Enemies By Design: How The US And USSR Shaped Each Other's Identity

By Polycarp Onwubiko

 

As Nigeria stands at a crucial point in its complex political history, marked by shifts between civilian and military rule, there is widespread discontent with the distorted version of the federal system of government adopted in the first republic. This system, initially outlined in the 1960 independence constitution (later renamed the 1963 republican constitution), has faced criticism for its perceived unitary-federal nature.

Concerns over this dysfunctional federalism, labeled a "unitary-federal contraption," stem from the absence of a constitution formed through a constitutional conference involving ethnic nationalities, unlike the 1960 constitution. Typically, in a diverse society aiming to coexist as one country, the initial constitution is crafted by representatives of ethnic groups who present templates for equitable, just, and fair union, adhering strictly to the rule of law. Amendments are then made by the national legislature as needed.

The reality is that there was nothing inherently flawed with Nigeria's 1963 republican constitution. Regional governments operated with autonomy, showcasing impressive socio-economic growth using their natural resources. Unfortunately, attempts to impose a specific value system led to political crises, military intervention, civil war, and the abolition of the 1963 constitution. The military, however, did not revert to the republican constitution with federal principles, even though it had worked well in the first republic.

This is when the concept of "true federalism" emerged. The essence of true federalism lies in adhering to the principles encapsulated in the 1960 constitution, later renamed the 1963 republican constitution. Nigeria thrived with a decentralized security architecture, including "regional police."

Despite the success of this system, a section of the country opposed returning to federalism, opting for a centralized military structure and questioning the meaning of "true federalism." The real intent is to reinvent the principles of federalism from the first republic, as restructuring Nigeria's unitary-federal contraption would mean restoring those principles.

The question arises: Why does this section resist restructuring to ensure equity, justice, fairness, and the equitable sharing of the country's resources? The answer lies in their opposition to decentralized security architecture, fearing laws against open grazing and the establishment of ranches.

In conclusion, if President Tinubu seeks genuine change, he should convene a national conference of ethnic nationalities to create a people-based constitution. The 1999 constitution, a product of military imposition, cannot serve as the original constitution for a diverse society like Nigeria. Without such a constitutional conference, efforts to transform Nigeria may prove futile.

 

Polycarp Onwubiko, public policy analyst