challenges or problems of nation building,compiled by inah richard
Nation-building is constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the state.[1] It is thus narrower than what Paul James calls "nation formation", the broad process through which nations come into being.[2] Nation-building aims at the unification of the people within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run. According to Harris Mylonas, "Legitimate authority in modern national states is connected to popular rule, to majorities. Nation-building is the process through which these majorities are constructed."[3]
Nation builders are those members of a state who take the initiative to develop the national community through government programs, including military conscription and national content mass schooling.[4][5] Nation-building can involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructure development to foster social harmony and economic growth.
Overview
In the modern era, nation-building referred to the efforts of newly independent nations, notably the nations of Africa but also in the Balkans,[6][7] to redefine the populace of territories that had been carved out by colonial powers or empires without regard to ethnic, religious, or other boundaries.[8] These reformed states would then become viable and coherent national entities.[9]
Nation-building includes the creation of
national paraphernalia such as flags,
anthems, national days, national stadiums,
national airlines, national languages, and
national myths.[10][11] At a deeper level, national identity needed to be deliberately constructed by molding different ethnic groups into a nation, especially since in many newly established states colonial practices of divide and rule had resulted in ethnically heterogeneous populations.[12]
However, many new states were plagued by tribalism; that is, rivalry between ethnic groups within the nation. This sometimes resulted in their near-disintegration, such as the attempt by Biafra to secede from
Nigeria in 1970, or the continuing demand of the Somali people in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia for complete independence. In Asia, the division of British India into India and Pakistan was in part due to ethnic differences, which might have been aided by other factors like colonial mismanagement of the situation. The
Rwandan genocide as well as the recurrent problems experienced by the Sudan can also be related to a lack of ethnic, religious, or racial cohesion within the nation. It has often proved difficult to unite states with similar ethnic but different colonial backgrounds. Whereas successful examples like Cameroon do exist, failures like
Senegambia Confederation demonstrate the problems of uniting Francophone and
Anglophone territories.
Terminology: Nation-building versus state-building
Traditionally, there has been some confusion between the use of the term
nation-building and that of state-building (the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in North America). Both have fairly narrow and different definitions in political science, the former referring to national identity, the latter to infrastructure and the institutions of the state. The debate has been clouded further by the existence of two very different schools of thought on state-building. The first (prevalent in the media) portrays state-building as an interventionist action by foreign countries. The second (more academic in origin and increasingly accepted by international institutions) sees state-building as an indigenous process. For a discussion of the definitional issues, see state-building, Carolyn Stephenson's essay , and the papers by Whaites, CPC/IPA or ODI cited below.
The confusion over terminology has meant that more recently, nation-building has come to be used in a completely different context, with reference to what has been succinctly described by its proponents as "the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy."[13] In this sense nation-building, better referred to as state building, describes deliberate efforts by a foreign power to construct or install the institutions of a national government, according to a model that may be more familiar to the foreign power but is often considered foreign and even destabilizing.
[14] In this sense, state-building is typically characterized by massive investment, military occupation, transitional government, and the use of propaganda to communicate governmental policy.
Challenges
Presentation by
PROF. IBRAHIM A. GAMBARI
Under-Secretary-General and Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General
THE CHALLENGES OF NATIONS BUILDING:
THE CASE OF NIGERIA
First Year Anniversary Lecture
Mustapha Akanbi Foundation
Sheraton Hotel Abuja, Nigeria
7 February 2008
I. Introduction:
It gives me great pleasure to have this opportunity to address this distinguished audience and I thank Justice Akanbi and the Mustapha Akanbi Foundation for giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts with you on this important topic1. When I was approached to deliver this talk, I readily agreed for three important reasons. Firstly, to honour Honourable Justice Mustapha Akanbi, a distinguished jurist, and an outstanding public servant who has served this country well as a classroom teacher, judge and the Chair of ICPC. As I intend to argue in my presentation, nations are built by exemplary men and women and sustained by institutions that promote good governance and thus socio-economic development. Justice Akanbi is a shining example of one such a person and he was a pioneer head of a sensitive public institution. Secondly, I accepted the invitation so as to identify myself with the noble objectives of the Mustapha Akanbi Foundation which seeks to render ‘significant services to the people in the area of education, health, anti-corruption crusade, ethics, judicial responsibility, rule of law, democracy and good governance.’ It is particularly gratifying to note that the Foundation has been giving refresher training to teachers who mould the minds and intellect of our future generations.
