SNC: The people versus anti-conferees
By
Every Nigerian believes something is wrong with the Nigerian Nation as it is presently, and that a lot needs to be done to move Nigeria from a "geographical expression" to a Nation state. What then are the curious reasons why some people believe that to convene a conference where the midwifing of this Nation state will for once be consciously done is anathema?
Perhaps to be able to find answers to this question it may be necessary to separate the issues of a national conference into two parts. The first part is the for the sake of sloganeering call this perception, the purist school of thought, on the National conference as a tool for National psycho-social engineering. Psychological in the sense that consensual National admission of the structural aberrations of the Nigerian state will have the analgesic effect of a National moral catharsis, while socially the deviant ripples and eddies that constantly unsettle national intercourse can be calmed through collective legal agreements. On the one hand, to the purist school, the convening of a National conference will first allow the idea "we the people" become a legitimate claim of a Nation and not the quasi claim, it is presently believed to be. And following this will be the sector by sector and rule by rule review of the legal backbone of the Nigerian Nation.
On the other hand, the second part of the National conference is that part which perceives the conference as a political strategy. Let us again for the sake of the need of a slogan call this perception the enclave school of thought; This school of thought perceives the conference as a strategy for micro national negotiation within the macro national platform. In other words, this school of thought perceives the conference as the only channel for obtaining ab initio guarantees for I’s micro national claims rights within the Nation state. To this school of thought, the National conference revolves around centripetality of administrative power as the nexus of national agreement as against the present inclination to centrifugality. Thus as a consequence, this school will find triumph in further local control of economic and infrastructural development.
Close observation of both perceptions of the National conference will show that both perceptions confluence at one point, that is the point which contends that the Nigerian state as it is presently has imperfections that requires something to be done about it.
Since the Nation is meant to further the economic interest of the people and other things arising from this; the central question of the National conference should be what is the benefit to the average Nigerian if he exist in a state like Nigeria as it is presently as against a state with the prescription of the concepts of the National conference administration? This question necessarily leads to the questions of the perceived preconceptions of the schools of thought of the pro-conveners of the National conference as it affects the individual.
Thus, will the individual benefit from some local control of tax surplus or will he only have a replacement of one master with another one? Does the control of crude oil, gold, iron ore, phosphorous, etc by the Federal Government or the state or local government determine how much else a Nigerian enterprise? Does the point of control by local or federal determine how much benefit the citizens of the area of creation of such resources gain or how badly they may be exploited? Should such control be wholly federal, wholly state or local? If this control is jointly held will it be more economically for the individual or for the state?
On the social level, will the strengthening of socio-cultural divisions locally, affect the individual in his quest for prosperity and thus will the increase in local power dilute national cohesion to the point of slowing down the pace of individual and collective economic advancement? If individuals locally seek spiritual upliftment and moral well- being over and above physical well being and economic advancement, will they be encumbered by the need to sacrifice their yearnings in the altar of Nationalism? Conversely, if individuals seek to be more economically advanced by local control and exploitation of their resources without national encumbrance, how much of this freewill should be sacrificed to federal authority? Should local customs bow to National Laws? How much remedy can the individual seek to his advantage when disparities exit between his local government and the National understanding?
Going by discuss this far, it is easy to understand why different individuals or groups will either support or go against the concept of the National conference. For example, a beneficiary of a federal authority will frown at concession of another federal authority on revenue. While local authorities with the entire vaunt for state control of local affairs will gladly hands-off such liabilities as universities, hospitals and road construction to the Federal Government irrespective of how much revenue is conceded to them.
Thus, it is worthwhile to point out that the issues of the national conference will become more altruistic if it is made to revolve around the engineering of the Nation i.e. Nigeria on the beneficiary effect to the people. When sufficient cause is shown that the administration will better serve the people’s interest if it rested locally then it should devolve locally but if contrastingly it will better serve the people federally on a particular matter then power should devolve federally. Thus, it will be found that the clamour for a National conference will find more supporters if focus is on individual derivatives of the conference, rather than regional benefits which in the Nigerian context is whereas some groups are demanding for National conference and the benefits derivable there from, some other groups such as the Northern Sharia States have seized the benefits derivable from a conference without demanding for a confer over it, unlike the South south governors and legislators who are either scared or lack the will to do why their counterpart in the North have done with panache. Equally the demand for state police and local control of VAT (Value Added Tax) as against the State Control of Religious Laws as it applies to economic and social intercourse, all infringe on federal authority as presently constituted under the 1999 basic norm of the land (Constitution). But to the extent that demand and action have already being made it is possible to conclude that the National conference has already begun, what must now be done is to formalize it by convocation, otherwise we will face the consequence of more groups seized the initiative from the Federal Arms of Government (executive, legislative and judiciary).
The implementation of Sharia by states, the funding of Bakassi boys by states should put those anti- conferees on notice as to the benefits of the conference and not necessarily a pre-condition to it and above all, may it focus be on the people translating into the Nigerian wherever he finds himself within the country. Finally to be against the convening of a National Conference is to either say that Nigeria is okay as it is presently, or to admit that one is a beneficiary of the present unjust deviations and either case is negative in the extreme.