This is how the reasoning should be:- I did not even bother to ask questions. However, as we entered this democratic dispensation in 1999 and I began to pay close attention to the dynamics of democracy and good governance, I became less enthusiastic about SNC.I also reasoned that if it is conceived to break up Nigeria, there would be too many complications than envisaged.Having said that, I am, in principle, not against a national conference or dialogue. Every era comes with its own issues and challenges.The political issues we had to face 53 years ago are significantly different from those confronting us today. That is a fact. Today, we are all talking about state police, fiscal federalism, true federalism, resource control, Sharia, confederacy, regionalism, quota system, federal character, and all sorts.The issues that featured at the previous conferences addressed issues of such eras. Beyond the obvious political issues, the interests of the disabled, women, children and other vulnerable groups in the society will have to be discussed and taken care of. On that note, therefore, if we need to gather and thrash out those issues, it is not a completely bad idea.However, for practical purposes, those who think they can use the national conference to achieve certain agenda may be in for a shocker. I have just a few questions for them to ponder upon.One, will the decisions of the conference automatically become law? If the answer is yes, what law provides for that? Currently, only the National Assembly is empowered to tamper with the constitution. I don’t know the kind of arrangement we are going to have that will turn the national conference into a law-making body.If the answer is no, then there is a problem. If the legislature has to approve, will it be bound by every proposal made at the conference? Will the legislature be allowed to make changes and modifications? That is just one question, even though I asked it in many ways.Two, how will representation be done in a way that will be reflective of the various interests in Nigeria? Will it be council by council? State by state? Region by region? Ethnic group by ethnic group? Senatorial district by senatorial district? Religion? Professional bodies? Will all groups have equal representation or will it be proportional? That is a minor issue, you would say.But I will soon show that this is not a minor issue. It will determine the pattern of voting and the overall outcome. Three, how will delegates emerge? By election or selection? If by election, I am afraid the same people who know how to win elections will emerge as delegates to the conference.The same people we have been fighting with over the poor state of Nigeria! Money, rice and bread will be shared and voters would sell their conscience as usual.The votes usually go to the highest bidder. If it is by selection, then who selects? The same groups and associations who take instructions from entrenched interests? Let’s say representation will be through election and selection, but be sure that the same characters will find themselves at the conference.Four - and finally - how will decisions be arrived at? It is through voting, as is normal in democracy? Well, there is a problem. If you table “resource control” before the conference, many states will be committing suicide to support it.If we implement “true federalism” and “resource control” as they are being canvassed today, only 10 states will benefit. Others do not generate enough revenue to pay salaries much less fill potholes.Chances are 26 states will vote against “resource control”! If we say let us have “confederacy”, chances are this will not pass through a simple majority.If we propose “state police”, chances are it will be defeated by a majority of votes. If we say Nigeria should break up, the question is: into how many countries? How will the states or ethnic groups vote over this?I wish I had the answers to these questions, but there is just one thing I can say confidently: the enthusiasm about a national conference is grossly overrated.There are political and economic dynamics that the advocates have not taken time to analyse and digest. It is more of something said in fantasy and spite, without much thought being given to the practical aspects. For now, the 1999 Constitution is sufficient for the development of Nigeria.If every level of government diligently discharges its responsibilities to Nigerians as spelt out by the “bad” 1999 Constitution, Nigeria would be a far better place.There would be good roads, safe water, reliable security, excellent schools, decent hospitals, efficient transportation and clean environment.There would be less room for socio-political rancour and economic deprivation.My conclusion? Yes, a regular national conference or dialogue is good to discuss and address burning issues; but no, it is not the substitute for good governance. We should worry more about our bad leaders and less about our “bad” constitution. -Simon kolawale.
Posted on: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 06:16:07 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015