My most important reason, however, for accepting this invitation has to do with the subject matter for discussion. In my letter of invitation, I was asked ‘to examine our past critically, [and] find out why after close to five decades of attaining independence, Nigeria is still not out of the woods.’ As we move into the 21st Century, in this age of globalization, this should be a matter of concern to all of us. We need to reflect on our journey so far, so we can do better in the future and leave a better legacy for posterity
II. Building a Nation:
Nations are an important part of modern society. If we go back into history, we see that the world used to be divided into empires and kingdoms. In the modern period, however, nations or nation states have replaced empires as the basic unit of human political organization.
I myself have had the privilege of close association with the United Nations, an organization set up to ensure the peaceful coexistence and the social economic development of the worlds numerous nations. As an integral part of the modern world, therefore, Nigerians are rightly concerned about nation-building.
However, I would like to emphasise the fact that nations just don’t happen by historical accident; rather they are built by men and women with vision and resolve. Nation-building is therefore the product of conscious statecraft, not happenstance. Nation-building is always a work-in-progress; a dynamic process in constant need of nurturing and re-invention. Nation-building never stops and true nation-builder never rest because all nations are constantly facing up to new challenges.
Nation-building has many important aspects. Firstly, it is about building a political entity which corresponds to a given territory, based on some generally accepted rules, norms, and principles, and a common citizenship. Secondly, it is also about building institutions which symbolize the political entity – institutions such as a bureaucracy, an economy, the judiciary, universities, a civil service, and civil society organizations. Above all else, however, nation-building is about building a common sense of purpose, a sense of shared destiny, a collective imagination of belonging. Nation-building is therefore about building the tangible and intangible threads that hold a political entity together and gives it a sense of purpose. Even in these days of globalization and rapid international flows of people and ideas, having a viable nation remains synonymous with achieving modernity. It is about building the institutions and values which sustain the collective community in these modern times. I shall return to the imperatives of institution-building later in this presentation.
In Nigeria, however, there are some people who represent our national importance by calling us the ‘Giant of Africa’. This is an ascriptive perspective. We are seen as giants not necessarily because of the quality of our national institutions and values, but simply by virtue of our large population and oil wealth. But in reality, the greatness of a nation has to be earned and is not determined just by the size of its population or the abundance of its natural resources. China and India have the largest populations in the world, but they are only now rising as important global players. On the other hand, Japan has few natural resources, but has long managed to turn itself into a global economic powerhouse.
In today's world, skills, industriousness, productivity, and competitiveness are the determinant factors of national greatness. Not even the possession of the nuclear bomb is enough to make a nation great without reference to the industriousness and creativity of its citizens. Since the time of Adam Smith, every serious nationalist and politician has come to know that the wealth of a nation is not based on the wealth and opulence of its rulers, but on the productivity and industriousness of its citizenry.
The real question is why has the task of nation-building been so difficult in Nigeria, and the fruits so patchy, despite our enormous human and natural resources? I suggest that we should look for the answer in three critical areas: (1) threats and challenges posed by the environment for nation-building; (2) the quality of leadership that has confronted these challenges; and (3) the fragility of political and development institutions. We need to understand the environment for nation-building in Nigeria, so we can clearly identify our strengths, weaknesses, and core challenges. We also need to evolve a system of leadership selection and accountability which produces the sort of leaders that will confront the challenges of the environment in a way that is beneficial for nation-building. As I have argued at the beginning, nations are a product of the human will and imagination and the institutions that sustain their collective efforts. Therefore, we must find these resources in ourselves if we are to succeed in building our nation; otherwise, to paraphrase Shakespeare, “default would be not in our styles but in ourselves”.
III. Challenges before Nigerian Nation-building:
Nigeria faces five main nation-building challenges:
(1) the challenge from our history; (2) the challenge of socio-economic inequalities; (3) the challenges of an appropriate constitutional settlement; (4) the challenges of building institutions for democracy and development; and (5) the challenge of leadership. In our quest for nation-building, we have recorded some successes, such as keeping the country together in the face of many challenges. But these challenges continue to keep us from achieving our full potential. It is to these challenges that I devote the rest of my presentation.
