Plus and Minus of Restoration of Regional Autonomy in Nigeria
By Ropo Sekoni, Ph.D
As most of the Nigerian readers of this page must have been born after 1960, many of such readers are not likely to know what regional autonomy means, especially in the context of Nigeria.
During the colonial regime, particularly after the amalgamation of the three regions: northern, eastern, and western into what is now known as Nigeria, the country was administered as three autonomous regions held together by the presence of a colonial governor-general appointed by the colonial office in London. After the second World War, a semblance of a national-wide assembly of delegates from the regions started to serve as a mediating group between the regions and the governor-general. Minor legislative activities were carried out by this body. Each region also had its own British governor to rule the region as an autonomous unit. The attainment of self-government in Eastern and Western regions in the 1950s while the Northern region had no self-government further accentuated the political and economic autonomy of the regions that later went into independence in 1960 as a federation. In the days of self-government in Eastern and Western regions, each of the two regions had its own legislative assembly and government while their northern counterpart was fully controlled by the colonial government which allowed the emirs to serve as assistants in a system of indirect rule.
Between 1959 and January 1966 when the first military government of General Aguiyi-Ironsi came into power, each of the three regions had constitutional powers to regulate its education, trade, agriculture, health care, and judiciary. The 1959 constitution on the basis of which Nigeria was granted independence by Britain allowed each region to develop and modernize its culture and society at its own pace.
The system of government that Nigerians have come to know since 1966 is one created by the military to "homogenize" the diverse economic, political, and religious cultures in the country. The take-over of regional universities by the federal military government in the 1970s, the deployment of soldiers as governors or administrators in states other than their own and with traditions and cultures that differ from those of their states of origin, the surreptitious enrollment of Nigeria in the Organization of Islamic States, indicate, for example, the erosion of social and cultural autonomy for the regions that constitute the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
For instance, no efforts were made to find out if the non-Hausa-Fulani states in Nigeria liked to join the Organization of Islamic States. Even in the days of colonial rule, the Northern region was given a choice to determine if and when it wanted to attain a self-governing status. Its decision not to be self-governing was respected in 1957 while the decision of Eastern and Western regions to become self-governing was also accepted. The enrollment of Nigeria in OIC or the new Islamic counterpart of G8, would have, in the context of a truly federal system in which the states or regions are autonomous, been presented as optional to each region. There are precedents in Nigerian political history for this. Between 1957 and 1959, Eastern and Western Nigeria had special diplomatic reprsentation in London while the North did not. In a genuinely federal system, it would have been proper for the Islamic Hausa-Fulani-Kanuri states in northern Nigeria to have a special relationship with the OIC and the Islamic G7 without necessarily having to push unwilling states along in the name of Nigeria.
Historically, the British colonial thinkers and strategists never imagined a unitary system of government for Nigeria. Nothing in the way and manner in which they administered the country suggested that they would have preferred the total obliteration of the diverse pre-colonial cultural identities they met in Nigeria. The policy of indirect rule, as distinct from the French policy of assimilation, is evidence that the British preferred a system of multiculturalism that federalism nurtures to a system of monoculturalism that the present unitary system of government in Nigeria is designed to promote.
The enthusiasm of the British to support self-government for the two southern regions while the northern region remained fully under colonial rule, as well as the entrenchment of the provision for regional autonomy in the constitution on which independece was granted indicate that the British colonial thinkers saw more wisdom in the devolution of power in a multinational or multiethnic nation like Nigeria. It is remarkable that almost 40 years after the crafting of Nigeria’s constitution at independence, Britain’s government is engaged in a constitutional review that will renew the United Kingdom along the lines of regional autonomy that Nigeria had in the 1960s!
The issue that Nigerians should insist on from now on (apart from the actualization of the mandate produced by the June 12, 1993 presidential election) is the restoration of regional autonomy to the constituent regions that make up the Nigerian state. The demilitarization of the Nigerian polity can only start with the actualization of the June 12, 1993 mandate. For it to be productive and sustainable, demilitarization has to include the return of power to the regions or states. If Britain, the creator of Nigeria, is talking of autonomy to its constituent nationalities like the Welsh and the Scottish on the eve of the 21st century, Nigeria needs to see the handwriting on the wall. It cannot survive as a quasi-federal country. Its economic development and political unification depend on extending the freedom and choice of directions to the regions or states. Indeed, giving autonomy to the various nationality groups that make up the countries in the West African sub-region is a surer way to attain economic cooperation and unity than what we presently have. For a sovereign national conference to be meaningful, the atmosphere of the domination of several Nigerian nationalities by those with access to military power must be replaced by a return of autonomy to the regions.
