Now that we have to talk…

Explaining why he had to make a U-turn on his known anti-national conference posture, Jonathan said:“I was one of those who exhibited scepticism on the need for another conference or dialogue. My scepticism was borne out of the nomenclature of such a conference, taking into cognizance existing democratic structures that were products of the will […]

Explaining why he had to make a U-turn on his known anti-national conference posture, Jonathan said:
“I was one of those who exhibited scepticism on the need for another conference or dialogue. My scepticism was borne out of the nomenclature of such a conference, taking into cognizance existing democratic structures that were products of the will of the people”, (Punch, October 8 2013).
On 8 October 2013, President Jonathan extended the tenure of the National Advisory Committee on National Dialogue led by Senator Femi Okurounmu to six weeks as against the four weeks he announced in his Independence Day address to the nation, saying the extension was to give Muslims who would be on Hajj the opportunity to return to the country and contribute to the committee’s work.
As should be expected, the idea of the national conference has dominated discourse since the announcement was made on October 1. In essence, while it is possible that the President did not intend the proposed National Conference/Dialogue to be diversionary, it will nonetheless, by its very nature have such effect. This will give him much needed political breathing space to concentrate on other things or simply to re-group.
By the way, in politics, there is nothing wrong in finding counter moves to shake off pressures from your opponents when you feel boxed into a defensive position for a prolonged period (an uncomfortable position for politicians to be in). When such happens, recovering quickly to go on the offensive or finding ways to throw your opponents off balance or divert the attention of the general populace is regarded as good strategy. Politics tends to be a game of wits, in which the actors struggle to be on the offensive but are bound by the dynamics of the game to constantly switch between offensive and defensive positions. Those questioning the motive of President in suddenly changing his mind about a sovereign national conference are also playing the offensive-defensive politics with the matter – as they should. No good political strategist lets a good opportunity to put his opponent on the defensive to slip by.
We will therefore quickly get the issue of motive out of the way and examine the idea of the proposed National Conference/Dialogue irrespective of the real reasons that informed the President’s decision to suddenly become a convert to the idea of a national conference.
There is a feeling that the  President’s sudden U-turn on National Conference/Dialogue was in part aimed at meeting the demands of the proponents of a sovereign national conference (SNC) half-way – or taking the quiver off their arrows.  But the problem is that even the advocates of SNC disagree sharply on what should be the aim of such a conference. Should it be to discuss on whether the ‘federating’ units want to continue to live together?  Should it be to discuss a re-working of the political structure of the federation? Or to re-organise the system of revenue allocation?
My personal opinion is that no one should be afraid of the worst case scenario – which is to discuss on whether the ‘federating units’ want to continue to live together. There are several reasons why this should be the precedent question and in fact at this stage, the only question the committee should concern itself with because unless this precedent question is answered in the affirmative, the ancillary questions will become irrelevant.
 I will like to illustrate this with a story:
There is this story of a certain young man who lost his dear twin brother to the cruel hands of death. He was so sorrowed on the day of the funeral that he wanted to be buried together with his brother, whose coffin was already lowered into the grave but which was was yet to be covered by mother earth – according to the custom of their people. Some strong young men were detailed to sit next to the grieving young man to stop him whenever he made a dash for the grave. He made several attempts to run and jump into the grave and was on each occasion restrained by the young men attached to him. This went on and on and the elders had to put their heads together: An agreement was reached that this man’s wish should be granted as no one knew if he had any special pact with his late brother when he was alive. When therefore the grieving man made another dash for the grave where the coffin of his brother was laid, no one made any attempt to restrain him. However when he got to the graveside and looked down into the silence of the six- feet-deep grave, his confidence left him. For the next several minutes he stood there looking lost while he sobbed. Finally he walked back to his seat and never attempted making a dash for the grave again.
I am not implying that advocates of a break-up will freeze in fear when the option is offered to them – though my instinct tells me many will. The point is that we need to remove the constant threat of break-up as a tool of political blackmail. Break-up is also being romanticised without adequate research on how this will affect everyone. With clear research on this available to every Nigerian, if the vast majority of Nigerians agree that the ‘federating units’ should go their separate ways, so be it and life will go on. I will feel diminished by such a decision but I have no right to impose my will on the majority of Nigerians.
Based on the above, I will propose that the agenda for the National Conference/Dialogue committee, will be limited to carrying out a detailed study of the impact of a possible break-up of the country on every part of the country and setting up a machinery for Nigerians to answer the precedent question of whether they want to continue to live together in one country. The various ethnic nationalities should also be encouraged to do same so that when people decide to be in the union or opt out, they will know what they are getting into. Right now the idea of separation has been romanticised in some sections of the populace and used as a tool of blackmail in other places. After a thorough research on how separation will affect everyone, those who want to leave the union, should be allowed to do so. The point to emphasize here is that ethnic homogeneity is no guarantee that any nation will work – as the experiences of Somalia, Burundi and Rwanda show. Similarly we have had countries break up after co-existing for nearly a century. We have also seen countries that started as an agglomeration of different ethnic nationalities such as Germany, France and China succeed as nation-states. Similarly being endowed with abundant natural resources is no guarantee that a country will thrive as the cases of Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia illustrate.  Nigeria cannot continue to hang on a precipice. A life on life-support is truly not worth living.
Next to addressing the precedent question of whether Nigerians want to continue to live together, is determining the ‘federating units in the country. Contrary to what some people imply, ethnic nationalities were never the federating units. The Protectorates of Northern and Southern Nigeria which were amalgamated in 1914 were never based on ethnicity or religion. True, ethnic consciousness developed and later became politicised in the context of the scarcities in the colonial enclaves. But it remains wrong to assume the federating units are ethnic nationalities or even the regions. Since the amalgamation, new elements have also acquired salience such as religious groups and business interests. Such interests should also be accommodated in any discussion of whether the ‘federating units’ should go their separate ways. Similarly people who feel very strongly against any form of dismemberment should also be regarded as stakeholders in any decision on whether Nigerians want to continue living together or not.
If the answer to this precedent question is ‘yes’ – as many of us hope it will be – then we will need another committee to fashion out the modalities for a National Conference to discuss the terms of the union and the structure of the federation. Such a conference may last for at least one year – so that all the issues that agitate the minds of various individuals and groups in the country are addressed.