1. The Challenge of History
The historical legacies of colonial rule create some challenges for nation-building in Nigeria. Colonial rule divided Nigeria into North and South with different land tenure systems, local government administration, educational systems, and judicial systems. While large British colonies like India and the Sudan had a single administrative system, Nigeria had two, one for the North and one for the South. It was almost as if these were two separate countries, held together only by a shared currency and transportation system. Many members of the Nigerian elite class in the 1950s and 1960s had their education and world outlook moulded by the regional institutions. Some had little or no understanding of their neighbouring regions. Under these conditions, it was easy for prejudice and fear to thrive. During the period of the decolonization struggle, Nigerian nationalists from different regions fought each other as much as they fought the British colonialists. Nigeria never had a central rallying figure like Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana or Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Instead, each region threw up its own champions.
From this historical legacy, therefore, regionalism has been a major challenge to nation-building in Nigeria. To their credit, however, the founding fathers of our nation tried to deal with this challenge by adopting federalism and advocating a policy of unity-in-diversity. Unfortunately, the lack of consolidation of Nigerian federalism around commonly shared values and positions means that this challenge of divisive historical legacy continues to undermine our efforts at nation-building. One current manifestation of this historical legacy is the division between ‘indigenes’ and ‘settlers’. This division has been a source of domestic tension and undermined our efforts at creating a common nationhood. While we should learn from history so as not to repeat its mistakes, we must never see ourselves simmply as victims of our history; it is our responsibility to overcome the challenges posed by our history.
2. The Challenge of Socio-Economic Inequalities
An important aspect of nation-building is the building of a common citizenship. But how can we have a common citizenship when the person in Ilorin has a radically different quality of life from the person in Yenagoa? Or when the woman in Gusau is more likely to die in childbirth than the woman in Ibadan? Through the development of the economy and equal opportunities for all, or through the development of social welfare safety nets, mature nations try to establish a base-line of social and economic rights which all members of the national community must enjoy. Not to enjoy these socio-economic rights means that the people involved are marginalized from national life. That is why in many Western European countries, contemporary nation-building in about preventing ‘social exclusion’ or the exclusion of significant segments of the population from enjoying basic social and economic rights.
In Nigeria, however, not only are many of our citizens denied basic rights such as the right to education and health, there is also serious variation in the enjoyment of these rights across the country. As a consequence, the citizen is not motivated to support the state and society, because he or she does not feel that the society is adequately concerned about their welfare. Secondly socio-economic inequalities across the country fuels fears and suspicious which keep our people divided.
Let me draw your attention to some of these socio-economic inequalities. If we take the level of immunization of children against dangerous childhood diseases, we note that while the South-East has 44.6% immunization coverage, the North-West has 3.7% and North-East 3.6%. If you take the education of the girl-child as indicator, you see a similar pattern of inequality with the South-East having an enrolment rate of 85%, South-West 89%, South-South 75%, North-East 20%, and North-West 25%.2 Only 25% of pregnant women in the North-West use maternity clinics, while 85% of the women in the South-East do.3 It is not surprising that 939% more women die in child-birth in the North-East, compared to the South-West.4 Education and poverty levels are also important dimensions of inequalities across Nigeria. If we take admissions into Nigerian universities in the academic year 2000/1, we see that the North-West had only 5% of the admissions, while the South-East had 39%.5 As for poverty, the Governor of the Central Bank, Charles Soludo, recently pointed out that while 95% of the population of Jigawa State is classified as poor, only 20% of Bayelsa State is so classified. While 85% of Kwara State is classified as poor, only 32% of Osun is in the same boat.6
These inequalities pose two related challenges to nation-building. Firstly, high levels of socio-economic inequalities mean that different Nigerians live different lives in different parts of the country. Your chances of surviving child-birth, of surviving childhood, of receiving education and skills, all vary across the country. If different parts of Nigeria were separate countries, some parts will be middle income countries, while others will be poorer than the poorest countries in the world! A common nationhood cannot be achieved while citizens are living such parallel lives. Inequalities are a threat to a common citizenship. Secondly, even in those parts of the country that are relatively better off, the level of social provision and protection is still low by world standards. The 20% that are poor and unemployed in Bayelsa State are still excluded from common citizenship benefits. We therefore need a Social Contract between the people on the one hand, and the state and nation on the other. The state and nation must put meeting the needs of the disadvantaged as a key objective of public policy. Such an approach can make possible a common experience of life by Nigerians living in different parts of the country and elicit their commitment to the nation. Instead of resorting to the divisive politics of indigene against settler as a means of accessing resources, a generalized commitment to social citizenship will create a civic structure of rights that will unite people around shared rights and goals.
