BY OKORO NDUKWE
The quest for social order and political coherence has remained a recurrent issue in Nigeria’s political history. This quest is seen in the various constitutional and political conferences of past administrations from the era of military dictatorships to the current regime’s political democracy. But, in all of these conferences, including the recent planned one by the Jonathan administration, the concept of no-go areas was invoked, put-ting to question the real motive of the pro-ponents or organisers of these conferences.
No-go areas are discourse prohibitions within the context of a forum for national dialogue. These are subjects some do not like to talk about because talking about them will offend many people. Simply put, they are taboos. These offensive areas include feder-alism, religion, federal character, the funda-mental objective and directive principles of state policy, and separation of powers. In the current administration, presidential injunc-tion in the inaugural address forbids delegates from discussing these issues. The fundamental question is to ask why the conference was called for in the firstplace? Were delegates selected to discuss the dilapidated national infrastructure, the reestablishment of the quality of, and confidencein, Nigerian education, how to boost economic production and development, to reduce unemployment, improve health care, how to conduct transparent elections, prevent violent crimes, or what?
In fact, it appears that these subjects will preoccupy the conference as demonstrated by the various committees already formed by the delegates. These are duties of the Executive and legislative branches of government and their ancillary agencies.Delegates’ preoccupation with these per-functory issues means that existing institu-tions of policy and governance have failed in their duties. But at the same time, it is not clear what changes the debate of these issues will bring to Nigeria if the resulting sugges-tions are expected to be implemented in the present geo-political structure. Why would hundreds of delegates, many of them citizens of great accomplishments, be constrained from expressing their views on matters which many of them understand better than those in government? Explicit in the agitations of activists of a national conference are concepts such as geo-political restructuring, political decentraliza-tion, true federalism, and even confederation, all of which have been commonly used in recent years to describe alternative paths to Nigeria’s political future. The discourse pro-hibition imposed by former President Olusegun Obasanjo made his 2005 political reform conference more of a palliative, or even, a mere expressive act, than a surgery of the Nigerian problem. For example, Asari-Dokubo reportedly returned from peace talks with the president after mobilizing an armed group to destabi-lize his immediate constituency in the Niger Delta region. Nigerian law enforcement called Dokubo a gangster, a notorious crimi-nal and militant. But, his constituency gave him a hero’s welcome upon his return from the peace talks. Thousands of supporters, it was reported, lined the streets of Port Har-court airport to welcome him. Is it possible to avoid more cases like Dokubo’s without talking about structure? The present federal structure is unwieldy and deserves attention at the forum of the national conference. This conference should not be looked at from the standpoint of what class interests are served. It should rather be guided by what might be the likely consequences of our inability to do the right thing at a time our challenges are starring us in the face.
If actually our democracy will retain touch with those who elected the govern-ment- the touch that is necessary as a means of self-assessment and as a barometer of the people’s estimation of the government’s direction the national conference should be allowed to go in the direction of the people’s political will. We must give attention to the enormous problems that inhere from a widespread internal incoherence of the constituent units, such as when tribes, races and religions, among others, are forced together as units of the federation. We must seek solution to the fact that this situation is making it impossible for each to advance a uniform front in relations with others or adhere effectively for developmental purposes.
We need to devolve more extractive, productive and allocative powers to peripheral regions to own and tackle the challenges of their environment, each at its own pace. The more the destinies of the constituent parts are in their own hands, the more they brace up to tackle the resulting challenges arising from their social and economic environments. Hence, they will be better positioned to tap the social capital internal solidarities, reciprocities and cooperation and human capital (creative energies) for their own social and economic development.
So long as the current Nigerian government remains the focus and orbit of immense political and economic power, the presently weak satellite constituencies will continue to depend on it. And the centre, though itself has not shown capability as an agent of development, will remain a ready scapegoat on which to blame their failure to rise to the challenges of transforming their immediate domains socially and economically.
In a country where individual and sub-group sentimental attachments reside more in ethno-cultural enclave, than at the national realm, the centre is in-capacitated to make and implement development oriented policies. We must try to avoid the abandonment of principle and long term objectives, for immediate gains and short term calculations. We know such steps as above are usually being considered to favour our national interest. In societies in which public political affairs and governmental institutions are organized around the interests of the exploiting class, the national interest that would emerge would be an expression of that exploitation and injustice.
Nigeria’s national interest and the tactical manoeuvres promoting that purpose should also be taking into account the lingering problems of the national question the problems of evolving a just arrangement for the peaceful co-existence and integrated development of peoples of different, even, otherwise hostile, nationalities within the same polity- a microcosm of the problems facing the Nigerian state. Nigerians have come to love democracy and want it to endure.
To stifle free thought and speech in a matter as important as crafting a viable future for the country and its diverse peoples neutralizes this embrace of democracy by the Nigerian people. It is the right of Nigerians to discuss everything that affects their loyalty to their nation; that affects their right to citizenship. Nigerians should not be stopped from discussing what is worrying them.
The discourse prohibition hanging on the upcoming national conference is undemocratic and will only stand the true test of a dictatorship reminiscent of our past leader-ship regimes. Let us stop deceiving ourselves and face squarely the problems of Nigeria on a round table
•Ndukwe writes from Aba