|
A
Realistic And Credible Road Map For Achieving A People’s National
Constitution For By
Sam
Ejike Okoye Introduction:
In
many respects, Nigerians were and remain a conquered and cowed people. Military
putschists have often appeared on the Nigerian political scene propelled
by self-acclaimed altruistic motives and wearing the toga of the
defender of the masses. Yet the desire to rule is very seductive and the
ultimate tool, if not goal, of most putschists is raw power. However,
raw power corrupts and can be selfish and more often than not violent
and capable of being exercised with impunity. On the other hand, power
achieved through ambition and the democratic ballot box is subtle and
generally benevolent. Therein lays the difference between the Nigerian
experience of civil and military rule. Even so, the damage inflicted on worrisome
is the fact that the Nigerian polity has been so cowed and intimidated
by the now ever present power of the gun that, today Nigerians appear to
have been lulled into a sense of apathy and amnesia about their inherent
freedoms. It is this situation that makes it possible for a so called
“elected” President of the Nigerian people to transform without much
fuss into a civilian dictator. The supine posture of the Nigerian elite
class, not to speak of the masses, has promoted an undue and insulting
exhibition of “arrogance of power” in Freedom
as a national imperative. It
has been said that most political careers end in tragedy! This is
poignantly true for Nigerian political leaders whether in agbada or
military uniform. The struggle for national freedom, self-rule and
independence was, for sure, not only arduous and drawn out, but was
bitter in terms of the ethnic rivalries that emerged in the process. The
subsequent ethnic competition for political power and the concomitant
religious fundamentalism and intolerance in the land seem to have
beclouded the real essence of the struggle for national freedom,
self-rule and independence. Such is the divergence between
the visions of the original political freedom fighters of Nigeria
and the following
generations of political leaders (who were the direct beneficiaries of
that struggle), that the erstwhile colonial masters of Nigeria would now
probably be justified in wondering whether to have granted Nigeria
self-rule and political independence was such a good idea after all. But
even so, freedom remains an inalienable right of man and it is a tragedy
for It
was the German/American Psychologist, Eric Fromm (1900-1980)
who in his seminal book, “Escape
from freedom”, suggested that there are two dimensions to freedom
-- namely; “freedom from” and “freedom to “. It is true that “We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and
independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights
inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and
liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government [or
constitution in the case of Nigeria] shall become destructive of these
ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing it's
powers
in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their safety and happiness --- and accordingly all experience
hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed, but when a long train of
abuses
and usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing
invariably the same object evinces a design to
reduce them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such government [ or constitution in the case of
Nigeria], and to provide new guards for their future security. “ The
National question In
purely Nigerian terms, the national question remains the perennial
matter of enabling the ethnic nationalities and other interest groups,
to come together on their own for once, to discuss their problems and
come up with decisions (or resolutions) concerning what they want in
terms of how they propose to co-exist with particular reference to the
institutions of governance, as well as the civil and criminal justice
and law enforcement systems. To wit, what kind of government do they
want? Do they want a federal or a unitary form of government for the
entire country? If a federal form of government is chosen, what kind
would it be? Would it be of the executive or parliamentary type?
Would the federating units also want fiscal federalism and
resource control? What functions should the central government have?
Should the central government be strong or weak? Will the principle of
self-determination and even peacefully determined and organized
secession be accommodated? Thus
in contemporary electioneering parlance, the national question facing is
beyond executive or legislative dictation, determination or even
sanction by any current political leaders of the country, elected or
not. The unaddressed challenge facing The
present discourse will therefore attempt to examine in broad outlines a
credible and realistic road map for achieving a People’s Constitution
which would form the basis of any subsequent national or general
elections into elective offices prescribed by the new people’s
constitution, sometime in mid-2007. A
brief review of where we came from; and where we are now. Apart
from a legislative/technical change in 1963 in Nigeria's official title
from a Commonwealth Dominion, whose Head of State was the Queen of Great
Britain, to our present title of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the
ethnic nationalities per se,
who after all make up what is known as Nigeria today, have never been
able to dictate the terms, let alone the content, of any
constitution-making exercises in Nigeria. Indeed, Constitutions
were, in a real sense, negotiated as a compromise from the interests and
demands of the three regions of the Nigerian Federation. Nevertheless,
the British colonial rulers had the final word in "approving"
these constitutions. Military
rule altered this constitutional profile profoundly. First, military
rule suspended those aspects of the extant constitution with which it
felt uncomfortable, retaining only those articles and sections of the
constitution that it found useful for its dictatorial purposes. Second,
military rule, preferring a top down “command and control”
administrative structure, was uncomfortable with the restrictions that a
federal system of government imposed on its operations. It chipped away
at the federal arrangements that Nigerians had laboured to attain in the
1950s. During Mohammed/Obasanjo phase of military rule (1975-79),
federalism virtually disappeared. In subsequent regimes, the term
"federal" in “Federal Republic of Nigeria” had become
vacuous, just as the term "republic" had become
merely notional, considering that military rulers tended to
behave like emperors. Indeed over-centralization, bordering on the de
facto abrogation of federalism, was the destructive outcome of
military rule in The
1979 to 1999 military constitutions brought so many problems in their
wake, the most profound being the abandonment of
the relatively inexpensive parliamentary system of government and
the installation of a wasteful executive presidential system in a
country which still ranks as one of the poorest in the world. Moreover,
the creation of states under military rule (increasing the numbers from four
regions in 1963 to 12 in 1967, 19 in 1976, and subsequently to 36 states
at the present time) substantially weakened the states such that most of
these states are barely economically viable. In so doing, the basic
principles of federalism were violated. The wanton creation of local
governments, now legally 774 from the original 53
divisions as a third tier of government have not helped matters. In
terms of fiscal federalism, the calculated elimination of the erstwhile
principle of derivation made the control and subservience of the states
and local governments assured in a military command structure bestrode
by a constitutionally very powerful president which potentially could
brook no opposition or challenge from any quarters. In
other climes, the presidential system operates pari
passu with a political class drawn from people who have excelled and
made their mark in the professions and business, and who more often than
not have made or are making a comfortable living and therefore go into
politics essentially to serve. Indeed the military has transformed
Nigerian politics into a full-time job for legislators. And as Governor
Nnamani rightly observed in a recent interview, most of those who
constitute the political class in The
present political dispensation, the so-called “nascent democracy”,
is merely a transition from military to civil rule at best, and at worst
an elongation of military politics.
Real democratic rule continues to elude vision
of what is best for The
way forward It
was suggested at the beginning of this piece that The
Nigerian polity is now virtually overheated by two contending events of
national import. Viz, the national dialogue being sponsored by the
Presidency and a national sovereign conference being organized by
PRONACO, a civil society coalition group. Although superficially both
the NPRC and the SNC are supposed to work towards the well being of
Nigerians, they differ quite significantly and, some will even say
irreconcilably, in respect of the following: ·
Timing and
pre-meeting preparations ·
Legality ·
Agenda ·
Mode of
choice of conference delegates. |