Poverty and nation-building are strange bedfellows, whether the poor are 20% or 85% of the population. A largely marginalized citizenry, increasingly crippled by poverty and the lack of basic needs, can hardly be expected to play its proper role in the development of the nation. Nations are built by healthy and skilled citizens. On grounds of both equity and efficiency, we need to promote the access of the bulk of the Nigerian population to basic education, health, and housing. Nigeria needs a social contract with its citizens as a basis for demanding their loyalty and support.
3. The Constitutional Challenge
Since its independence, the country has been facing the challenge of crafting a constitutional arrangement that has the backing of an overwhelming majority of Nigerians. In the 1940s and 1950s, our founding fathers battled with this problem. In the end, they arrived at the principle of federalism as a foundation for our nation. But federalism has faced stiff challenges over the years from those wanting a unitary form of government on the one hand, and from those wanting a confederal arrangement, on the other. To my mind, the worst enemies of Nigerian federalism are those who speak of federalism, but act in a unitary fashion by brushing aside all the divisions of powers between different levels of our federation. Related to the problem of federalism is the question of fiscal federalism. What is the appropriate and just basis for sharing revenue? Should the federal government have the right to deduct monies due to states without their permission? Should state governments continue to control local government allocations? These are all fundamental principles on which we have no clear consensus. While we all agree that Nigeria must be a federation, we have no clear consensus on the nature of that federation, on whether we should have territorially defined states or ethnically defined states as some are demanding. We also do not have a consensus on the number of states or federating units we should have. While some are satisfied with the current 36 states, others are calling for more states for their own groups. On the other hand, yet others are arguing that the number of states should be reduced to 6. Here again, there is little by way of consensus.
Another constitutional challenge relates to the nature of our democracy. While most Nigerians support the principles of democracy such as the forming of government based on the will of the majority, respect for the rule of law, and respect for basic freedoms of citizens, the fact remains that in practice, we have tended to have either military rule or defective civilian governments. Either in terms of accountability, or respect for the rule of law, or the holding of elections, our conduct in the recent past has been far from democratic. Therefore, while most of us now agree that we do not want military rule, our visions and practice of democracy are not uniform, showing a fundamental lack of consensus on this important question as well. Moreover, our political parties should need to become little more than vehicles to deliver power to the highest bidders at local, state and federal levels.
A third and final area of constitutional challenge which I want to share with you is about the principles for sharing power at the different levels of government. As studies by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) based in Geneva show, some sections of the country dominate the bureaucracy, while others dominate the cabinet.7 This pattern of uneven distribution of power goes right down to even local governments. For example, through the work of the Federal Character Commission, we know that a local government in Warri once had staff from only one ethnic group, even though three ethnic groups lived in the local government area. Unless we have inclusive systems of government, we cannot have a stable political system as an anchor for nation-building. Through the Federal Character Commission and through informal arrangements like zoning, we have made some progress, but a lot more work has to be done before we fully address the problem of monopoly, marginalization, and exclusion in bureaucratic and political positions. Moreover, the pursuit of the principle of the federal character should not be at the expense of merit or a substitute of equal opportunity for all citizens.
I would argue, therefore, that the key values of federalism, democracy, and inclusive government have not been sufficiently consolidated as core values for our nation. Some important questions regarding each of these three key values remain unanswered. And in many instances, there is a discrepancy between what is written on paper and what people do in practice. Building consensus around these three key values remains a constitutional challenge for nation-building. Nigeria needs a constitutional settlement that commands the acceptance, if not the respect, of a majority of its 140 million citizens. The 1999 constitution bequeathed by the military is defective in many important respects. Attempts to correct these defects through the National Political Reform Conference (NPRC) of 2005 and the Constitutional Reform Bill of 2006 which was debated and rejected by the National Assembly, have so far failed.
