Inefficient National Assembly necessitated confab —Professor Mimiko

Oluwafemi Mimiko is a Professor of Political Science and Vice Chancellor, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, Ondo State, who is also a delegate at the ongoing national conference. In this interview with FEMI IBIROGBA, he speaks on issues concerning co-existence, development and unity of Nigeria. Excerpts:

 

ADVERTISEMENT

What progress do you think the confab has been able to achieve given the critical challenges facing the nation?
It is a great step forward that Mr President accepted to allow the conference to hold in the first instance, in spite of the strong opposition of some entrenched forces across the country, who for different reasons, just did not want the conference. Now talking about achievement, an assessment of this can only be undertaken at the conclusion of the assignment, especially when you talk in terms of the critical challenges facing the nation. By its nature, the conference cannot solve any of the well-known challenges mid-way into its work. The simple reason is that Nigeria’s problems are fundamental and require quite some courage on the part of the ruling elite to address
them.
Unfortunately, what many people tout as the problems are just mere manifestations, mere symptoms, if you will, of a fundamentally iniquitous arrangement that cannot but reproduce crises, instability, violence, and desperation for power on the part of politicians. This is the challenge of the inappropriate governance structure that was imposed on the nation years ago by the military and consummated by the 1999 Constitution. Forcing people who have their specific cultural attributes and peculiar governance forms to fit into a highly centralised political system that does not admit of local variations cannot work for the system. What is more, it has promoted so much lop-sidedness in the distribution of privileges that people who have been short-changed are bound to feel alienated.
Unfortunately, a more pro-active National Assembly would have helped so much to take out some of the more obnoxious parts of the 1999 Constitution and make what remains not just acceptable to a preponderance of the population, but also guarantee stability and development. In fact, it is the lethargy of the National Assembly in the Constitution amendment exercise that made the National Conference imperative in the first instance. The National Assembly, especially the House of Representatives, is so diminished by partisan politicking that it lost the momentum for a robust constitutional amendment and thereby has become part of, rather than a solution to the problem. Now look at what the security situation has degenerated into, because we could not manage the problem of deep social alienation ravaging the land.
How would you rationalise or itemise the key problems facing the country?
Nigeria’s major problem derives from the fact that the governance system is not in consonance with the structure and reality of the nation. This is a highly heterogeneous polity that can only admit of a federal constitution, but which, unfortunately, we pretend we can govern with a unitary contraption of a constitution. And with the high concentration of power and resources at the centre, you cannot have healthy competition; but only corruption, inefficiency, lop-sidedness, etc. So, unless and until we get the structure right, Nigeria will continue to move around like the proverbial barber’s chair from one crisis to another. There is hardly any chance whatsoever of stability, economic efficiency and enthronement of creativity. Those who refuse to acknowledge the need for this fundamental change, call it restructuring, if you will, for me, are the real enemies of a renascent Nigeria.
How do you mean?
You now have a situation in which most Nigerians are alienated. This is the fundamental basis of all of these challenges, corruption, insecurity, instability, loss of creativity, etc. The on-going insurgency, for instance, is but an armed critique of the Nigerian system, not of [President Goodluck] Jonathan. Whatever would make a young man to choose to be a suicide bomber, a kidnapper or an armed robber or ritual killer is all like a protest movement against a system that has left so many people behind. Yes, there could be and indeed are trigger-factors for the violence – political you may say, by people who believe they can thereby force the president to abdicate, but the fundamental alienation that define the relationship of the average Nigerian to Nigeria cannot be marginalised in any serious analysis. In the circumstances, particular presidents can only do so much. They can only try, the structures of governance constitutes a permanent sabotage to good governance. And let me add that I cannot see how using terrorism to force this president out of office will enhance the cause of Nigeria. Indeed, that would simply herald the end of governance for the country, and the process I once referred to in an article after the 2007 heist as somalianization of Nigeria would then be on our hands. It is scary!
Do you agree with people that say Nigeria’s problem is not the Constitution but the operators?
Nigerians are a funny people. Even people who have not bothered to read the Constitution would readily say that, perhaps because it sounds well in the ears. But the truth is that a constitution is the ground norm of a nation. It is the instrument, the framework by which it is governed. So, how then do you say the constitution is not important? It is like saying well, this non-performing vehicle that has a warped engine, the problem is not the engine but in the driver! If the structure is faulty, it goes without saying that the outcome, the performance would fall below expectation. The reasonable, responsible and acceptable thing to do when you are faced with the reality of a highly plural entity like Nigeria is to allow for some form of unity, progress in diversity. If you have the opposite, the permanent consequence is non-performance. Simplicita!
What form and structure of government is best for Nigeria, in view of its peculiar diversity and past political experience in the first and second republics and why?
