Nigerian Federalism in The 21st Century
Keynote address by Chief (Dr.) Anthony Enahoro, C.F.R. to the 5th Yoruba National Convention held at Houston, TexasS, USA on Saturday, 26th April, 1997
Mr. chairman of the 5th Yoruba National Convention, Honorable delegates, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
May I begin by expressing my appreciation of the honor done to me in inviting me to deliver the keynote address in this convention. I assume that the invitation may be in part in recognition of the opinions I have espoused in recent years on the crisis of nationalities in our country and its pertinence to the future of the Yoruba people; in part in acknowledgment of my involvement in the pre- and immediate post-Nigerian independence affairs of Yorubaland; and in part in acceptance of my on-going presence in the fall-out from the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election. If the latter appears the most cogent or current of these reasons, I must say at the very outset of my remarks this morning that it is not in my view the most fundamental, being in itself but an expression and manifestation of the nationalities crisis in our country, indeed in much of Africa.
I will not bore you with a recapitulation of the history of our part of the African continent before the advent of European colonialism. You know it as well as I do-our different nations with their separate identities, histories, languages, religions, cultures and stages of civilization, and some with their own empires. You know the countries - the combinations and amalgamation- created, contrived or arranged by European nations to serve their own interests, and the subsequent emergence of new nationalism on the basis of these new countries and amalgamation. You know the endorsement of these creations by the Organization of African Unity in the nineteen sixties, and the consequent absurdity, as we can now see it, of seeking to construct and develop new nation-states and civilizations on the basis of the destruction of the indigenous languages, political cultures and national identities which in some cases had existed and flourished for a thousand years and more.
The grave implication of this history and process for the sub-Saharan African are of continental dimensions and even world-wide dimensions, given the existence of a Diaspora of millions of black Africans on the American and Asian continents. I see your conference here today therefore as part of our common continental search for answers and for a way forward which can protect our identities and advance our peoples with same indigenous motivations and generators as have served the nations of Europe and now Asia with such resounding success.
The new nationalism to which I have referred, embraced whole nations within new and some quite irrational boundaries. In the case of Nigeria, the most irrational were those who split the Yoruba nation in the west and the Hausa nation in the north. The new Nigerian nationalism accepted this entity as the framework of a new existence seeking to catch up with the Western world, a framework within which to pursue three struggles- the struggle for the recovery of the sovereignty and self-determination of which our fathers had been robbed, the struggle for democracy and the struggle for modernization.
The struggle for independence lasted in the main 25 years-1935 to 1960. I was myself involved in it for 17 years. Independence was achieved comparatively easily, given the experiences and precedents in Asia and other parts of Africa. The companion struggles for democracy and modernization have already lasted much longer- 37 years from 1960 to date- and have already proved far more costly in terms of human lives and suffering and dissipation of natural resources.
In the course of these struggles, there have been crisis points-notably, the 1953 independence motion crisis and the resulting threat of secession by the Hausa-Fulani nation; the 1959 federal elections and the wasted opportunity to install a radical government led by Igbo and Yoruba veterans of the nationalist struggle, which would have been comparable to nationalist successes in India and Ghana; the 1966 military coup and assassinations and the massacres of Southerners in the North; the 1967-1970 Civil War, with the effort at secession by the leaders of the Igbo nation striving to take other unwilling neighboring nationalities with them; and now the 1993-1997 presidential election annulment crisis, with its particular impact on Yoruba psyche and its implications for inter-nationality relations generally in the country. One manifest strain runs through these crises and that is the requirement to moderate inter-nationality political relationships in the country by the express will of the nationalities. Partly in recognition of this requirement, the British government had at one time proposed to postpone independence until they could deal with the issue. But the nationalists suspected this as a ploy to postpone independence indefinitely. Later initiatives have not yet solved the problem.
