A question is often a request for information,
which can be provided by way of an answer. However, questions are not always
asked solely for the purpose of obtaining an answer. Questions can be asked for
a variety of reasons: to open a dialogue, demonstrate knowledge, show interest
in a topic, steer another person’s thought in a particular direction, invite
confirmation of a preconception, trigger debate, obtain an answer, or even
commence a joke. Some people advise against asking a question when what is
expected is not an answer. So when we ask the question ‘Whither Nigeria?’, for
what purpose are we asking? Is it a cry of frustration; or a rhetorical
question that does not need an answer; or a genuine question for which an
answer should at least be attempted? The word ‘whither’ means ‘to what place’,
or ‘to what state, condition, outcome or degree’?
The question ‘Whither Nigeria?’ is a direct
question that asks: where is Nigeria going as a country? This is a question
that a number of people are not only uncomfortable answering but which they are
uncomfortable to have others ask. There have been agitations for a “sovereign
national conference” for quite a while now to ask and seek to answer precisely
that question. Such a conference represents, for its proponents, an opportunity
to renegotiate the nature of Nigeria’s federalism and the role of the state.
Those that disapprove of the concept of a sovereign national conference claim
that they do so because such a dialogue will duplicate the proper role of the
legislature. It is debatable though, the extent to which the legislature
performs its proper role in shaping Nigeria’s democracy.
In seeking an answer to the question, the
overriding focus should be on the place, condition or degree that we desire to
get to, rather than the protection of turfs. The alternative is untenable: if
for whatever reason the legislature decides not to ask the question or seek the
answers to it, a country of 182 million people becomes hostage to the whims and
caprices of less than 500 people. Whatever one’s views are about the merits or
demerits of a national conference, it is perhaps best to put the question, as
to whether or not to have one in the first place, to the people through a
referendum. Thankfully, we are finally developing an electoral system where
votes seem largely to count. Unfortunately though, we don’t have a provision in
our Constitution that allows referenda to be undertaken. There is an urgent
need to put such a provision in place.
Ecuador has successfully used the mechanism of
referenda to shape all major public policies. Just 10 years ago, Ecuador was
the quintessential “banana republic”, apart from being the world’s largest
exporter of bananas. It was a society characterised by political instability,
inequality and a poorly-performing economy. A referendum was used to introduce
a new constitution which recognised human rights and accepted the plurality and
cultural diversity of the country. This has doused political tension, led to
unprecedented economic growth, and given the president approval ratings in excess
of 70%. Holding a referendum is a means through which the voice of citizens can
be heard directly. It is particularly effective for issues that go to the very
heart of nationhood, such as giving up sovereignty to join a regional economic
grouping or reconfiguring the role and nature of the state. It is particularly
effective when there is insufficient confidence that the legislature will act
in the national interest.
Nigeria operates a federal system. The concept
of federalism tries to solve a basic challenge: how to ensure that every part
of a large country receives public goods, without sacrificing local
accountability; and it is widely recognised that the state has a major role to
play in the development of any nation. The notion of questioning the role and
nature of the state, as a sovereign national conference would, enjoys the
support of Rousseau who argues that in seeking electoral reform, it is always
necessary to go back to a first convention. In The Social Contract, he says:
“Before examining the act by which a nation
elects a king, it would be proper to examine the act by which a nation becomes
a nation; for this act, being necessarily anterior to the other, is the real
foundation of the society.”
A national conference could help to clarify
the role of the Nigerian state and seek to shift the purpose of political power
from predation and primitive accumulation to the provision of security and
prosperity. Rousseau argues that there is a need to ask and answer the question
of nationhood before we start to focus on electoral reforms. It is arguable
that it is the absence of this prior debate that has stalled the Uwais
electoral reforms.
Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution should be
made justiciable. Whether it would ever happen, without a debate on where we
are going as a nation and a reconfiguration of our law-making processes, is
another matter. If, by some miracle, it is indeed possible to make amendments
to the parts of the current constitution that address issues of nationhood, one
area to focus on must be an automatic conferment of locus standi on all
Nigerians to cost-effectively and quickly test that constitution through the
courts. The ordinary citizen must have the ability to ask hard questions and
obtain answers. The issue of locus standi leads me to a major issue — the need
to fundamentally reform our legal system. Our current system has grown out of a
culture of impunity fostered by the military over many years. Indeed, some of
the judges that presided over the worst excesses of the military era are still
sitting in judgment over Nigerians today.
Additionally, a number of questionable laws
have been inherited and new ones enacted to try and replicate the
authoritarianism of the military era. For instance, Section 41 of the 1999
Constitution guarantees every person the right to freedom of movement. Yet at
the end of every month, most state governments restrict movements for three
hours for the purpose of what they call “environmental sanitation”. Any law on
which such restriction of movement is based is patently contrary to the
constitution and is a legacy of military impunity. However, it is necessary to
first break that environmental law, and most probably be assaulted by
power-drunk officials, before locus standi can be conferred to challenge that
law. This is despite the fact that imposing a “sanitation day” is an admission
of the failure of the state to collect solid waste, for which it collects
monthly sanitation levies!
Without the use of referenda, the legislature
is perhaps more strategically placed to bring about change than any other arm
of government. It can impeach the executive and change the laws that the
judiciary must apply. Recent focus on the legislature has been with respect to
their salaries and allowances, and, given the quality, quantity and relevance
of the laws that the current National Assembly has passed, many would argue
that a part-time, unpaid, legislature would serve the country best. Having the
powers to ask hard independent questions, hold the executive to account and
make laws in the public interest for the judiciary, without enjoying the
current benefits of office would truly be a game-changer. Membership of such a
legislature will be less attractive to political jobbers and charlatans and more
attractive to people with the interest, intellect, courage and passion to ask
hard questions and obtain answers.
We need to revisit our appointments system. A
body resembling President Jonathan’s erstwhile Presidential Advisory Council
(in purpose, rather than membership) can play the role of Plato’s Nocturnal
Council. Such a council must be truly independent and their role must be to
“rescue the public interest.” The selection of members must be based only on
merit. However, for this to happen, there is the prior need to have a debate
about the place of merit in the context of ‘federal character’.
Although I have vented some of my own perosnal
frustrations, the fundamental issue in my commentary is the need to ask the
question and try to seek honest answers to them. It is possible to ask these
questions through referenda, a national conference, the courts or a properly
functioning legislature. Some Nigerians may not like some of the answers to
some of the questions, but who is afraid of the question and why? It seems to
me that the freedom to ask hard questions and seek genuine answers, no matter
how unpalatable, are the hallmarks of true democracy. Voltaire approach to
debate is worthy of emulation: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it.” Let the people decide ‘Whither Nigeria’!
Adapted
from an article first written in March 2012 for the Iju Public Affairs Forum
Source: medium.com
No comments: