The point is that the Nigerian state must seek the moral consent of the people openly through a complete restructure of the polity to devolve political and economic governance to the people themselves at state, local, city and village levels.
The temporary lull in the protest by IPOB for Biafra’s secession from Nigeria has given space for national reflection. The onus now rests on the APC-controlled Nigerian government to lead and come up with a plan. But does the APC have a clue?
A deeper look at the legal, political and coercive powers of state show that where you have peace, the foundation of legal, political and coercive powers of state is a moral consent. Such moral consent is either freely given from below by the people or the state consciously goes out to seek such from the people through doing the will of the people. Both conditions are historically absent in Nigeria.
After the IPOB secessionist protest broke out, the Nigerian state exhibited its characteristic trait. It wrongly responded with force, cynicism and disdain. Later, the Nigerian government retreated from the use of military force and scrambled to define the problem. The government did this through its minister for information, Mr. Lai Mohammed who said nebulously that the IPOB protest is “completely legitimate”. If a government describes a protest as “completely legitimate” the next question is: then what?
To this question, the APC-led Nigerian government has not shown that it has a clue. You do not first treat an act with disdain and cynicism and then claim that it is “completely legitimate”.
In days ahead Nigeria will witness Nigerian elites – across the ethnic groups – move around the country, cutting deals with ethnic groups pretending to solve the problem as if it is a sectional ethnic problem. It is the characteristic Nigerian superficiality to calm nerves in order to stabilise the status quo and reinforce it, while nothing changes.
Contrary to this familiarly notorious ethnic deal-cutting, the core issue in the Biafra secessionist demand (as with other strife like the Fulani herdsmen, the South-South agitation in the country) remains an objective one, which indeed is a focal point of the National Question in today’s Nigeria. It so happens, also, that the fundamental resolution of that question includes a restructuring of the polity along federalist lines and principles, by removing Abuja, the central government, as the dominant and domineering force in the lives of Nigerians as it is currently, but wrongly, the case.
This is where the role of a ruling party –APC– is crucial in creating an open democratic solution. But it seems that the APC (especially some APC leaders) are compromised on the National Question. The unhelpful situation the APC finds itself in on the National Question has a history because the APC emerged out of four parties – the ACN, CPC, a wing of ANPP, and a wing of PDP.
But without a policy on the National Question, which means a restructuring of the polity and economy – there is no way the APC could respond coherently to the IPOB Biafra secessionist challenge (and similar challenges). This is why just like the PDP’s faulty default position on Boko Haram; the APC, its defenders and spokespersons fell back on similar default reading.
Like most Nigerian parties, it is difficult to tie them to programmes, manifestoes, and visions beyond the papers on which they were written. The CPC, ANPP and PDP wings that join APC are not known to have any position on the National Question and on restructuring, – which means restructuring of the polity is not one of their political agenda.
But the ACN–or at least some of its leaders–individually, previously held positions on the “National Question”. So while the national APC can claim (though wrongly) the lack of commitment to resolving the National Question and restructuring the country along federalist lines, some of its leaders such as Mr. Bola Ahmed Tinubu and others especially in the western part of the country cannot make such claim.
Hence, examining the poor response of APC to the IPOB protest, it could be seen how some APC leaders who were the original bearers of the agenda to restructure the polity went into APC without any position or demand on resolving the National Question and without any fall back position on this, just in case the national APC is unable to and is not willing to lead the country in restructuring the polity.
But without a policy on the National Question, which means a restructuring of the polity and economy – there is no way the APC could respond coherently to the IPOB Biafra secessionist challenge (and similar challenges). This is why just like the PDP’s faulty default position on Boko Haram; the APC, its defenders and spokespersons fell back on similar default reading.
For example, there is no difference between the default position of the APC on the Biafra secessionist challenge and the default position of the PDP on the Boko Haram terrorism. In the two cases, the reading is that Boko Haram is a mere tool of the Northern elites to disrupt ex-President Jonathan’s government and to APC, Biafra secession is a tool of the South-Eastern elites to disrupt President Buhari’s government.
But supposing it is true that the IPOB Biafran secession call is an ethnic ploy of local elites to disrupt the central government, what follows? What follows is not private ethnic deal-making for office position, as we may witness very soon in the country. While nationally representative governance is the right thing in a multi-national and multi-cultural country like Nigeria – (a thing that was hopelessly lacking under ex-president Jonathan and lacking now under Buhari), to cut ethnic deals behind the public with the same ethnic elites who are being accused of being behind the protests is to make nonsense of the seriousness of the National Question that the Biafra challenge has raised, and it is to validate the reading that visible and invisible ethnic warlords sponsor the protest for pecuniary reasons, power and office.
