Let the Conference commence

The need to talk stands shoulder high above all other matters today. As I said, whether the President has a ‘hidden agenda’ or a palpable design on the nation cannot be decided just now through a mere pronouncement. Some have even read vote- currying (and divide-and-rule-stratagem) into the President’s motivation—this motif-imputation is a puerile, moot […]

The need to talk stands shoulder high above all other matters today. As I said, whether the President has a ‘hidden agenda’ or a palpable design on the nation cannot be decided just now through a mere pronouncement. Some have even read vote- currying (and divide-and-rule-stratagem) into the President’s motivation—this motif-imputation is a puerile, moot point. Even if the insinuation bears any merit, ‘whatever fear this may engender is not enough to counter the significance of the message; acceptance to hold a national conference to discuss the future of Nigeria.’ I cannot agree more with those who hold this view.
Now that President Jonathan has rolled out the guidelines for the composition of the Conference, it is now obvious that the Conference will hold. Whatever shortcomings that may embed the structure laid out, and there are already much rumbling over it-especially with regard to the modes of electing and selecting delegates, the process of nominating the delegates, the number allocated to each stake-holders, the duration of the Conference and the specific powers that the President retains in the process and others such limitations – I still maintain my position, that it is better for the Conference to hold than not to hold. Let the Conference commence. There shall continue to be misgivings, misperceptions and scepticisms over the relevance of the Conference at this point in time—following yeas of dithering over convening it.    
This is basically why, no matter the strength of the opposing arguments marshalled mainly by the opposition to the Conference—and there are numerous anti-conference criticism and poses, I believe the nation needs to talk about the basis, rationale, import and nature of their co-existence and the very nature of the national question and essence of nation-hood, and the material content of our nationism. Many angry voices, from individuals like the former Governor of Kaduna State—Alhaji Balarabe Musa, interest bodies, and the main opposition party contesting and contending power in the raging electioneering of 2015, the All Progressives Congress, who recently caught a mammoth fish in Atiku Abubakar, former Vice-President, inveigh against the National Conference. What are the main factors of disputation on the Conference?  One loudly contested issue is the temporal one; that the Conference is too close to the general elections for comfort. The reason for temporal goose-pimples is the sudden turn-about of the President who has been steadfast in his opposition to the Conference, and now, on the eve of election, in which it is widely believed that he is a Presidential contestant, he now gives assent to the conference, set up a committee and rolls out a time-table for it.   Is this, as they surmise, a seeming after-thought, distractive strategy, a political diversion or a conscious election strategy to minimize the power of opposition in the forthcoming election? This is a serious contention by some of those opposed to the Conference. Why they ask, should conference be proposed to commence and end in not more than three months? What degree of thoroughness do we expect from such a rushed activity over such an important matter of critical national concern? Is the conference therefore designed to be dead on arrival? Is someone trying to fulfil all righteousness—since there is a popularity of  demand for a conference—national or Sovereign, let a make-believe be orchestrated and get it over with, so that the real matter of the day—the 2015 Elections can hold, hopefully in peace.  That too is considered a after a major distraction which the national conference may just be.  
The other issue in contention lined up for kicking against the conference is the issue of nomination of delegates, with specific reference to the dominant stake-holders. A lot of people have felt that the key constituent of the conference, in terms of fundamental interests, should be the ethnic nationalities. One of the originating thought behind this belief is that, so far, the national question revolves around the arbitrariness of the structuration of the Nigerian state by the colonial authorities—first at the level of the formation of the two Protectorates—the Northern and Southern Protectorates, then at the point of amalgamation, which many historians and public intellectuals have declared a mere ruse. The balkanization of the nation into regions did not enjoy the benefit of input by the ethnic nations that existed before colonization. The boundaries were arbitrary and were drawn without any regard for cultural and linguistic continuities.  For this reason and for reasons of enabling ethnic nationalities to determine how to be structured, who to merge and align for socio-political and socio-economic reasons, ethnic nationalities should comprise the delegation to the national conference. In any case, the argument goes, every professional, every unionist, every traditional ruler, market woman or trader has his/her ethnic origin or descent. Let them go and derive their legitimacy form their original ethnic nation. There is a lot of primordiality in this ethnic imperative theory, but it is a vibrant and critical source of opposition, with the argument that there is too much of Presidential leverage in the inclusion of these diverse stake-holding interests as rolled out by the Presidency.
There is also the argument over the end point of the conference product. The President’s original proposition is that the outcome of the Confab should be turned over to the National Assembly—either as part of its on-going Constitutional Amendment or for screening before being granted some legislative teeth. There is, of course, a concession that the blueprint of the Conference may be submitted to the test of a Referendum.
All of these are valid logics for discourse but my understanding and inclination is that none of the issue raised in objection to the Conference supersede the argument for the Conference—that Nigerians want to debate the basis of our nationhood and should be allowed to exercise that fundamental right. I am persuaded that, no covert or overt design of government as insinuated cannot be routed if the conferees are drawn from the very best of the national constituencies and nationalities. One thing is certain. Nigerians are no fools and no government possesses the monopoly of genius—good or evil.  Again I canvass for the commencement of the national conference.