Addressing The National Questions

The National Question, as expressed in the past and in the words of Ade Ajayi, is “the perennial debate as to how to order the relations between the different ethnic, linguistic and cultural groupings so that they have the same rights and privileges, access to power and equitable share of national resources”. In the past sixty years this central issue has given rise to several other questions, making it needful to talk about the National Questions now.
Marginalisation and fear of ethnic domination cannot be swept away as a non-existent issue in the Nigerian polity, whereby some ethnic groups can be described as vulnerable or “minority” and some others as strong or “domineering”. In a situation where rivalries and competitions for the control of a nation’s resources exist, and where the chief goal of the ruling groups is the acccumulation of wealth, surely groups that do not have strong political power would have fears of possible marginalization. Therefore, inequity in the access to resources, which political power can facilitate, is a vital issue in the national questions, especially with regards to how such inequity can be resolved.
Eteng Inya (1996) in his book titled Minority Rights Under Nigeria’s Federal Structure, stated that: “The Northern dominance is reflected in the control of strategic positions in the public service, the military, virtually every other sector of the state’s coercive institutions, supreme military council, judiciary, police, prisons, internal security, customs and immigrations, road safety corps, etc…” Late Chief Obafemi Awolowo had said long ago that “The present structure reinforces indigenous colonialism”, with a number of other writers stating that Nigeria operates a very defective system which would face serious danger of survival.
Census controversies have been with us as nation, since 1963, with hints and suggestions of glaring fraud and inflation of figures, all of which have remained unresolved as national questions. In the words of Wole Soyinka: “Regions that have been fraudulently allocated representational figures in legislative chambers on the basis of phantom population or geographical size, even where the actual size of the peopled and cultivated space is inversely proportionate to population- must be trimmed down to their truthful numbers”.
With population being a key factor in resources sharing and representation, and with the constitution of the nation being described as “ Centralism writ large”, it is obvious that there are issues that need to be resolved, rather than swept aside. One of the factors which contributed towards the first military coup in Nigeria, 1966, was the 1963 national census whose figures and controversies added fuel to growing tensions across the country. Other similar projects or exercises meant to ascertain the accurate number of people in Nigeria were also shrouded in controversies. Even the National Identity card issue is still incomplete, with many questions yet unanswered.
Revenue Sharing and Allocation and the criteria or formula for the disbursement of funds to the various tiers of government are issues which raise several questions. A political Bureau set up in 1987 to work out a political blueprint for Nigeria observed in its report that the allocation and sharing of revenue have been among the most contentious and controversial issues in the nation’s political history.
In 1980 an Okigbo Presidential Commission did recommend 53 percent for federal government, but later increased to 55 percent. State governments had 30 percent and 10 percent for local governments. Decree No 49 of 1989 established the National Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission, with mandate to mobilize and review public sector revenue disbursement, etc. Fiscal federalism is still unresolved.
It is noteworthy that during the era of military intervention in Nigerian politics, there were scrambles for the creation of states, behind which was the desire to benefit from the proverbial national cake. Revenue allocation to states were based on the following criteria or principles, namely: population, national minimum standard for national integration, social development factors etc. there were emphases on equality of states, land mass and terrain and special funds.
Some state governments were notable to generate enough revenue internally and depended on allocations from the federal government. Only few states were self-supporting financially. Revenue allocation and sharing issues are contentious.
Niger Delta and Mineral Resources Issues
Late Chief Bola Ige (SAN) in a lecture organized by Ibadan Chamber of Commerce and reported in TELL Magazine of April 9, 1999 was quoted as saying: “All Nigerians are thieves, stealing the property of the Niger Delta. Nigerians have stolen the treasure of the Niger Delta people and if care is not taken, we will face the wrath of God, because, it is a sin to continue to plunder the resources of the people”.
During the era of military rule, there were clear efforts to repress agitations in the Niger Delta zone which culminated in the “incredible bestiality shown by the Nigerian state in killing Ken Saro-Wiwa”.
The Ogoni issue brought to light the National question, with specific reference to the production and distribution of wealth; distribution of liberties and powers. It was obvious that internal and external powers were at play in the efforts of the people of Ogoni to raise the issue of resource control in Nigeria.
Among powerful interest groups that saw to it that the issue of resource control was nipped in the bud were the Nigerian military and multinational oil giants operating in Nigeria. The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) expressed the view that “the rampant manipulation, intimidation and bribing of witnesses by prosecution, hostility of the tribunal to the defence counsels and their applications and the indecent and barbaric assault and brutality directed by police and other security personnel against defence attorneys and relatives of the accused, pointed to a premeditated plot to simply murder Saro-Wiwa and the other eight Ogoni leaders”.
