Jonathan and the Conference

In the two-part serial, “The National Conference”, I made the case for those who believe Nigeria’s federalism is structurally defective; that this deficiency has negative, possibly fatal social, economic and political consequences; and that a fundamental constitutional restructuring is required to remedy Nigeria’s dysfunction, to embrace the Jonathan administration’s national dialogue initiative. In particular, I urged our compatriots in Western Nigeria who for more than two decades have persistently called for a national conference to seize, or at least actively test this window of opportunity provided for such restructuring. As one compatriot noted a few days ago in an e-mail endorsing our point of view, whether this opening is due to “sleight of hand or hand of God” it is expedient to grab the chance to improve our federal system in line with our long run strategic interests, rather than focus on narrow, tactical considerations, transient advantages, self-interest and partisan politics. This willingness to embrace the possibility of a national conference is not because we are naïve about what may be President Jonathan’s motives in embracing the idea of a conference. There are at least two plausible hypotheses about why Jonathan turned around to support and indeed activate the conference. One is as a tactic to raise his bargaining power in the struggle against his geo-regional adversaries, principally from Northern Nigeria and their Southern allies, towards 2015. As another senior compatriot argues, Jonathan’s objectives may not go beyond “muddying the waters a bit to expose the internal contradictions in the opposition party, strike fear into the internal opposition in his own party, so that the status quo can be maintained by a hung conference”. In this thinking, Jonathan may not really want or care about a conference and this may just be a ploy, in essence Jonathan’s “third term” (in his case second term!) conference to secure personal political advantages. And it is of course a hypothesis that cannot be ruled out! But there is another plausible counter-hypothesis-Jonathan is Ijaw from the Niger-Delta. The first recorded attempt to “restructure” Nigeria was by Isaac Adaka-Boro, an Ijaw activist and hero. The Ijaws have fundamental complaints against the structure of the Nigerian state that have manifested in persistent calls for “resource control”, true federalism, environmental remediation etc, thus the Ijaws and Niger-Delta/“South-South” have significant stakes in any effort to discuss the fundamentals of Nigeria’s union and particularly its fiscal federalism, and the Ijaw National Congress, the powerful assemblage of Ijaw interests is clearly in support of the conference. Beyond geo-ethnic interests, Jonathan’s personal experience may have focused his mind on the reality of political inequality in Nigeria-those who selected him as running-mate to Umaru Yar’adua probably did so seeing him as a weak and pliable “minority”; his path to the presidency was strewn with insults and danger especially during the Yar’adua “vacuum” when he was severely underrated with his party chairman announcing that the presidency was zoned to the North; a “Northern Political Leaders Forum” emerged to pursue a Northern consensus against him; and since he became substantive president, he has faced relentless efforts to undermine his office and person-“Boko Haram”, NGF, “new” PDP ad infinitum! Jonathan must be aware that whatever happens, he will leave office in 2015 or 2019, and unless Nigeria is restructured, the Ijaws and other Niger-Deltans will return to their pre-2010 status quo as de facto “spectators”, while dominant ethnic groups spend the oil wealth derived from their homeland! Whichever is truth, the point is that true believers in the concept of a national conference must decide how to respond to this opportunity in a way that maximizes the possibility that such a conference will hold, and under terms favourable to the achievement of our objectives. I am convinced the optimal response is to seize the initiative and endow it with momentum transcending the objectives of the regime, whatever they are! We must organize to ensure a lock-in into the conference and challenge those in the Presidential Advisory Committee on the National Dialogue, some of whose antecedents suggest commitment to the idea-Senator Femi Okurounmu, Solomon Asemota (SAN), Anya O Anya, George Obiozor, Tony Uranta and Akilu Indabawa amongst others, to define the conference in terms consistent with the popular will. Fortunately the preponderance of submissions to the Committee are clear that an acceptable conference is one based on equality of representation by geo-political zones; fair representation of ethnic nationalities and sub-groups within each geo-political area; and whose result is submitted for ratification by a referendum of Nigeria’s peoples in whom sovereignty resides. Now we must be vigilant and ensure we protect this opportunity. We must ensure the conference is not a negotiating item as Jonathan and his adversaries seek accommodation with each other. We must form alliances across geo-political zones, nationalities and groups to foster consensus and ensure realization of shared objectives. And we must educate and mobilise our people to understand the case for a national conference and the historical imperative of not wasting what may be a unique and probably last opportunity to save federalism and effect fundamental positive change in Nigeria. In the final analysis, Jonathan has a decision to make-will he be a man of history, who exactly one hundred years after the amalgamation re-defined Nigeria and did what strong men could not do, or is he a historical footnote, who came, saw and left things as they were?