There were also broad economic particularities, exigencies and pressures in some areas which coincided with ethnic boundaries-insufficiencies in the Hausa Fulani areas, which to this day breed fear of insecurity there; land hunger in the Igbo areas, which dictates a need for lebensraum, resulting in massive emigration; relative self-sufficiency in the Yoruba and adjoining areas, which engenders within them emotions of inner strength; and consciousness in the minority areas of wealth-generating resources but inability to control, develop and apply this potential, which evokes among them self-pitying apprehension of economic and political defenselessness.
There have also been socio-cultural peculiarities at work in the Nigerian situation. Take religion. Islam is predominant in parts of the country broadly bordering on the Sahara Desert. Christianity is paramount broadly in the coastal areas. There is a wide intervening swathe between them where the two intermingle with animist religions. Or take language. Nigeria exists, or subsists on the suppression of indigenous languages, in consequence of which public life and commerce are controlled and conducted through elitist communication in English. Take politics. Some of our nations were monarchical, with a demi democratic selection process among ruling families, like the Yorubas. Some had monarchies based on primogeniture, like my people the Edos; some were broadly republican in parts of the Igbo and Middle Belt areas, and some were unabashedly gerontocracies.
Given these historical,national, economic, religious, political and socio-cultural complexities, there are no grounds to believe that a country now called Nigeria would have now come into existence peacefully if the British had not intervened in our affairs toward the end of the 19th century. Whether this would in itself have been a loss and deprivation to humanity is open to question. Realistically, the only conceivable process by which the state now called Nigeria might have emerged from our wars of the 18th and 19th centuries would have been if the Dan Fodio armed intrusion had succeeded in all of Yorubaland, all of Edoland, all of Igboland, all of the Tiv-Ogoja-Ibibio-Efik corridor and then swept the Ijaws into the Atlantic. But let us leave such improbable conjectures to military minds and historical speculators.
Having now found ourselves as one country named Nigeria by the spouse of a British military adventurer, interacting in a foreign language and an alien political culture, our founding fathers proceeded to make the best they could of the situation. They agreed on a Federation of Nigeria composed of geographical regions structured on assumed compatibility rather then false protestations of uniformity, which we now have and based furthermore on recognition and validation of the essentiality of equity among our various nationalities. They further agreed on provisions for the future creation of new regions by democratic process to avoid domination of minority nationalities by majority nationalities. Sadly and foolishly, Successive military regimes have swept all this away.
Realistic as our founding fathers were however, we can now look back and admit that the arrangements perhaps lacked comprehensive, all-inclusive, all-embracing, definitive examination of the fundamental character of the Nigerian state which we were creating. Were we to become an English-speaking nation-state, with the compulsion to educate 100 million people in a foreign language to a level high enough for them to participate meaningfully and successfully in democracy, modern commerce and industry, socio-cultural activities in the English language which, even today, 37 years after independence, remains unintelligible to over 90 percent of the populace? Can a people, an entire nation, in fact hope to attain the height of their group creativity and inventiveness in a foreign language- in the sciences, in arts, in literature, in politico-economic development?
Can, or need, different nations with the different antecedents which we have discussed, move forward into the 21st century at the same pace? Must the pace-makers in the African convoy be restrained, must their progress be constricted, in order to accommodate the speed of the slowest ships in the convoy? Can African nations ever hope to catch up with Euro-America-Asia if we destroy their integrity? If the answer is negative, where then do we start our journey forward? Is it in fact possible now, more than a century after the infamous Berlin Conference, to identify a starting point? My answer is that it is possible and that the starting point must be to challenge some of the evangelical hypotheses and shibboleths of the past, to resume and pursue the federating postulations of our founding fathers to their logical conclusion, and by doing these, to liberate ourselves finally from the bondage of European colonization.
