USA Africa Dialogue Series - On My Hope for the Evolution of Cooperative True Federalism from the National Conference {Re: FROM THE ARCHIVES: Civil Society and Obasanjo’s Conference - by Reuben Abati

Olutayo Ojo and fellow Nigerians:

Strengthening sub-national governments, whether regional/zonal, state and/or in particular local governments - compared to the current gargantuan central federal government - strengthens local accountability of the more localized leadership, whether elected or even selected.  The primary ways of strengthening local government are five-fold:

   - local control of resources, with taxation paid to center at agreed rates depending on the resource;

   - local registration of political parties that may or may not be national in outlook.  Nothing should stop a political party being in only one state, but nothing should also stop a national party holding sway at the local level either.

   - local establishment/recruitment of the security (police) and judicial (judges) systems, and the severest punishment for malfeasance of policemen and judges: this is key, for a system with a corrupt justice system is doomed.  There should be a web of local government, state, zonal policemen and judges, but with stated organic relationships with federal ones.

    - zero-party elections at the lowest level of governance (presumably at the local government level.) The people at the grassroots must be relieved of partisan politics at some level.

    - a revenue supplementation/re-distribution system from the center to the lower level that is need- and service-based, not the present allocative system based simply on contested population figures, land-space and skewed differential numbers of local governments of various states.

What we need is a bottom-up COOPERATIVE TRUE FEDERALISM rather than a top-down ALLOCATIVE UNITARY FEDERALISM fostered by many years of military rule, and currently enshrined in our 1999 Constitution.  The latter quasi-federal system 

    - promotes an inordinate grab for the center (where the levers of political and financial power are inordinately excessive, thereby fostering desperation and corruption); 

    - pollutes the leadership choice further down the governance ladder; the center invariably anoints local leadership. 

    - makes the national justice system (police and judicial) very inefficient, through central recruitment and control;

    - promotes laziness in the productive sector, as sub-national governments await monthly "allocations" in Abuja and thereby shift all accountability to the center, and 

    - generally introduces frustration in the national body politic, in the concomitant "arrested development."  

A cooperative true federalism will correct these ills one by one.

Now to the next level of detail......

What are the federating units - local government, states, or zones?  What kind of system - parliamentary or presidential? How many legislative houses - unicameral or bicameral?  What kind of term - three, four, five or six years?  How many terms - one, two or unlimited?  Let each sub-national government decide, as spelt out by each of their separate Constitutions, and let ALL the People decide what it will be at the FEDERAL LEVEL.  It need NOT be the same at all levels - we cannot be a cookie-cutter nation -  but if it turns out that way, so be it - as decided by the People at a Referendum that should have both local and national questions to be answered.

Variety, experimentation, evolution and competition are all elements of cooperative true federalism.  Our new popular Constitution must foster these, and the multi-ethnic nature of Nigeria demands it.

I end with Abati's resonant admonition of 2005, which is relevant today in 2013:

QUOTE

The task of the civil society is easy because Nigerians know what they want. The issues to be discussed at the National Conference are already in the public domain. The various ethnic nationalities and other stakeholders are not just about to define their positions in the Nigerian federation. Those positions have existed long before now, but they have been disallowed due to the limitations of the Nigerian state. The work of civil society in the proposed conference is to make sure that those positions, representing the voice of the people are given full expression.

The work of civil society is to make sure that the Conference does not become a replica of the National Assembly where representatives are more interested in allowances rather than the welfare and happiness of the people. [The] President [whether Obasanjo or Jonathan] may well discover that he has set in motion, the beginnings of the change that Nigerians seek. But that change must be based on values and the common good; on no account must the conference become a platform for ethnic acrimony. Civil society can play a mediating role to ensure that this does not happen. And for it to do this successfully, it should constitute itself into a formidable network on the people's behalf, not into disparate cells, and also sensitise the people to become true owners of the process of debating their future and affairs.