You have just made the point. In view of the nation’s diversity, it is a federal system, not just in name, but indeed. I have heard some people say, after all, a unitary constitution worked in Britain, but they forget that not too many countries of the world have the level and nature of the diversity we have in Nigeria, certainly not Britain. So, what the reality you have dictates is a federal constitution. Anything to the contrary would sentence Nigeria to a lifetime of non-performance. Now when we talk of federalism, we should go further to tease out the elements. Number one, you must identify and proclaim what constitutes the federating units. If you do, say states or provinces or geo-political zones, you can then not wake up and say you are creating states. We must agree on some few commonly-binding powers over which the central government would have authority. All others are regarded as residual left in the hands of the federating units. If you have this, it goes without saying that you also devolve resources. A situation in which the central government continues to have about 52 per cent of the distributable resources is not justifiable.
Again, you can in the circumstances of true federalism no longer have local governments listed in the Constitution as if they are federating units.
Rather, each federating unit would be free to do what it likes with its local government system. If you like, you can create a hundred of them in one day. That is why they are local. They cannot and should not continue to be the basis for sharing from the Federation Account. Fiscal federalism is also key. The ultimate objective is to have 100 per cent resource control. But the Ondo delegation shall be suggesting that you could have an intervening period of 10 years during which non-oil states would be allocated funds to develop their own mineral resources, so that at the end of the intervening period, every federating unit takes over its resources and merely contributes to the centre. Of course, you will have to have a Federal Police, existing side-by-side with State Police, and an armed forces establishment with a regional command and recruitment and deployment pattern.
Which should be our major preoccupation now: 2015 elections or a new constitution?
Of course, it should be the constitution. The question you would ask is, didn’t we have elections in 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011; why have we not had stability? Why is it that all the democratisation programmes we have had in this country have collapsed? Holding elections with a constitution that has been found to be fundamentally inappropriate would just postpone the evil day. Why is there so much interest in the presidency, for instance?
When people say Jonathan should not run in 2015, they are not just being truthful to themselves. What would the man tell his people in the Niger Delta as his reason for not running when there is hardly any chance of them being president for a very long time again? And do they expect him to run and lose? These are realities that derive from an iniquitous system that is sustained by a constitution that has taken flight from reality.
Unless, therefore, we have a new constitution giving vent to the appropriate governance structure emplacing a system in which people who do not control the central government can do their own thing without being fundamentally disadvantaged, in which there is no lop-sidedness, we cannot be back on track.
Won’t it be proper and fair to allow the next president come from the North, as the South has dominated the political space since 1999?
Democracy is about numbers. Yet, all democracies are pacted, that is they are negotiated. I sincerely cannot see any reason why the incumbent president cannot run and present his scorecard before the voters. I cannot see any reason. So, if he presents and he is accepted, so be it. That does not preclude northern candidates from running – that is the beauty of democracy – free entry into any elective race. And mind you, it is not just about the presidency again. A student of mine once asked me why it would seem that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has to come from a particular region. He said to me, teacher, this is what I have observed, why is this so? So, there is no end to the argument. That is why a constitution that takes so much out of the central government and makes the federating units the locus of power and resources is what we need.
You can then be contented being a regional governor or premier rather than going to the centre. This is what the eminent Sardauna (Sir Ahmadu Bello) did at independence. He chose to remain as premier of the Northern Region and sent his deputy, (Alhaji Tafawa) Balewa, to Lagos to be Prime Minister. That is the beauty of a true federal system.
You were quoted to have advocated at plenary the right to bear and keep weapons. What is the argument?
The day after I spoke at plenary, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) interviewed me, and the focus of the interview was this question you just asked. My position is simple. As things are today in Nigeria, apart from the weapons in the hands of the security forces, most weapons out there are in the hands of criminals, and this has made it possible for them to ride roughshod over our lives. Now, the issue is why should the people who choose to obey the laws of the land be so disadvantaged? I am persuaded that freedom is greatly circumscribed in a situation in which only criminals have weapons. Let every responsible, educated, employed and mentally balanced Nigeria have the right to bear and keep weapons, and the security situation will greatly improve. That is the argument, and we shall see how far we shall be able to push it. It is one thing I want in the new constitution. But this is not to say every Nigerian should hold a weapon. No. We envisage a strict eligibility criteria, such that only those who ordinarily will not commit an offense against the nation would have access to these short guns and would be free to carry such around, and for self-defence only. Any offensive use of such a weapon would deny you of the right, forever, to hold such a weapon again.