INTRODUCTION
In any developing country, people wondered why the achievement of unity or socio-political integration is so problematic. Scholars have tried to identify factors of national integration. However, merely identifying these factors does not explain their inability to function towards achieving the goal of national integration that would usher in good leadership and governance.
Nevertheless, giving these factors, one would be interested in the socio-political structures within which they operate in order to discover the reasons for their malfunctioning. It is held here that forces of nationalism are also forces which induce national integration. There are, however, divergent views as to the causal relationship between nationalism and national integration that would usher in good leadership and governance. My belief is that the existence of nationalism presupposes the poor existence of national integration, although nationalism once created consolidates patterns of national integration, but why has Nigeria failed to achieve either national integration or nationalism? A distinction is made here between nationalist movements and nationalism. This is because the two have a causal relationship since successful nationalist movements have been shown to lead to nationalism. The big question now is why did the early nationalist movement not lead to Nigerian nationalism? It is impossible to specify a critical threshold at which nationalist movements definitely lead to nationalism. However nationalist movements lead to national integration which in turn leads to nationalism that could usher in good leadership and governance. It is a truism to say that nationalist activities in Nigeria inflamed tribal and ethnic rivalry, which inhibited the growth of nationalism and consequently affected leadership and governance. It is clear that there has never been any nationalism in many African countries. The existence of nationalist movements has led many people to perceive themselves as belonging to one socio-political structure in a rather loose union lacking the force of integrated structures. No doubt, perception is quite different from cognition. The association among tribes shows the apparent bonds of oneness, since these tribes perceive themselves as belonging to a structure. An analysis of Nigeria’s internal trade showed at a glance that while the regions were interdependent on commodities, the promoters of these trades were region and tribe oriented. Businessmen established more in their regions of origin. Other factors such as religion, education, population, mobility, etc are examined. It was contended that the prospects for Nigeria’s socio political integration was a 20th century political mirage, and the concept of Nigerian nationalism was sheer confusion and at best a Utopia since many advocates did not really understand what should be done to make nationalism a real phenomenon in Nigeria. However, it is appropriate to say that the tragedy of Nigeria and other African countries is attributable to the propensity of the elites to indulge in premature gratification which thus weakens the very spring board of nationalism.
The amalgamation of the new and old elite classes on unequal terms, led the latter to struggle for a restitution of their pristine privileges, and the former to adopt some repressive measures including deposition, to bring the chiefs and elders into conformity. The results were intrigues and dishonest relationships on both sides.
The absence of structural integration as shown in the existence of the Sabon gari or ‘strangers’ quarters and their counterparts in other regions, meant a limitation to the kinds of relationships that could exist. Lack of structural integration means absence of functional, cultural and communicative integration. In the absence of an established pattern of communications and services on a national level, the Nigerian elites found it salubrious to maintain their political ascendancy by supporting local values, and differentiating them from the national value systems. In short an analysis of many Nigerians response to “Westernisation” without attaining political maturity raises the all time fundamental question for Africa, Is Western democracy feasible in Africa? Many authorities have said it that Nigeria and other African countries lack the prerequisites for the western type of democracy. The horizontal conflict among the elites in their struggle to share the booties of western parliamentary democracy, the polarisation of the elites on party lines, the emergence of the multiple parties on tribal lines and the consequent socio-political instability have forced Nigeria to scan for an alternative to parliamentary democracy as the West minister brand. Afroc racy is a democratic method of achieving parliamentary government without the instruments of political parties. It is of course, more than a novel political method. It touches every aspect of life that gives rise to the African predicament, and proposes alternatives.
THE IMPACT ON COLONIAL OCCUPATION OF NIGERIA
It is hardly difficult to discuss Nigeria without considering the impact on the colonial occupation of the country since the colonial situation brought people of different cultures under a common situation where new patterns of interaction had to be developed. The situation is how these different people could live together and share a feeling of oneness. The British colonial system never encouraged the growth of the spirit of oneness. The experience with the thirteen American colonies, no doubt led people to believe that the colonial officials were not unifying types since many of them were regarded as sturdy beggars and vagrants who daily plagued British social life before they were sent to the colonies. For some time, the American colonies seemed to justify some of the objectives of their colonisation. They afforded in addition, markets for British manufactured goods. These markets were closed to Britain when America got her independence. Following fast on this was the Napoleonic War which threatened Britain’s economic stability.