UNQUOTE

There is reason to be skeptical - like Tinubu, but not to be cynical. Notice what he writes, inter alia

QUOTE

If the conference must be held now, we must return to the spade work already done by the Obasanjo government in the aspect of constitutional review. Let the Jonathan government bring it out, remove the third term toxic component and set up a technical review committee to examine the 118 recommendations therein. We must continue from where we disagreed.  Nation building is a progressive work and to totally jettison the considerable spade work already done is to set back the hands of the clock. Time is not on our side.

Secondly, this government should implement the Uwais recommendations on electoral reforms. That report was the work of imminent Nigerians and it was done after widespread consultations to constituencies far and wide. We all know that our electoral system is broken and unfair. If the President has done nothing to fully implement this corrective report that would fix a system so blatantly broken, why would he implement recommendations of national conference if those recommendations do not suit his narrow purposes? The government should first implement this important work in order to demonstrate to Nigerians that it can hold and honor the outcome of a National dialogue.

UNQUOTE

Tnubu, a politician himself with a keen knowledge of how politicians are prone to behave,  merely sets certain conditions, but closes no doors firmly.  We can walk and chew at the same time...  Yes we must participate in the National Conference with our eyes wide open; that way, it cannot be worse than not to participate.

And there you have it.  

Bolaji Aluko

------------

Tayo Ojo Wrote...............

Olutayo Ojo

Message 2 of 2 , Oct 15 5:53 PM

Thank you so much Sir.

This is a very useful piece that can give insight to understanding the thinking of the antagonists of the Jonathan's conference of today. As it was then in the mind of Abati, so it is today in the minds of the opposers. What a turn of events, Abati is now on the other side of the table. 

I am particularly intrigued where he said 'However, the problem with Nigeria goes beyond a National Conference. The thinking that after a National conference all our problems will be solved misses the point. The way some people agonise over the fact that the Federal Government has refused to use the word "sovereign" conveys the impression that the conference is meant to be a deus ex machina. There is no country where it has served such a purpose. The conference, like an election, cannot be the end of problems but the beginning of new challenges'. 

My own take is that we should damn the motives of the current government at introducing this opportunity at this controversial moment and participate. Not because our problems as a nation can be solved by the convocation of the conference but because Jonathan and his cohorts may have reasons to triumph if the dialogue is scuttled based on refusal of some people or sections to participate.

The potent solution to Nigerian problem is still going to happen spontaneously when the time is ripe. All we are doing now or we are about to do is a stage play. What we should rise against in our land is corruption. Our major problem as a nation is corruption and it is the root of any other problem we can think of in Nigeria today. Those who want power at all cost want it because of the unearned wealth they come by while there. A million conference cannot remove corruption in our land. Conference cannot significantly change the status quo. If we say federating units should be allowed to control their resources, is there guarantee that those rulers in the federating units are not corrupt? Let us take a moment to leave the central government and focus on the sub-central governments. Corruption is as  endemic in the states and local governments as found in the central, if not more considering the 'stolen proportion analysis'. A lot of sub-central governments only do window dressing and package it for the gullible followers who hail them and look on and see less or decide to see less. Deceit is all over the place. Everybody with his/her own ulterior motives. 

A corruption free entity is what we should rise to get not secession or near-secession. There is so much economic value and prestige in the size we carry as a nation and we are so naturally endowed but lacking discipline. I don't want to believe that we as Nigerians or Africans are not endowed with the mental ability to manage a decent society. This of course, is the innate believe of the white men about Africans though not directly spoken.

May God help us wake up from our slumber.
Sent from my iPhone

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:

Guardian

January 23, 2005

Civil Society and Obasanjo's Conference

By Reuben Abati

President Olusegun Obasanjo makes it increasingly difficult for Nigerians to respect his decisions and intentions. Even when he means well, and ought to be supported, and encouraged, every gesture of his is received with great skepticism. The root of his dilemma is his style of doing things. And so it is with the proposed National Political Reforms Conference, which he is offering Nigerians, in place of the demand for a Sovereign National Conference. Since his volte- face on this subject, and his decision to set up the Makarfi committee to manage the conference and the announcement of the structure and format of the conference, Obasanjo has been the target of attacks from the civil society.