Nation builders are those members of a state who take the initiative to develop the national community through government programs, including military conscription and national content mass schooling.[4][5] Nation-building can involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructure development to foster social harmony and economic growth.
Overview
In the modern era, nation-building referred to the efforts of newly independent nations, notably the nations of Africa but also in the Balkans,[6][7] to redefine the populace of territories that had been carved out by colonial powers or empires without regard to ethnic, religious, or other boundaries.[8] These reformed states would then become viable and coherent national entities.[9]
Nation-building includes the creation of
national paraphernalia such as flags,
anthems, national days, national stadiums,
national airlines, national languages, and
national myths.[10][11] At a deeper level, national identity needed to be deliberately constructed by molding different ethnic groups into a nation, especially since in many newly established states colonial practices of divide and rule had resulted in ethnically heterogeneous populations.[12]
However, many new states were plagued by tribalism; that is, rivalry between ethnic groups within the nation. This sometimes resulted in their near-disintegration, such as the attempt by Biafra to secede from
Nigeria in 1970, or the continuing demand of the Somali people in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia for complete independence. In Asia, the division of British India into India and Pakistan was in part due to ethnic differences, which might have been aided by other factors like colonial mismanagement of the situation. The
Rwandan genocide as well as the recurrent problems experienced by the Sudan can also be related to a lack of ethnic, religious, or racial cohesion within the nation. It has often proved difficult to unite states with similar ethnic but different colonial backgrounds. Whereas successful examples like Cameroon do exist, failures like
Senegambia Confederation demonstrate the problems of uniting Francophone and
Anglophone territories.
Terminology: Nation-building versus state-building
Traditionally, there has been some confusion between the use of the term
nation-building and that of state-building (the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in North America). Both have fairly narrow and different definitions in political science, the former referring to national identity, the latter to infrastructure and the institutions of the state. The debate has been clouded further by the existence of two very different schools of thought on state-building. The first (prevalent in the media) portrays state-building as an interventionist action by foreign countries. The second (more academic in origin and increasingly accepted by international institutions) sees state-building as an indigenous process. For a discussion of the definitional issues, see state-building, Carolyn Stephenson's essay , and the papers by Whaites, CPC/IPA or ODI cited below.
The confusion over terminology has meant that more recently, nation-building has come to be used in a completely different context, with reference to what has been succinctly described by its proponents as "the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy."[13] In this sense nation-building, better referred to as state building, describes deliberate efforts by a foreign power to construct or install the institutions of a national government, according to a model that may be more familiar to the foreign power but is often considered foreign and even destabilizing.
[14] In this sense, state-building is typically characterized by massive investment, military occupation, transitional government, and the use of propaganda to communicate governmental policy.
Challenges
Presentation by
PROF. IBRAHIM A. GAMBARI
Under-Secretary-General and Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General
THE CHALLENGES OF NATIONS BUILDING:
THE CASE OF NIGERIA
First Year Anniversary Lecture
Mustapha Akanbi Foundation
Sheraton Hotel Abuja, Nigeria
7 February 2008
I. Introduction:
It gives me great pleasure to have this opportunity to address this distinguished audience and I thank Justice Akanbi and the Mustapha Akanbi Foundation for giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts with you on this important topic1. When I was approached to deliver this talk, I readily agreed for three important reasons. Firstly, to honour Honourable Justice Mustapha Akanbi, a distinguished jurist, and an outstanding public servant who has served this country well as a classroom teacher, judge and the Chair of ICPC. As I intend to argue in my presentation, nations are built by exemplary men and women and sustained by institutions that promote good governance and thus socio-economic development. Justice Akanbi is a shining example of one such a person and he was a pioneer head of a sensitive public institution. Secondly, I accepted the invitation so as to identify myself with the noble objectives of the Mustapha Akanbi Foundation which seeks to render ‘significant services to the people in the area of education, health, anti-corruption crusade, ethics, judicial responsibility, rule of law, democracy and good governance.’ It is particularly gratifying to note that the Foundation has been giving refresher training to teachers who mould the minds and intellect of our future generations.