Prior to the advent of the British colonialists, Nigeria as a socio-political entity was neither in existence nor contemplated; the territories that now make up Nigeria existed in fragments. There were the Benin Empire, the Lower Niger Kingdoms (popularly referred to as the Oil Rivers), the Fulani Empire of Zodge (later referred to as Sokoto), and the Kannem-Borno Empire. There were also the Oduduwa Empire of the Yoruba, and the Aro-Chukwu Empire of the Ibo. There was the Aboh Empire that sprang from the Benin Empire,
There was no systematic contact between one empire and the other. There were however, isolated trade contacts, particularly among the people of the Lower Niger Kingdom and the Benin Kingdom. Different names had been used for the territories now incorporated in Nigeria. The whole area had been referred to as the Hausa Territories, the Niger Empire, the Niger Sudan, and the Niger Coast Protectorate. In January 1894, Miss Flora Shaw, who had arrived as the expert correspondent for the Times on colonial affairs, published an article in which she suggested the name Nigeria for all the territories around the River Niger. In 1902, Miss Flora Shaw was married to Sir Frederick Lord Lugard who was at that time the High Commissioner for the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria, and who was destined to become the Governor-General of Nigeria. In other words, the naming of a nation was an outgrowth of a woman’s suggestion to her husband who was in a position of authority to implement it.
Before 1906, the territory was administered as three separate units: the Lagos Protectorate; the Southern Protectorate; and the Northern Protectorate. In 1906, the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria was merged with the Lagos Protectorate and brought under one administration, but the Northern Protectorate was administered separately. The circumstances that forced the British Government to amalgamate the Northern Protectorate with the Southern Protectorate in January 1, 1914, were motivated neither by political exigencies nor by a closer cultural understanding among the diverse elements of the conglomeration that was later to be called Nigeria. It was obvious that the primary interest of the British administration was economic. It was also obvious that the Northern Protectorate, because of its geographical location and cloudy economic prospects, was not likely to be viable. In fact, the Lugard’s administration was finding it rather difficult to maintain the Northern Protectorate which was already running into deficit.
Testifying to the financial difficulty of the North and the anticipated prospects that would follow the projected amalgamation of the Northern Protectorate with the Southern Protectorate, Lugard reported that the “prosperity” of the Southern Protectorate as evidenced by the liquor trade had risen over 57 percent. In fact, the liquor trade alone yielded revenue of £1,138,000 in 1913. This, he believed, was the result of the amalgamation of the Lagos Protectorate with the Southern Protectorate which constituted a perpetual drain on the purse of the British taxpayers. The Northern administration could not have survived without the imperial grant-in-aid, which in the year before the amalgamation stood at £136,000 and had an average of £314,500 for the 11 years ending March 1912. Besides the burden of financing Northern Nigeria seemed to have been resisted, if not successfully, at least bitterly by the Southerners. The expenditure of the British taxpayers money was a contradiction of the British colonial policy, enunciated years before by Earl Grey, which stipulated that “that the surest test for the soundness of measures for improvement of an uncivilised people is that they should be self-supporting”. In addition, the Northern Protectorate was not only landlocked, but bounded by territories that fall under the influence of other European powers. It was, therefore, inconceivable how the economic position could have improved aid from the South.
The only alternative open to Lugard was to amalgamate the North and the South, and thus have a legitimate reason for the expenditure from the South in developing the North. Details of the administrative manoeuvre was laid bare to his wife in a letter written November 22, 1912: I think you would laugh if I explained the lines on which I have done this. I amalgamated the railways an absolute and immediate necessity also the marine, equally necessary for different reasons. The bulk of the Public Debt I transfer to railways on which it has been incurred, and I therefore take over the Public Debt (Interest and sinking fund) into my Combined Nigeria Estimates… I nearly have a million at my disposal to meet the deficits of both budgets. The S.N. revenue is reduced to £108,000 from £2,000 by this process! And in order to make the process palatable to S.N., I tell them that it is necessary to transfer the Customs to the Central (Combined) Estimates in order to save them paying the usual £70,000 to the N.N.! They will never arrive at the fact that in reality they leave me with a large sum which I can devote to either N. or S. Nigeria as I like… The net result is that I have prepared the way for amalgamation, which from the financial point of view has already been to a large extent effected…”.
