised and supported.

The conference that commenced sitting on February 19, 1990, submitted its report on February 28, 1990. There was no restriction on issues deliberated, and the autocratic leader, Mathieu Kerekou, accepted all the resolutions of the conference. Accordingly, all autocratic structures were dismantled and an interim arrangement was put in place.

In the 1991 elections, the spirit of fair play prevailed. President Mathieu Kerekou lost to I Nicephore Soglo in the Presidential elections and conceded power to Soglo. Subsequently, in the 1996 elections, Soglo, while in office, Iost to Kerekou and ceded power to him. The Sovereign National Conference in Benin Republic, no doubt provided the premise for swift change of power where incumbents of office yield to the yearnings of the people. Since 1990, Benin Republic has modelled a government that has been responsible and responsive to the people, it has come to know peace and stability that eluded it for decades. Hypothetically, it could be opined that Sovereign National Conference is associated with savoir faire in the political process of a nation state.

Furthermore, in the colonial era, the manifest functions of 1950 Ibadan Conference, August 1953 London Conference, January 1954 Lagos Conference, May/June 1957 London Conference and the 1958 Conference, made lucid progress in the political development of Nigeria. Notably, the brilliant arguments of the persons of Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, amongst others, at the 1950 Ibadan Conference provided the harbinger of the Nigerian federalism.

While the colonialists protected their economic interest, they threw the political domain open for deliberations. Albeit, these conferences were constitutional, they epitomised a cornucopia of white list in outcome, this is remarkable to remonstrate the polemics of the anti-Sovereign National Conference.

It may be paradoxical to postulate that all post-independence constitutional conferences have failed to ameliorate the constitutional compoundment of the political process in Nigeria. This is tendentially predicted on the fact that they were organised ;and superintended by autocratic military regimes.

Unlike in Benin Republic where the economic and political issues were openly deliberated, the colonial era where the political terrain was thrown open while the economic damning was protected, the military autocrats stifled both the political and economic realms and declared certain issues "no go areas", as representing the interests of the state. This projectionist attitude is not unconnected with the fact that the state has been grossly used to protect the misdeeds and vicious practices of public office holders, both past and present. Since genuine national problems were seldom deliberated, the result had been political nostalgia and doldrums occasioning sectional violence in Nigeria.

In the contemporary political dispensation; the polity is gradually overcoming legitimacy and participation crises. It is deeply confronted with distribution crisis, reinforced by identify crisis. These two latter crises are capable of recalling the two former crises.

What the anti-Sovereign National Conference should know is that a non- Sovereign National Conference may be able to resolve legitimacy and participation crises but is incapable of resolving distribution and identity crises. The colonial constitutional conferences were successful because they were restricted to issues of participation and legitimacy crises. Only a Sovereign National Conference is capable of resolving distribution and identity crises. Only a Sovereign National Conference is capable of creating a state that belongs to all citizens, as is the case of Benin Republic.

The acceptance of a non-Sovereign National Conference by President Obasanjo is diversionary and deceptive. It represents the antics of sustaining the status quo ante. This brand of confab has become an anachronism in modem day Nigeria vis-a-vis the contemporary problems. If the President is sincere in moving the nation forward, it is expedient to revisit the calls for a Sovereign National Conference. Such confab does not threaten the government in place, except autocracy, or the unity of the country.

Continued negation of the clarion calls for a Sovereign National Conference is tantamount to endemic predilections of perpetuating despotism and deprivation of human rights. In the events of cumulating inter segmental mistrust and production of danger, accelerating poverty and overarching mistrust of government, violent revolutionary explosion in the long run seems inevitable.

Okosun is a Lagos based commentator on national affairs.