Constitution making in developing countries

MUCH of the constitutional’ instability ‘and political upheaval, in different parts of Africa, would be considerably reduced if African leaders took the trouble, or were objective enough, to ascertain and acknowledge the’ difference between NATION and TRIBE.

BEDC reconnects 42 communities in Edo, Delta, Ondo, Ekiti

, from its definition, we will see that the distinctive and inseparable characteristics of a nation are common language, common culture, ahd sometimes common ancestry. Within the nation there are usually many tribes, each of which speak a common dialect, but all of whom speak the sarue language which is their mother-tongue, share the same culture, and sometimes c1ail\1 a common ancestry: These tribes,

to borrow the words of KEETON, ‘will tend to cohere even if separated under different governments’; witness the irresistible tendency to cohere on the part of the Greeks in Cyprus and Greece, on the part of the German-speaking people in the two Germanies, and on the part of the Ewe-speaking people in Togo and Ghana.

To classify a NATION as TRIBE is unscientific in the extreme, and is bound to lead to serious and unpleasant.consequences in the process of applying and employing such classification. in the twilight or dimness of such an error, two or more nations will be lu};i’ped together and treated as if they possess the same cultural characteristics.

‘The most manifest and the most easily recognised cultural difference between two nations is language – the mother-tongue.

As I said in’ Thoughts On Nigerian Constitution’, ‘language lies at the base of all human divisions and divergences’. It breeds suspicion, and generates an unconscious overpowering urge for separateness and exclusiveness. Whatever view different classes of people may hold about the authenticity of the story, it is worthy of note fhat work on the construction of the city and tower of Babel came to an abrupt and permanent end, when ‘the Lord did there confound the language’ of the builders. I maintain that ‘you can unite but you can never succeed in unifying peoples whom language has set distinctly apart from one another’. If you tried, you might appear to succeed in the short run, but the ingrained tendency to cohere was ingrained at birth and self-sustaining identity will eventually overcome any inducement to the contrary.

In other words, whilst, as we have said earlier on, the tendency to cohere was ingrained at birth and self-sustaining in all the individual members, or tribal groups, of the same nation, there is no such inherent tendency in the members of two different nations.

In the latter case the tendency to cohere must be consciously planted in the nations concerned, and sedulously nurtured and maintained.

In short, in making a constitution, it is absolutely imperative to make a meticulous analysis of the composition of the state concerned, as well as an accurate and scientific classification of the resulting elements.

2. THE TYPE OF CONSTITUTION: In looking for a suitable constitution for a country, only the unitary and federal types need be considered. From all available historical evidence, a confederal constitution is an unrelieved failure. It has never successfully served any state as a permanent constitution. As a temporary expedient, its only record of success was in the United States of America from 1776 to 1786.

In considering which of the remaining two types is suitable, the composition of each state must be taken into strict account.

If the state in question is composed of one nation, that is to say, if it is a uni-national or uni-lingual state, the constitution must be unitary. If it is federal, the tendency to cohere among the constituent states will strengthen the central authority at the expense of the regional authorities; with the result that the constitution will remain only federal in name, but unitary in actual fact.

On the other hand, if the members of a state, though belonging to one nation, had for a long period of time, lived as geographically separate and autonomous groups, each group will insist on retaining a large measure of its autonomy. In that case, only a federal constitution will be suitable. This will be more so, if the groups while retaining a common language, had, in the process of their long separation from one another, developed some important cultural divergencies, such as different religions and social ideals.

If the state in question is composed of more than one nation, that is if it is bi-national or bi-lingual, multi-national or multi-lingual, the constitution must be federal, and the constituent states must be organised on linguistic basis.

If the constitution is unitary, mutual suspicion and distrust, and the tendency to assert their separate identity, on the part of the different nations or linguistic groups composing the state, will militate against all efforts at unification, however brave and well-meaning these may be. Indeed, the struggle for self-assertion on the part of each nation or linguistic group, may be so violent as to threaten the very unity of the composite state.