THE NIGERIAN STATE
The States of Nigeria as to whether it is a nation, state or nation-state has been a subject of controversy. Many scholars have argued in favour and against it based on their personal or tribal convictions. The incompatibility of the Nigerian State has been traced to a major factor in the history of the nation. According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, incompatible can be defined as two actions, ideas etc that is not acceptable or possible together because of basic differences. It is evident and historical that today Nigeria is a conglomerate of many empires, kingdoms and clans. It is equally factual to say that each of these autonomous lands had its agents of law and order before they were coaxed into the Nigerian project. Truly speaking, ethnicity and tribalism remain one of the most notorious monsters that have marred the socio-economic and political growth of Nigeria. Although, both are different subjects with slightly differing definitions but the similarities are much. Both points to the direction of having affinities to a particular race especially to one you belong. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary explains ‘Ethnicity’ as the fact of belonging to a particular race while ‘tribalism’ is defined as behaviour, attitude, etc that are based on being loyal to a tribe or other social group.
Although it is evident that many Kingdoms constitute the contemporary Nigerian State, the non diffusion in the disguise of ethnicity was laid on a solid foundation in the orientations of Nigerians, born and yet to be born. The foundations and subsequent politicization of ethnicity in Nigeria polity had its origin in British colonial policies. Most of their administrative tactics encouraged divide and rule among their subjects. A major policy that laid credence to the forming of members of ethnicity and tribalism in the pre-colonial Nigeria is the separation of linguistic groups from one another particularly in residential locations. A typical example is the northern and eastern Nigeria. Initially, the imperialists were baffled of the co-existence of these two distinct people. No sooner than later they started separating the Hausa-Fulani. The British colonial settlement policy metamorphosed into Sabon Gari for visitors in the North especially people of the Eastern Nigeria who sought for greener pastures in all the nooks and crannies of Nigeria. Ama Hausa also sprang up in the East to cater for the housing needs of these Northerners. The British colonial administration went beyond this scope. The language palaver was equally created with their unequal constitutional arrangements, three clear dominant languages emerged, the Hausa held sway in the North, the Yoruba in the West while in the East, the Igbo language dominated. In the North, they succeeded in laying a language skirmish among the numerous tribes whose ancestral language was threatened to extinction by the colonial sponsored Hausa language. The result of this today is that most tribes in the North speak Hausa before their original tongue. No doubt, the question of Nigeria’s incompatibility took hold in the colonial racism that was evident in the colonisers’ regard to certain Nigerian language groups as superior or inferior to others depending on the socio-economic and political importance to the colonial administration. I must emphatically say that the cradle of ethnicity was born and nurtured by the colonial urban setting. Accordingly, Nnoli as quoted by Okorie (2003:13) contemporary ethnicity as practiced today by ethnic group first acquired a common consciousness during the colonial era. An example was the term Yoruba Land which was first used by the European colonisers to address domains of all rulers who claim descent from the mythical Oduduwa instead of the Kingdom of Oyo to which it was previously limited. The incompatibility sickness even pushed the first Premier of the defunct Western Region, Chief Jeremiah Obafemi Awolowo to undiplomatically declare open a bitter fact and I quote “Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no “Nigerians” in the same sense there are “English”, “Welsh”, or “French”. The word “Nigerian” is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Niger from those who do not”.
This, assertion by a foremost nationalist can go a long way to buttress the fact that the British policy of ethnic administration and tribal consciousness was a huge success. Another cursory apprehension of the statements below will prove further that the colonial decision to ethnic consciousness through regions and cultural identity penetrated the rank and file of pre-independence leadership “Since 1914, the British Government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their background, in their religion beliefs and customs, and do not show them any sign of willingness to unite… Nigerian unity is only a British intention for the country”. Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa who later became the first Prime Minister of Nigeria made this uncomplimentary statement during the fermentation of ethnic hostilities in Nigeria.
