As the Presidency and the National Assembly begin a process of constitutional amendment, it is important that we conduct a robust debate on Nigeria's challenges and how these challenges can be addressed by tinkering with the constitution.Merely listing a series of challenges or problems for review does not remove the possibility that we may not really understand the problems we are trying to fix. There is indeed a strong possibility that we may err in the diagnosis and therefore provide the wrong prescription. A poor diagnosis of the problems and wrong prescription often lead to outcomes that run against the supposed tide of public discourse and leave people bewildered. A typical case in point is the rejection of the proposed amendment to the 1999 Constitution that sought to grant financial autonomy to State Assemblies by the Assemblies themselves.One of the weak characteristics of public discourse in Nigeria is the failure to engage issues in detail, clarifying them in order to clearly identify the nature of the problem we want to deal with. There is a lot of grand positioning without teasing out the issues. In the end we make numerous assertions based on assumptions that are far-fetched from facts. This weakness is often accompanied by a failure to engage history and facts. References are made to dynamic realities as if they are static. Also, in the natural nostalgic feeling about the good old days, we fail to critically analyse the past and assume that the wiles and foibles of the past were not part of that history. This is particularly so in our society where it is not acceptable behaviour to speak ill of the dead. The paradox is that our forebears wished that we do not repeat their mistakes while acknowledging their achievements as heroes of the past. We do them a disservice when we fail to be critical about the past. The uncritical engagement with issues creates a situation where we trade sentiments and prejudices for rational augments, leading to a dialogue of the deaf. To overcome this challenge, intellectuals who are experts in various fields relating to our political problems must engage the issues, not only at the various seminars and scholarly outlets where their ideas are published; they must join in the public discussions in the media. This is a major responsibility that they have not sufficiently performed in the past decade. As a result, public discourse has been filled with misinformation or unacceptable ignorance. There is a tendency in public discourse in the media to engage in the exchange of vitriolic and the trading of blames. The process of constitutional reform commands serious public debate, requiring the input of scholars, to elevate the deliberations of the legislators as they do their job. This is the case because the activities, decisions and failures of politicians have grave consequences not only for politics, economy and society, but even the intellectual life of the country. Indeed, experts must help shore up the ideas of politicians as they muddle through the challenges of governing. They must find the candour to speak truth to power. In our increasingly monetised world, public spirit even within the ivory tower may be jeopardised by the tendency to put every time and effort in the market.It is common to hear politicians and even ordinary citizens talk of 'true federalism' as if it is the magic wand that will lead to the sustenance of the state and the resolution of the crisis of governance in Nigeria. The demand for 'true federalism' seems to be the sign that one is a progressive. Civil society activists always ensured that every communique on governance contains the phrase 'true federalism' as an imperative for Nigeria is to make it as a nation. The phrase has become so common that it is not unusual for some Political Scientists to recommend 'true federalism' as the panacea for Nigeria's ills.That ordinary citizens and politicians find it convenient to use the adjective 'true' to qualify an institution contrived by human beings as part of a larger set of institutions to regulate human behaviour does not pose a serious challenge. What is curious is that academics, including political scientists, have appropriated this phrase without engaging its content and meaning. It is generally assumed by most users of the phrase that federalism is fixed concept that follows a particular pattern without significant variations over time and across countries. Thus, a country that follows this established pattern is true to federalism. If this was so a country that calls itself federal and deviates from that pattern is making a false claim to federalism. The reality is that there are various patterns of federalism and a country can evince different patterns at particular moments in its history. In practice, federalism is so dynamic that a country does not have to be formally federal before evincing elements of federalism. Indeed, among experts, South Africa and China, countries that have not described themselves as federations are often analysed as providing good practice of federalism that formal federations can learn from.Federalism is a dynamic concept with a clear bottom-line. This is the constitutional division of powers and jurisdiction between two or more levels of government, with each level having at least one area of action in which its autonomy is guaranteed by the constitution. In this sense, Nigeria is a federation. Given this situation it is meaningless to talk about 'true federalism'. Before we explore further the nonsensical nature of the idea of 'true federalism', it is important to examine further how the phrase came to gain currency in Nigeria and what it has been used to signify.
Click here to read full news..
