OPINION: A ROUND-PEG-IN-A-SQUARE-HOLE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN NIGERIA - Babatunde Solomon JOHNSON

Babatunde Solomon JOHNSON

    It is a well-known fact that Nigeria is a country made up of many tribes, summing up to not less than 250 ethnic groups and 500 languages. In this kind of country which is an apt description of an extremely pluralized society, inter-ethnic conflict, which may be birthed by such situations as tribalism, ethnocentrism, genocide, xenophobia, and favoritism, among others, is inevitable. This has been a major concern of various administrations that have assumed the helm of affairs of the country since her emergence (amalgamation) through this present moment.

    Before independence, various constitutional reviews were evolved by the British Colonial Government to ensure an effective administration of the country. One of these constitutional reviews was the adoption of a federal structure of government, having the Arthur Richards Constitution of 1946 that introduced regionalism as its antecedent, aimed at ensuring unity in diversity among various segments in the country.

At independence, the struggle continued. Nigeria maintained a federalist structure whereby the constitution gave a legal provision for decentralized power and authority between the central government and the component units of the country. The federal structure since independence and all through the first republic (    1963-1966) was based on regional politics. The regions were the northern, eastern, and western regions. The existence of these three regions is a clear indication that there were three obvious factions in the country. These divisions were even visible in the membership and agenda of the political parties that existed during that time.

    For instance, there was the Northern People's Congress (NPC) which was formed out of a cultural organization known as Jamiyaar Mutanem Arewa and had its membership predominantly from the northern part of the country. There was the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) having its membership mostly from the eastern part of the country. There was also the Action Group (AG) in the western region which was formed out of the Egbe Omo Oduduwa and was predominantly occupied by the westerners.

    None of these political parties had a national outlook. Although, some argued that the formation of NCNC by a nationalist leader – Herbert Macauley – gave it a national outlook but the truth is that it only portrayed a national outlook in the name it bears but not in its membership and agenda.

    Hence, the political parties had their stand in the parliament based on the region they covered. In other words, all members constituting each of the political parties in the parliament represent each region in the country. This is visible in the composition of the parliament. In the words of Bamiduro (1982), “political representation in the Federal Parliament was on a regional basis and electoral seats were apportioned based on population figures.”

    For instance, there were a total number of 312 legislative seats in the Federal House of Representatives in the 1959 federal election. The NPC from the north was allotted 174 seats (56%) amounting to more than half of the total seats in the federal parliament because of their population and size, while the NCNC was allotted 73 (24%) seats and AG from the west had 62 (20%) seats.

    From the simple majority vote on any national matter that was put in place, it is indubitable that the NPC had a very strong majority to determine what national matters would be passed or not. In other words, irrespective of whether the other party members (and of course, regional representatives) in the parliament support it or not, they have enough majority to pass or delay any issue in the house. This specter of fear of domination aroused by “disproportional representation”  in the name of regional security had brought up different riots and crises in the country.

    To remedy this mess, Nigeria had witnessed various political instabilities such that there has been a shift from a parliamentary system of government to a presidential system of government and a shift from a civilian government to a military government. Despite these shifts, every attempt made at ensuring a true unity in diversity had been an effort yielding less-desired results.

    A major crisis that almost tore the nation apart was the attempt of some part of the East called Biafra, to secede from Nigeria on May 30, 1967, by the then Lieutenant Colonel Ojukwu which eventually culminated into a very bloody civil war that lasted for approximately 3years between July 6, 1967, and January 15, 1970. Nigeria also witnessed a very high rate of militancy from the Movement for the Emancipation of Niger-Delta (MEND) in 2006 resulting in massive killing and abduction of innocent Nigerians and foreigners in the East (Niger-Delta region precisely) during the Yar'Adua/Jonathan-led administration before the creation of the Ministry of Niger-Delta in 2008 and the introduction of the amnesty program to bring peace back to the region and the nation at large.

    But the bitter truth is that the problem emanated from the unscrupulous amalgamation of obviously distinct peoples and territories. The hole has been made already and the way out is to make a suitable cover i.e. the way out. Having tried the parliamentary system of government and presidential system of government and they both seem not working out or not yielding the desired result, it is now requisite to restructure our way of governance in a pattern that suitable for us only, as opposed to seeing countries like USA and Britain as our model, so we can develop at our own pace. I am not in any way detesting the fact that we should not look forward to being like them but my agitation is that we need not follow their pattern.

    My stand is on the basis that looking at these countries, particularly Britain who colonized us and gave us their model as our pattern of governance and the USA that all developing countries are looking forward to, they are both homogeneous countries. The way policies work in those countries can be based on the fact that their segments are well taken care of in governance. The same policy can never succeed in a heterogeneous country like Nigeria because we have a lot of measures to put in place and we have a lot of segments that we need to put into consideration. For instance, President Joe Biden can take decisive action on any issue and it will be justified on the basis that it is for the good of the whole Americans. But if such a decision is made in Nigeria by President Buhari, he will be criticized based on being a Fulani man.

    Take the case of the murder of a black American (George Floyd) by a white police officer (Derek Chauvin) for instance. The issue almost tore the USA apart (despite the pandemic) and more than that is what we have been trying to deal with in Nigeria for years. This implies that the USA is not in any way better or more adept in dealing with tribalism and racism than Nigeria. Just recently, under the erstwhile Trump-led administration, the American government tried to review their constitution and came up with a policy that there will no longer be an automatic award of citizenship to any child brought in pregnant by an immigrant of America.

This is a proactive measure towards curbing a future menace that half-caste or tribalism may bring upon the country. Currently, there are white Americans and black Americans (Afro-Americans), yet they find it difficult to deal with it without crises. Do you think it would be much better if they are also a plural society like Nigeria?

    Let me then draw our attention to the fact that the Americans structured their government and country based on their needs. I believe if they were plural societies like us, they must have devised a very apt system of government and structure that will accommodate all their segments or differences.

The reverse is the case in Nigeria because we only want to be like them but we do not have what it takes to be like them. If we can develop a structure that will accommodate our differences, we will surely do well and our resources and energy will be dissipated on other important things rather than on settling tribal, ethnic, and religious crises. Thus, there will be a round peg suitably fitting a round hole. In much clearer terms, there will be a suitable political structure accommodating our similarities and differences.