Uninterestingly, colonial era politics later presented an entrenchment of a struggle among the various ethnic groups for a division of national resources. From that period till date, some disgruntled people have decided to become watch-dogs on successive government criticizing the least mistake as a calculated ethnic intention. A lot of factors emerged in the Nigerian polity. Factors like the Easternisation, Northernisation, and Westernisation of these regional bureaucrats grew to become canker worms in every sector of the Nigerian life.
For example, in 1986, a Sokoto Prince, Alhaji Shehu Malami, in a speech to the Youth Corps members posted to Sokoto State, reminded his listeners of the ethnic superiority of the Hausa race whom he said had acquired their dark skins from intermarriages with the local African populations. In 1995, Alhaji Maitama Sule, one of the Nigeria’s respected bureaucrats, created a storm among Southern intellectuals when he noted that various communities in Nigeria were variously endured; the Fulani with leadership qualities, the Igbo with industry and the Yoruba with diplomatic skills. The author also stirred the hornets’ nest when, in a newspaper interview, he told a reporter that Nigeria would be a great country if it built on some of its complex qualities, the dignity of the Fulani, the industry of the Igbo and the extravagant sense of celebration of the Yoruba.
RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP AS A RECIPE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE
Obviously, responsible leadership is the Mother of good governance. There is no disputing that most countries in Africa are characterised with widespread of bad governance which is an antithesis of good governance. In actual fact, the practices of bad governance are the root causes of poverty in the country. Considering and streamlining this development in relation to Nigeria, the responsibility of good governance lies in having efficient, effective, and responsible leadership in the administration and management of the affairs of the country. According to Adamu (2008), responsible and good governance is imbibed with vision and imagination, commitment, selflessness, integrity, and courage as well as clearly defined national goals and aspirations”. Moreover, the concept of good governance requires political rebirth in Nigeria thereby creating a palatable political climate were corruption is reasonably caged from the top to the bottom basically by exemplary leadership in ensuring transparency and accountability with the ultimate exercise of power and authority for his ‘common good’.
Nigeria is a climate example of the tower of Babel, everybody is speaking at the same time nobody understands the other. When there is no understanding, how can there be synergy? When there is no synergy how can the ecosystem work? When the ecosystem does not work how can there be growth? I live that question for you and me to answer.
As a result of the inability of Nigerians to listen to themselves due to their diversities, and the forced union, Nigeria seems to be an auto pilot, the people cannot agree on the way to go as emphasis is more on consuming than on production.
At independence, Nigeria had a federal constitution, understandably. The component entities were regions which had autonomy and charted their own course exclusively. They had 100% control of their resources, had control of their criminal justice system, formation of policies in education, health, transport, agriculture. The central government had not much to bother with other than the things that bound the federating units which were eventually, currency, foreign affairs and international diplomacy, including defence.
What eventually led to the collapse of that era was the expansionist, if you like hegemonic interest of a particular power bloc at the time who was hell-bent on expanding their frontiers to other parts of the country, choosing to go through the western region because they found a willing ally in a certain Samuel Ladoke Akintola. The result of that expedition is why we are here today.
It is sacrosanct that in a federation, equality of the federating units is respected. Why the Fulani Caliphate desired so much to conquer the other federating units cannot be understood by a mind like mine. I was flabbergasted by the following quotes I stumbled on some time ago: “The new nation called Nigeria should be an estate of our great grandfather, Othman Dan Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We must use the minorities of the North as willing tools and the South as conquered territory and NEVER allow them to rule over us or have control over their future”. Refer to Parrot Newspaper of the 12th of October 1960 and was recalled by Tribune Newspaper of the 12th of November 2002. Without mincing words, this is the crux of Nigeria’s problems; it is in fact the centrepiece.
