Erwin Ofili: Is Nigeria too big to fail?

by Erwin Ofili

too_big_to_fail1

A destabilised Nigeria could mean less Nigerian troops for peace-keeping operations throughout Africa and more weapons sold into African conflicts through the black market.

The topic of Nigeria’s size and the ramification for the rest of West Africa and indeed the world if the country becomes a failed state has been a concern for longer than Nigeria has existed as an entity independent of colonial rule. This concern was used as a justification by the colonial powers to fix the elections in the lead up to independence in order to give “official majorities” control by means of “a restricted franchise and so forth”. Even recently, concerns have been expressed that a destabilised Nigeria has enough weapons to further destabilise the rest of West Africa.

This fear has been used to justify reprehensible acts in the past, both by the British and Nigerian leaders which include, in addition to that mentioned above – the Civil War against the breakaway Eastern region and the associated pogroms. But we are seeing history repeating itself. This fear is now being used by a few politicians to justify amnesty to members of the Islamist Boko Haram sect, and other such groups in the Northern part of the country. Such politicians say that not offering these groups amnesty could lead the country into another civil war.

But is this fear reasonable? Is it applicable in modern times? And even if it is, what are the dangers of letting such fears control decision making and policy formulation? These questions are necessary given the tendency in recent times of Nigerians to openly discuss the viability of the country. Such honest conversation is still censured especially in print media but still finds its way into electronic media where control and censure is more difficult, especially social media. In recent times, you can hear Nigerians on radio programs suggest that the amalgamation of the North and South of the country should be declared illegal or revisited. There have been calls for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference of constituent parts of the country. Some speak of re-examining the foundation of Nigerian nationhood in the light of the rise of terrorism and religious extremism especially in the Northern part of the country. However, there is still the fear that a fundamental adjustment to the structure of the country might heighten tensions and lead to increase in disturbance in the land. This is often used as an argument against the convocation of such a conference.

There are many important discussions that I believe should not be shied away from for fear of reactionary elements in the society which cannot be exhaustively addressed in a single article. However the purpose of this article is to ask whether the failure of this country is so unfathomable due to the size and complexity of this country. The arguments marshalled in support of this view mentioned in the early parts of this write-up have become trite and their use often prevents further debate both on this subject and others. This has had the unfortunate effect on Nigerian psyche where Nigerians think that the problems of the country are too complex to be solved. Indeed a lot of Nigerians think that the problems should be lived with and not solved.

We see a similar problem with the banking crisis that inspired the title of this piece. The big banks, some in the US government thought, had to be cut to size so that they do not threaten the entire world economic system. Bank lobbyists argued that this would make American banks less competitive as European leaders, while supporting such reforms in America, did not adopt the same reforms themselves. The American banks played on nationalist fears that the global financial system could be dominated by European banks if the reforms went through. They were, therefore, able to defeat the proposed laws in Congress, leaving the old dysfunctional system in place. It is now an accepted fact of life that the financial crisis would recur as long as there are many parts of the world competing to be the financial capital of the world – with America and Britain keenly competing for this title, and more recent entrants like Hong Kong, Malaysia, etc and all of them trying to reduce regulation in order to “attract talent”. This competition has led to a race to the bottom and prevented regulation from being adopted – like Britain disagreeing to cap on bankers bonuses in European banks.

In a similar way that reform to the international financial system has been thwarted because of the size and influence of the banks, the same fears have made some Nigerians refuse a critical examination and review of the Nigerian question. I think it is crucial to discuss the path the country is taking and for Nigerians to actively partake in this conversation as we shape the destiny of future generations with our present actions. The dangers of failure of the country are real, but that alone does not prevent it from happening. So many countries bigger and more complex – ethnically, religiously, racially, etc – have failed in Africa and on other continents mainly due to mishandling of certain challenges the countries were hitherto faced with. A destabilised Nigeria could mean less Nigerian troops for peace-keeping operations throughout Africa and more weapons sold into African conflicts through the black market. But the fact is that the disturbance in Northern Nigeria has reduced Nigeria’s involvement in a few peacekeeping operations in Africa and some of the weapons found with local militants are said to have sold to them by members of the Nigerian military. Some members of the military are benefitting from the various amnesty programs for militants as money allocated are not properly accounted for. We are already witnessing the effects, albeit on a smaller scale, of state failure.

The fact is that Nigeria has for some time now met the criteria to be called a failed state and nothing has been done to correct the situation. Some people prefer not to think so even though they are faced daily with the evidence of state failure. “It’s not as bad as it could be”, some say. “At least we are better than Somalia”, others say. The fact that we are compared to the worst case scenario, even by Nigerian optimists, shows where we could be headed if we fail to address the problems besetting the country and make necessary reforms. The truth is Nigeria is not too big to fail, it already is a failed state. Things can get worse but only Nigerians can prevent this.