My most important reason, however, for accepting this invitation has to do with the subject matter for discussion. In my letter of invitation, I was asked ‘to examine our past critically, [and] find out why after close to five decades of attaining independence, Nigeria is still not out of the woods.’ As we move into the 21st Century, in this age of globalization, this should be a matter of concern to all of us. We need to reflect on our journey so far, so we can do better in the future and leave a better legacy for posterity
II. Building a Nation:
Nations are an important part of modern society. If we go back into history, we see that the world used to be divided into empires and kingdoms. In the modern period, however, nations or nation states have replaced empires as the basic unit of human political organization.
I myself have had the privilege of close association with the United Nations, an organization set up to ensure the peaceful coexistence and the social economic development of the worlds numerous nations. As an integral part of the modern world, therefore, Nigerians are rightly concerned about nation-building.
However, I would like to emphasise the fact that nations just don’t happen by historical accident; rather they are built by men and women with vision and resolve. Nation-building is therefore the product of conscious statecraft, not happenstance. Nation-building is always a work-in-progress; a dynamic process in constant need of nurturing and re-invention. Nation-building never stops and true nation-builder never rest because all nations are constantly facing up to new challenges.
Nation-building has many important aspects. Firstly, it is about building a political entity which corresponds to a given territory, based on some generally accepted rules, norms, and principles, and a common citizenship. Secondly, it is also about building institutions which symbolize the political entity – institutions such as a bureaucracy, an economy, the judiciary, universities, a civil service, and civil society organizations. Above all else, however, nation-building is about building a common sense of purpose, a sense of shared destiny, a collective imagination of belonging. Nation-building is therefore about building the tangible and intangible threads that hold a political entity together and gives it a sense of purpose. Even in these days of globalization and rapid international flows of people and ideas, having a viable nation remains synonymous with achieving modernity. It is about building the institutions and values which sustain the collective community in these modern times. I shall return to the imperatives of institution-building later in this presentation.
In Nigeria, however, there are some people who represent our national importance by calling us the ‘Giant of Africa’. This is an ascriptive perspective. We are seen as giants not necessarily because of the quality of our national institutions and values, but simply by virtue of our large population and oil wealth. But in reality, the greatness of a nation has to be earned and is not determined just by the size of its population or the abundance of its natural resources. China and India have the largest populations in the world, but they are only now rising as important global players. On the other hand, Japan has few natural resources, but has long managed to turn itself into a global economic powerhouse.
In today's world, skills, industriousness, productivity, and competitiveness are the determinant factors of national greatness. Not even the possession of the nuclear bomb is enough to make a nation great without reference to the industriousness and creativity of its citizens. Since the time of Adam Smith, every serious nationalist and politician has come to know that the wealth of a nation is not based on the wealth and opulence of its rulers, but on the productivity and industriousness of its citizenry.
The real question is why has the task of nation-building been so difficult in Nigeria, and the fruits so patchy, despite our enormous human and natural resources? I suggest that we should look for the answer in three critical areas: (1) threats and challenges posed by the environment for nation-building; (2) the quality of leadership that has confronted these challenges; and (3) the fragility of political and development institutions. We need to understand the environment for nation-building in Nigeria, so we can clearly identify our strengths, weaknesses, and core challenges. We also need to evolve a system of leadership selection and accountability which produces the sort of leaders that will confront the challenges of the environment in a way that is beneficial for nation-building. As I have argued at the beginning, nations are a product of the human will and imagination and the institutions that sustain their collective efforts. Therefore, we must find these resources in ourselves if we are to succeed in building our nation; otherwise, to paraphrase Shakespeare, “default would be not in our styles but in ourselves”.
III. Challenges before Nigerian Nation-building:
Nigeria faces five main nation-building challenges:
(1) the challenge from our history; (2) the challenge of socio-economic inequalities; (3) the challenges of an appropriate constitutional settlement; (4) the challenges of building institutions for democracy and development; and (5) the challenge of leadership. In our quest for nation-building, we have recorded some successes, such as keeping the country together in the face of many challenges. But these challenges continue to keep us from achieving our full potential. It is to these challenges that I devote the rest of my presentation.