Given the soundness of the restructuring along federalist lines position as the lasting solution to Nigeria’s challenges, the strange thing is how APC government is missing this. I think the APC is missing this point because its leaders who ought to be the driving force of positions on the National Question may have been compromised within APC by the sweetness and lure of power and office.
Thus, what ought to follow is to seek a permanent and objective solution openly and democratically in the public sphere by restructuring the polity and economy in a way that removes the dominant and domineering role of the central government as an un-called for Father Christmas. This will make those local elites who have been accused of looting their people’s resources to be accountable to their people.
In this regard, the following should be the case. First, there should be more local resource control and more local governance. This will stop idle agitation for more states. And given that the bulk of Nigerian states are politically and economically unviable as a result of centralisation of governance and wrong principles of state creation, it will naturally lead to a re-alignment of unviable states. With this, you will not appeal to people to stop agitating for more states because when you do that, you are labeled. The point will be you get your state if it is economically viable and sustainable because there will be no central government – Abuja, a central government – as a universal donor and sponsor.
Second, while terrorists will have to deal with their local elites, secessionists will deal with their local elites. Third, the local elites will have to be accountable to their people because the era of a central government that is a universal donor of centrally controlled resources will have ended.
Given the soundness of the restructuring along federalist lines position as the lasting solution to Nigeria’s challenges, the strange thing is how APC government is missing this. I think the APC is missing this point because its leaders who ought to be the driving force of positions on the National Question may have been compromised within APC by the sweetness and lure of power and office.
Pertinent questions are: why are John Oyegun – the APC Chairman, and APC leaders such as Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Vice President Yemi Osibanjo, ministers like Babatunde Fashola, Kayode Fayemi, Lai Mohammed, Osun state governor Rauf Aregbesola, Senator Femi Ojudu – who are known to have held positions on “true” federalism in the past and who claim to espouse Awolowo’s modern liberal democratic federalist political philosophy on nation building – not leading a debate within their party for a public resolution of the National Question? Wasn’t there a debate and position taken on these issues when they were forming APC?
If most of these APC politicians claim to be Awoists, did they negotiate away the core principles of Obafemi Awolowo’s thought on nation building, which is a federal, inclusive, liberal democratic morally inclined Nigerian welfare state (that takes care of the economically weak and the most economically and socially vulnerable among us) but founded on clearly enunciated, visible and unambiguous principles of federalism which negates the idea of a humongous central government as a sponsor of states?
…the solution to strifes such as Boko Haram terrorism, IPOB secession, Fulani Herdsmen, the South-South agitation etc. in Nigeria is not the cutting of ethnic deals behind doors and behind the back of the public by elites from across the ethnic groups. Such ethnic deal cutting by elites is subjective and personal.
Or are they saying or implying that it is possible to isolate Obafemi Awolowo’s vision of good governance form Awolowo’s core principle of federalism? If they think this is what they are doing, what will such unhelpful separation amount to in the broader context of the need for an irreversible practice of good governance in a multi-national and multi-cultural country such as Nigeria because resolving the National Question enhances “good governance” on Awo’s thought?
Politicians from the western part of the country may wish to justify their strong involvement in the Buhari administration on the grounds that they are in it to promote good governance! But it will be terribly mistaken for members of the political elite, especially in the western part of the country, to conclude that just because they are part of the Buhari government that an ill defined concept of “good governance” that excludes the resolution of the “National Question” exhausts the “National Question”. The mere participation of members of the political class from an ethnic group does not approximate “good governance”; neither does it approximate a resolution of the “National Question”.
This same narrow mindedness happened under ex-president Jonathan’s government when his government was wrongly dominated and controlled by the South-South and South East-political elites.
So, the solution to strifes such as Boko Haram terrorism, IPOB secession, Fulani Herdsmen, the South-South agitation etc. in Nigeria is not the cutting of ethnic deals behind doors and behind the back of the public by elites from across the ethnic groups. Such ethnic deal cutting by elites is subjective and personal. Sectional and personal interests rather than objective national interests drive these ethnic deal cutting. Hence, they will blunt the real question- an open resolution of the “National Question” in an enduring sense.
The point is that the Nigerian state must seek the moral consent of the people openly through a complete restructure of the polity to devolve political and economic governance to the people themselves at state, local, city and village levels.
This is the moral consent that is an enduring foundation of peace.
The question is: Does APC as presently constituted have a clue? The signs are not strong that the APC has a clue. A humongous central government in a multi-national, and multi-cultural country like Nigeria is a bad product that needs to go.
The bell ticks and tolls. The bell does not wait for anyone; it will not wait for Nigeria.
Adeolu Ademoyo aaa54@cornell.edu Africana Studies and Research center, Ithaca, NY.
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment