The National Conference Question

By

Dr. Jibo Ibrahim

Global Rights

Jibo722003@yahoo.co.uk

July2004

For the past decade, one of the central issues of political debate in Nigeria has been the persistent call for a National Conference. The calls have represented a strong desire to correct the ills that have befallen the Nigerian polity and renegotiate the conditions, structure and rules that should guide the Nigerian State . The calls represent an admission that over that period, the legitimacy and the capacity of the State has often been questioned. The first object of the State is to provide security for members of the community and guarantee a framework for the enforcement of laws. The ability of certain states to do their jobs sometimes decline and a situation arises in which basic functions - exercising sovereignty over a given territory, providing political identity, and operating institutions can no longer be provided. When the state is perceived as being incapable of performing these tasks, then the issue of political reform becomes necessary, and in the last decade, the national conference has been proposed as a useful agency for pursuing reform.

The national conference is therefore an agency for political renewal, a path towards the construction of a new social contract for the reconstruction of state and society.  It was the Republic of Benin that showed the light that others have tried to follow. Throughout 1989, workers, students and other popular forces were protesting against the monopoly of the state by the PRPB (Popular Revolution Party of Benin) and the monopoly of the party by the Kérékou clan.  The people wanted a national conference in which they could demonstrate that the country belonged to them also. When the government called the Conference in February 1990, its aim was to "open-up" the state to gradual political reform.

The agenda that Kérékou tabled was one of creating a national consensus by the elaboration of a new charter that would allow the country face the challenge of social and economic crisis. The first decision of the 500 delegates invited to the Conference however was to declare its independence from the government project and proclaim the sovereign character of its decisions over the party-state. That was how the concept of Sovereign National Conference was invented. Following that event, the national conference became a politically infectious event especially in Francophone Africa. Following Benin , national conferences were organised in Gabon , Congo , Mali , Togo , Niger and Chad within a few months. It has therefore been an instrument that has significant influence in Francophone countries.

The idea of national conferences reflects a deep desire to reverse the process of departicipation that has been in process in Africa since the attainment of independence. African dictators are however full of guile and cunning and they soon overcame the national conference imperative. Since Benin , the National Conference has led to the overthrow of dictatorial regimes only in Niger and the Congo . In Gabon , Zaire , Togo and Cote d'Ivoire , the ruling oligarchies have been able to manipulate the National Conference or ignore its injunctions and maintain itself in power despite the installation of multipartism. Even the more successful democratic transitions, Congo Brazzaville and Niger have been reversed by military coups orchestrated by forces that have a stake in the return to authoritarianism. It is therefore naïve to view the National Conference as a panacea that would automatically solve all of a nation’s political problems.

The Nigerian debate about the convening of a national conference has been informed as in the case of Francophone Africa, by a desire to overthrow the dictatorial military regimes that were succeeding themselves in power. The return of constitutional rule in 1999 has however not reduced the intensity of the demands for a national conference. This is because unlike in the case of Francophone Africa, the struggle for a national conference in Nigeria is linked to the wider struggle about recreating what Nigerians call genuine or true federalism.

The problem with the Nigerian debate however is that although there have been numerous calls for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference, there has been very little discussion on three critical issues. First are the modalities of selecting or electing members that will sit at the conference table. Secondly, there is no clear indication of the agenda of the conference. Thirdly, what is the status of the decisions reached at the conference and how will those decisions be carried in the context of existing democratic institutions. If we respond positively to these questions, we can refocus the debate on the central concerns of the constitution and political structure. 

The Constitution and Political Restructuring

The most serious problem with the 1999 Constitution is that it has not responded to persistent demands for a political restructuring of the country. The demands have been for curbs on the powers of the federal government and the enhancement of the powers of states and local governments within the context of transparent and accountable governance. The Nigerian military have responsibility for destroying Nigerian federalism by sacrificing it on the altar of over-centralisation. Nigeria 's geopolitical realities have been completely modified through the subordination of state governments to the federal government. In federal constitutions, the federal and state governments all have constitutionally defined areas in which each level of government is sovereign as well as areas where both levels have concurrent authority. According to Wheare (1963), in federal regimes, neither the federal nor regional governments are supreme; the constitution is the only supreme organ.

According to Section 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution however:

If any law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with a law validly made by the National Assembly, the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency are void.  

There is therefore a clear hierarchy between the two levels of government. In terms of the legislative powers for the different levels of government defined in the Second Schedule of the Constitution, the longest list is the exclusive legislative one which only the federal legislature can pass laws on. The exclusive legislative list has 68 items, two more than in the 1979 document. The concurrent legislative list by comparison has only 30 items. It includes all sorts of powers including police, prisons, even marriage, excluding marriage under Customary and Islamic Law. State governments cannot borrow money abroad without federal approval (item 7) and they cannot regulate labour matters (item 34). Direct taxation - incomes, profits and capital gains is an exclusive federal preserve (item 59). Even the appointment of judges in the state service, are to be made by the state governor on the recommendation of a federal executive body, the National Judicial Council. State governments do not have exclusive competence in any domain. The debate on the National Conference should address the powers on the legislative lists that should be transferred from one level to another and the reasons for such transfers. It is propositions on this issues that should constitute the agenda for a National Conference.

Nigerians have a history of playing high intensity politics with serious stakes, widespread violence, shrill emotions and energetic manipulation of ethnic and religious sentiments by contending political elates. The promotion of democratic governance would however require that we refocus on issues.

The promotion of democracy and federalism in Nigeria is very difficult even if it is so necessary. The Constitution of the country has to be reformed. However, major surgical operations, beyond mere constitutional reforms, have to be embarked on. Community organisations, professional bodies, labour unions, organisations in civil society, and women organisations have to be part of a wider initiative of recreating a national political community. Limiting the debate about constitutional reforms and restructuring to a small political elite, to the exclusion of the people and popular forces, is not the best way out of the national problems. Those pushing for representation only on ethnic identity should be democratic enough to appreciate that there are citizens that do not have ethnic identity or will not want to be represented at that level.  Resolution of basic problems and working towards a democratic society requires serious attention. The major issues that have to be addressed include the following - the democratic diffusion of power/devolution of power; guarantee of group and collective rights; addressing the ethnic and religious questions; establishing multi-party system based on genuine pluralism; and the building of genuine and representative democratic structures and institutions - both in the spheres of the state and in civil society. Linked with all these are the crucial issues of ownership, control and distribution of resources.

The Ethnic Trap

While I have always supported the necessity for a national conference, I have also always had a major concern related to the proposals for ethnic federalism by some of the proponents of the National Conference. I recall that way back in December 1998, a Conference of Nationalities was organised by the Campaign for Democracy in which ethnically defined regions were proposed as a solution to the crisis of Nigerian federalism. The communiqué published at the end of the meeting proposed:

“That the conference is a reflection of the deep understanding that the partners that constitute the Nigerian federation are the Nationalities, not the states, senatorial districts, armed forces, traditional rulers or political parties.” That: The Ethnic Nationalities shall be the building blocks of the Federation, with he right to self-determination. The federating units shall have powers comparable to the Regions in the 1963 constitution. And they shall have their own constitutions.” …That: The military and other public institutions should be subjected to democratic civilian control. All recruitment and appointment into federal institutions should reflect the units that make the union. A new National army should be put in place with Regional commands. These commands should ensure that membership of the troops under their control consist of a substantial number of indigenes” (Communiqué: The Conference of Nationalities 1998).

This position is contestable on many grounds. It is very difficult, if not impossible to build a workable federation on ethnic grounds. There are over four hundred ethnic groups in the country with varying populations ranging from a few thousand to dozens of millions. Historically, political building blocks have been territorial rather than ethnic. Precolonial states among the Hausa and Yoruba have been territorial, not ethnic, and this tendency continues in the colonial and postcolonial era. It appears difficult to draw back the clock today and start reinventing ethnic political entities. The fact that ethno-regionalism has been recognised as the problem does not make ethnic entities the solution.

The ethnic states principle was used in the construction of the Soviet, Yugoslavian and Czechoslovakian Federations and they all failed woefully. Ethnic federalism has never promoted federalism or democracy in recent history. I sincerely believe that it carries the risk of promoting the disintegration of the state. Members of Nigerian ethnic groups must be spared the political future of ethnic dictatorship, it is usually worse than Pan-ethnic dictatorship. There are other ways of addressing the concerns people have over the current constitution.

Another problem with the creation of ethnic enclaves is that there will be contestation over numerous towns and territories that are mixed or on borderlands could lead to serious crisis. Edwin Madunagu has appropriately warned that:

“The ethnic groups in the former Middle Belt who are to be group into Western-Central and Central federation are bound to ask why they are so lumped together. In any case who ‘own’ Jos, Kafanchan, Kaduna , etc. if we allow ourselves to be guided by history, then we shall see that the questions like this will be decided only through war. My own reading of the Nigerian situation is that Nothern elite and politicians from both the core North and the middle Belt will resist not only restructuring of Nigeria along ethnic lines, but the very idea of restructuring”.

As Anthony Akika has forcefully argued, even at the level of conceptualisation, we cannot reduce federalism to ethnic enclaves:

Federalism presupposes the existence of democracy - that representatives are elected at federal and local levels.  That each has their area of competence. Local needs and local government settles peculiarities i.e. states or LGAs or city councils. This does not mean ethnic territories, as even within an ethnic group there may be peculiarities - linguistic, geographic, cultural and historical. In any case, the states and local governments are also mainly administrative units enjoying local autonomy within the federation. In a Republic such as ours and under the provision of the fundamental rights charter, citizens are free to move to any part of the country, settle and to carry out any lawful activity, economic, social, or cultural. There will always therefore be other ethnic groups living in other places. In a modern economy, the free movement of goods and services and of persons is a sine qua non for development. The whole notion of ethnically based states having exclusive ethnic boundaries therefore misunderstands and defeats the notion of federalism and of the modern state”.

The central concern in Nigeria is that there has been a constitutionally entrenched political culture of winner takes all. People therefore feel threatened when they feel that the group in power will not adequately represent their interest, and more importantly, might do them harm.

As Nigerians continue to debate the question of possible political futures, it is important to bear in mind that clichés espousing the non-negotiability of the unity/sovereignty of Nigeria are only as good as campaign jargons, as many of the political merchants mouthing them may be less than sincere in their commentaries. We need to accept as a point of departure that the unity of Nigeria is negotiable - the negotiating instrument being democracy, human rights, justice, fair play and equity. The question before is to devise how we can pursue these principles of democratic governance.

The National Conference and Nigerian Democracy

It is clear that the call for a national conference in Nigeria is in reality a demand for renegotiating the best ways we can promote federalism and grassroots democracy in the country. Although we have had many constitutions in our short post independence history, there is an overwhelming concern that we as a people have not had much of a say in the process. Creating a forum for political negotiations would certainly not solve all our problems. It would however give us the sense that we matter as citizens and that we can commence repairing the damage that has been done to our body politic. Indeed, as Jega has suggested, the national conference can be a participatory constitutional conference in which the people feel genuinely represented:

“In fact, in my view, the best way to do this is to have a constitutional conference, not the Abacha kind of constitutional conference, but a constitutional conference that is based on the constituencies and people who are elected specifically to go and participate in this process of a constitutional review. Anybody who wants to participate in a constitutional review must be somebody that has the mandate of his constituencies. What I am suggesting is that one, instead of a partisan constitutional review process, as has been introduced by the Obasanjo regime, what they need to do is to set up a review committee that can produce and circulate the present draft to all Nigerian so then people can have access to it and they can collate on the existing constitution” (Jega 1999: 6).

In other words, the form of the necessary national need not take the form of a sovereign national conference, as has been the experience in Francophone Africa. The transition to constitutional rule and the election of the executive and legislature has made the argument for a sovereign national conference less tenable. Much as the elected political class lacks legitimacy and has not lived up to expectations, the concern is that we cannot build democracy without respect for the rule of law. The political institutions of the 4^th Republic would need to be reformed through legal and constitutional means.

The other problem in the Nigeria debate is that the most vociferous callers for a sovereign national conference are calling for ethnic representation in the composition of the conference. That is a problematic position. Nigerian political communities at the national, zonal, state and district levels are for the most part multi-ethnic. Their identities however mostly reflect micro ethnic categories - cutting ethnic groups into different territorial-political communities. Due to our recent history of ethno-regional exclusion in Nigeria , ethnic tensions are very high at this point in time, especially at the local level. Be that as it may, our most fundamental problems - corruption, repression and the negation of popular democratic aspirations cut across ethnic lines. The way forward is constitutional and institutional reform. It is difficult, it will take time and it does not have a magic formula but it is the only way for the moment. For many of us who have demanded for a sovereign national conference for a long time, we cannot but agree with Olisa Agbakoba that:

“I not sure that the ‘sovereign national conference’ may be the appropriate forum for this dialogue. I have long advocated the SNC but I think that its advocates must take on board some of the objections of the opponents of the SNC. The fear of elected office-holders that there cannot be two sovereigns in the country must be taken into account. We need not insist on a dialogue taking the form of a ‘sovereign’ conference, so long as its result will not be altered by anybody” 

The way forward is the creation of opportunities to talk seriously, to engage in dialogue and to have the results of the dialogue reflected in the restructuring of our polity. In a certain sense, when Nigerians call for a national conference, they are making a call for an alternative approach to politics. An approach that would involve the rehabilitation of the concept of politics and of democracy. Unfortunately, the reality of Nigerian politics is understood to be a process of thuggery, violence, political exclusion, ethnic jingoism, religious bigotry, electoral fraud and so on. Very few people benefit from this form of politics. Nigerians are seeking for a more noble conception of politics. One in which politics could be practised as an activity by which different interests are conciliated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and survival of the whole community. The national conference could be a workshop for promoting this alternative conception of politics.