By Kehinde Okeowo
The national debate on whether Nigeria is best defined as a nation or state is an interesting discuss that will continue for generations to come. This is not because the concept is puzzling, but due to the sentiments expressed by most political actors. A nation is commonly defined as “A stable community of humans formed on the basis of common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture” while a state is “A territory with its own government and borders within a larger country”. A critical look into these definitions will show that Nigeria is basically a state rather than a nation or at best a combination of both, a nation-state.
First Republic in perspective
Perhaps the realization of this fact played a pivotal role in the system of government Nigeria’s founding fathers opted for at independence on October 1, 1960. They must have chosen an arrangement in which the regions were more prominent than the centre because they realized that Nigeria was a coming together of several nations and people of different culture, religion and beliefs. They must have also seen the strength in its size and diversity, but most importantly, they must have noticed that the constituting units were hitherto, independent entities brought together by the British colonial administration.
The period in question was no doubt far from perfect but remained the only time the tenet of true federalism was adhered to in our body politics. It’s also arguably one of the best periods in Nigeria’s political history because it brought about sustainable development and took cognizance of the weaknesses and strengths and most significantly the diversity in the people’s ways of life. The northern, western and eastern regions which made up Nigeria at that time progressed at their paces. There was healthy competition among them. This was the era of the groundnut pyramid in the north, cocoa and palm oil in the west and east respectively. It was also during this period that the western region of the country established the first television station in Africa.
The dynamics of how the leaders of political parties played politics during this period is a testimonial to the fact that power resided at the regions and politics was more attractive at that level. Apart from Dr Nnamdi Azikwe, the then President of Nigeria and leader of The National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC), who seemed to be more interested in the politics at the centre, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the then opposition leader and founder of Action Group (AG) and Alhaji Ahmadu Bello, his counterpart, who founded Northern People’s Congress (NPC) were more interested at their various regions. For example, despite the lure of becoming the first Prime Minister of Nigeria, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello decided to stay back as the Premier of northern region and sent Sir Tawafa Balewa to the centre to become the Prime Minister. Some historians have also argued that Chief Ladoke Akintola, the then Premier of the western region fell out favour with Chief Obafemi Awolowo due to power struggle for the control of western region.
Enter the unitary system
The first military coup of 1966 led by Major Kaduna Nzeogwu which enthroned Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi as the Head of State brought an abrupt end to the first republic and ushered in a unitary system of government in consonance with military structure and practice. Subsequently, a lot of military and civilian governments had since led the country but despite the fact that the current constitution is federal in outlook, in reality, the unitary system inherited from military rule is still pervasive. In fact, this military mentality has eaten so deeply into the fabric of the society and political system that years of civilian rule and constitutional amendments did not change the old order. At best, states are appendages of the federal. To be candid, the concentration of power at the centre is repressive and could be adjudged to be responsible for the incessant agitations for the review of the current union to reflect the aspiration and yearnings of the different ethnic nationalities in Nigeria and in some cases, the clamor for outright breakaway.
Towards an equitable federation
The Nigerian experiment has shown that centralized power breeds endemic corruption, stagnation and nepotism in all spheres of a country’s socio-political and economic life, disgruntled groups within the system seeking secession, poor infrastructural development, total dependence of states and local governments on federal allocation and conflicts that engender huge level of carnage and wanton destruction as it is the case with insurgency and banditry in the north, ethno-religious crisis in the middle belt and incessant kidnapping in the south. To forestall all these anomalies and return to era of peace and tranquility, many have argued that the political system must begin to appreciate the diversity and the critical role grassroots play in national stability and development. They suggested moving away from a parochial mindset that compels people of different cultures and aspirations to progress at the same pace.
Secession or restructuring?
Secession as it is today remains illegal and has dire consequences because unlike the constitutions of some advanced democracies, there is no provision for referendum to vote to leave our union. Hence, the only legitimate option remains dialogue among stake holders in the country to create an egalitarian society that appreciates that we are different people with different aspirations and that the country’s size, population and diversity constitute elements of strength if properly harnessed. It is thus argued that the country is better as a one indivisible entity while the terms of the relationship should be as agreed by all parties and based on justice, fairness and equity. It must seek to follow the vision of the forefathers and what they stood for before the military incursion into the country’s body politics.