It is abundantly clear that the demolition of federalism in Nigeria and sustenance of an aberative unitary system was targeted at expropriating the budding crude oil resources of the Niger Delta by the hegemonists in their hegemonic ways and this, to me, is not only criminal but satanic! With this came a sharing system that initially did not favour the areas where the oil was produced. At a time they got 0% of oil revenue, later 1% which continued for a long time. It was not until about 10 years ago that 13% derivation from oil resources was implemented. This collusion of the major tribes and political blocs in Nigeria to expropriate proceeds of the Niger Delta oil and degrade their environment is unquantifiable injustice, done in bad conscience and should be condemned in its entirety by all and redress sought if we are to move forward as a people and as a Nation.
A scenario from the 1996 Abacha Constitutional Conference may also help us understand the problems on our hands. During that conference, there was a vote on the percentage of derivation accruing to oil producing States and the following was the voting pattern:
South-South voted 75 percent derivation
South-East voted 50 percent derivation
South-West abstained
North voted 13 percent.
We replaced a production based contribution system with a consumption based sharing system which has unwittingly caused a mad and fierce competition for scarce resources with all unconventional means deployed. It is in fact a fight to finish. Things have indeed fallen apart and the centre can no more hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon our country, everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; as the best lack all conviction, intensity (to maintain the status quo), we are turning and turning in the widening gyre… This excerpt from the immortal poem of William Buttle Yeats “The Second Coming” succinctly describes the situation we find ourselves. Consequently, Nigerians do not have a Nigerian identity. There are no Nigerians, as people understandably cleave to their ethnic groups for succour and protection.
No system built on injustice and bad governance can stand. We would continue in this macabre dance and ultimately implode unless we urgently recognise our differences and create structures of democratic governance accordingly. In this connection, let us create the federalism where the component States would be the basis of governance. The central government cannot continue to maintain 36 States, 774 Local Governments, 109 Senators, and 360 Members of the House of Representatives. Let us disencumber the centre, as the most erudite Professor Wole Soyinka admonished, “Now is the time to put into practice that ancient saying: small is beautiful. We must return to the earlier days of creative rivalry…” We must now build an all-inclusive system where all units must be carried along. To put it appropriately, DESTROY THIS HOUSE AND BUILD IT AGAIN!
FUNCTION AND ROLE
The ultimate goal of political leadership is to make the society a better place for its citizens by providing them with the necessities of life – comfort and protection. James Mill postulated that; “human pains and pleasures are derived from two sources: They are produced either by our fellow-men or by causes independent of other men. We may assume it as another principle that the concern of government is with the former of those two sources. That its business is to increase to the utmost the pleasure and diminish to the utmost, the pains, which men derive from one another”. Good democratic governance is thus to be responsive and attentive to the wellbeing of the citizenry when compared to other forms of government. Therefore, a situation whereby the majority of the people are poor in the midst of affluence, wretched among the increase of luxury and slaves in their fatherland indicates a total failure of leadership to carry out its functions and a betrayal of the social contract.
The utilitarian doctrine held that the function of government should be to secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people in the society. Mill argued that a democratic government which he defined as one in which power is in the hands of majority people is best suited to achieving the utilitarian goal… for if the end of government be to produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number, that end cannot be attained by making the greater number slaves.
For instance, we have the President and his Vice at the highest helm of affairs, members of the National Assembly, Ministers, Governors, Members of State Houses of Assembly, Commissioners, Local Government Chairmen, Councillors and other public officials whom we have bestowed or trust to, constitutes the few and at the centre is the resources to carry out their functions. They have a moral responsibility to guarantee the fulfilment of a happy life through the contract entered into between the Government and its citizens for collective good. This summarises the basis of State politics as a means for everyone to flourish and live the ‘good life’ which Aristotle described as “the perfect forum of human community”.
There are benefits in running an economy based on federalism. First, the federating units can be perceived as growth poles with the advantages of push and pull effects. Second, the federating units would design policies, strategies, and programmes that would accelerate the growth and development in their jurisdictions. Third, aggregating the socio-economic activities of the federating units would result in a dynamic, strong and growing economy, all things being equal.
