Something unusual happened last week. In journalism, we call it printer’s devil. But that is merely being technical. A mistake is a mistake, whether it is caused by the devil or by a saint. Last week, a factual error was noticed after this column had gone to bed. The correction is that the National Conference was inaugurated on March 17 and not May 17. Pardon the blunder, please.
Last week, we noted that the Nigerian 2014 National Conference has a lot in common with the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. On Monday, I had a call from a friend whose unadvertised intellectual depth commands my respect. She questioned why I should attempt a comparison between our own national conference and the Philadelphia Convention.
She said: “…But what is this thing about Philadelphia Convention and the National Conference? Philadelphia has one religion and one language. Nigeria has many religions, many tribes/ethnic groups. Is that a fair comparison?”
No! I told her. However, without resorting to such detailed nuances, if we focus on the basic issues such as how decisions were taken, and even the comparative necessity of the two conferences, we would draw not only similarities, but a lesson or two from the former. The focus and the underlying reasons are well connected.
My friend is quite an exciting bundle when it comes to clinical discourse. She has what I often call cerebral goatish stubbornness. After an elongated ‘no victor no vanquished’ explanation, we agreed to wait for the concluding part of this analysis. It was both a relief and a burden.
The Philadelphia convention was almost torn apart by several issues, including the creation of the Senate, the cessation of the economic war between the north and the south, and, of course, the critical issue of slave trade. They all competed for resolution. And rarely was any resolution pleasant to all the parties, even when the voting pattern was two-third majority or 60 per cent, and not our own 70 per cent.
When the convention finally agreed on the creation of the Senate, the issue of representation surfaced. It was a battle between the big states and the small states. While the big states rooted for representation based on population, the small states wanted equal representation. They felt cheated or marginalised when in actual sense most of them produced the resources that sustained the country.
To resolve this impasse which had dragged on for weeks, two delegates, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut proposed what became the Great Compromise. The proposition made it possible for each state to be assigned number of seats in the House of Representatives proportional to its population, while Senate had equal representation from each state, no matter the population. This was what saved the largest democracy from collapse.
Coincidentally, the contentious issue of representation that almost tore the 1787 Philadelphia Convention apart surfaced in July – the same month the issue of derivation principle and revenue sharing formula surfaced at the 2014 Abuja conference.
However, while that of Philadelphia was resolved “by a heart-stopping margin of one vote”, Abuja conference required a heart-bursting clear 70 per cent of 492 to resolve the two crucial issues. At the end, conference fell back on the status quo.
Although the non-striking of a compromise between the North and the South at the Abuja conference, to an extent, had a lot to do with ethnic colouration, I believe it was hugely due to the ancient tyranny and insensitivity of the majority. Decisions on derivation principle and revenue sharing formula suffered at the conference due to avoidable, unprofitable grandstanding.
I disagree, though not completely, with those who believe that language and ethnicity, as assumed by my beloved friend, stopped the compromise; I also disagree with those who have argued that a compromise was easier among 55 people at the Philadelphia convention than the 492 delegates at Abuja conference. I have my reasons.
Less than two weeks after the conference was inaugurated, I sat attentively in the chamber and watched the historic convocation collapsing. This was when the issue of voting pattern came up. Two delegates – Fola Adeola, the founder of GTB; and Atedo Peterside, founder of IBTC (now Stanbic IBTC) – saved the day through boardroom suggestions that led to a compromise.
Then surfaced the issue of religion; Christians and Muslims took fear-striking positions. At the end, maturity, patriotism and the fear of God prevailed. A compromise was reached.
The issue of state police was a no-go area at the committee level. Two former Inspectors General of Police (IGPs), Muhammadu Gambo and Ibrahim Coomasie, opposed it with devastating vehemence. Suddenly, when the issue was re-opened at the plenary session, it sailed through effortlessly. We later discovered that a compromise had been struck behind closed doors.
Decentralisation of power was originally greeted with protest. Through sound negotiation, it was resolved. Local governments came under states. What about Item 39 of the Exclusive Legislative List which deals with mining of natural resources. It was amended through a compromise after four days of debate.
Just as these issues were resolved through negotiation despite the language and ethnic barriers, the debate over derivation and revenue sharing would also have been resolved if the Annkio Briggs and the Auwalu Yadudus of the conference had moved their goal posts of arguments towards the centre by putting Nigeria first instead of celebrating their native intelligence. If it happened in 1787, it could have happened again in 2014 because “though tribe and tongue may differ, in brotherhood we stand”.
