Reconstituting the Nigerian Federation

By

Kòmbò Mason Braide, Ph.D.

kombomasonbraide@msn.com

Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

Wednesday, 25 August 2004 @ 7:34 pm.

A Historical Fast Rewind:

It may seem rather callous and gratuitous to suggest that federalism in Nigeria has been a façade for indigenous colonialism, and a convenient tool for mutually assured destruction, via aggressive resource parasitism. All the same, federalism had a certain reality of its own which was reflected in the British colonial government’s assessment that, at least, a formal federal structure was necessary for the sustenance of a Nigerian nation, post-amalgamation.

The failure of successive military juntas in Nigeria to do away with the trite and oxymoronic label of “Federal Military Government”, while subliminally operating, and maintaining rigorously monolithic “unitary” governments, throughout the 29 cumulative years of dictatorship that they visited on Nigerians, post-1966, has further aggravated the confusion about what exactly led to the current dysfunctional state of the Nigerian Federation. While the Federal Republic of Nigeria may have been a charade, both as a federation, and as a republic, definitely, the concept of federalism has played a decisive role in the country’s history over the past 50 years. Indeed, Nigeria’s future cannot be completely de-coupled from federalism of some sort. However, the precise form that Nigeria’s federalism will take in the future is not clear yet. Our task is to proffer workable suggestions in the urgent business of reconstituting the Nigerian federation, for the better.

The concept of a confederation, which incidentally once had the distinction of being the original form of federalism in pre-World War II Europe, simply disappeared with the rise of the modern nation-state. In its place came the concept of “federation”: a form of government by which a country presents itself to the outside world as a single nation-state, while internally, there are constitutionally defined and consensually agreed power-sharing, and resource management mechanisms among its constituent territorial units: i.e. states, and local governments. Maybe, someday, somehow, the Nigerian federation will metamorphose into some curious blend of unitary, confederal and federal arrangements. Who knows? Maybe… Maybe not.

The essence of a modern federation is that matters such as diplomatic affairs and defence against external aggression, are the exclusive preserve of the federal government, while most domestic issues are left to the constituent states, and local governments to handle. While, on paper, the Obasanjo (1979), and Abubakar (1999) Constitutions of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provided for the constituent states to play seemingly significant roles in their internal affairs, in reality, the blatant micro-management, and suffocating domination of all spheres of governance, (at the federal, state, local government, and even feudal levels), by Aso Rock Villa, Abuja, makes such a provision horribly fraudulent.

Since World War II, the world has witnessed the revival of confederal arrangements of sorts. States have confederated, not by forming a single overarching, “indivisible”, or “indissoluble” government, but through specific “agencies”, or “authorities”, established as desired, to which the member states transferred part of their sovereignty, so as to enable them to undertake the tasks that they collectively agreed, and assigned to themselves, in a kind of resource co-production pact. In contrast, the Nigerian pseudo-federation is characterised by a “national cake sharing” mentality: a sordid euphemism for the shamelessly parasitic short-changing of weaker entities by bleeding them of their assets.

The European Union (EU), for example, has been moving, even if slowly, but at least, steadily, in the direction of a more comprehensive confederation: a confederation of “sovereign” states, among who are the originators of the concept and philosophy of the once sacrosanct “nation-state”. Other such confederal arrangements are developing in different parts of the world: e.g. the West Indies, and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Similar possibilities exist within the Nigerian Federation., and the West African sub-region. At the very least, we expect that the sham federation of Nigeria will be replaced by a true Nigerian federation, sequel to steps to be taken in negotiating a brand new federal treaty with (viable constituent units of) suitably qualified ECOWAS nations.

Despite the predictable tensions between, and among them, Nigerians still have enough in common, regardless of passions associated with past repressions, and long-sought independence from an over-bearing “federal might’. In the meantime, there are signs that whatever arrangements may be established to link Nigeria’s disparate groups, the Nigerian federation should follow the EU model of single or/and multi-purpose authorities, rather than a centralised government, disguised as a federation. Not only is this reasonable, but it is probably the best possible way, through sharing where necessary, without threatening the liberties of individual interests, and groups.

Comparative Federalism:

One singular political change in 21^st century USA has been a movement from a territorially based politics, to a politics that mixes territorial elements and group interests. Although, sometimes both sets of priorities benefit one another, sometimes they tend to be at cross-purposes. The situation is different in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, where ethnic politics is so intimately coupled with territory. Unlike the in United States of America, where people can change identities, in Nigeria, people tend to see themselves, or see others as fundamentally, and primordially hard-wired to an ethnic baseline of reference, from generation to generation. No matter where they are, no matter where they might go, no matter their political fortunes, no matter their affluence, or the gravity of their social handicaps, these differences are unfortunately significant in the Nigerian context, and should not be underestimated. In Nigeria, ethnicity is a permanent tag.