I invite you Ladies and gentlemen to look outside Africa: For nearly 2,000 years-from Attila the Hun and Julius Caesar through Napoleon to Hitler and now the EAU-the nations of Europe have vigorously resisted unification. European risorgimento and dominance of the world, and of literature, the arts, science and inventions, was built on the foundation of its nation-states. The Americas- the successor nation states to Europe in world dominance-are merely an extension of the Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese nation- complex of medieval Europe. The countries of the American continent are configured on the nationalities
of their European founder-nations and founder-languages. Today, the emerging politico-economic power of Asia is founded on the nation-state complexes of Korea, Thailand, China (and Taiwan), Japan, India(essentially Hindustan),etc. Only in Africa do our nations voluntarily submit to being labeled "tribes" and only in Africa are we required to adopt and enforce the theory of organic supra-national entities in order to qualify for recognition as modern states and in order to qualify for recognition as modern states and in order to attain our inherent potential. What makes us think that we are so peculiar that a theory rejected by Europe, America and Asia was designed by destiny for exclusive application for the benefit of Africa? I say, with every emphasis in my being, that the fundamental problem in Nigeria today, indeed in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, is not merely one of democracy, but even more vital at this time, one of organization and recognition of true nation-states and moderating their relationships and interaction with companion nation-states both across contemporary international boundaries or within the boundaries of the creatures and relics of imperialist marriages.
May I now proceed from the general to the particular; in other words, yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, and the African nation you represent, namely the Yorubas. You and your forebears have made a distinctive contribution to African existence-your history and culture; your music and what has been described as your "feferity"; your peaceful and non-imperialist relations with your neighboring nations; your artefact like the Ife heads; your wholehearted acceptance of democracy (it is still on record that only in the old Western Region of Nigeria which was mainly Yoruba did a party in power lose an election, accept it democratically and philosophically, and win again on the rebound); your forward-looking adoption of modern concepts of government - popular free education, regulation of the of the chieftaincy system by statue, popular projects like television and radio, Ife University, farm settlements, housing schemes, free interaction between religious communities; your dress modes (stylized aso-oke, for example); your specific religious tolerance between Christians and Moslems, ect. These are attributes and traits which define, delineate and explain the character of nations and peoples. In their distinctiveness, they interpret and characterize the Yorubas, who and what they are, their position in the black African context, and other Nigerian and African nations.
After due reflection on all the foregoing, I contacted old colleagues of the nationalist days and some more modern groups and after extensive deliberations, we decided in 1992 to launch the country-wide Movement for National Reformation (MNR) with the fundamental concept of nation-states as a basis of creating modern inter-nationality federations to move Africa forward from its ancestral constraints and colonial impositions. Our view was and remains, that this was the very concept upon which Europe made its millennial advance and that the later concept of multi-nationality unitary states based on the adoption of a foreign language has yet to prove its validity or justify itself.
What does this mean for the Yorubas, and what does it mean for other nationalities in Nigeria? It means that you could face ultimate disintegration as a people, upon strict application of the principle that in order to make a Nigerian omelette which is acceptable to alien palates, you must break our indigenous nation- eggs; or resisting that in the long run, you would have to seek your people’s destiny outside Nigeria; or that if Nigeria is to survive and fulfill our collective aspirations, you would have to work for a true, federal system with nation-state (or nation-regional) components - of which a successful and autonomous Yoruba region or state can be a proud member, alongside Edo, Igbo, Ijaw, Ibibio, Nupe, Hausa, Kanuri, Tiv and other entities. As you probably know, this is the solution which I and many of my colleagues recommend as the basis of Nigerian Federalism in the 21st century.
Is it so different after all from the resurgence of nationalities in Europe and Asia? For example, after 400 years of integration in Great Britain, Scotland is to have its own parliament if the Labour Party win the forthcoming British elections. (Labor won). So too with Wales. The nationalities of the Soviet Union have become independent members of the United Nations. So too the Czechs and Slovaks and now the component national entities of Yugoslavia. But in Africa, other than in Ethiopia, we lack the alertness, understanding and courage to expand our boundaries of thought and define the structures required to give expression to them. When shall we rise from our slumber and overcome our fears?
I have just mentioned Ethiopia, permit me to quote some salient portions of the new Constitution of Ethiopia, which in my view is the is the first African country to seriously address itself to this issue.
