by Ahahonu Kingsley

What am I saying then? The national questions still remain vital and as a matter of necessity must be answered.

‘Are we to live together and under what conditions?’, a statement of fact, which has assumed a national question is often credited to the late Bola Ige. The dualistic National Question has continued to remain pertinent with an even increased boisterousness in the face of the unfolding reality. Their responses are the way out of the present conundrum we are reeled into; they are the essential guides to redefining our existence as a nation of people living out destiny.

Nonetheless, the possibility of achieving this lies not in the established responses but on giving preferential riposte to the more
critical. The individual conditions of each entity, after careful perusal of their most effective mode of living, should be brought forward as antecedents to the question of whether we are to stay together; for this would ordinarily give a view of the possibility and workability of staying together. And if after analysing, the conditions given by each entity provide for possible and practical framework for  integration, then we could live together, bearing in mind that no strings are attached.

But, however if after looking at the individual suitable conditionalities and it is discerned that the framework cannot be achieved, to your tent, then, oh Israel. This is because giving the parties the room to arrive at their appropriate consensus would provide them with the clean slates to do so. On the contrary, doing the reverse, i.e. providing a response to the question on living together would but foist on the entities a defined path to follow and pre-empt upon them what conditionalities to adopt and the ones they have to forfeit even against their peculiar interests for the sustenance of the unity they had all ‘agreed to’. The fact that they have accepted to stay together would influence the free ability to choose their own ways; the suppression of earnest values so as not to jeopardize the general agreement. This would have amounted to living
in delusion; for in no time, the discomforts knowingly held bound will over-heat and burst aflame returning us to status quo.

It is in this regard that the posture of the Federal government even before the commencement of the conference is viewed with total reservation. The declaration that in the course of the National dialogue, the indivisibility of the country remains sacrosant would puts the issue of togetherness in the light of having been treated and thereby goes to suggest that any position, which is okay to an individual entity and which has the propensity of scuttling the unity of Nigeria shall not scale through. But if we are to go by the fact that whatever position that might be taken by a region is probably what they feel is essential for their achievements as a nation; because these are incongruous to the corporate unity of the country, we will understand that their seclusion would have amounted to a defeat of their goals and determinations. In effect, the final decision to throw away their aspirations and protect the unity question would not be said to be one of volition but one they willy-nilly have to accept. This, however, is not the fulcrum of true national dialogue; except of course, the federal government would be having in mind the motive of a jamboree. How can a composite be formed out of disaffectionate units? For though they may appear to be working harmoniously, that would only be superficial purposely because of the enforcement.

If for instance, assuming the south-west by virtue of whatever homogeneous identities they share amongst themselves opt for any proposal that would serve to promote their unique cause, but simply by reason, may be, it cannot guarantee a workable Nigeria, whose unity-question has already been ‘settled’, they would, because of the circumstance, jettison such wish. By then would their living together with the others be said to be one drawn out of a sense of commitment and belief; would it guarantee to them happiness and fulfilment? I doubt it!

What am I saying then? The national questions still remain vital and as a matter of necessity must be answered. Howbeit the question of conditionality must first be dealt with; one of first thing first. In so doing, the different entities should be allowed, in their separate forms, to arrive at their distinct appreciable framework. After which, an all encompassing national dialogue is then staged for the sole aim of responding to the other vital question, which is whether or not we can stay together, taking into cognizance our separate distinct decisions. If we then reach a consensus and agree to stay together, great and if not, then we would have lucidly known why. As anything far from this is akin to pulling together the destinies of diverse entities and setting them on a ticking time-bomb; a palpable deceit, which definitely will not stand the test of time!

————————–

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