Thursday, 28th March 2024
To guardian.ng
Search

Between diversification and restructuring

By Editorial Board
01 August 2016   |   4:47 am
Two inconsistent positions, one opposing the call for restructuring of the country and another advocating the introduction of state police, recently made public in quick succession by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo...
Vice President Yemi Osinbajo PHOTO: NAN

Vice President Yemi Osinbajo PHOTO: NAN

Two inconsistent positions, one opposing the call for restructuring of the country and another advocating the introduction of state police, recently made public in quick succession by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, have come to reiterate the import of policy uniformity by governmental authorities and the grave socio-political effect which misrepresented policy statements can have on the populace.

What became ‘heavy’ statements attracting reactions from eminent persons and influential groups in the country, were made partly during a question-and-answer session, after Prof. Osinbajo had delivered a lecture titled, “The Future is Here Earlier Than We Thought”, at the Second Foundation Lecture of the Elizade University, Ilara-Mokin, Ondo State. At that gathering of students and faculty, Osinbajo was alleged to have remarked that “restructuring debate should go deeper than what we see on newspapers headline…”. He was also quoted to have argued: “Even if states are given half of the resources of the Federal Government, the situation will not change. The only change is to diversify the economy.”

On the other hand, Osinbajo’s advocacy for the introduction of state police came through his Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Laolu Akande, clarifying the vice president’s position and that he was wholly in support of the establishment of state police across the country.

In support of the vice president, eminent Nigerians of northern extraction, under the aegis of Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), have faulted the call for restructuring. Of all the reasons adduced by the ACF against the call for restructuring, one that stands out is the manner in which the call has been made. True, there is an absence of decorum and civility in the way some groups have agitated for restructuring. The immature posturing and irreverent vituperation of some of these groups indeed, smack of juvenile rascality.

Also true is the ACF’s remark that: “restructuring a complex, big and diverse country as Nigeria is a serious business that must take account of the views of all its citizens and not just of those that shout the loudest or issue threat, intimidation and blackmail.” That our present democratic structure, as verily observed by the ACF, “provides ample opportunity for groups and individuals to present their agitation through their representatives in the national and state assemblies,” is also not in contention.

In other words, the ACF did not come out categorically to denounce the call for restructuring. All it did was to criticise the manner the call is being made and also point out the channel through which such call may be made. By implication, therefore, the ACF indirectly recognises the right to call for restructuring.

In the light of this development, it is, once again, an expression of ignorance to assert that Nigeria’s unity is non-negotiable. Such an assertion is a hang-over from the Lugardian syndrome – the thinking that the different peoples who make up Nigeria are condemned to the European geo-political creation as amalgamated by Sir Frederick Lugard. In an age of awareness, when lopsided global relationships are causing nations to revisit and rethink their political history, Nigeria should not shy away from doing same. That Nigeria’s different nationalities form one country called Nigeria does not mean they were created to be so. Even if they are, by any streak of a priori supernatural machination, destined to be so, human faculties of reason and freedom demand that all should negotiate the togetherness. In the parlance of political philosophy and science, it is called a social contract.

The point missed by restructure phobics is that fundamentally, every political association or relationship is a social contract. It is not for nothing that man is endowed with reason and freedom and that he has a natural inclination to live in society. So, any genuine call for restructuring is consistent with this natural inclination. Opinion shapers in this country, irrespective of their affinities, are unanimous that we must respect Nigeria’s diversity, we must recognise the individuality of each people and then forge a unity. These are indeed profound statements. Yet, we cannot respect our diversities, or recognise the peculiarities, or forge a unity, if we do not understand such diversities and peculiarities and then work out modalities to deal with them. That is the point of the social contract missed by those contemptuous of, and in denial of restructuring.

Whilst the vice president opposed restructuring, he went to emphasise the diverse and peculiar natures of law enforcement and security management by supporting the establishment of state police. The call for state police is recognition that certain cultural undertones, religious sentiments and traditional political structuring affect the way the different peoples of Nigeria view law enforcement and crime management. This recognition is not peculiar to Nigeria. Police science recognises these facts of social security; which is why well run countries have different classifications of the police. The United Kingdom has 46 semi-autonomous categories of police. Canada and the United States of America, among others have such classification. If the call for state police is recognition of these differences, how can we bring it to light without restructuring?

This same argument holds for Osinbajo’s bold preference for diversification. According to him, “We are not earning enough from oil and taxes anymore. The nation is blessed, every state can feed itself and also export if we engage in agriculture.” Indeed, any country desirous of growth and progress should be ready to open up other areas of revenue generation and economic empowerment of its people. However, where the structures that should promote diversification are centrally controlled, the needed competition that galvanises growth would be absent. Restructuring should precede diversification because the federal economic structure cannot work without restructuring. The denial of restructuring is also an indication of the government’s unitarist stranglehold on the economy.

Despite the clarification of the vice president’s interpretation of restructuring, his shifting thoughts and the hurried attempt at damage control advertise his loud inconsistency. Whilst such inconsistent positions reveal an administration unsure of what it has to offer the polity and put such administration under unwarranted pressure to redeem itself from national pretences and denials, they also garb its representatives in an apparel of mendacity. If such does not become an indictment on that administration, it would be a personal embarrassment to any leader of integrity whose official position has compelled him to make public statements tongue in cheek.

4 Comments

  • Author’s gravatar

    The VP is merely trying to please his Northern pay masters who are vehemently opposed to restructuring. But call whatever name you wish, the current political and economic structures are not sustainable.

  • Author’s gravatar

    great article. Here is the problem. most people view restructuring as breaking up the country or denying them a share of the wealth from some land. Restructuring doesn’t also have to be a massive venture to be done in a span of a year or two. it should be a gradual properly managed and communicated process. There is no need to divide the country, Nigeria has a very good model to look back on. We can begin to rebalance the country with small easy steps. How about the federal government allow the licensing of solid mineral to be done by each state. Then the federal government would provide the basic regulation, guidelines and supervision. How about the federal government begin to release control of the police to the state government. lets police in each state have a good representation of the resident of that state, and the deputy or vice governor be in control of the state police. Here again, the federal government provide the broad regulation, supervision and help with some funding. How about a good 80% of VAT goes back to where it was collected. we can begin small easy steps to rebalancing the country and making it a true federal country.

  • Author’s gravatar

    It is indeed heartening that the V-P quickly corrected his earlier statement. For me there is a divine hand in favor of some changes in the nation, call it by whatever name. The insecurity via militancy, kidnapping, herdsmen terrorism, heightened ethnic and or regional suspicion coupled with worrisome tumbling in the global oil demands which represent the major artery of our economic activity, points to one inevitable direction we can no longer run away from. Nigeria will definitely come out stronger. Let’s do it now before it becomes too complicated to handle. God bless and preserve our unity.

  • Author’s gravatar

    This is a great & distinguished editorial; typical though, of the Guardian board which has distinguished itself from the rest.

    That said, the Osinbajo’s inconsistencies typify the lameness of the arguments against restructuring. Simply said: The case for restructuring Nigeria is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to argue unintelligently & even irrationally