"PREAMBLE
We, the nations, nationalities and People of Ethiopia:
Determined to build by the exercise of our right to self-determination, for ourselves and of our own free will, a single political community which is based on our common consent and the rule of law so as to ensure lasting peace, an irreversible and thriving democracy and an accelerated economic and social development for our country Ethiopia;
Convinced that we, the nations, nationalities and people, with our own individual and admirable culture, territories and modes of life have, by virtue of the fact that our country Ethiopia has been and still is our common home in which we have formed a common bond of relationships in various fields and in varying degrees, developing a common interest and outlook;
Recognizing that our common destiny needs to be based upon the rectification of historically distorted relationships and promoting common interests;
Convinced of the necessity of building a single economic community so as to promote our common rights, freedoms and interests;
Now, therefore, in order to consolidate these aims and beliefs, do hereby adopt this Constitution.
Article 3: The Ethiopian Flag
1. The Ethiopian flag consists of three horizontal bands of equal size, the uppermost green, the middle yellow and the nethermost red.
2. The national emblem on the flag shall reflect the equality of the nations, nationalities, peoples and religions in Ethiopia and their aspiration to live in unity.
3. Each member state of the Federation may have its own flag and emblem.
Particulars shall be determined by their respective parliaments.
Article 5: Language
1. The official language of the Federal Government shall be Amharic.
2. All Ethiopian language shall enjoy equal state recognition.
3. The member states of the Federation shall determine their respective official languages.
Article 39: The Right of Nationalities and peoples
1. Every nation, nationality or people in Ethiopia shall have the unrestricted right to self-determination up to secession.
2. Every nation, nationality and people shall have the right to speak, write and develop its language and to promote its culture, help grow and flourish, and preserve its historic heritage.
"3. Every nation nationality or people in Ethiopia shall have the unrestricted right to administer itself and this shall include the right to establish government institutions within the territory it inhabits and the right to fair representation in the federal and state governments.
4. The right to self determination up to secession of national nationalities and people may be exercised:
(a) where the demand for secession is approved by a two thirds (2/3rds) majority of the legislature of the nation, nationality or people concerned.
(b) where the Federal Government within three years upon receipt of the decision of the legislature of the nation, nationality or people demanding secession, organizes a referendum for the nation, nationality or people demanding secession.
(c) where the demand for secession is supported by a simple majority vote in the referendum.
(d) where the Federal Government transfers power to the parliament of the nation, nationality or people which has opted for secession.
(e) where property is partitioned in accordance with the law.
Rights of Nationalities
1. Every nationality in Ethiopia shall have the right to speak and write in its own language, and express, promote and develop it.
2. Every nationality in Ethiopia shall have the full right to administer itself. This right shall include the right to establish government institutions within the territory it inhabits and the right to fair representation in the federal and state governments.
3. Nationalities shall have, on the basis of the free choice of their peoples, the right to organize on a larger territory a self-administrative structure for running their internal affairs and establish government institutions for common self-administration.
4. Nationalities shall also have, on the basis of the free choice of their peoples, the right to establish regional self- administration and such regional self -administrative unit shall be a member of the federation.
5. For the purposes of this constitution, the term "nationality" shall mean a community having the following characteristics; people with a common culture reflecting considerable uniformity and a similarity of custom, a common language or (minority) languages of communication, a belief in a common bond and identity, the majority of whom live in a common territory.
Diverse Minorities
Affiliated nationalities who share common characteristics but exhibiting varying cultures, common political and economic interests and believe in establishing, on the basis of the free choice of their people, a common administration may together decide to be recognized as a single nation or as one people.
Article 8: sovereignty
1. Sovereignty resides in the nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia.
2. This constitution is an expression of their sovereignty.
Article 47 states in the federation
1. The federation shall comprise of states.
2. States shall be structured on the basis of settlement patterns, language, identity and consent of the people. The states are following: 1. Tigrai 2. Afar 3. Amara 4. Oromia 5. Somali 6. Benshangul/gumaz 7. Gambela 8. Harari 9. Southern people state.