Understandably, the conference has been tagged "Obasanjo's conference", for it seems obvious that the President is determined to influence if not dictate the outcome of the discussions. He gives the impression that he knows what Nigerians should want for themselves. He wants to nominate 50 out of the 400 delegates to the conference, in addition to supplying the bureaucracy for the process. And where does Obasanjo derive this power from: nowhere, other than the fact that he is Nigeria's ruler. The suspicion, as expressed so far, is that his 50 nominees would be in a position to intimidate other nominees; they will act as his spies, reporting on other delegates and generally compromise the process. Obasanjo's influence becomes almost total in the proposed conference when we add the fact that other delegates will be nominated by the state Governors.

The PDP, the President's party, controls 28 states, and the Federal Capital Territory. The President is at the moment in the process of establishing complete control over the party. Anyone who stands in his way, he pulls down, and anyone who thinks that there will be a ceasefire after Ogbeh's removal should take a second look at the President's style. With Obasanjo ineffective control of the PDP, many of the state Governors would only send as delegates to the Conference, persons who will act out an official script. Thus, the proposed conference will be an Obasanjo/PDP exercise. The problem is that an exclusionary conference at an ideational level defeats the expectations and aspirations of Nigerians. It is further discouraging that the Obasanjo government is talking about no go areas whereas Nigerians are asking for an opportunity to deconstruct the nation, ask questions about the basis of the union, re-do the constitution, and forge a fresh consensus in the light of historical and contemporary experiences.

The opposition to the Obasanjo conference is deepened by the fact that nobody knows exactly what the President wants. Nobody has an idea of the kind of vision of nationhood that he is projecting. If he has any ideas about the future of the state on the basis of his experience in the last five years, those ideas have not been properly articulated and communicated to Nigerians. What looked like great ideas in his initial contract with Nigeria, spelled out in campaign documents and commissioned studies have since been overtaken by events as the government moves from one episode to another, managing sundry crises. What the public is left with therefore is a ready and formulaic tendency to suspect the President at every turn. This point must be underlined: that Obasanjo has become the issue, whereas the future of Nigeria ought to be the issue. This is so because this government is power-based, rather than ideas-based, and hence every effort generates power tensions and confrontations.

A typical justification for the distrust that is being expressed can be found in the example of the Oputa panel on human rights. When President Obasanjo set up this panel, soon after his assumption of office, Nigerians were excited. They saw it as a genuine opportunity to put a fence and a closure around years of military misrule, to address the fears of abused and aggrieved persons and communities and to ensure expiation if not justice. But the Obasanjo government has refused to release the report of the panel; it has refused to justify the huge amounts of money spent on the process; it has failed to offer a convincing reason for its waste of public time and resources. Civil society groups have published the report in protest but this lacks the potency of a government white paper. Similar processes in the past five years have been carried out merely to impress the public and create impressions of activity in government. There is no guarantee that the proposed conference will not end up,to borrow Professor Wole Soyinka's words, as a "tea party" or at worst as another job for the boys. But what should civil society do? 

This is a critical question in the light of reactions to the aforementioned issues. For now, I have been able to isolate two tendencies, representing the protest against Obasanjo's conference. One position is that a parallel conference should be organised comprising credible civil society representatives who will look at all the issues germane to the national question, without any restrictions whatsoever. The coalition of civil society organisations led by Chief Anthony Enahoro is working on a conference of 1, 000 delegates as an alternative to the official effort. Some members of the House of Representatives are also setting up their own conference. There may well be other parallel conferences in the making. The second position articulated by a faction of the Afenifere is that it is best to boycott the Obasanjo conference, something akin to the late Chief Bola Ige's "siddon look" posture. I find no merit in these two positions. Of what use will a parallel conference be? It may come up with the wisest ideas, but of what use will those ideas be if they are not fed into the official channel and process? 

