This question of restructuring

A public commentator said recently that the attention span of Nigerians on major national issues doesn’t go beyond six weeks. He was referring to the arrest of the kidnap kingpin, Evans. That commentator had been proved right on many occasions. But this issue of restructuring has defied the idea Nigerian stereotype. It is one question that will not just go away despite the legend of our countrymen for short memory on critical issues. And crucially, it has proved to be an issue worthy of keeping on the front burner all these while.

Though Nigerians of different backgrounds tend to ascribe different meanings to this quest for restructuring, the broad issues are not as confusing as some want us to believe, especially if the conversation is devoid of mischief.

I have heard a number of political commentators describing the idea of restructuring as nebulous and unclear.  They say that the cacophony of voices around restructuring make it unattractive. Some have further reduced this to a job for “enemies” of President Muhammadu Buhari. Nothing can be of disservice than the belittling of a critical issue of national concern as restructuring.

In simple terms, the structure of Nigeria as constituted promotes inequality among its citizens. Those who demand a change in that direction are calling attention to a source of tension, which could yield some volcanic eruptions if not managed timely.

To those who are genuinely confused, as to the real meaning of restructuring, we can break the idea into political restructuring, economic and social.

Political restructuring in Nigerian parlance simply refers to the political stricture which makes the North (Northern Region as it were) to cover two thirds of the country’s landscape, while the South East (Eastern Region), South West (Western Region) and Mid-West (now Edo and Delta states) to only occupy a third of the space. It also addresses issues of access to power by the different zones and equal opportunities for citizens.

As we have it, only the seat of President of the country unites the people, when you talk of political contest. That is the only seat that compels handshakes across the Niger and Benue if you wish. To win the nation’s Presidency, you need 24 states that would cut across at least four of the six geopolitical zones. No other seat compels you to go that far. To become the nation’s number three man, the Senate President, a Northern candidate may not need to stretch his handshake across the Niger. The same for the Senate of the House of Representatives Speaker, the nation’s number four in power hierarchy.

The North produces 58 Senators as against 51 from the South and in an environment where the winner emerges by simple majority, you can read the lines. The North equally produces 67 percent of the 360 member House of Representatives, an indication that a popular Northern candidate can win without a sniffle.

As for economic restructuring, you talk of fiscal federalism; a term certain persons have again attach some complexities. They said that the South-South has reduced it to resource control. But the 2014 National Conference gave a simple definition which described fiscal federalism as the process of allocating resources that accrue to the federation. Fiscal federalism means a process that will engineer productivity and engender competition among the federating units. In Nigeria’s First Republic, it was agreed that regions take 50 per cent of what is produced by them. The balance of 50 percent is paid to the Central government, which is then shared in an agreed manner among all federating units. What this means is that every state or region is compelled to look inwards to bring something to the table, rather than sitting idly awaiting monthly allocations from Abuja. Instead of promoting laziness or “feeding bottle federalism” as currently in practice, fiscal federalism will ensure development and healthy competition. The more you produce, the more you earn.

And social restructuring would ensure that the state (Nigeria) is fully recognized as a secular state with little or no interference with religion. Right now, the Federal and state governments fund pilgrims’ boards with huge sums. In a restructured polity religion would be recognised as a personal thing.

If the above are the easy ways to restructuring, you wonder why some will see it as a route to Armageddon or a mere tool in the hands of politicians.

How do you consciously promote unity and nationalism in a setting that undermines equity and fair play? Check the Nigerian experience in 2015. General Muhammadu Buhari was popular across the regions of the North. He only needed the buy-in of one zone in the South (South West) to secure the presidency. And to talk of the diverse tongues embedded in the two other zones where he had no presence?

Such a setting easily predisposes the citizens to questions of marginalisation and domination. And in Nigeria, that fear is perpetual. Are we right to address that imbalance? Sure we are. Without that, we will be brewing a bottled tension for successive generations and only God can determine the effects when it blows over.

For a country as diverse as Nigeria to continuously exist with less ethnic tension and camaraderie, the fear of domination within the federating units and in the larger national scale have to be consciously addressed in ways that promote equity, justice and fair play.

But what do you have here? Observance of those value-laden words have been made as cumbersome and subjective as they look. The result? You reap unhealthy ethnic rivalry, growing ethnic tension, endless suspicion and tense polity.

Can we reverse all that? Yes we can, by simple engaging in progressive discussions around restructuring.