Though the constituent federating units do cooperate and collaborate the driving force behind a viable federal structure is healthy competition among them (federating units). Consequently, the entire system benefit with each federating unit attempting to produce goods and services optimally. Sometimes, the competition can be cut-throat as each unit tries to outsmart the other. For example, this could be through incentives like generous tax brakes to attract investors. Citizens even exploit the situation by moving to units with a better provision of goods and services.
It is a truism to say that the United States of America (USA), Canada and few other countries mirror an ideal federal structure. In the case of the USA, the centre is not weak. The federating units (states) were autonomous and independent before deciding to come together to form a federation. Hence, each federating units discussed what powers to relinquish to the centre.
It is therefore not surprising that in the USA, competitive federalism is practised without negating cooperation among the States. It is for this reason that in spite of the huge size of that country and the numerous layers of sub-national governments, the sharing of resources among the federating units is rather straight-forward. The federal government becomes an umbrella with selected relevant functions such as defence, foreign policy, immigration, customs and some broad social policies. This is not to say that there are no tensions in the America Federal System; disagreements are debated and settled through engagements and dialogue.
Again and back home, Nigeria is a federal system but, in practice, she runs a unitary system. After political independence, the regions were fairly autonomous and independent while the centre was “weak”. The regions developed at their own pace, exploiting and keeping the benefits of the natural and material resources, found within their domain. Consequently, three universities were established, University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University), and Ahmadu Bello University. These institutions were built and developed without recourse to financial assistance from the Centre. They are centre of excellence in Africa and globally. The regions provided public services such as police, fire service, judicial system and healthcare among others.
It is appropriate to say that each region virtually survived on agriculture, the North on groundnuts and cotton, the East with palm produce and the West with cocoa. In fact, this formed the basis as to how derivation was 50% in the then allocation formula. The regions engaged each other positively in socio-economic and political matters. Interestingly, the heavy weights (leaders in the region) sent their deputies to the centre. Each region kept its best at home in order to grow and develop so as to raise the standard of living of its people.
The incursion of the military into governance altered the federal structure in theory and practice. All the military administrations centralised governance. For example, military governors/administrators were appointed and posted to the States. They owed allegiance to the military head of state. The command structure of the military was transferred to the running of a so-called civilian, federal structure. Consequently, the entire system was and remains in disarray. The centre became too strong and powerful; hence, the federating states and local governments all gravitate towards the centre, particularly, over revenue allocation.
A fundamental reason shaping the revenue allocation in a federation such as Nigeria is the fact that the pattern of revenue allocation often reflects and tends to reinforce the balance of political and economic power between the component states and the central government. If the Nigerian federation is characterised by strong, essentially autonomous federating states and a relatively weak centre, the revenue allocation arrangement would eventually strengthen states at the expense of the centre. Frankly speaking, this is not the case. The states, except about 3, are economically unviable.
It is abundantly clear that federally collected revenue is the mainstay of the finances of state governments in Nigeria, accounting for almost 90 percent of these. It is this revenue that the state governments use in maintaining their services for example to pay their staff, pay for essential supplies and execute their capital projects. The absence of sufficient independent state revenue indicates extreme dependence of the state governments on federally collected revenues. This is a by-product of the circumstances in which the country’s federation originated from an existing unitary state, devolving some powers to newly created regional government units. Had the federation been formed by the coming together of existing independent states with developed sources of revenue of their own, the question would have been how much of such sources of revenue should be surrendered to the new federal government.
The past and current revenue allocation formulas were designed to facilitate the coordination and harmonisation of fiscal policies in the interest of an integrated polity to ensure growth and promote cooperative federalism. However, the outcome has been dismal. There is no Nigerian State, region or zone without resources (human, material and natural) to explore and exploit. A new arrangement with emphasis on our revenue generation is urgently needed. To achieve this, the country must practise competitive federalism, with each state growing at its own peace. It is competitive federalism that will fast track sustained growth and development of the country. This would involve a re-examination of the revenues collected by the centre as well as making drastic changes in the items in the exclusive, and concurrent lists of the expenditure profile of the Nigerian federation certain revenue sources, thus, ought to be given to states while some of the items in the exclusive list should be moved to the concurrent list.