The world is now beginning to realise that there are several variants of federalism. Because the United States of America pioneered modern federalism, most Americans believe that there is federalism, and there is confederation, a different species of political organisation. In Nigeria, some groups may have to experiment with federation, while others may need to try out confederal arrangements. Every Nigerian ethnic group has its unique historical experiences. Nigerians also have a certain collective memory, in many circumstances forced upon them, as members of a group. Every society has to develop its own system of self-government, through some combination of its experiences, reflection and choice.

Western Europe, the home of the absolutely sacrosanct “sovereign nation-state”, has, since the end of World War II, revived the idea of confederal arrangements, initially through a number of very limited treaties, which were, by design, described as functional, rather than federal, so as not to frighten cynics. As recently as the mid-1970s, the survival of the EU was doubtful. Today, the issue with the European Union (EU) is not whether it is a real confederation now, but whether it is going to become a federation in the future. All this was achieved in little more than a quarter of a century.

The 36 states of the Nigerian federation face similar challenges: i.e. the central government at Abuja must try and link sub-national entities that were pre-existing, even if only for a short time, in terms of their claim to political sovereignty. These entities often are hostile to one another, but have a certain need to undertake certain tasks in common. Today, the world is not given to establishing new federations, rather, of restructuring political arrangements among existing states. While the Nigerian federation may not yet be structurally optimised, it has elements of becoming, a better federal arrangement. It is too early to tell what it will become. Ultimately, Nigeria will have to work its way out of its present pseudo-federal predicament.

Globally, no federation that was freely entered into, that has lasted for at least fifteen (15) years, has ever failed on its own accord. However, the Soviet, Yugoslav, and Nigerian federations were imposed, either by external colonial fiat, or by indigenous military force. The results speak for themselves. What constitutes “freely entered into”, or “consensual”, may be a matter of semantics and debate, but no such federation has failed of its own accord. Some federations may have been eliminated by outside conquest, but wherever the people consensually CHOSE a federal political organisation, they have generally stayed with it. As the Federal Republic of Nigeria makes new beginnings in pursuit of genuine federalism, Nigerians may be cynical. Nevertheless, we are hopeful that, in their relations with one another, Nigerians will be able to move Nigeria from a failed federation, panel-beaten by brute force, in the past, to a republican and democratic federation of consenting equals, in the future.

The “Cat-and-Mouse” battle continues.

Kòmbò Mason Braide (PhD)

Wednesday, 25 August 2004 @ 7:34 pm

Appendix:

Designing A Comprehensive Federal Constitution For Dummies (Volume 4Q):

We will attempt to emphasise those principles of constitutional design that are most appropriate for Nigerians to consider. Some are conceptual, others hypothetical, and still others very practical indeed.

The first query to be raised is the question of fundamental rights, and individual liberties: Is the local, state, or federal government the best to protector guarantee the individual rights and liberties of Nigerians?

It depends on whom you want to protect. The American position is that, if one wants to protect people who are different, people who deviate from a local paradigm, then, indeed a federal government entity can do that job better. But today, there is the question in the United States of America as to whether needed local consensus is not at the mercy of every social deviant who comes along and claims his or her perceived constitutional rights. This is particularly important where national, or group rights and interests are involved, because people obviously care very passionately about their national rights even if those national rights might be interpreted in another environment as going against their individual rights. Look at what was once Yugoslavia, and you will appreciate the problem. Americans have been able to do that simply because they had a very dominant consensus in protecting the deviant individual than they are in protecting any kind of collective rights. This is emphatically not the case in Nigeria.

Fundamental democratic theory holds that, in federal systems, the people, in their various forms, delegate their powers to governments: i.e. to local, state, and/or federal governments as necessary. Under the theory of democratic republicanism, especially in a federal democracy, all governments are ONLY governments of delegated powers. None possess powers in their own right. In other words, power that can be delegated, can also be reassumed, transferred, reorganised, or shifted, as necessary.

First of all, Nigerians, especially those involved in the business of designing constitutions, must jettison the idea of Nigeria as an abstract, and sacred entity, as something that exists in, and of itself, regardless of its people; regardless of their peculiar realities, and predicaments. Nigerians, influenced, first, by their respective pre-colonial histories, then by British colonialism, and then, taken to ransom for some 29 years, by their country’s indigenous militaristic totalitarian expression, are quite fixated on the idea of the Nigerian nation as a reified, “united”, “indivisible”, and “indissoluble” entity. In fact, the task of Nigerian democratic republicanism is how to make Nigerians to see themselves as the real source of the political power wielded recklessly by their “representatives” in government.

