|
Democracy Not Monarchy: Traditional Rulers and the Nigerian Constitution By Hussaini Abdu
Malam Sa’ad Zungur, scholar, poet and foremost radical nationalist, in one of his inspiring political poems made an incisive commentary on the changing dynamics of Northern Nigeria politics, especially the growing contention between the forces of monarchy, and the emerging educated counter elites in the 1950s. The poem, Arewa: Jamhuriya ko Mulkiya? (The North, Republic or Monarchy?) drew reference from the collapse of monarchy in the former largest British colony, India, after independence in 1947. It urged the Emirs of northern Nigeria to rise up to the challenge of the new era of republicanism as expressed by the development of partisan politics and the emergence of educated elites who were angling for political leadership. Several decades after this poem was written, it remains relevant to our contemporary discourse. Nigeria is once again being dragged into another round of contention on the role of traditional rulers in contemporary political system.
While some of us may not have the wisdom and intellectual power or political acumen of the likes of Sa’ad Zungur, it is in our collective interest to flag up a national discourse on this potentially combustive issue before Nigerian politicians mismanage it and drag us into another round of constitutional or political crisis. This is what this contribution is set to achieve.
With the enactment of the 1963 Republican Constitution, and later the 1979 constitution, many of us, students of politics thought the issue of traditional rulers had been put rest. However, recent statements from President Yar’Adua indicate that we are not done with the issue. It is further an indication of what we should expect in another round of constitution review. Since his inauguration, the President has used every opportunity (especially the usual solidarity visit of traditional rulers) to avow his commitment to providing constitutional responsibility for traditional rulers.
To show how powerful the presidency can be, the leadership of the National Assembly has also joined the choir to sing the presidential song. The Deputy Senate President, on condolence visit to Ibadan, alluded to the need to review the Constitution and provide constitutional responsibility for traditional rulers. To be sure, former President Obasanjo had earlier, in the last lap of his tenure, led a promotional campaign on the need to constitutionally empower traditional rulers. It was based on this, that some traditional rulers were appointed into the 2005 Political Reform Conference. At a point, he was said to have regretted not providing constitutional responsibility for traditional rulers in the 1979 Constitution when he was the Military Head of State. His effort was eventually consumed by his grandiose but futile attempt at tenure elongation.
Surprisingly, this proposal, then and now, is not being challenged or assessed by the critical segment of Nigerian society. It is almost taken as given, that traditional rulers deserve constitutional responsibility. Many have forgotten the circumstances and principles behind the seeming relegation of the traditional rulers in the contemporary governance structure. The traditional rulers have always played a strategic role in Nigerian politics. If not directly, as it was in the pre-colonial and colonial period, then by proxy; as grand “legitimizers” of all manners of governments the country has produced.
While there are compelling reasons for a review of the 1999 Constitution, it is absolutely unnecessary in contemporary Nigeria to create constitutional roles for traditional rulers. To do this is to compound the existing contradictions in our constitution. Against the particularistic and exclusive nature of traditional institutions, our society and constitution is republican, which espouses equality, freedom, democracy and popular sovereignty. The traditional political institution negates everything republican. It is a system built on discrimination and oppression. To bestow constitutional recognition on traditional rulers is to institutionalise discrimination, domination and oppression. For instance, except for a few societies in Nigeria, (I know of only one) traditional leadership is an exclusive preserve of a tiny section of a community. What is more, it is gender biased against women. For these people, their blood is blue!
Beyond our republican values and principles, the internal contradictions of this institution are enough to create another layer of crisis in the country. The traditional institutions have been part of our history of communal, ethnic or/and religious conflicts. Without listing examples, no part of Nigeria is immune to these spates of crises. Moreover, the institution is not uniformly developed. While some part of the country have highly developed and structured institutions, others are still loose and acephalous, with little or no national recognition for their leaders.
A brief peep into our recent history will tell us where we are coming from and what led us to where we are. The current condition of our traditional rulers is a reflection of the political struggle and internal contradiction of Nigerian ruling class right from the colonial period. The colonial state, more than any other political arrangement brought to fore the role of traditional rulers in modern governance process. With the conquest of territories that now constitute Nigeria; the British Colonial office developed a system of indirect rule, which was more or less a fusion of the indigenous authority and the Bonapartist colonial state. With this, although the pre-existing political systems were shattered, the indirect rule, particular the Native Authority system created a political structure that cemented class alliance between traditional officeholders and the European bureaucracy.