1. The Challenge of History
The historical legacies of colonial rule create some challenges for nation-building in Nigeria. Colonial rule divided Nigeria into North and South with different land tenure systems, local government administration, educational systems, and judicial systems. While large British colonies like India and the Sudan had a single administrative system, Nigeria had two, one for the North and one for the South. It was almost as if these were two separate countries, held together only by a shared currency and transportation system. Many members of the Nigerian elite class in the 1950s and 1960s had their education and world outlook moulded by the regional institutions. Some had little or no understanding of their neighbouring regions. Under these conditions, it was easy for prejudice and fear to thrive. During the period of the decolonization struggle, Nigerian nationalists from different regions fought each other as much as they fought the British colonialists. Nigeria never had a central rallying figure like Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana or Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Instead, each region threw up its own champions.
From this historical legacy, therefore, regionalism has been a major challenge to nation-building in Nigeria. To their credit, however, the founding fathers of our nation tried to deal with this challenge by adopting federalism and advocating a policy of unity-in-diversity. Unfortunately, the lack of consolidation of Nigerian federalism around commonly shared values and positions means that this challenge of divisive historical legacy continues to undermine our efforts at nation-building. One current manifestation of this historical legacy is the division between ‘indigenes’ and ‘settlers’. This division has been a source of domestic tension and undermined our efforts at creating a common nationhood. While we should learn from history so as not to repeat its mistakes, we must never see ourselves simmply as victims of our history; it is our responsibility to overcome the challenges posed by our history.
2. The Challenge of Socio-Economic Inequalities
An important aspect of nation-building is the building of a common citizenship. But how can we have a common citizenship when the person in Ilorin has a radically different quality of life from the person in Yenagoa? Or when the woman in Gusau is more likely to die in childbirth than the woman in Ibadan? Through the development of the economy and equal opportunities for all, or through the development of social welfare safety nets, mature nations try to establish a base-line of social and economic rights which all members of the national community must enjoy. Not to enjoy these socio-economic rights means that the people involved are marginalized from national life. That is why in many Western European countries, contemporary nation-building in about preventing ‘social exclusion’ or the exclusion of significant segments of the population from enjoying basic social and economic rights.
In Nigeria, however, not only are many of our citizens denied basic rights such as the right to education and health, there is also serious variation in the enjoyment of these rights across the country. As a consequence, the citizen is not motivated to support the state and society, because he or she does not feel that the society is adequately concerned about their welfare. Secondly socio-economic inequalities across the country fuels fears and suspicious which keep our people divided.
Let me draw your attention to some of these socio-economic inequalities. If we take the level of immunization of children against dangerous childhood diseases, we note that while the South-East has 44.6% immunization coverage, the North-West has 3.7% and North-East 3.6%. If you take the education of the girl-child as indicator, you see a similar pattern of inequality with the South-East having an enrolment rate of 85%, South-West 89%, South-South 75%, North-East 20%, and North-West 25%.2 Only 25% of pregnant women in the North-West use maternity clinics, while 85% of the women in the South-East do.3 It is not surprising that 939% more women die in child-birth in the North-East, compared to the South-West.4 Education and poverty levels are also important dimensions of inequalities across Nigeria. If we take admissions into Nigerian universities in the academic year 2000/1, we see that the North-West had only 5% of the admissions, while the South-East had 39%.5 As for poverty, the Governor of the Central Bank, Charles Soludo, recently pointed out that while 95% of the population of Jigawa State is classified as poor, only 20% of Bayelsa State is so classified. While 85% of Kwara State is classified as poor, only 32% of Osun is in the same boat.6
These inequalities pose two related challenges to nation-building. Firstly, high levels of socio-economic inequalities mean that different Nigerians live different lives in different parts of the country. Your chances of surviving child-birth, of surviving childhood, of receiving education and skills, all vary across the country. If different parts of Nigeria were separate countries, some parts will be middle income countries, while others will be poorer than the poorest countries in the world! A common nationhood cannot be achieved while citizens are living such parallel lives. Inequalities are a threat to a common citizenship. Secondly, even in those parts of the country that are relatively better off, the level of social provision and protection is still low by world standards. The 20% that are poor and unemployed in Bayelsa State are still excluded from common citizenship benefits. We therefore need a Social Contract between the people on the one hand, and the state and nation on the other. The state and nation must put meeting the needs of the disadvantaged as a key objective of public policy. Such an approach can make possible a common experience of life by Nigerians living in different parts of the country and elicit their commitment to the nation. Instead of resorting to the divisive politics of indigene against settler as a means of accessing resources, a generalized commitment to social citizenship will create a civic structure of rights that will unite people around shared rights and goals.
