By Itaobong Offiong Etim
THE verve with which Nigerians are pontificating on the need for the country to be restructured is loud enough for even the deaf to hear. There seems to be a renaissance of some sort or a discovery of a panacea needed to solve the nations hydra-headed problems of under-development. l watched recently as the Yorubas of the South-West Nigeria gathered in the ancient city of Ibadan, in what many considered as the largest convocation of Yorubas in recent times to affirm their unequivocal stance on the inevitability of restructuring. The irresistible spirit of this pace-setter ethnic group indeed resonated in no mean frequency.
The array of octogenarians and the grey hairs that graced that occasion spoke volumes of the irrefragable resolve to a course that must be accomplished at all costs. I saw a people who were not concerned about what they would gain in this quest but what they would bequeath to their posterity.
The event, which was chaired by Chief Afe Babalola (SAN), featured presentations by past and present leaders mainly from the zone, who were all unanimous for a restructured Nigeria.
These elder states-men spoke with palpable nostalgia of how the West fared during the regional government of the post-Independence era, which earned them the nick-name of pacesetters. These men were neither dotards nor dullards; they spoke lucidly as they saw inequities as iniquities brought about by the abrogation of the 1963 constitution, which needed to be corrected through restructuring.
The present quasi-federalism has vitiated the fundamental democratic principles and the fiscal federalism, which were all visible features of the 1963 constitution.
It was in fact argued that subsequent constitutions were the products of the military governments, which collapsed all democratic structures into a unitary government, and made a travesty of the people’s ground norm. They also posited that restructuring will guarantee increased productivity and ingenuity that will lead to diversification: a departure from the present mono-revenue source of an oil-dependent economy.
Every region in a restructured Nigeria will maximize their productive capacities in agriculture and extractive industries, where 50 percent of the proceeds are retained and the other half remitted to the federal purse. They also frowned at a situation where state governors resort to Abuja for monthly allocation.
As strong as the points in favour of re-adopting the 1963 constitution may appear, many have also failed to realize the fact that as inadequate as the present federal structure may be, a corrupt free environment would still render a tangible developmental progress in the country. People talk about the gains consolidated by regional government, as if they were made possible by the papers and not people. I want to add here that, the major problem bedeviling the nation is still corruption.
In those days, we had selfless leaders who were concerned in delivering to the citizens the dividends of good governance. Also the present level of impunity and malfeasance in government would have been a taboo then, as people back in those days, had integrity to protect.
As this on-going debate continues to gain momentum, Nigerians should not lose sight of the fact that a mere physical restructuring of the country would not provide the much needed magic wand for immediate El Dorado, unless the mindsets of the present crop of politicians are reformed or equally restructured, the envisaged gains from this debate would be a mirage.
That regional government as good as it was, also provided the platform that made it possible for the late Emeka Ojukwu to attempt a secession, which culminated in the Nigerian civil war of 1967-70. Some analysts, however, do not share in the excitement, expressed by proponents of this restructuring in view of the immaturity of some governors and their indiscretion in openly disparaging the government at the centre.
This fear is not unfounded; it is rather compounded as some governors were reported to have denied prominent political figures of opposing parties access to facilities at both state-owned airport and stadium, during the last general election campaigns. Imagine what would happen with the devolution of power to the states!
There would, of course, be open confrontation and conflict of interest. Re-orientation of the minds of politicians lies the hope of economic emancipation and not restructuring.
It is my submission that a restructured country without a change of mindset is like putting new wine into an old bottle which eventually breaks it. This would not only be counter-productive but also antithetical to our corporate existence as a nation. We pray that a restructured nation would not subsequently become fractured.
The real problem here is not the constitution but how it is operated; after all we have seen how unitary governments in China, Malaysia, Indonesia and Japan have developed their economies in spite of pluralism in their tribes, languages and religions.
Etim writes from Calabar
