|
Post- Mortem On The National Political Reform Conference: Unprecedented Success Or A Monumental Failure? By Olatunde Afuwape
IN THE BEGINNING When the Federal Government first muted the idea of the just concluded National Political Reform Conference (NPRC), there were many arguments for and against the conference. The pro-PDP commentators saw the Conference as the best thing to happen Nigeria, an opportunity to redress the injustices of the past and chart the way forward for a more united and prosperous nation. The civil societies and pro-democracy groups on the other hand saw the proposed conference as a ruse being foisted on the nation by the PDP led Federal Government to achieve pre-determined agenda. It was seen as an attempt to hijack and twist the long-standing aspiration of Nigerians for a genuine dialogue to address the myriad of problems bedeviling the nation since independence. The conference was seen as an excise in futility and a journey without destination.
IN-FIGHTING Shockingly, the PDP-dominated National Assembly openly opposed the conference and saw it as an attempt to erode its constitutional powers and mandate to make laws or amend the constitution of the country. Most members of the national assembly vowed to resist any attempt to confer legitimacy on the confab through the backdoor. The National Assembly eventually rejected the request to approve funds for the Conference by the executive. Determined to forge ahead with the process, the Federal and the State Governments went ahead with plans for the conference. The opponents of the Conference argued that desperation to get a third term or extend the current term by two years was the motive for supporting the Conference by the state governors. When the Conference was inaugurated, the National Assembly adopted a wait-and-see “siddon look” approach, while the pro-democracy group vowed to continue with arrangements for an alternate conference called PRONACO.
DELIBERATIONS While the conference lasted, the attention of the whole nation was on International Conference Centre. Everybody watched with bottled expectation while deliberations, alignments, re-alignments, mud sliding, accusations, counter-accusation, and the like went on at the Conference. While the Conference grabbed the attention of Nigerians, the National Assembly became jealous, scared and frustrated that its power was about to be usurped. Members attacked the conference in ferocious but subtle manner. While the conference was going on a curious development occurred, US intelligent report on Nigeria was released. The report diagnosed Nigeria as a terminally ill patient with 15 years live expectancy. The report attracted widespread condemnations and members of the Conference did not miss the report. It instilled in them an exaggerated importance of their mandates. It emboldened the delegates to pursue their case. The opportunity provided by the conference was seen by the various “Ethnic Crusaders” as “once-in-a-life” chance to extract the best for their ethnic groups. More so, when US predicted doomsday is hanging over the nation. The Southeast delegates were the first to test the newfound relevance of the various ethnic configurations in the country, by staging a walkout over a dispute. Other geo-political groups used walkout to varying degrees, with delegates from the South-South benefiting most while the Conference lasted. The South-South succeeded in holding the conference to ransom and by extension the whole nation over the issues of appropriate percentage as derivation and recognition of geo-political zones for the purpose of zoning the presidency. The Conference adjourned and could not resume on three different occasions. There was a deadlock!
CRISES IN THE HOUSE The Hawks in the Presidency watched with shock the vicissitude of the Conference. Those who assured Mr. President that they were capable of managing the conference to achieve desired goal witnessed the collapse and disintegration of the entire plan. The conference had taken a life of its own. First the draft constitution was rejected, some of issues presumed settled were revisited with unpalatable outcomes, and to break the camel’s back, the whole process was about to be aborted. The unthinkable was about to happen. In a deft move and one of the most effective damage controls strategies I have seen, the Conference was hurriedly concluded. Arguments like successful resolution of 187 out of 189 issues, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% pass mark for the conference depending on who was awarding the mark became the singsong. The propaganda was massive and effective. The report of the Conference was finally submitted to Mr. President at the Banquet Hall of the State House at a ceremony, which was boycotted by the delegates from the South-South. The convener and the participants adjudged the conference the most successful in the history of the country. Whether the assertion is right or wrong is debatable. Mr. President hurriedly dumped the recommendations of the Conference on the National Assembly. Mission accomplished. Case closed. But, I must admit the government handled the potential crises in a most ingenious manner.
