The issue of how best to develop our society has lingered for too long and this is already leading to unintended consequences, few of them positive but far greater majority negative and life threatening. On the positive side would be the fact that more than ever before we have arrived the point we agree we have real challenges. The leadership class, especially those who hold peripheral advantage, now know it is not a word of mouth to ask citizens to stand for unity of their society, that leaders indeed have a cardinal responsibility to make the society stand for the people. This is very crucial. 

Thanks to circumstances that conspired to exert some measure of pull, else our leadership class would have remained in their vain journey round a big mountain hauling their usual gratitious insults at us and fiddling while the society keeps burning. Thank God there is a new dawning. What we thought would take more time to be, is here at last, dawn of new awarekening; and if I were to offer a personal view on this development I would say it is good omen for the people and the larger society. One of the banes of development in our space has been the erroneous act of successive leadership groups playing the ostrich. The things they see and experience are not only bad but shameful, yet they turn away their faces still shouting loudest that all is well. Now circumstances have forced a reverse order. Suddenly everyone tends to agree there is fire on the mountain. Nothing is as useful as coming to terms with a problem. Something tells me a sustainable solution is on the way.This is positive.

The negative angle comes from the knowledge that things have gone from bad to worse. Situations that would not have been, if our leaders allowed good reason to prevail, now assault us dangerously. It is good to draw to mind that our leaders have always told us unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable; difficult to say how such stiff position can apply to a human settlement. Now we all can see that the greatest weapon on earth is not any of the most lethal weapons of mass destruction developed by men through science. Rather, it is the will of a people. I learnt in primary school right there in my very rural village when education had quality that “where there is a will, there must be a way” no matter what obstacles come on the way. In Vietnam, America had weapon advantages but they pulled out in shame and disgrace with far greater costs in terms of human lives. This is  what the will of a people can do, will of a people will defy odds, and that is exactly why leaders in saner climes hold tenaciously to tenets of credible democracy.

A section of our leadership class discontenanced this truth, which is vital in building a virile country before a nation-state and the consequences are here proving too costly to bear or handle. We took on the appellation, Giant of Africa. See us, see a giant! A giant that has clay feet. Walking that ought to be very natural, and pleasant too, has become a huge challenge. When a people miss the mission for the time they become objects of scorn and derison. That is our lot currently. One of the nastiest after-effects of our dillydallying can found in the rise of a plethora of voices, very discordant, each with its own vision for the “New Nigeria” we want to see and asserting same as the superior model. The danger in all of this are the impure motives embedded in many of them.

The Northerners, holders of advantage currently, are a bit lethargic, they know what the time demands but they hold on in hope time will weary concerns; this is natural. The while in power gave them undeserved advantages from many angles: balkanisation of political administrative architecture, unfair and in some cases uneconomic location of national corporations and assets, then anti-national constitution, among others. Nobody or group in advantage or power deliberately sets out to diminish himself or themselves except circumstances force them to so do. Now situations are ramming it home that the North can’t keep things the way they are for too long without a boomerang. And if they insist, the probability to lose all is high, so it is projecting devolution, ceding powers and programmes to states without radical altering of the super structure. Can this stand? Would this work?

Related News

In talking about devolution, the concentration is on non-critical areas. For instance, education, water supply and agriculture can be made the responsibilty of states but not policing or fiscal federalism. It is like one who is hungry, the wealthier person gives out bread but holds on to productive capacity. Call it illusion of grandeur and you are right. How many diverse units want this to be so? Would devolution make such arrangement a federal order which is most suitable for a plural state like ours? Recall federalism was the basis for coming together in the first place. North Central, South East, South South and South West want restructuring, semi-autonomy and the question remains: would restructuring without dialogue make sense since it is not likely to evoke same meaning for all except a dialogue precedes it during which all the sections have the opportunity to take part in definition and outlining of terms? This is exactly where we are currently.

Two weeks ago the Covenant Christian Centre, led by Pastor Poju Oyemade, a popular Lagos Pastor, the 15th edition of The Platform, it’s annual lecture, where they attempt providing solutions to our problems. I saw the hands of revionists in that outing. The key speakers were veiled agents of the current group in power. They had two faces hence their presentatiinsy were full of prevarications. They were neither here nor there. Charles Omole approved devolution but wasn’t sure if we have credible hands to push it. To him “those who kill local governments can’t be credible advocates of devolution of powers.” He wants a new elite group. He will have to go to Ghana or elsewhere to recruit political players. Who knows?

Segun Adeniyi endorsed restructuring, but he didn’t say how we could arrive on the nature since some claim ignorance of what restructuring should stand for. Chidoka thought it was about quality leadership; he too didn’t say if good leadership is enough to make Igbo, for instance, forget the reckless acts of the military  which produced a minority out of a majority group. Would the local governments created arbitrarily still remain basis for sharing national wealth? With so much sulphur in a system, isn’t it capable of hindering or even killing the seed? Is there no correlation between structure and emergence of quality leadership? Chidoka didn’t answer these questions. Renowned lawyer, Olisa Agbakoba, hit the nail on the head: “Is restructuring or devolution the solution for now? He answered the question with a resounding  No. I agree. He gave reasons to which I subscribe.

“We must resolve disorder before Constitutional order,» doesn›t this make more sense? An entity is established before the rules, putting the horse before the cart. «Boko Haram in the north, self-determination in the East, piracy in South South, low oil price, low trade and civil disorder. The big question is: how did we get to become Nigeria? Do we want to be in Nigeria? If we want, then by what political arrangement. Union by force can’t work,” Agbakoba posited. I find rationalization and sense in this.

Our challenges are simple but a few in critical places choose to make them complex and intractable. Too bad. The truth is, no one grows while holding the other down; the holding party must have to bend and remain so. It takes two to agree to work together. Force can only provoke destruction before order. No sane person would choose to walk this path. No need delaying. We can have our society back to great life in four months if we are serious.