The anti-Obasanjo coalition wants to produce its own people's constitution, but what kind of constitution would that be if it exists outside due process? Protest is useful but only when it is tied to specific results. By the same token, boycotting the Obasanjo conference would amount to leaving the field open to those who may not necessarily defend the people's interests. Those considering the boycott option are toying with the view that this will reduce the legitimacy of the proposed exercise. I don't think so, because the delegates would still be Nigerians, and they would speak as Nigerians. One lesson that is now obvious is that the National Conference can always be hijacked by whoeversets his mind to doing so. The clamour for a conference did not quite take this into consideration before now. The challenge before civil society is to make sure that those who want to hijack the process do not succeed in doing so.

Neither a boycott nor a parallel conference would achieve this objective, which is why I recommend a strategy of participatory engagement. Civil society must set for itself the task of moving the conference away from power-contests to the ideas plane; it must seek to involve itself in the process of nominating delegates. It must set in the public sphere and on the floor of the conference an agenda that is beyond the ambitions of the power brokers. It must constitute itself into a powerful ideas lobby group, articulate and determined, loud and pro-active, such that the conference delegates would have no option but to become mouthpieces for the preferences of the constituencies that they represent. When this momentum is activated, inside Obasanjo's own structure, the process would have been taken beyond and away from him. But to limit the involvement of civil society to complaints about Obasanjo and his motives, and then turn this into a big event, robs civil society of the energy to establish the power of ideas.

I am aware that various groups in civil society are already meeting and preparing draft documents for the conference. This must become tools for active lobbying. Those to be lobbied are the Governors and their delegates. The ideas that must be presented at the conference must be made available to them. Delegates in each region must be brought into the broad canvas of the politics of the people. This must be done so vigorously that even if a goat is sent by a Governor, that goat knows that on behalf of the people that he is supposed to be representing, he can only defend, push and insist on certain positions. If that goat then speaks out of line, civil society groups, acting as monitors of that conference can promptly demonise that goat. The same pressure can be mounted on Obasanjo's 50 delegates. Beyond this, the coalition of civil society forces can even influence the choice of delegates at the state levels by lobbying the Governors and helping them to understand the issues at stake. It is not impossible that some Governors may see nominations to the national conference as just another board appointment. And in every state, there is no short supply of useless people. The duty of civil society is to keep out that bench-warming, rent-seeking set out of the conference.

The task of the civil society is easy because Nigerians know what they want. The issues to be discussed at the National Conference are already in the public domain. The various ethnic nationalities and other stakeholders are not just about to define their positions in the Nigerian federation. Those positions have existed long before now, but they have been disallowed due to the limitations of the Nigerian state. The work of civil society in the proposed conference is to make sure that those positions, representing the voice of the people are given full expression.

The work of civil society is to make sure that the Conference does not become a replica of the National Assembly where representatives are more interested in allowances rather than the welfare and happiness of the people. President Obasanjo may well discover that he has set in motion, the beginnings of the change that Nigerians seek. But that change must be based on values and the common good; on no account must the conference become a platform for ethnic acrimony. Civil society can play a mediating role to ensure that this does not happen. And for it to do this successfully, it should constitute itself into a formidable network on the people's behalf, not into disparate cells, and also sensitise the people to become true owners of the process of debating their future and affairs.

However, the problem with Nigeria goes beyond a National Conference. The thinking that after a National conference all our problems will be solved misses the point. The way some people agonise over the fact that the Federal Government has refused to use the word "sovereign" conveys the impression that the conference is meant to be a deus ex machina. There is no country where it has served such a purpose. The conference, like an election, cannot be the end of problems but the beginning of new challenges. 

This is why a lot will depend on a country's value system and social culture. Culture is at the heart of it all, and by this I am referring to a cocktail of issues including the culture of leadership, business, social relations, politics, and even the attitude of the people in relation to themselves and the state. As a country, Nigeria still has a long road to travel; civil society must not abandon the journey at any point, or keep its eyes of the target, just because the man in power is unfriendly. The goal at the end of the journey, for him and for the rest of us, should be a better Nigeria.

 

__________________________________________________________________

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.