The National Assembly, which viewed the Conference with suspicion throughout the period it lasted heaved a sign of relieve. Various comments tinged with schadenfreude on the outcome of the conference by its opponents dominated the press.
The question at this point is - Was the NPRC an unparallel success as claimed by government or monumental failure as alleged by its opponents? I will attempt to look at this question from three perspectives i.e. the governments, delegates and opponents.
Firstly, let us examine the government viewpoint. The objectives of the government for organizing the conference was to give some carefully selected Nigerians representing the various shades of opinion an opportunity to come together and discuss the issues agitating the minds of Nigeria. The intention appeared to be an attempt to organize a controlled conference and take the wind off the sail of those agitating for a sovereign national conference, with unpredictably outcome. Part of the item on the agenda was to secure adoption for a draft constitution, which contained robust provisions for issues dear to the heart of the people in power. Some of these issues were, single term of sixty years for the President Governor, maintenance of the existing structures with slight modifications here and there. To achieve these objective the delegates were carefully chosen by the PDP-controlled Federal and State governments. In addition, the agenda to steer the conference was vigilantly drawn. Was this objective achieved? I am not convinced it was. Firstly, lack of cohesion, indiscipline and disunity in PDP threw spanner into the well-oiled wheel and actually derail the process. Secondly, some unmanageable trouble makers succeeded in finding their way to the conference. Thirdly, the South-South PDP Governors chose not call their delegates to order when they became adamant (contrary to expectation) and finally the rigid posture of the northern delegates on most issues steered the Conference to disaster. At the end of the day, the draft constitution and its meticulous crafted provisions was thrown overboard this becoming the first causality of the bickering at the Conference. The Conference eventually developed a life of its own and its progenitors lost total control. Every other pre-conceived idea fell like pack of cards. That the ship of the Conference finally anchored and its reports including the now famous “187 settled and 2 contentious issues” dumped on the National Assembly was the only achievement by its convener.
The delegates from the various states were able to organize themselves along geo-political lines. As the Conference unfold, the South-South and North (comprising North East, central, West) showed they were fully prepared for the conference. The South-West, which comprised of mainly PDP members do not have any agenda apart from what the Federal Government wanted. For the South East delegates, zoning the Presidency to the zone was its main pre-occupation. It was actually the battle between the South-South and the North that was responsible for the deadlock. At the end of the Conference, the North got what it wanted – continuation of the status quo but deepened the distrust between them and other socio-ethnic groups. The South-South was the center of attraction throughout the duration of the conference; the zone appeared to be at the driving and succeeded in grounding wheel of the Conference to a complete halt. But the deft manner logjam was untangled and the Conference manipulately concluded must have left the delegates stunned. The South-South delegate which until that time appeared to hold the Conference by the jagular were shocked by the sharp turn of event. Their gains at the conference were fast becoming ephemeral. They re-grouped and re-strategize to avoid a reversal of the perceived achievements and build on momentum. The Zone has shifted its attention to the National Assembly for the elusive justice and fair reward for its god-given resources. Nobody could place a finger on what the South East and South West brought back from the Conference. In the final analysis, none of the zones came out with something tangible from the Conference. It was a galore of rhetoric and some recommendations that are now at the mercy of the almighty members of the National Assembly.
For the opponents of the Conference, its final outcome was a vindication of their opposition to an experiment aimed at subverting the wills of the majority. To them, members of the Conference were undemocratically selected and they represented no interest but their selfish ones. The conference was illegality funded and its agenda anti-people. The National Assembly, which viewed the Conference with suspicion throughout the period it lasted heaved a sign of relieve. It position that the Conference was not necessary and at best it roles were not more than that of a committee set up to advice the Executive was vindicated.
Some of the posers here is:
a) Is the outcome of the Conference enough justification for the time and human resources expended on the exercise?
b) Would the outcome of the conference have any positive impact on the social-economic life of Nigerians?
c) Is there any justification for spending of almost a billion Naira of public fund at the whim and caprices of the Executive?
