We May Yet Vote For President Obansajo
BY
Preamble
WE are a 30-something Nigerian who is reasonably well educated and exposed.
Our belief in this country and faith in its continuing corporate existence has over the last 20 years been consistently and progressively challenged and eroded. However, the attack on our 'patriotism' has never been as bad as over the last two years, under a supposedly 'pan Nigerian' president. Prior to the 'Miss World' riots and the ridiculous fatwa passed on the journalist, the reason for the precipitous fall of our confidence in the ultimate survival of Nigeria, as constituted at the moment, had not been very clear to us.
Admittedly, since the start of this Fourth Republic some progress has been made. The incidence of corruption at 'the centre' has probably fallen and there is probably greater equity in federal appointments and patronage. Furthermore, significant improvements have occurred in the power, oil/gas and telecommunication sectors of the economy. The sad reality, however, is that these are superficial factors with respect to the Nigerian Dilemma.
Introduction
The two fundamental problems with Nigeria that are the cause of these superficial inadequacies, the almost universal disrespect for the rule of law and the other social (religious/ethnic conflicts etc.) problems are: (1) A failure of leadership at all levels; (2) Systemic inequity based on inherent Structural Imbalance. These problems enable and promote social ailments like the suffocating and all pervasive corruption; a poorly remunerated and undisciplined police force that is ineffective, inefficient and murderous; a pliable, easily deceived and distracted populace or electorate, an ignorant and amoral society etc.
With the advent of this government (or let's face it, the advent of President Obasanjo) one was of the considered opinion that the first of these fundamental problems had been materially mitigated. This assumption was not unreasonable given the man's antecedents (i.e. his being a previous 'old army' head of state with that regime characterised by 'low profile', a purposeful and dynamic posture together with progressive policies and a reasonable policy implementation rate; his geo-political origination etc.).
As a natural consequence of this assumption, it was further assumed that a President Obasanjo would focus on the second fundamental problem i.e. the Structural Imbalance inherent to 'the System'.
The structural imbalance is, in our opinion, best exemplified by the following facts:
* In the 23 years to 1969, net derived revenue was allocated to the federal (first tier of government) and regional (second tier) governments on a 50:50 basis. At present the states (second tier) are fighting to retain a 13 per cent allocation;
* Before the first military coup of 1966, the 'North' represented 25 per cent of the second tier of government (i.e. one of four regions) and 40 per cent of the third tier (i.e. 14 of 35 provinces). At present the North has 53 per cent of the second tier (up from 25 per cent, i.e. 19 of 36 states) and 54% per cent of the first tier (up from 40 per cent i.e. 414 of 769 councils). No satisfactory explanations have been proffered by the military regimes responsible for this 'substantive power shift' that has clearly favoured a particular section of the country. Note that revenue sharing is largely based on number of local governments (third tier) as is numerical strength in the lower house of the federal legislature. Power in the upper house rests on the second tier of government where a shift in the same direction has also occurred.
The Issues
The Structural issues that, in our opinion, require urgent tackling in order to 'save' Nigeria from herself include the following:
1. Is Nigeria a Federation?
The subversion, in substance, of the Federal structure that ordinarily should underlie the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a principal issue. This is best depicted by the derivation argument. A disproportionate and evidently unfair portion of Nigerian resources are diverted to the 'centre' ensuring that the states, and everyone else, are eternally dependent on the centre. At present the concern appears to be ensuing full repatriation of the 13 per cent that is deemed to be due to the producing states by the Federal Government and also establishing agreement on a definition of the global entity (i.e. +continental shelf vs. +contiguous zone) from which the 13 per cent is taken.
* The federating units of a federal Nigeria should ordinarily be constituted in a manner that ensures that each is a viable economic entity. This is not the case with the extant 36 state structure; however, it appears that fortuitously each of our 'six geo-political zones' can feasibly be constituted into a viable commonwealth or sub-economic community of its member states.
2. Our Demographic Fudge
Another principal structural issue, in our opinion, is the reasonable suspicion that our demographic statistics (e.g. population distribution data) are, whether by omission or commission, materially unreliable or erroneous. This has significant and adverse implications for the electoral process (i.e. the actual polling of votes), the legislative arrangement (i.e. the number of representatives allocated to the different regions in the federal legislature), the computations underlying revenue sharing (i.e. the number and distribution of local governments) etc.
* It is unacceptable and symptomatic that we remain unable to conduct a significantly accurate population census. Evidently, such an exercise is technically feasible given the context of modern technology, therefore what appears to be lacking is the political will to see the exercise through to completion.
* The embarrassing debacle of the national identity card exercise, which was going to be held during the first term of the President but then is not (or is it?), is still with us; as is the mess and controversy of the not quite completed voters registration exercise which was to employ amongst others digital technology to combat electoral fraud (i.e. using digital storage of finger print and photographic records) but then did not.
