Has Tinubu abandoned restructuring and true federalism?

Since the Alliance for Democracy was founded in 1998, under which President Bola Tinubu became the governor of Lagos State in 1999, the key ideologies he and the party have pushed have been “restructuring” and “true federalism.” The two principles followed the AD when it became the Action Congress and then the Action Congress of Nigeria and eventually when it merged with other parties to form the All Progressives Congress.

The most enduring legacy of Dr Goodluck Jonathan as president of Nigeria would have been implementing the report of the 2014 National Conference. But he took the wrong step of not implementing it and using it as bait for re-election in 2015. He and the key figures of his re-election bid made the ridiculous argument that Jonathan should be re-elected so that he could implement the National Conference report. But he lost the election.

The moment Muhammadu Buhari took over in 2015 as president, he revealed his true character as a strong opponent of “restructuring” and “true federalism.” He had kept quiet about that view all through the formation of the APC in 2013 and the campaign for the 2015 election. Even though his stand on such issues was well-known, before the formation of the APC, many of those who aligned with him were more concerned about getting power than aligning with people with the same ideologies. It was, therefore, not surprising that Buhari chose to ignore the report of the 2014 National Conference.

First, if Buhari reviewed the report and implemented its decisions, it would make Jonathan popular. Nigerian politicians, as champions of pettiness, can cut their nose to spite their face in their bid to ensure that they don’t take any action that will give their opponents any iota of goodwill.  Secondly, Buhari had never taken any action or made a comment that portrayed him as a Progressive interested in seeing any structural changes in Nigeria.

Now let us get something straight: being a Conservative is not a pejorative or an insult.  It is just a political leaning. In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party is in power, while the Labour Party is the opposition. In the United States, the Democratic Party, which is progressive, is in power, while the Republican Party, which is conservative, is trying to wrest power from the Democrats. The Conservatives usually like to maintain the status quo while the Progressives like to make radical changes.  For example, in the US, the Progressives are pushing for gay rights, pro-choice (freedom to choose if to abort or not depending on the circumstances of the conception), pro-gun control, relaxed immigration laws etc; while the Conservatives are pushing for marriage as a union of man and woman, pro-life (no abortion no matter the circumstances), anti-gun control, tougher immigration laws, etc. Other terms for them are right (Conservative) and left (Progressive). In this grouping, there are those who are far right or far left, as well as those who are moderate and those who are in the middle.

But in the Nigeria of today, the political parties have no ideological leanings irrespective of the names they bear. Each party is just concerned about the acquisition of power. Individuals have some form of political leanings, but because of political expediency, they jump from party to party to achieve their desire to hold political office.

Before and during his tenure, Buhari never pushed for the restructuring of the country or for fiscal federalism. His belief was that once corruption was conquered, the problem of Nigeria would be solved. No doubt, corruption is a terrible cankerworm that has eaten deep into the soul of the nation, but it is obvious that something is watering the ground upon which corruption is wreaking its havoc. Therefore, fighting corruption is like fighting the headache suffered by a malaria patient: the headache may subside for a while but the patient’s condition will not improve. Predictably, after eight years in office, Buhari did not defeat corruption, neither did he make Nigeria better.

The convocation of a national conference has been more of the desire of the South. Most Northerners have seen it as a move that will not benefit them because it is believed that it will advocate a change to the current Nigeria’s structure. And the wrong assumption of most Northern politicians is that a change in the structure of Nigeria will not benefit the North. There is also the unfounded fear that a national conference will cause the disintegration of Nigeria.

Currently, the system that makes states fold their arms and wait for monthly allocations promotes laziness, mediocrity and corruption. States receive money they did not work for and, therefore, care little about how it is spent because it is free money that will continue to flow in. That has made all forms of production less lucrative and increased the poverty in the land. The different violent agitations from parts of Nigeria are issues caused by an asphyxiating system.

After one year in office, Tinubu has not paid any attention to these critical issues of restructuring and true federalism that he has championed all through his years as a politician. If Buhari could be overlooked for never promising “restructuring” and “true federalism” himself, even though his party promised them, what excuse will Tinubu give if he does not pursue them? His political career has been hinged on these two concepts.

The sundry decisions taken at the 2014 National Conference proffered solutions to many of Nigeria’s key problems. Before the conference, many of us had feared that given the divide between the North and the South on many national issues as well as the 75 per cent needed to pass any resolution that it would be difficult to agree on any issue at the national conference. But to our utmost surprise, most of the seemingly intractable issues were agreed upon beyond the scene and passed smoothly with little or no dissension. It was like a miracle. Many never believed that Nigerians from across ethnic, religious, gender, and age divides could agree on issues so easily.

Therefore, anybody who opposes the implementation of the decisions of the national conference does not mean well for Nigeria. Anybody who thinks that implementing the report of that conference will work against his or her ethnic group, religion, age, gender or profession is not farsighted.

Nigeria’s age-long problems will not disappear once corruption, insurgency or unemployment is eradicated (if it is possible to do so). The problems that have made Nigeria regress over the last 50 years will continue until we get to the root of the problem and destroy it. The fight against corruption and insurgency must be intensified as a short-term tactic, but the long-term plan should be to dismantle the faulty foundation that creates these monsters.

It will be sad if Tinubu pursues the issues he thinks are critical in his administration, only to realise that he has added his name to the list of Nigerian leaders who left the substance and pursued the shadow, and ended up working so hard without achieving their much-desired result.

Once Nigeria’s foundation is rectified, all parts of Nigeria of all socioeconomic classes will benefit from it and the rancour and anger will abate. Whether North or South, East or West, the implementation of the National Conference will be a blessing. This should go beyond politics.

But will Tinubu be nationalistic and bold enough to solve this age-long Nigerian problem and make Nigeria start blossoming? That is the question whose answer is not certain.

– X: @BrandAzuka