The most important thing in addressing decline in the country is to prevent fears from clouding our judgement. I do not think, for instance, that the threat of another civil war should make the present administration offer amnesty to religious extremists. The fact is that the normalisation of giving amnesty to everyone carrying arms against the state reduces the effect of the amnesty option. It encourages all and sundry to get their own cut of the national cake by taking up arms. We are already seeing that happen – MEND, or another group using their name, has threatened reprisal attacks against Islamic institutions and clerics. The fact is that the North of the country has not been seen in favourable light by most of the country. I mentioned earlier in this article that some people are calling for a de-amalgation of the North and South. In one of the many coups, some parts of the North was excised from the rest of the country by the coup plotters. So, I think it is unwise of Northern politicians threatening another civil war if Boko Haram militants are not offered amnesty. Amnesty would not solve the problem; it would only lead to a recurrence of the same problem with higher frequency and increasing intensity till it gets to an uncontrollable level.

The worst aspect of the fear of total collapse is the effect it has on the review of the constitution and the necessary reorganisation of the country. The best format in which a country such as Nigeria can operate is the regional format. I have written previously on how constant state creation based on ethnic fears and primordial sentiments only weakens the regions and strengthen the center creating vast inefficiencies in running the country (read  http://www.punchng.com/opinion/before-we-amend-the-constitution/). We must accept that Nigeria is a country of diverse people who are distinct not only in religion and language but also world view, philosophies, culture, etc. Each part of Nigeria would have different ways to reach the same goals. This is true also of cultures and nations in Europe. The Anglo Saxxons, for example, are more capitalist than the French. The Germans resident in Switzerland would have a different approach to government from other Swiss nationals. Trying to force everyone into a uniform system would diminish the productivity of everyone and would not harness the strengths a nation can draw from diversity. Nigerians must learn to live with the diversity within its borders if progress would be achieved.

The concept of pulling the best person down to a lower level so that we all reach some perverted sort of “equality” among all ethnic groups has not worked well for the country. The federal character policy, for instance, has not created equality among all regions but has diminished the quality of graduates from Nigerian universities. A simple proof of this is that the so-called “educationally disadvantaged states” have not stopped being educationally disadvantaged years after the implementation of the federal character policy. In the United Kingdom, the best performance in the GCSEs has regularly come from Northern Ireland, but this has not caused the British government to implement any “federal character” policies. In America, Europe, New Zealand and Australia, they have noticed that the best performing students in their schools are Asian students. This did not lead to policies limiting Asian students. Instead, it led to, as Chinua Achebe said, “stimulat[ion of] healthy competition and a renaissance of learning and achievement”. Many Caucasian parents in such countries tell their own children to study hard as the Asians are overtaking them, not demanding “federal character” in student admissions.

Also some have suggested undemocratic restrictions in freedom because of the same fear of total collapse. Some, like Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, have suggested that tribal and religious unions with a political outlook should be banned. Some further suggest that we only need two political parties, therefore laws should be made allowing for only two political parties. I disagree with both. Democracy guarantees freedom of association, and that includes political association. The unhealthy effects such unions have on Nigerian politics can only be countered by reducing the power of the center. The groups mostly try to represent sectional interests in the fight for resources which is controlled at the center. Going for regional governments would likely reduce their spheres of influence only to their individual regions. The center should be concerned only with the protection of the rights of every citizen in any part of the country they choose to reside. It is also untrue that we only need two political parties in Nigeria. A country like Nigeria would have a very wide range in terms of ideology. The thought that elections are decided only by the size of the party is mistaken and dangerous. Even America that we try to copy in this regard does not restrict the number of political parties – not too long ago, there was a rent-is-too-damn-high political party in America. There are, in fact, several parties other than the known Democratic and Republican parties. We are witnessing now, the evolution of another political party seeking power at the center – the APC – but still party politics have to evolve to a point where politicians realise that product differentiation is more important than size. Most Nigerians cannot differentiate, ideologically at least, between the PDP and APC and the failure is on the side of the opposition politicians.

Summarily, the country is experiencing peculiar challenges which concerned Nigerians ruminate over aware that their decisions today would affect the future of the country. In our bid to tackle our challenges, some of us have let the anxiety of the moment to affect our judgements. The problems of the country admittedly do not have a simple solution, it requires decisions to be made that may seem unnatural for many of us given what we are accustomed to. But such decisions must be made, we must swallow the bitter pill if we expect our condition to get better. But most importantly, we the people of this country must come to terms with the power we have to cause change. We must stop politicians from getting their ways by playing one against the other. Our educational system would not be in the mess it is now in if the people spoke against unhealthy policy changes that are now difficult to reverse. We must now, more than ever, refuse to be swayed by politicians who thrive on the fears of the people and demagoguery. We must choose hope over fear.

————————

 

Op-ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

cool good eh love2 cute confused notgood numb disgusting fail