BRIEF ON NIGERIA LEADERSHIP
However, one can boldly and proudly say that a virile promising, strong and united nation handed over to Nigerians by the colonialists has been bastardised and squandered with reckless abandon by some past leaders. The problem of Nigeria was that for many years, the leadership of the country was in the hands of a section of the country who claimed that “they are born to rule”. As a result, they subjugated, intimidated, harassed, and oppressed people from other sections.
Over the years, the leadership of Nigeria has been taken to task for its executive indiscipline and recklessness. Every government has made pretence at instilling discipline. However, lacking the moral fibre, they have been unable to convince their citizens. It is not for want of trying. According to a friend, you cannot give what you do not have. Corruption and subversion have made it impossible, for the military (while in power) to even instil their proverbial professional discipline on the polity since the essence of governance has not shifted beyond the confines of personal aggrandisement. Yet, the project of democracy cannot get off the ground unless we find ways of genuinely instilling discipline in the conduct of our national affairs.
It is on record that General Buhari came in with War Against Indiscipline (WAI) and General Babaginda, the first and only Military President Nigeria has produced only sought to modify it. Even General Abacha’s government waged a War Against Indiscipline and Corruption (WAI-C). The agencies set to propagate these lofty ideas such as MAMSER and National Orientation Agency (NOA) have not attained any credibility in the minds of the citizens. Hence, Rev. Fr. Matthew Hassan Kukah stated “Nigerians know that beyond providing jobs for cronies, these institutions in themselves run parallel to; and sometimes subvert other federal institutions”. He stated further that a genuine war against indiscipline and corruption cannot be fought by the government itself since the government is the major cause. That war, he pointed out must be waged by Nigerians and the major institutions of civil society and non-governmental organisations such as Transparency International, Integrity, Civil Liberties Organisation, Constitutional Rights Projects, Concerned Professionals, etc.
It is unfortunate that Nigeria still witnesses too many untoward events and unproductive practice like the insurgency especially in the North East, armed robbery, godfatherism/godmotherism, political assassinations, ethnic militias, election rigging, falsification of election results, thuggerism, gangsterism, inter communal conflicts, corruption, crises in the judiciary and so on. Like Anthony Oye Cukwurah, a Professor of International Law and Jurisprudence in his book, Anarchism and Anarchist Tendencies in Nigeria categorically stated and I quote, “In a way all these negative tendencies are factual indications of a rapidly decaying society in dire need of moral regeneration and until the nation develops the requisite will to tackle these problems as an integral part of the “national question”, the future of the nation will definitely be compromised”.
In addition frequent military intervention in politics, starting with the first military coup in 1966 led by Major Chukwuma Patrick Kaduna Nzeogwu , has not been particularly beneficial to Nigeria. Out of 53 years of political independence from Saturday, 1st October 1960 on a platter of gold without firing a gun shot or bloodshed, the military had usurped governance for approximately 30-years. In the process, Nigeria’s fledgling democratic foundations were virtually destroyed; so, too, was professionalism in the army, public service, including parastatals. While in turn, a culture of violence took root in the country especially among the post-civil war generation of youths who are only now beginning to experience the discipline of democratic government.
It is abundantly clear that the military intervention in politics was a disaster for Nigeria which should not be allowed to repeat itself. Hence, the need for Federal and State including Local Governments should initiate programmes acceptable to the masses with a view to finally eliminating the existing unholy acts in the country.
As the Punch Newspaper of December 10, 1999 p.12 puts it, “The unpleasant situation could be traced to many causes but prominent among them is the issue of bad governance which is a manifestation of the incompetent hands that have been at the helm of affairs in the country”. Without mincing words, it is a known fact that those who are involved in violence are jobless, idle minds, and frustrated people who are aggrieved and have become intolerant, as their living conditions are deplorable. This is part of wounds inflicted on the society by the past military administrations.
According to Professor Chinua Achebe (of blessed memory), the trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership. There is nothing basically wrong with the Nigerian land or climate or water or air or everything else. The Nigeria problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example which is the hallmarks of true leadership.