From the analysis of events above, I am not convinced that, the answer to any of the above posers is in the negative. All the fears I raised before the Conference have been confirmed. I raised the fear that the list of the delegates to the conference would be dominated by people who would want to maintain the status quo, may be with slight cosmetic changes. This has come to past. Secondly, I raised the fear that there was no assurance that every shade of opinions would be accommodated. Thirdly, I said without legal backing, the outcome of such exercise would be the report of a mere talk shop which acceptance would be at the whim and caprices of the PDP led government. Lastly, I mentioned that I do not think it is wise to waste people time and energy, public funds and the goodwill of the people on an expensive jamboree exercise without any legal backing. The outcome of the Conference has confirmed all these fears. It is shame that it all ended up like this. Now that the failed experiment, what is the way out?
THE WAY OUT
It is an undeniable fact that a lot of things are dysfunctional in the country. It is also indisputable fact that several people in power at various times the past have clamed to proffers solutions to these problems. It also obvious to all that all these attempts have failed woefully. We all agreed that we urgently need to do something to address the rot. There is cry of marginalisation from the south to the north and the east to the west. The poor are crying marginalisation by the rich. The Christian are crying marginalisation by the Muslim and the Muslim protesting inability to practice their religion to the fullest. The South-South is yearning for resource control. The sum total of all these agitation is that things are bad and there is an urgent need to do something, but there is problem of consensus on the best solution. While those in government strongly believe either genuinely or otherwise that they are handling the problems squarely, other outside felt the government is the major problem.
THE NATIONAL DIALOGUE
There was a consensus that there are problems in the land, but the major disagreement is on the solutions or how to go about addressing the problems. While some are strongly convinced that a sovereign national conference would provide the needed solutions, other felt such conference could be better handled within the present representations at various level of government.
There are many views on how the conference should be organized, but the two main views mostly, representation based on the existing structures of state and representation based on ethnic nationalities. There are fundamental problems with these two positions, most especially the suggestions on ethnic nationalities. Firstly the cause of the problem with the existing arrangements that gave rise the large number of agitations is the current situation where the views of those who are not in power are submerged. The present structures do not allow the views, opinions, interests, needs, aspirations, well-being, etc of the minorities to be protected. The elites from the majority tribes are the ones enjoying all the benefits. Those who are insisting on the existing structures, only wish to maintain the status quo and perpetuating the monumental injustice in the land. Rather than accepting such arrangement, it would be better to ask the National Assembly to discuss better to allow the national dialogue. We all know that the outcome of such exercise would not be acceptable to anybody save the current people in government. Secondary, adopting ethnic representation has serious fault of lack consensus on actual ethnic nationalities in the country. We read of figures like 250-350 ethnic nationalities, tribal groups and language variations. Nobody knows the exact figures. We all know of the Ogonis of this world, the ijaws, the Ishekiris, the kataf, the Irobo etc largely because they have agitated loudly for the protection of their interests. However, there are hundreds and thousands whose voices have never been heard before. How are we going to determine those ones? Who would draw the line on such representation. Knowing the type of country we are, thousands of ethnic nationalities would be created by the homogenous ethics groups such as the Yorubas, the Ibos or the Hausa Fulani to ensure large representation. For examples, the Yoruba will try to point out the differences between the Aworis, the Eguns, the Epes, the Ijebus, the Remos, the Egbas, the Yewas, the Owus, the Ibadan, Ekitis, the Ekimoguns, etc. The Ibos will come out with their own varieties so also the Hausas. We will find it very difficult to draw the line. Every shade of opinion would want to present itself as a unique group. We would end with an unmanageable group of barbarians. With the obvious pitfalls in the two approaches, it became necessary to think of a way out. I have a proposal that could address the apprehension and concern of both the proponents representation based on the existing structure and ethnic representation.