Obviously, the Ogoni struggle, the death of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other efforts to raise the issue of resources control and the rights of the Niger Delta people, were deliberately suppressed, the purpose of such suppressions through various clever means, was to intimidate and put fear in the minds of any other groups that may wish to embark on agitation for resource control. The Niger Delta and mineral resources, issues remain questions which the Nigerian nation must address.
True Federalism.
The constitution which the military handed to Nigerians in 1999 is far from being described as a truly federalist one. It is noteworthy that the elections organised by the military as a part of its disengagement from politics took place without the constitution being made public. Expectedly, the military made sure that its interests would not in any way be jeopardised, and that the civilians that would take over from them would be good partners in good business.
Having tasted political power in government for a longtime, the military politicians were sensible enough to make elaborate and tactical provisions for themselves and their future. They are men of wits!
When Nigerians rejected the introduction of a diarchy whereby soldiers and civilians would participate in governance, the out-going military team handed Nigerians a constitution designed by them. Parallel or invisible government, cabal or mafia, etc, are not formed on principles or ideologies but on the basis of profitability.
Let us hear Wole soyinka’s opinion of what the military put in place for their self-preservation: “The wages, allowances, perquisites, fringe benefits, travel allowances, living allowances, illness and coffin allowances, servants’ allowances, furniture, toilet and air-freshener allowances etc, that the legislators voted for themselves in validation of their roles as torchbearers of democracy constitute, till today, the most insensate apportionment of a nation’s resources that we have encountered in this nationfor decades”.
Monetisation of politics was the outcome of military disengagement from power, with a strategy of making the National Assembly a formidable power-point to maintain the status-quo. With such obscene allowances for law makers, coupled with the composition and the manner of getting to the senate, it was obvious that politics had been monetized, as an exclusive venture for moneybags only. Thus Nigerian political economy took a new shape..
In other words, what would appear to be democracy was indeed a combination of diarchy and oligarchy, whereby only money-bags would be eligible and god-father phenomenon and patronage became the means of access into politics and resources.
Corruption and other abnormalities that go with money-politics also became part of the political culture inherited from the military. Rather than fascism and brute force which are associated with the military, patriotism became undermined and replaced by a cult-like system of governance. A late former president spelt if out: “If you cannot beat them, join them”.
Unstable economy usually results from a corrupt, monetized and cult-like political system which becomes an exclusive club of patrons, money bags and rent collectors. With the masses feeling short-changed, productivity and patriotism would diminish with the attendant result of growing division and apathy in the society. Where the masses wonder if they have a government that cares, everybody would focus on taking his destiny in his own hands. The economy would suffer, crime rate would be high and corruption the order of the day.
Exclusionary politics whereby a section of the nation feels excluded, shortchanged or sidelined in the enjoyment of the dividends of a democratic system, the result would affect morale, productivity and the economy. A government cannot fight corruption, poverty and insecurity successfully without confronting the root causes of these anormalies. In the opinion of the Niger Delta people, a government should show genuine concern for the people, rather than get fixated on oil revenue coming from oil in their land.
Fulanisation and Islamisation issues should not be regarded as trite questions that can be waved away. From time to time many Nigerians have raised the issue of an old statement credited to late Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sarduana of Sokoto. It goes thus: “The new nation called Nigeria should be an estate from our great-grand father Othoman Dan Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We must use the minorities of the North as willing tools, and the South as conquered territories and never allow them to have control of their future”. What a prophetic injunction!
Is it not possible that a section of this country still holds the idea that they are mere Nigerians than other? If not by utterances, at least by actions, a number of persons had in the past shown evidence of being influenced or guided by the above quoted statement of a Northern leader. The Boko Haram issue is also shrouded in a number of speculations, whereby anyone would wonder what exactly is the ultimate motive or demand of that terrorist machine. Isreligious extremism not being coopted into politics?
If we add the issue of cattle qrazers and the Ruga project, any honest Nigerian would wonder if some authorities are not taking Nigerians for suckers. To mix governance with religion cannot be described as an attribute of a democracy. Growing culture of impunity and mendacity are not attributes of true democracy. There are questions begging for answers.
Dr. Amirize is a retired lecturer at the Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.

By: Bright Amirize