The European unity that many Nigerian political commentators now often cite as the model for Nigeria and the rest of Africa has a long history of autonomous development for the countries that now gladly agree to unite for economic development in a competitive shrinking global economy. Why has ECOWAS not come near the effectiveness of EU? Internal domination of the member states that produce only frustration on the part of the people who can only move development forward may be the answer.
There are many reasons why Nigeria should remain as one country. Its social, cultural, and ecological diversity is a source of additional advantage to the constituent nationalities. But the danger of gross waste of efforts that accrues from the tension between the country’s subregions: the Yoruba, the Igbo, the Western minorities, the Eastern minorities, the Hausa-Fulani, the northwestern minorities, and the northeastern minorities can be turned into a more productive and cohesive force by returning autonomy to these regions. This appears to be the only way forward for Nigeria. Attempting to create a monocultural country out of an area with centuries of multiculturalism is a futile and foolish exercise. Nigeria is not endowed with opportunities for creating a melting pot; it is better to creatively optimize its inherent salad bowl of cultures. Imposing the membership of the Organization of Islamic States on Nigeria is an attempt to force a melting pot on a culturally diverse country.
The right of every nationality group to practice its culture: religious, economic, social, and political is more sacrosanct than the geopolitical construct called Nigeria. The stability of the geopolitical status of Nigeria depends, as we have witnessed since 1993, more on fashioning an ethos of mutual respect among the nationality groups that make up the country than on efforts by the military or its surrogates to create a facade of unity without equality and justice. Restoring and enhancing autonomy for the constituent regions or states will create an enabling environment for each region or nationality or group of nationalities to develop its culture in a framework in which differences are respected and healthy inter-regional competition is brought to replace the current ethos of hate and distrust engendered by the politics of domination that has characterized Nigeria’s military dictatorship.
The politics foisted on Nigeria since 1966 has been one of pontification and patronage. What the 21st century calls for is an ethos of participation by the peoples of Nigeria, and not the use of an ethno-military cabal to underdevelop sections of the country while pontificating about the need for unity and the sacredness of the territorial oneness of Nigeria. There is need for a creative approach to the problems facing the Nigerian state. Ethiopia has produced a model that can facilitate the resolution of a forty-year old crisis of development brought on Nigeria by the politics of pontification and parroting of slogans of unity not backed by any imaginative response to the issues facing Nigeria’s social and cultural diversity. Only a system of unfettered autonomy over all matters of cultural, social, political, and economic development can ensure the politics of persuasion and participation that multi-national or multiethnic democracies require.
Is the restoration of autonomy to constituent nationalities in Nigeria possible without violence? It is; indeed, it is the surest way to avoid violence. It is important for all patriotic Yoruba men and women and their counterparts from other nationality groups to participate in the non-violent crusade for restoration of autonomy to the nations of Nigeria. How can you do this? Participate in creating and circulating within Nigeria across the world ideas that draw attention to the fact that the problems of development in Nigeria is larger than the actualization of the June 12, 1993 presidential election. Another option is to subscribe to the Yoruba Autonomy Bond when it becomes available. The proceeds of this will be used to popularize within Nigeria and abroad the discourse of freedom and autonomy to the diverse peoples of Nigeria. Bringing Abiola out of prison to become president without political and economic restructuring of Nigeria can only satisfy the one-man-one-vote aspect of democratization of Nigeria. It will still not resolve the problem of overconcentration of power in the federal government. Democracy requires that people at the grassroots level have the choice to develop in consonance with the values they hold dear, and not on the basis of the values imposed on them by the custodians of federal power.
One major disadvantage of returning economic and political autonomy to the constituent regions is that the easy access to power and privilege without accountability to one’s community made possible by the military command system of governance or its civilian variant in the presidential system will be brought to an end. It will no longer be possible for one nationality to choose the leaders for another nationality through patronage. For example, several Yoruba men and women who will like to be spotted for federal privilege and position by running their own community down and openly identifying with policies capable of impoverishing their own community will no longer have an easy day in becoming ministers or commissioners. Even Yoruba bashing or Igbo bashing by members of minority groups as a way of accessing power at the so-called federal level will no longer be profitable. In short, it is only the self-serving politician without a viable constituency that will lose out when autonomy is restored to the regions.
Before I end this essay, let me answer a question which I have not been able to integrate into this essay. What revenue allocation system can nurture regional autonomy? Returning 10% of income from minerals to the local government of derivation, 10% to the state of derivation, 50% to be divided on the basis of equality among the regions or states, 20% for the federal government, 5% for internal loan to the states, and the remaining 5% for savings for emergency preparedness. Each region or state should be given the power to tax its people for its own development projects.
For More Information Contact:
Egbe Isokan Yoruba
P.O. Box 90832, Washington, DC 20090
Tel: (202) 270-6382
FAX: (301) 499-5386
Internet: isokan@yoruba.org