The Indirect Rule system emerged not as a sophisticated colonial initiative but a pragmatic necessity. It was a response to the demand for political stability and fiscal self-reliance. The central reason for the expansion of capitalism through colonialism was profit, and profit itself was, in turn, dependent upon expanded commoditization of production and ultimately production relations. Yet, if political stability was to be maintained, the political relations between the pre-capitalist ruling class and the subordinate peasants had to be made impervious to the tart of commercialisation. The necessity for forging class alliance between the colonialist and the traditional ruling class did not mean that the indigenous ruling class was kept intact. The British meddled constantly in dynastic politics, deposing and re-instating high-ranking palace officials with great regularity.
The collapse of the native authority system and the subsequent political relegation of traditional institutions is a result of concerted struggle of the ordinary people in all parts of the country on one hand and between the emerging counter elites and the traditional rulers on the other hand. In northern Nigeria, the struggle was exemplified by the politics of Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) and the Northern Peoples’ Congress (NPC). While the NEPU stood in opposition to the Native Authority system, the NPC developed a symbiotic relation with the traditional rulers – where the Emirs skilfully manipulated their institutional leverages to secure election for their candidates. The NPC politicians were in turn expected to protect the institution.
Even with the NPC, the relation was not without problem. As far back as 1950 (periods before the establishment of NPC), Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, in private motion in House of Assembly, courageously articulated the grievances of the people against the Native Authority system and by extension the traditional rulers, in a manner not expected of someone like him. He urged the House to recommend to the Governor, to investigate the Native administration in Northern Provinces and “make recommendations for its modernisation and reform”.
The immediate period before independence was the most dramatic. The crisis and distrust between the traditional rulers and the educated elites deepened. A lot of senior traditional rulers were deposed and exiled in response to different cases associated with opposition to the principles of electoral democracy and the new political dispensation. Among them were first class Emirs – Lamido of Adamawa, Ahmadu; the Shehu of Dikwa, Mustapha Ibn Sanda; the Emir Bauchi, Yakubu; the successive Emirs of Argungu Mohammadu Samaila and Mohammadu Sheshe and the Emir of Kano, Sanusi. In western Nigeria, similar deposition took place, an example being that of Oba Olateru-Olagbegi.
In 1962, Ahmadu Bello, the Premier of Northern Nigeria, apparently perturbed by the cases of insubordination by traditional rulers railed out his anger against the institution and even threaten to take decisive action against certain elements with the institution. In the Northern House of Assembly he warned that “let there be no misunderstanding, this government fears no local organisation (apparent reference to traditional institutions), it will carry out its duty and deal with any unit or individual who may try and oppose its policies and lawful directives…any one who tries to prevent us does so at his own peril”.
Periods before independence, various reforms directed at traditional institutions were carried out. The reforms culminated in the 1976 local government reform and the 1979 Constitution which finally closed the chapter on traditional rulers. Since then, the traditional rulers have developed different strategies for their survival and possible resurrection. Perhaps, the emerging situation is part of scheming of the traditional rulers for a possible revivification. However, the questions are, to come back to where and to do what? Have their role not been taken over by events and modern political structures? Are they still relevant in our contemporary political setting? Is the institution dead in the first place before we talk of revival?
Traditional institutions are remnants of the decadent pre-capitalist social formation that are only being sustained by a neo-conservative and underdeveloped capitalist political economy. To consider going traditional or providing constitutional recognition to these institutions is an admission of the increasing crisis of governance and failure of Nigeria “modern” ruling class. It is also an indication of the upsurge in the fusion of traditionalism and modernity in the social orientation of Nigerian ruling aristocracy.
Unlike the pre-colonial and immediate post colonial periods, the last three decades have witnessed a rather paradoxical boost in interest in traditional institutions. Consequently, more and more people who have contributed in building the modern state structures have decided to go traditional. Academics (including Professors), senior civil servants (retired and serving), military officials (including retired and serving generals) as well as professional groups have become traditional rulers of many parts of the country. Many of these rulers are now victims of the decaying system.
