Officials count votes in front of voters and party representatives during the presidential and parliamentary elections on February 23, 2019. Stefan Heunis / AFP
By Ighodalo Clement Eromosele
It is axiomatic first that the system of governance in Nigeria since 1966 has not worked to mark the country out in the comity of nations. Second, that the ethnic diversities comprising 374 distinct linguistic groups have been poorly managed to leverage on their latent energies and talents for the overall development of Nigeria. This is against the backdrop of many policies of government over the years to foster national understanding, cohesion and integration.
Specifically, the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) established by decree 24 of May 22, 1973 sought to promote reconciliation, reconstruction and rebuilding of the country after the civil war. Among the objectives is, “to develop common ties among the Nigerian youths and promote national unity and integration.” Further, “to remove prejudices, eliminate ignorance and confirm at first hand the many similarities among Nigerians of all ethnic groups” ( Decree 51, June 16, 1993). There is also the quota system for admission into unity schools and tertiary institutions. For the former it has allowed for disparities in cut-off marks for admission of students from different states into unity schools in order “to foster peace, unity and amicable co-existence among Nigerians” (Federal Ministry of Education).
Whatever the merit of the quota system, it is evident that the policy has failed to mitigate national educational imbalance in the country, amongst other objectives it was intended to achieve. But as pertaining to promotion of national unity, the verdict of the late Professor T. M. Yesufu is instructive, inter alia: “A child who is deprived of an educational opportunity after scoring highly in an examination, only because he comes from a so-called educationally advanced state, has had the tenets and principles of a united Nigeria, demonstrably transformed into a mockery, if not totally and irrevocably destroyed within him. No amount of singing of the National Anthem, nor voluble recitations of the pledge, would ever again make him a complete Nigerian. Henceforth, he is native of his state first and being a Nigerian becomes secondary. The practice would have the same resultant effect on the student who because he came from a disadvantaged state benefited from the admission exercise. His loyalty would be to the state which apparently gave him the rare opportunity, not the Federal government.” (Yesufu, 13th Annual Seminar, CVC, Ilorin, 1990).
As an instrument to ensure inclusion of all Nigerians in the affairs of state, there is the Federal Character provision in the 1979/1999 Constitutions, which inter alia states, “the composition of the government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or any of its agencies (S.14(3), 1999 Constitution).
But despite these constitutional instruments, Federal Character, Quota System and NYSC amongst others, there is no national cohesion, integration and unity, and Nigeria is still a geographical expression nurtured and sustained by a governance system imbued with centrifugal forces. The APC-led government has rendered the wholesome principle of Federal Character nugatory by its nepotistic disposition and predominance of an ethnic group in core positions of the Federal Government. This has deepened the ethnic divide in the Nigeria’s body politic and accentuated the jostle for power at the centre.
In this season preceding the 2023 presidential election the principle of north-south power rotation is at the verge of being jettisoned by the two leading political parties, APC and PDP, in their strategies to secure victory at the polls. The premise of the strategies clearly runs counter to the need for inclusiveness. If the premise for the strategies is on merit and competence, it is at once in congruence with the call for true federalism as a mode of governance best suited for Nigeria, a multi-nationality state. But if not, it amounts to a square peg in a round hole in a vain attempt to manage the current unitary system of governance.
The campaign promises by many of the aspirants bidding for a presidential ticket betray insincerity or sheer lack of understanding of the fundamental dysfunction of the present governance system notwithstanding their so-called experience in governance. Indeed it is demonstrably a case of nemo dat quod non-habet.
The aspirants have been moving around to address delegates on their programmes. But what is not clear is whether such programmes derive from the manifestoes of their parties in which case one expects the delegates to interrogate the aspirants on specific matters rather than accept hook line and sinker amorphous statements such as fixing the economy, insecurity and sundry hackneyed issues.
Then the question, what is the general disposition of the delegates on the issue of governance? In light of the manifold challenges confronting the country, one would expect discussions on true federalism to address a number of issues notably, insecurity which calls for multi-level policing – federal police, state police and local government police; local government administration which demands that local governments be a creation of states; power/electricity which calls for a multi-grid system and autonomy of states to regulate and manage electricity generation, transmission and distribution; census which calls for the power of the state to conduct census for effective planning; a natural resource which calls for state control and development of resources and to provide support for the central government in line with the principle of fiscal federalism.
These among others should be matters around which the views of presidential aspirants should be sought by the delegates. Regrettably, the press has not been helpful in this regard nor has it shown interactive sessions of aspirants and delegates for the benefit of citizens.
Still on the disposition of the delegates. If as it seems, the delegates can be compromised by pecuniary inducement from aspirants as quid pro quo, then it justifies the apprehensions about the 2023 presidential election, particularly the options, in candidates, that will ultimately avail the electorate.
There is a strident call by INEC for Nigerians to take possession of their voter’s card (PVC) and to exercise their civic responsibility by voting. Prior to the 2015 presidential election, many Nigerians were disenchanted by the arrogant and underperforming PDP and consequently yearned for a change of government. APC exploited it as its mantra.
Although the APC manifesto was robust on issues of governance and solution, particularly on true federalism, the flag bearer of the party did not campaign on the basis of the manifesto and therefore could not be held to account when he presented his three-point agenda – economy, security and anti-corruption.
As we approach the next presidential election in 2023, the compelling question is, how equipped is the electorate to interrogate presidential candidates that will emerge in the days ahead, particularly since the bulk of the voting populace is not knowledgeable about the critical issues and how they affect them.
No doubt, as in 2015, Nigerians are desirous to have a government and a leader that will address the multitude of problems in the polity. There is a sense of hopelessness, and despair exacerbated by the attitude of the political class which smacks of insensitivity. This feeling needs to be assuaged by an assurance that 2023 holds the promise of a decisive change.
The press would do well to help the electorate in this regard to do due diligence in identifying a presidential candidate whose worldview is in sync with the yearning for a fundamental restructuring of governance in Nigeria and presenting him or her with the same verve and publicity as it was for President Buhari in 2015.
Prof. Eromosele is former deputy vice Chancellor (Academic), Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.
