National Confab and the national question

Quite characteristically, there has been a rage of voices for and against the very decision of the President to empanel a Committee to provide a template for carrying out the national dialogue on the basis, rationale, processes, strategies and principles of the national existence (beyond mere co-existence) of this country. Ordinarily, one would have expected […]

Quite characteristically, there has been a rage of voices for and against the very decision of the President to empanel a Committee to provide a template for carrying out the national dialogue on the basis, rationale, processes, strategies and principles of the national existence (beyond mere co-existence) of this country. Ordinarily, one would have expected a street celebration and a deluge of praise songs for the President for hearkening to the tumultuous yearnings of the people to hold talks on the future of their country. Cry, the wondrous ways and inimitable spirit of Nigerians! We shall come to all that—the motives and motivations behind the Presidential turn-about! But first, a critical digression.
The Tragic Aviation Crash
When immortal Shakespeare wrote about death as a ‘necessary (inevitable) end’ that ‘will come when it will come’, It is clear to me that he did not have in mind death parcelled through the air; through plane crashes, as has become our national nemesis. Only last year, we had the tragedy of DANA—a carrier that we were all assured was the best and which also possesses the newest planes in the nation. It came crashing, leaving numerous deaths and corpses for the nation to bury and to mourn. Now, in the dying hours of our Independence Anniversary, when the nation was bracing itself to self-renewal, what with the Presidential broadcast which was neither flattering nor self-congratulatory—which in fact assured us that a national dialogue will commence toward the construction of a true federalism and the re-integration of our diverse and multiple ethnic nationalities,  tragedy struck again.  The crash of the Associate Aircraft, Embraer 120, conveying the remains of the late Minister and former Governor of Ondo Sate, Olusegun Agagu, family and State Officials for burial in Akure, came crashing, barely two minutes after take-off, claiming 13 lives and sparing  7 recuperating survivors!!
Our hearts bleed for the family of the deceased—innocent Nigerians who lost their lives in the plane crash. A father and a son, professional undertakers perished in the crash. Deji Falae, Commissioner for Culture and a member of the Cabinet of Governor Olusegun Mimiko, son of the former Minister of Finance, an astute politician and a former Presidential candidate, Chief Olu Falae, perished in the fated crash. The nation in general, and Ondo State in particular, was thrown into a state of multiple mourning. I spoke briefly on phone with Iroko, apt sobriquet for Governor Mimiko, whose quavering voice displayed a state of devastation and distraught for the whole tragic episode. Deji Falae, a vivacious, mentally alert and fore-sightful l young man who embodied the passion and drive of Mimiko for a radically transformed political economy of Ondo State, was a delight for me to have met and a terrible pain to have lost. Why won’t Olusegun Agagu be allowed to join his ancestors in peace, instead of being trailed by this tragic foreboding?
Great question. When shall this country be rid of fear as our commercial planes take off from one destination to the next? It is not enough to grief over losses. Grief will end when practical solutions are found to the seemingly unending incidences of mortal air-crashes? What went wrong with the Associated aircraft which crashed within two minutes of take-off that could not have been detected by experts before-hand?         
Now, the National Confab
I began, earlier, before the major but expedient digression, to ponder on the varied responses to President Goodluck Jonathan’s constitution of a committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Femi Okunrounmu, to provide a template for a national conference. Some have found the sudden change of heart by the President, suspicious, politically motivated, diversionary and ill-timed. You must have read the responses from Is-haq Oloyede, Secretary-General of the Islamic Supreme Council, Senator Tinubu Ahmed, APC chieftain and leader, and numerous others along the lane of scepticism. Oloyede said the decision of the President is ‘very suspicious’. Tinubu likened it to a ‘grand deception’, comparable only to a’ Greek gift.’ Asking a flurry of rhetorical questions which bother on motive imputation Senator Tinubu asks for alertness; ‘How long have we been talking about it? Why suddenly? I see a diversion here… I see deception here. I see lack of honesty and integrity here.’ Heavy words!!
There is, however, an overwhelming consensus of views and perspectives which align with and commend the decision of the President. There is no question about it. In the past few years, the question of the basis of our co-existence as a nation needing to be on the table for discussion; the nation of our federalism, fiscal or nay has been hotly debated with loud demand for it to e subjected to a national discourse. What has not really been settled, and what has still not been laid to rest is the nature of the national dialogue. Every little analyst in the street has called for a national conference. A more radical, ideologically persuaded body of opinion has called, trenchantly, for a sovereign national conference, one conducted through a national referendum. Opposition to this position argues that there is a body of elected representatives at the National Assembly fulfilling that role and thus there would be no need to subvert that sovereignty handed over to the National Assembly through plebiscite. However, in recent times, even leading voices from the hallowed Chambers, including the Senate President, have begun to wax revolutionary, seeking a national dialogue. There is no question, therefore, that the President’s pronouncement reflects the mood of the nation.
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—asking a Yoruba from one of the socio-cultural organs of the South West to chair his committee. As Professor Sekoni has argued, quite aptly, 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.
All depends now on the seriousness and integrity the committee brings into the planning, and the depth of thought and discourse (besides myopia and sentiment from the nation’s sub-sectors) the electorate brings into the debate—which must be open, transparent and un-tele-guided by any tier of governance—especially the Executive.  The panel must work swiftly and in not more than two months, submit its report. The entire debate should be conducted within six months and not later than a year before the 2015 elections. The Executive arm of government must demonstrate its sincerity and objectivity by not naming persons to the dialogue. It is preferable that all the delegates to the conference should come from the ethnic nations of the country. Preferably, all other stakeholders that will be party to the dialogue should derive their authority and membership from the various ethnic nationalities that make up the country at present.