MODALITIES FOR THE PRESENTATION OF THE ISSUES
I strongly believe in being reasonable, practical and realistic in our approach to issues. What are the main issues; the existing structures have not served the people they are created for satisfactory; majority of Nigerians believe the contentious issues should be genuinely discussed and addressed; how to address these issues within the existing legal structure; there currently exists legal structures for representation by different shades of opinions in the country – such as local, state, federal constituencies and senatorial districts. What I am proposing here is that we should start from the known to the unknown. If we start from the known, when we get to the unknown, we can decide on how to go forward. The modalities being advocated for the dialogues should start from the grass root. The burning issues at various levels might be different from one area to the other. Every ward/community in each local government should be mobilized to compile a list of problems and burning issues they want addressed. Once an agreement is reached on such issue, it should be documented in a written form and made available to the members of such committee for adoption and it becomes the position of such ward. This simple process should be replicated in every ward/local government in the country. The people in current leadership could participate in the process, but are not expected to lead such process unless where community decides as such. The position of each ward would be compiled at the local government level. The word here is compilation, not editing - nothing should be removed at this stage. Nobody has any right to say any issue a community wants addressed is not important. These issues should now be discussed at the local government legal and consensus reached on the issues that these communities want addressed. If a position and issues by any community/ward is not acceptable to the others, such positions/issues should be compiled as areas where there is no consensus. I believe there are no ethnic nationalities that are not located in the existing wards and local government structures. Where an ethnic nationality is in more than a single ward or local government, they can come together and present single position. The views of the various ethnic nationalities should be compiled at such level. What this means that the view of every local government would have two sets of documents consensus and non-consensus issues. This would ensure that every shade of opinion is taken care of. This arrangement would be replicated in every ward, every local government, and every state of the Federation. The consensus and non-consensus issues would be compiled by the 36 states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory.
STATE CONFERENCE
State conference would be held where the consensus and non-consensus issues from the local and state governments’ submissions would be discussed by representatives of each local government. The final issues and position of the state based on the issues community-by-community, local government by local government would be prepared. All issues the federal government want addressed the conference would be compiled and submitted as single document. In additional all professional associations, Labour Associations, Pressure groups (student union, NGOs, civil right groups, environmental right group, etc), business owners/employers could either embedded their position in the state compilation and submit single national positions. These should also be in two documents i.e. consensus and non-consensus issues.
These issues would now be given adequate publicity by the local regional and national newspapers. Individuals are encouraged to make submission on issues they want addressed at both the ward, local or state level or through their professional or labour related associations, Nigerians in Diaspora etc. Knowing Nigerians for what we are, whoever is not able to make their views known through these avenues could also be encouraged to make submission on areas they felt strongly about. But, these may or may not be considered. This is to encourage people to present issues within the collective need of the totality of people affected by such issues.
All these submissions would form the raw materials for the national dialogue. People would by now be wondering at the massive of information that would be available for compilation and consideration by the National Dialogue. Each submission would be accompanied by executive summary and itemized list issues. Electronic copy of all the submission would be compiled at the state level and submitted to the Secretariat of the National Dialogue. This would make compilation easy and all submission would be posted at the website of the National dialogue accessible to all Nigerians with regional news media making them available. I advocate this elaborate presentation of issue as a way of giving everybody adequate opportunity to present issues affecting them and starting their problems where it hurt them most. As the saying goes, it is he who where the shoes that know where it pinches. Starting issues or position is different from acceptance or adopting such position. When these issues come under objective scrutiny, it would be possible to separate the wheat from the shaft, the real issues from frivolities. I have a very strong conviction that we would discovered that majority of the Nigerians would achieve consensus on most issues, but a few such as control of economic resources, participation and strong say in the political process, management of collective wealth, economic and social rights of the people, well-being, education, health, etc.