3. The State And Religion
The pertinent issue is whether Nigeria is, in fact, a secular or a multi-religious country, or whether our central government has to all intents and purposes actually adopted a state religion. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion and states that this is a secular country; however, the reality with which we are familiar is that Nigeria can, at best, be described as a 'skewed' multi-religious entity.
Turkey is a good example of a secular country. In Turkey (country is 96 per cent Muslim) the government is constitutionally barred from any involvement in religion or religious activity. Hence, one will not find a mosque or any other place of worship on any government premises, whether civilian or military; the Turkish government is not ordinarily involved in the hajj or any trips made to Saudi Arabia by its citizens. These trips are arranged by religious societies and individual Turks; there is no direct funding of religion or religious activity by the government or its agents; and the Sharia is not the law in Turkey.
A multi-religious country is one where the government assumes a role in the activities of the different religious groups within its purview. The most prominent manifestation of this would be with respect to funding. Optimally, government would subject to appropriating a given amount toward religion, in for example the annual budget, channel such funds through a religious affairs ministry to the appropriate and credible religious organisations. Governments promote equity by ensuring that funds are shared in a predefined manner usually on a 'par capita' or proportional basis.
It is quite clear that a state religion cannot be adopted in a peaceful and democratic Nigeria. This is rightly so given our religious, demographic, cultural, attitudinal etc. diversity.
The task, therefore, is to forge a just, equitable, peaceful and functioning society within the framework of our religious diversity. Our attempts thus far have been pitiful and have basically been sustained by a large dose of tolerance by some religious groups i.e. accommodating the strident tendency of other groups. As is symptomatic of Nigeria while we proclaim secularity, we practice a 'dirty' multi-religiosity that does not have an objective underlying framework that can be tested to ensure equity.
The furore over the adopting of the Sharia legal code by some state governments assumed the proportion it did because of our deformed structure. The extant position is no longer sustainable or justifiable and we must now adopt an equitable and structural approach to clarifying issues in this area.
National Conference
Our present reality in Nigeria is that the President has, sadly, been unable, for reasons of political expediency amongst others, to fulfil our leadership expectations and therefore by implication the structural imbalance has not been ameliorated.
The structural problems cannot by definition be solved by executive fiat or by court order or by legislation because these institutions and arms of government rest on the extant structure 'as is' i.e. the 1999 constitution. Structural issues can only be definitively tackled by a congregation of all the citizens or the specifically elected representatives of the basic constituent units of the federation hence the calls for a sovereign national conference where requisite agreements and majority decisions can be reached.
Political reality appears to indicate that a Sovereign National Conference, which apparently requires acquiesce by two-third majority in two-third of all the federal and state houses of legislature in the country, cannot be convened. However, we need to "jaw-jaw". Therefore, the solution appears to be the convening of a National Conference of the Nationalities and other stakeholders that make up Nigeria (any group that decides to abstain would be doing so at its own peril). The approach should then be to pass the document produced at the end of the conference through the appropriate channels until it is adopted as the true constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria i.e. where all the constituent groups stay in the process till the end.
History, however, suggests that the process will be truncated e.g. some stakeholder group(s) will stage a 'work out' rather than negotiate when they cannot get their way. This, in itself, cannot be considered a failure as long as at least a majority of the principal ethnic identities in Nigeria remain in the process. The possible benefits accruing from an inconclusive process include the fact that the groups that think alike and have the same perspective on issues would have co-aligned.
Conclusion
Democracy requires each eligible voter to make up their mind and vote for their candidate of choice in the forthcoming presidential elections. Speaking for this particular voter; ordinarily, we could not in good conscience vote for President Obasanjo because of the wasted opportunity. Ordinarily, we would not vote for him because his government has periodically shown itself to be a government without conviction and without compassion.
The Nigeria situation, however, has gone beyond the ordinary. The strong suspicion one has is that no one could have done better than President Obasanjo under the prevailing circumstances and that he probably actually deserves kudos for preserving the corporate integrity of Nigeria and for managing to kill the fires as they flare up. His credentials in managing Nigeria during relative prosperity and in crises, even now, surpass that of any actual or conceivable competitor.
This being the case, one appears constrained to support his quest for a second term. However, we cannot afford to give him a 'blank cheque' as we did previously i.e. in terms of leaving the tackling of structural problems to his discretion. In order to earn our effective mandate he must make definite commitments with respect to how and when he intends to tackle the highlighted and other structural problems. If he is unable to do this unambiguously then we must vote for a candidate that can.
Finally, we 'the People' have a duty to pay particular attention to the quality of men and women who are at present seeking our vote in order to serve us in the various elective offices. We must ensure that neither potential nor actual bad 'leaders' emerge. We must also ensure that our mandate is not usurped via rigging etc.
Ladies and Gentlemen, fellow Nigerians: THIS IS IT!
April 2003