They have no clear responsibility, apart from receiving palace jesters and tourists, paying courtesy calls to politician and running their private businesses. The most senior ones among them have continued to play their traditional role of facilitating the expansion of capitalism as board chairs of multinational corporations, owners of mega-corporations and contractors. If some of these traditional rulers are redundant in current political arrangement, as imperfect as it may be, it is their choice. They should not be imposed on our constitution through Presidential or Parliamentary fiat. Those of them who have interest in politics should resign their positions and contest election and let the people decide.
Nevertheless, it is wrong in the first place to assume that traditional rulers have no legal recognitions. There are series of state and local government legislation (some dating back to colonial period) that still recognise the institution. Traditional rulers are appointed and/or recognised by the government and funded by public treasury without any element of accountability to the people. That is enough a problem! While these institutions might have played strong political and economic roles in the past, the institutional structures and responsibilities have long been replaced by modern state sub-structure. They are now surviving on patronage of those who control the apparatus of the state. The institution is to a large extent only being sustained as source of employment or vocation for retiring politicians, senior civil servants or military Generals. It has continued to survive on “cash for honour”, where members of the ruling class cough out anything to acquire spurious (honorary) traditional titles.
This is not to deny the contemporary communal relevance of the institution. The argument is that, the role of traditional rulers should remain communal because they are historically a product of pre-capitalist communal social formation. Looking at our contemporary political arrangements, it is not clear whether there is any convincing and acceptable basis or sources of constitutional legitimacy of traditional rulers. The fundamental question is, if given constitutional recognition, what will be the basis of their legitimacy? Religion, culture or tradition? If it is religion, traditional rulers are no longer the custodians of religious sanctity.
In northern Nigeria, where you have a historical or even theological fusion of religion and politics, the acrimonious shari’ah debate or debacle has shown that politicians and a section of the Ulama (Islamic scholars) are the actual custodians of contemporary Islamic discourse. The traditional rulers tactfully, rather opportunistically evaded the issue or at best timidly engaged it. In fact, when Ahmed Sani, then Governor of Zamfara state, was “lunching” the shari’ah, in 2000, almost all the major traditional rulers boycotted the event. This was not taken lightly by a section of Muslims, particularly the Shari’ah advocates.
While some of us had our reservation with the manner in which the politicians and a section of the Ulama handled the contentious religious issues, the failure of traditional rulers, whose responsibility is first to promote the course of Islam, has grossly eroded their religious legitimacy. In the southern part of the country, traditional religion, the source of legitimacy of most of the traditional rulers, have been submerged by Christianity and in some parts Islam. The dynamics of cultural and traditional practices have even made it more impossible for any traditional ruler to lay claim to them. Culture is a function of our political economy. From our pre-colonial, colonial and post colonial experiences, great lots of changes have occurred, with immense implications for the traditional political structure.
President Yar’Adua, as a traditional title holder (Muttawalen Katsina) is free to constitute an advisory body consisting of traditional rulers, but he should not impose them on our Constitution. However, should the President insist on carrying out his will, he should be ready to democratise the institution and allow for popular contest and control of traditional institutions. Alternatively, he could go through a more radical process of changing Nigeria from a “Federal Republic” to “Federal Kingdoms/Chiefdoms of Nigeria”. Even this may not be that easy for him, since it is not all parts of Nigeria that have a history of centralised traditional political institutions.
Nigeria will not be the first or last to be a monarchy, after all, there are still some so called advanced democracies with strong influence of monarchy. However, we need to remind the President that Nigerians made a conscious choice several years go; we collectively decided to be a Republic, even when we had the option of remaining in “kingdoms”. In Nigeria, there are no more subjects but citizens! In fact, we are yet to fully enjoy our citizenship. What the president should do is to expand the democratic space to make Nigerians fully enjoy their citizenship, not to shrink the space by subjecting us to monarchy after decades of republicanism.
Hussaini Abdu Is a political Economist and Analyst Based in Kaduna
|