This is a conceptual matter of immense importance, as it permits the distribution and separation of powers. If the central government is “sovereign”, then it decides if, and how power should be distributed and allocated, if it so chooses, and in fact, remains the final point of sovereignty where authority and power come together. Thus, the state, which, for all intents and purposes, means the power elite that controls the politics of the country, determines who grants or guarantees rights, or/and determines the final organisation of powers.

However, if the people are sovereign, then all rights, authority and power reside in them, and government is merely a vehicle for the expression of such powers. Since rights are inherent, people are inherently protected, and rights do not come to them as a gift from some benevolent external entity called “government”.

Nigerians will have to choose to build sub-federations within the existing states. We believe that probably two or three geopolitical zones (i.e. the South-South, North Central and the South East) need to evolve and establish workable internal sub-federations. The situation today in Plateau State, or the putative situation in the Niger Delta, means that they are not likely to succeed where a good part of those territories are directly under the control or under the direct control of the government at Abuja.

When Spain made its transition to democracy in the late 1970s, it decided to grant autonomy, not just to Catalonia, and the Basque region, but to divide the country into all of its historical regions, and to give each region similar powers, so that the whole country would be divided into constituent governments. Although Spain is not quite a full federation on paper or in theory, but, in practice, it is. Galicia may not want as much autonomy as Catalonia, but that is its choice. Madrid may want even less than Galicia, but that is its choice. CHOICE is a critical element for creating the basic symmetries required in federal systems. Spain is an excellent model because it has developed some symmetrical federations that could answer similar needs in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Defining & Distributing Powers For Complete Idiots:

The constituent units of a federation need to have real power, including real powers of taxation. These may be implemented in the way that is done in the United States of America where they have parallel federal and state officials in institutions working throughout the USA. In Switzerland, the federal government utilises the institutions of the constituent units to implement federal legislation, and has not tried to establish its own institutions throughout the country. What is necessary is that real powers have to be constitutionally allocated, and protected among governments.

Federalism works through a combination of competition and cooperation. Cooperative federalism was the norm in the USA shortly after the adoption of the Constitution of 1787. A proper balance between cooperation and competition is crucial. However, both will always exist. What makes them work is a decent respect for the concerns of the other polity, through open bargaining, and open government. Worldwide, the key success factor of democratic systems is that bargaining should be sufficiently open, and accessible to the vast majority of people who choose to make use of that access, and that it is visible Because federalism requires CONSENT, is a slower way to get results. However, its results last longer. Sometimes a quick fix seems to be possible, by the use of force, or by forceful intervention. In the long run, consensus has the ability of generating a wider and deeper desire to support the result.

The history of the American confrontation with the problem of the rights of Blacks and other non-White minorities is a case in point. Americans used a combination of federal processes and the coercive power of the federal government, and the result is that, today, there is sufficient change of heart among Americans in all parts of the USA to make the support for civil rights much stronger. Consensus is especially difficult when it comes to ethnic federations. However, some of the problems of unfavourable political culture can be creatively overcome if there is sufficient political will.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, accidents of history have their role to play as well. Some have to do with the kind of leadership that appears. One wonders whether Yugoslavia would have been plunged into civil war if there had not been a certain kind of leader in Serbia at that particular time of that country’s history. But these are the accidents of history over which we have relatively little control. On the other hand, proper leadership is necessary for federalism to succeed.

Whether federal or not, there needs to be a distribution of powers. The entity that we call the “Federal Government”, is constituted by smaller entities serving what we call states or local governments. The sum total is a matrix of governments, with the federal government as the framing institution, within which there are states, and within those states, others called local governments.

There also needs to be a separation of powers within government: executive, legislative, and judicial. There have been efforts on the part of those inspired by certain forms of democracy to eliminate the separation of powers. They have not worked. Indeed, the trend has gone back to making the separation of powers rigid, in order to preserve democracy.

Finally, there is the protection of the individual rights of Nigerians. “Civil society” is a term that teaches us that not all of society is political, that there is a large private sphere, separate from government. The idea of a “civil society”, and/or of limited government cannot be overemphasised. The term itself is an invention of 17^th century political philosophy that teaches us that no society exists without a government. Concurrently, government must be limited so that there is a sufficient private sphere.

Indeed, in the most successful democracies, civil society is where people voluntarily come together (truly voluntarily, not coerced voluntarism), to do as much as possible on a cooperative basis, on a co-production basis, before turning to government. Government does only what cannot be done privately, or through the public non-governmental civic sector.