The nations, nationalities and peoples of the southern peoples state are the people of some 36 very small ethnic groups, who shall have the right to establish, at any time, separate states of their own.
Ladies and gentlemen, all the foregoing is genuine federalism in a multi-national, multi-nationality, multi-ethnic setting, such as we have in Nigeria. I believe that if Nigeria is to survive as one country, and if democracy is to be firmly established in our country, this pattern must form or inform, the character of "Nigerian federalism in the 21st century."
I would go even further and postulate in the Nigerian context, the federalist principle has to be applicable within the country’s nations or nationalities, because the philosophical (let alone the socio-economic-political) argument and justification for it is equally valid at all levels.
That is the nature of Nigeria, unless and until we change or modify it ourselves, and I have never felt a need to be apologetic about it. Let me illustrate what I mean in practical political terms and as applicable to you. Many years ago, I was involved in an examination of the impact of the federalist concept on the national question in Nigeria, if it was agreed that many of the groups commonly called "tribes" by the colonialists are in fact nations and that the true ethnic groups are the "tribes within the nations. Our conclusion was that the true ethnic composition of even our nationally homogeneous nations would not permit administrative or structural unitarism in conditions of free democratic intercourse.
In the particular case of an autonomous Yoruba Region, we developed a concept of a federation of 19 (nineteen) ethnic entities to be designated Divisions (as existed under British rule) or counties (as in Britain) or Cantons (as in Switzerland) or even States. I still readily recall the suggested federating entities as Owo, Akoko, Ekiti (including Akure), Ondo (including Idanre), Okitipupa, Ijesha, Ila-Orangun, Ife (including Modakeke), Oshun, Oyo, Ibadan (including Ibarapa), Egba, Egbado, Ijebu, Remo, Epe, Ikeja, Badagry and Lagos. The yearning of the Yoruba nation as a whole to avoid domination by other nations in Nigeria is equally strong among its own sub-groups to avoid domination by other sub-groups within the Yoruba nation. Comparable federalist conceptions were designed for other regions and parts of Nigeria. It is now a matter of history that events overtook the exercise, but who are we to say these ideas are forever dead and they do not remain relevant to our times when Nigeria is still struggling to find its political soul, perhaps even its very raison d’etre?
Lest we permit those who would classify us as "tribalists" to escape without challenge, and lest we permit those who have so sublimated to colonialist mental subjugation that they cannot conceive of a better life, to avoid the challenge of liberation, let me say that I am well aware that the view which I have expressed may be said to come close to a philosophical challenge to the definition of democracy as a simplistic doctrine of "one man, one vote" If so, I offer no apologies.
It can be argued , and I do argue , that the doctrine of "one man, one vote" as underpinning democracy is only valid within the context of a nation or state or society predominantly homogeneous and that in heterogeneous( national, demographic, linguistic, religious and cultural) situations, particularly those created by colonial interventions, the simplistic application of "one man, one vote" could be a recipe for alienistic domination and it could produce injustice and a corruption of democracy; and in other words, that in order to make democracy comprehensive in Nigeria, and I daresay in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, differences( particularly demographic, linguistic, and cultural) exist, if only because these differences define peoples and prescribe and dominate perceptions and group reactions to public issues. For democracy to be successful and meaningful to the people of Nigeria, it must not only prescribe the relationship between individual citizens ("one man, one vote"); it must extend beyond those narrow confines and define relationships between nations inhabiting their own areas in the country and between the ethnic groups constituting those nations. I suggest that this is what our founding fathers recognized as "unity in diversity" and this is the surest democratic foundation for "Nigerian Federalism in the 21st Century"
Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you once more for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you, and I wish you fruitful and constructive deliberations. Thank you.
Chief A. Enahoro is a Nigerian foremost Politican and Elder Statesman. He is currently in exile having escaped from Nigeria following threats to his life by people suspected to be agents of the illegal regime in Nigeria.
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