Consequently, there is need for our leaders to take courageous, bold, innovative, articulate and progressive steps to improve on the standard of life of Nigerians socially, politically, and economically, to ensure justice, equity, fair play, and fairness. It is unfortunate that all things that caused the post-independence crises such as tribalism, nepotism, corruption, intimidation, oppression and lack of good leadership still exist. What a dangerous dichotomy indeed? I do hope President Jonathan will provide succour to this nation with our support.
What baffles one is that the once vibrant and rich nation is now in the grip of backwardness, illiteracy, poverty, superstition, and disease. Our leaders should also endeavour as much as practicable to put a stop to massive injustice, poverty and deprivation. There is no need to remain insensitive, uncaring, unconcerned and unperturbed.
CONCLUSION
The future of Nigeria is of great concern for several reasons. It will determine how politically stable, economically prosperous and socially harmonious the country remains. It will also measure the import of democratic culture and international recognition and relevance. A stable Nigeria in the 21st century has the prospect of opening up the country all the more to the influx of international flow of capital, trade, new technologies, foreign direct investment (FDI), and market integration process. Quite important is that Nigeria will become rather responsive and not reactionary in world affairs, because it will command the capacity to project power and influence trans-nationally from a position of strength, and not weakness.
In other words, good governance, good policies, and sustainable strategies for implementation and monitoring will remain the cornerstone of Nigeria’s relevance in the current global village as propounded by a Canadian philosopher, media guru, elder statesman, Marshall McLuhan in 1963. Nigeria has lost many development opportunities but, it is not a finished country. By every standard, Nigeria is still an attraction to virtually all developing and developed economies, because of Nigeria’s great potentials in natural, economic and human resources. Yet development for Nigeria is a function of local milieu and initiative. Nigeria must lead its development initiatives and, then contact and interact with transnational economics competitively. The future of Nigeria is bright if…!
Thank you all for listening and God bless, Amen.
BEING PAPER PRESENTED AS A GUEST SPEAKER/RESOURCE PERSON ON THE OCCASION OF THE MANAGEMENT DAY OF THE NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT (NIM), UGHELLI CHAPTER ON TUESDAY, 8TH APRIL 2014 AT GARE’S PLACE HOTEL, OPPOSITE SETRACO, PATANI ROAD, UGHELLI, DELTA STATE, NIGERIA. By Dr. Charles Ikedikwa Soeze BY CHARLES IKEDIKWA SOEZE, B.A. (Hons), M.A., Ph.D., fhnr, fcida, fcai, fswca, cpae, chnr, emba, ghnr, son, ksq, mnim, mnipr. is a retired Assistant Director (Administration)/Head, Academic and Physical Planning (A&PP) of the Petroleum Training Institute (PTI), Effurun, Delta State, Nigeria. (08036724193) charlessoeze@yahoo.ca
REFERENCES
Aja Akpuru-Aja and Emeribe, A.C. (2000) (ed) Policy And Contending Issues in Nigerian National Development Strategy …Towards a Greater Nigeria in the 21st Century. Enugu: John Jacobs Classic Publishers Ltd.
Ekpo, A. H. (2014) “Federalism and Running the Nigerian Economy”. An article in the Tell Magazine of March 31, 2014 p.52.
Ijomah, B. I. C. (2011) Nigerian Nationalism And The Problems of Social-Political Integration. Onitsha: Blue Prints Ltd., Fegge.
Kukah, M. H. (2003) Democracy And Civil Society In Nigeria. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.
Odoh, P. (2011) Leadership, Good Governance And Democracy In Nigeria (Challenges and Prospects For Transformation). Kaduna: Husis Digital Press.
Soeze, C. I. (2005) “Challenges for Nigeria at 45”. An Article in the Sunday Vanguard Newspaper of October 9, 2005 P.10.
Soeze, C. I. (2014) “Was Nigeria’s 1914 Amalgamation A Mistake”? An Article in the Guardian Newspaper of February 27, 2014 P.17.
Ukachukwu, O. (2003) Nigeria Weeps. Owerri-West: Ogbosisi Umugwuma.
