Stunted at 63: Nigeria Needs A Political And Constitutional Settlement

 By Olu Fasan

Perfunctorily, Nigeria’s 63rd independence anniversary was marked earlier this week. Perfunctory, because it wasn’t a celebration of Nigeria’s success as a nation, but of its mere existence. Yet, the mere existence of a country is not a sufficient reason for celebration, but its strength, stability and progress, as well as the prosperity and well-being of its citizens.

Sadly, at 63, Nigeria is stunted politically, economically and socially. Even worse, as currently constituted, with its deeply flawed political and governance structures, Nigeria cannot escape from the rot. Yet, Nigeria’s political leaders are in denial, playing Russian roulette!

In his first Independence Day broadcast as president last Sunday, Bola Tinubu gave a flowery speech full of rhetorical flourishes but devoid of meaning and substance. Hear him: “Nigeria is remarkable in its formation and essential character. We are a broad and dynamic blend of ethnic groups, religions, traditions and cultures. Yet, our bonds are intangible, yet strong; invisible, yet universal.” As I wrote last week, such words would amuse George Orwell for their banality, vacuity and sophistry.

Yes, Nigeria is a diverse country, but why is the diversity a source of disunity, not unity, a source of instability, not stability? If “our bonds” are “strong” and “universal”, why have deep ethnic and religious divisions cracked and fissured Nigeria’s oneness? At no point in the speech did Tinubu talk about managing Nigeria’s diversity to promote national cohesion or mention political restructuring. Rather, he resorted to vacuous rhetoric: “Some people have said an independent Nigeria should never have come into existence. Some have said that our country would be torn apart. They are forever mistaken. Here, our nation stands and here we shall remain.”

Wait a minute, didn’t he once say that he did not believe in one Nigeria? In 1997, after being forced into exile by the Abacha regime, Tinubu granted an interview to ThisDay, which the newspaper published on April 13, 1997, with the headline: “I don’t believe in one Nigeria – Tinubu”. So, what changed? Power, of course. His Damascene conversion came about when power was within reach. But such double-speak erodes trust in leaders and their narratives.

Well, Tinubu wasn’t the only one sanguine and blasé about Nigeria. In their Independence Day messages, many political and religious leaders blithely said that “Nigeria will be great”, as if any nation ever became great merely through positive confessions. In James 2:17, the Bible says: “Even so faith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone.” 

Earlier this week, Professor Patrick Lumumba, the renowned Kenyan scholar, made the same point at a symposium, saying: “Africa won’t be liberated by prayer and fasting.” Of course, prayer and fasting matter hugely, but should be matched with actions or “works.” Every great nation combines faith with deliberate transformative actions.  

Which brings us back to Nigeria. Everyone agrees that Nigeria has great potentials, based on its large and young population, 70 per cent of which are under 30; its enormous natural resources; and its huge human talents, evidenced by the great exploits of individual Nigerians at home and abroad. However, there’s also a consensus that Nigeria has acutely poor leadership, and that its institutional structures – political, economic and social – are major obstacles to its unity, stability and progress. Unfortunately, the powerful vested interests that benefit from the current system continue to resist change. Yet, without restructuring and a new constitution, Nigeria faces a dire future of entrenched disunity, instability and stunted development.

That’s not a doomsday prognosis of a decline theorist. Nigeria’s current political system cannot engender national cohesion and harmony. Here’s a country where the struggle for political power is a Darwinian “survival of the fittest”, where bigger ethnic regions collude to exclude smaller ones from power. Here’s a country where someone secured 37 per cent of the total votes cast in a presidential election but controls 100 per cent of political power, ruling as he likes. 

Here’s a country where whichever party controls the centre controls all the institutions of state such that the electoral body, the judiciary, the security agencies, etc, are never truly independent and impartial. And here’s a country where too much power is concentrated, centralised and vested in an executive, freewheeling president.

Multi-ethnic, multinational countries rarely have the political system and constitution that Nigeria has. For instance, most operate a parliamentary or hybrid system, not Nigeria’s extremely costly and unsuitable presidential system. Most have a system of proportional representation and power sharing, not Nigeria’s winner-takes-all system. Most have strong and autonomous regional governments, not Nigeria’s multiple states, only few of which are viable on their own. Finally, most have a system of decentralised and devolved power, not Nigeria’s concentration and centralisation of power. The principle of subsidiarity says that decisions should always be taken closest to where they will have their effect. Thus, decentralisation of power is a common feature in multiethnic nations or federal systems.

But Nigeria’s has a malfunctioning political system and a deeply-flawed Constitution, hence it needs a new political and constitutional settlement. Rightly, there’s no appetite for another political and constitutional conference. Therefore, a reasonably-sized group of respectable Nigerians should be asked to pore over the reports of previous conferences and draw out proposals that could be consulted on and put to Nigerians in a referendum. Truth is, only a referendum about the future of Nigeria can engender a true sense of ownership. The National Assembly should legislate for such referendum and endorse its outcome.

Recently, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, advocated that the name “Nigeria” should be dropped, saying “it’s demeaning”. Indeed, it’s embarrassing that this country retains a name invented by Flora Lewis, a colonial editor of the Times of London and later wife of Nigeria’s first colonial governor, Frederick Lugard. Many independent nations have changed their colonial names. It was recently speculated that India would change its name to Bharat. The constitution already refers to “India, that is, Bharat”, and the Indian president sends letters to foreign leaders addressing himself as “President of Bharat”.

It’s time for a national conversation about Nigeria’s future, leading to a political and constitutional settlement. According to a UN report, “The political settlement is central to all development.” So, to avoid more decades of stunted development, Nigeria needs restructuring and a new constitution! But where’s the political leadership?

*Dr. Fasan is a commentator on public issues