SELECTION OF REPRESENTATION FOR THE STATE PRE-CONFERENFE AND NATIONAL DIALOGUE
Since the objective of the national dialogue is address the genuine problem of the people who are residing in the wards and local government within the state structure, the bulk of the dialogue would exist at that level. For this kind of dialogue, we do not need some few wise men to decide for the rest of us. Whatever wise idea any wise man has should be presented at either the ward, local, state or professional level. Representation at the State Conference or Pre-Conference gathering, whichever is preferred should be based on the existing local governments, while representation at the national dialogue (conference) would be based on the existing state structure with equal representation from the states. Representation at both level does not really matter, because at both conference the main duty of the representatives would simply be to present the already agreed position of the various group and ethnic nationalities at the state level. The representatives at this level would not have any power to raise new issues apart from presenting the position of the people they represents. Representation at the national by state could be limited about 2-3 persons, depending on what we want. To make arriving at consensus easier, at a determined period the position of ethnic nationalities in the 36 states, the 36 state governments, the Federal Government, professional associations, Labour Associations, Pressure groups (student union, NGOs, civil right groups, environmental right group, etc), business owners/employers are made available to each state. The position of the states would be discussed and the ones accepted or rejected are compiled. The agreed position on the issues from each state would be what would be presented by the representatives of each state. These positions would be made know in advance to the state, to allow for dialogues and possible consensus when such issues are presented. The work of the secretariat of the National conference is to compile on state-by-state basis the consensus and non-consensus issues, the position of each state on the issues from the other states, governments and other groups.
DELIBERATIONS AT THE CONFERENCE
Each state would formally present is positions at the conference and for deliberation and record of adoption of each issues would be recorded. All the issues adopted by others would be compiled, followed by those not fully accepted with the list of based on the number of state. All the consensus issues are compiled, while issues not fully adopted are also compiled at degrees of acceptance, where there was consensus on amendments that could be made to some of the positions presented by the state, this could be compiled and presented to the state conference to accept or reject before the final conference. Issues rejected by consensus are also compiled adopted by certain numbers. At the end of first conference, the consensus issues, partially accepted issues and rejected issues could be compiled and made available to the various communities.
Before the final conference, everybody would know the consensus issues, while all would know the contentious issues. The intervening period could then be used to reach out to others and explain these positions to other groups to achieve consensus. At the final conference, where there is no unanimous agreement on any issue, 2/3 majority of the state would suffice. Any issue that could not be agreed upon at the second conference could either be rejected or subjected to a referendum, for resolution.
I advocated such a detailed process to ensure that these problems are thoroughly addressed and enduring and sustainable positions arrived at. Half hearted and fake solutions would not help at this stage in our national life. We should not miss the opportunity to address these problems or the consequence would be disastrous.
DURATION OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE I agree that the Conference could not hold forever, but we should not be slave to time. The overriding objective should be to do it right. We should be thorough and address all issues once and for all. We do not need half-backed solutions now. If we required a year or two to do it let it be. We do not need government to fund the conference. The people should be able to sponsor any form of arrangement to articulate their opinion. This is an era of sacrifice, I am sure people are willing to pay for genuine solution to their problems. The conference should not be used as another opportunity to feed the fat cat. Let the conference be sponsored by the people. The most fundamental issue that needs to be addressed however is the create legal foundation for the Conference. This is a challenge for the pro-democracy group. If we cannot overcome the challenge of creating a legal backing for the dialogue, we should forget the idea. Embarking on such an important exercise in a legal vacuum would only raise false hope, dash peoples’ expectations and ended up as an exercise in futility. How do we go about this? Dr. Abayomi’s recent suggestions on the need for the national assembly to pass a law establishing the conference as a constitutional convention could be refined. The law would give the conference the power of a constitutional convention to amend the constitution and the outcome of the convention subject to only people plebiscite on a geo-political basis. Once two third of the states in Nigeria accept the amendments, it becomes binding on the country. The challenges in this approach are:
a) whether the national assembly would be willing to sign such a law in view of the it intention to jealously guard its mandate;
b) Whether we would get the required two third majority. I strongly believe with insistence we can force the national assembly to sign such a law if they realized it is the wish of the majority. However, I have my fears the Executive may not be too comfortable with the coming into existence of such a law because it would put the deliberation at the conference in the hand of the people and difficult to manipulate or ambush. These are raw ideas, which are open to critical analysis and knocks. My concerned is to find a lasting solution to the problems confronting us. This is humble submission for the sake of a better Nigeria, if not for our generation but for the future generation.
OLATUNDE AFUWAPE ABUJA, NIGERIA
|