Nigeria: Stunted by incompatible political structure and plurality  

MICHAEL OWHOKO, PhD  

Mike Owhoko, a journalist, PR practitioner and author of  the book, ‘The Language of Oil & Gas’, holds a doctorate in Political Science. He has worked mostly in  the banking, oil and gas, and media industries and is the publisher of Media Issues, an online newspaper. He can be reached at mikeowhoko@gmail.com 

The root cause of Nigeria’s problem is, unarguably, an inappropriate system of government. Bad governance, poor economy, insecurity and corruption are just offshoots.  It is absurd to pool people characterised by ethnic nationalism with diverse regional allegiance, culture, interest and vision together under a central government, and expect to make progress. Nigeria’s political structure is incompatible with its plural composition. 

As a multiethnic society, Nigeria has been struggling under a political framework that is unsuitable, anomalous, and inimical to its future, resulting in discordant policies and delivery setbacks.  And until the political structure veiled in unitary configuration is discarded and replaced with federalism or, in the alternative, confederation, Nigeria risks collapse.

Nigeria is a hypothesis that has been undergoing experimentation, which can now be confirmed to be unworkable due to an improper political system.  After careful evaluation of its complex diversity, nothing suggests that the country can ever overcome its challenges with the current system. It is like using palm oil as a substitute for aviation fuel to power an aircraft, and expect it to fly.  The country is on a wrong trajectory, and incapable of producing any form of prospects, except there is a change of system.

The 1999 Nigerian Constitution is in structure, content, spirit and intent, a unitary constitution when viewed against the backdrop of the Exclusive list which has 67 items and the Concurrent list with 13 items, an indication of strong centre, weak states. The constitution is incompetent to resolve Nigeria’s unending woes. It is antithetical to the essence of the country’s amalgamation, where hitherto different independent nations, now have their destinies determined and centrally regulated against their vision and values.

What Nigeria needs is a completely new Constitution with features of federalism, characterised by decentralisation or devolution of powers to the federating units or regions, with authority over control of natural resources in their domains, together with liberty to pursue their dreams and aspirations in line with their peculiar potentials, values and needs.  This will enable them to develop at their pace independently without any statutory interference from the centre.

Otherwise, the country can be restructured into a confederal system where the regions or federating nationalities should have obligation to wholly manage their affairs, except for responsibilities relating strictly to army, foreign affairs, currency, and perhaps, internal trade, which should be ceded to the central government to administer with full power and authority.  These options are the only way Nigeria can be saved from a looming catastrophe, as elasticity of endurance is waning fast.

Self-determination by agitators of Biafra Republic, Oduduwa Republic/Yoruba Nation, Niger-Delta Republic, Arewa Republic, and even the recent display and hoisting of Russian flags during the “End-Bad Governance Nationwide Protest” that was held from August 1 -10, 2024 in northern parts of the country, are evidence of widespread discontent arising from the current system of government.

Besides, as a consequence of the unitary system, there is a growing feeling of ethnic and regional subjugation among ethnic nationalities, resulting in system disloyalty.  Policies enunciated by the government designed to reposition the economy, reform the political system, eradicate profligacies, and even eliminate terrorists’ organisations in the country are covertly frustrated with complicities of persons from aggrieved regions or sections.

Put differently, differences in values, culture, heritage, tradition, history, language, geography and belief system, have led to clash of visions, interests, goals and priorities among federating units or regions, which have further thrown up centrifugal forces that have held the country hostage.  This is a complex inherent challenge and source of division in the country.

This portends danger, and a signal of emerging trouble, particularly within the context of the young generation of persons in the various ethnic nationalities whose opportunities, talents and creativity are repressed by quota system and intrinsic flaws in the unitary structure.  Running a country with people working clandestinely at cross-purposes to advance ethnic and regional agenda, offers no hope of achieving any deliverables beyond cosmetic progress.

Also, the unitary system breeds economic injustice among federating states or regions. By allowing some states or individuals to freely harness, harvest and utilise mineral resources and cash crops, including groundnuts, cocoa, rubber, palm oil and solid minerals in their domains, while depriving other regions like the Niger Delta, of resources in their territories, is a major flaw in the system.  It is not only unjust; it is a trigger for insurrection.

Specifically, to single out the oil and gas resources in the Niger Delta Region for expropriation through obnoxious Petroleum Act of 1966 which now forms part of Section 44(3) of the 1999 Constitution, is tantamount to robbing Niger Delta people to service other regions.  Government has used the law to legalise ownership, with proceeds shared among federating units or states, implicitly depriving the Niger Delta people of control over their resources.

Regrettably, the people of the region alone suffer from the hazardous effect of oil exploration.  The ecosystem of the region has been destroyed, as agricultural and fishery activities are no longer generative. This is further compounded by depletion of their lands which have been constantly acquired by the government and allocated as oil blocks to individuals and organisations.

Unitary system in a plural society like Nigeria encourages high-stakes investments in politics induced by unhealthy ethnic and regional competition among politicians in an effort to grab power at the centre or federal level, and in turn, use it to control and distribute resources and appointments for ethnic and regional advantage. Such unwholesome quest for power has no place in federalism, where power is decentralised to federating units.

Under the unitary system, states and local governments are appendages and dependents of the federal government. They rely on monthly revenue allocation from the federal government for survival, which encourages laziness and docility with weak creative capacities for revenue generation. This promotes subservient corporatism and inefficiency.

Besides, system contradictions inherent in the unitary system put a wide gap between the people and the central government, and this makes it difficult to hold leaders at the federal level accountable, particularly over breach in governance ethics.  But a regionalized or decentralised system will bring people closer to power, and leaders can be held accountable for their actions and inactions.

Nigeria’s stunted growth as reflected in the country’s continued decline in general indices, including misery index, is a direct consequence of the centralised system, which has caged destinies, and by extension, capacities of the federating nations to develop independently. Therefore, political leaders must be courageous enough to think beyond personal interests and deep-rooted prejudices to support a system that will give the federating units freedom to drive and manage their aspirations.

After all, a pluralistic country like India with diverse cultural differences is able to coexist in peace because of a suitable system of government — Cooperative Federalism.  Besides, Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland that make up the United Kingdom, separately pursue their dreams and even compete for laurels at Olympics and World Cup, while maintaining their status as members of the United Kingdom.  Why can’t Nigeria be unbundled and recreated to make it work, so that federating regions can achieve their goals within the context of their distinct cultural aspirations.

The current Nigeria’s system is a catalyst for division, unable to foster unity, a necessity required to drive the country in one direction.  The four attributes of Unity, Faith, Peace, and Progress as contained in the country’s coat of arms, have failed to inspire confidence and loyalty, as they barely exist in the minds of Nigerians.

In the absence of impaired vision, those opposed to change in status quo (unitary system) are doing so because of entrenched interests arising from benefits their regions or ethnic groups derive from the subsisting configuration. Nigeria’s political structure as encapsulated in the 1999 Constitution (as amended) cannot deliver on the country’s dream of prosperity, other than unending insecurity, ethnic rivalry, strife, nepotism, poverty, stunted development and corruption, which sadly, have become part of Nigeria’s trade mark and identity.

Therefore, until the country is unbundled and reconstructed, using a new constitution that devolves powers to regions, which allows them to run independently within the context of their separate cultural and economic aspirations, Nigeria risks dismemberment. 

• business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com