Poverty and nation-building are strange bedfellows, whether the poor are 20% or 85% of the population. A largely marginalized citizenry, increasingly crippled by poverty and the lack of basic needs, can hardly be expected to play its proper role in the development of the nation. Nations are built by healthy and skilled citizens. On grounds of both equity and efficiency, we need to promote the access of the bulk of the Nigerian population to basic education, health, and housing. Nigeria needs a social contract with its citizens as a basis for demanding their loyalty and support.
3. The Constitutional Challenge
Since its independence, the country has been facing the challenge of crafting a constitutional arrangement that has the backing of an overwhelming majority of Nigerians. In the 1940s and 1950s, our founding fathers battled with this problem. In the end, they arrived at the principle of federalism as a foundation for our nation. But federalism has faced stiff challenges over the years from those wanting a unitary form of government on the one hand, and from those wanting a confederal arrangement, on the other. To my mind, the worst enemies of Nigerian federalism are those who speak of federalism, but act in a unitary fashion by brushing aside all the divisions of powers between different levels of our federation. Related to the problem of federalism is the question of fiscal federalism. What is the appropriate and just basis for sharing revenue? Should the federal government have the right to deduct monies due to states without their permission? Should state governments continue to control local government allocations? These are all fundamental principles on which we have no clear consensus. While we all agree that Nigeria must be a federation, we have no clear consensus on the nature of that federation, on whether we should have territorially defined states or ethnically defined states as some are demanding. We also do not have a consensus on the number of states or federating units we should have. While some are satisfied with the current 36 states, others are calling for more states for their own groups. On the other hand, yet others are arguing that the number of states should be reduced to 6. Here again, there is little by way of consensus.
Another constitutional challenge relates to the nature of our democracy. While most Nigerians support the principles of democracy such as the forming of government based on the will of the majority, respect for the rule of law, and respect for basic freedoms of citizens, the fact remains that in practice, we have tended to have either military rule or defective civilian governments. Either in terms of accountability, or respect for the rule of law, or the holding of elections, our conduct in the recent past has been far from democratic. Therefore, while most of us now agree that we do not want military rule, our visions and practice of democracy are not uniform, showing a fundamental lack of consensus on this important question as well. Moreover, our political parties should need to become little more than vehicles to deliver power to the highest bidders at local, state and federal levels.
A third and final area of constitutional challenge which I want to share with you is about the principles for sharing power at the different levels of government. As studies by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) based in Geneva show, some sections of the country dominate the bureaucracy, while others dominate the cabinet.7 This pattern of uneven distribution of power goes right down to even local governments. For example, through the work of the Federal Character Commission, we know that a local government in Warri once had staff from only one ethnic group, even though three ethnic groups lived in the local government area. Unless we have inclusive systems of government, we cannot have a stable political system as an anchor for nation-building. Through the Federal Character Commission and through informal arrangements like zoning, we have made some progress, but a lot more work has to be done before we fully address the problem of monopoly, marginalization, and exclusion in bureaucratic and political positions. Moreover, the pursuit of the principle of the federal character should not be at the expense of merit or a substitute of equal opportunity for all citizens.
I would argue, therefore, that the key values of federalism, democracy, and inclusive government have not been sufficiently consolidated as core values for our nation. Some important questions regarding each of these three key values remain unanswered. And in many instances, there is a discrepancy between what is written on paper and what people do in practice. Building consensus around these three key values remains a constitutional challenge for nation-building. Nigeria needs a constitutional settlement that commands the acceptance, if not the respect, of a majority of its 140 million citizens. The 1999 constitution bequeathed by the military is defective in many important respects. Attempts to correct these defects through the National Political Reform Conference (NPRC) of 2005 and the Constitutional Reform Bill of 2006 which was debated and rejected by the National Assembly, have so far failed.
Comments
Post a Comment