Dons Eze
WHY THE MORTH OPPOSES TOTAL RESTRUCTURING OF NIGERIA
Recently, the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) issued a communiqué after its high-level meeting that highlighted national interest issues and focused on the incessant insecurity in the north and the entire Nigeria. ACF Board of Trustees Chairman, Alhaji Bashir Muhammad Dalhatu, went the extra mile to apologize to the northerners for the “collective failure of leaders”. Beyond that, ACF partly blamed the Federal Government for not doing enough and called for scaling up the community-driven defence models used in the North-East. This simple nation-building engagement by ACF was seized by the Nigerian Tribune Editorial and pivoted to something else. The editorial questioned the legitimacy of the meeting due to “the absence of attendance of leaders from the minority states in the North” and wondered why “throughout President Muhammadu Buhari’s eight years in office, a period that marked the deterioration of insecurity in the region, the ACF never issued this kind of statement”. Then the editorial offers the ultimate panacea to all Nigeria’s problems by insisting that the northern leaders should “embrace total restructuring of Nigeria”. The editorial is replete with misinformation and half-truths. Today, I will leave these matters for another opportunity and focus on the restructuring.
Restructuring is natural in any organic entity such as Nigeria. However, there are optimum approaches to minimize costs towards desired benefits. Calls for restructuring Nigeria have been persistent, driven by dissatisfaction with the country’s political, economic, and social structures. Advocates for restructuring often argue that Nigeria’s current system is inefficient, unequal, and prone to ethnic tensions. The Nigerian Tribune editorial associated the “insecurity in Northern Nigeria” with “the fact that in the absence of restructuring, governments will only be presiding over mass bloodletting”. While there are merits to the restructuring debate, the idea of completely overhauling the nation’s structure comes with significant risks. As a history student, I would like to share lessons from other countries that have restructured. We can find cautionary tales that highlight the complexities and unintended consequences of such moves.
Countries that undergo total restructuring often face challenges in maintaining national unity. A key argument for restructuring in Nigeria is the decentralization of power from the federal to state or local governments. While decentralization may allow more autonomy for regions, it can also deepen existing ethnic and religious divides. Nigeria is home to over 250 ethnic groups, and further restructuring could inflame separatist tendencies, as has happened in other countries. For instance, in Yugoslavia, the push for more autonomy and the eventual restructuring of the federation contributed to its violent disintegration in the 1990s. It broke up, at first into five countries. The ethnic and nationalist tensions that arose from the restructuring process led to civil wars, mass atrocities, and the eventual breakup of the country into smaller, ethnically defined states. Nigeria, with its own history of a civil war, must be cautious of any move that could reignite separatist movements or further fragment the country. The editorial seems to divisively highlight the issue of minority states in the North. It ignores the fact that every one of the six regions in Nigeria has minorities and each has its mistrust toward the dominant groups.
One of the promises of restructuring is that it would allow regions or states to control their resources, enabling them to manage their development more effectively. However, this could also worsen economic disparities between regions. The north is generally less economically developed than the oil-rich southern regions or the Lagos State as the commercial hub of the region. A total restructuring that gives regions or states full control over their resources might lead to increased wealth for the south while leaving the north behind. The potential tension is obvious. This is similar to what happened in Sudan after its restructuring led to the independence of South Sudan in 2011. South Sudan, rich in oil, initially benefited economically but struggled to manage internal divisions and build sustainable economic structures. Meanwhile, the remaining northern Sudan lost significant oil revenue and continues to face economic hardship. Today, it is reeling in a devastating civil war. Northern Nigeria could face similar economic exclusion and internal unrest under a fully restructured system, further exacerbating the country’s north-south divide. The advocates of total restructuring seem to have no qualm regarding this potential ignoble outcome!
One of the key motivations for restructuring Nigeria is to address the inefficiencies of the current political system. Nigeria’s centralized system is often seen as bureaucratic and prone to corruption. However, history shows that restructuring alone does not automatically improve governance or reduce corruption. Without strengthening institutions and improving accountability, restructuring can merely redistribute power without addressing the underlying governance issues. The importance of effective institutions has been strongly argued by two US economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, in a 2012 book titled “Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty”. The advocates of total restructuring should rather focus on Inclusive economic institutions.
For example, in Brazil, the transition from a military dictatorship to a decentralized federal democracy in the 1980s was intended to improve governance and empower local governments. However, due to lack of strong institution, decentralization has not eradicated corruption, and Brazil continues to face governance challenges at both the national and local levels. The danger for Nigeria is that total restructuring without strong institutions could merely decentralize corruption and inefficiency, rather than eliminate them.
Countries that attempt total restructuring often face unintended consequences, especially when dealing with constitutional changes. A complete overhaul of Nigeria’s constitution, as some restructuring advocates propose, could open a Pandora’s box of issues that are difficult to foresee. Constitutional changes could destabilize the delicate balance of power among Nigeria’s ethnic groups and regions, leading to disputes over resource allocation, political representation, and regional autonomy.
The Soviet Union offers a historical parallel in this regard. In the 1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies of “glasnost” (openness) and “perestroika” (restructuring) were meant to modernize the Soviet Union’s political and economic systems. However, the reforms led to a cascade of unintended consequences, including a breakdown of central authority, increased ethnic tensions, and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Nigeria, which has managed to hold together as a federal state despite its internal challenges, could similarly face destabilization from well-intended but poorly executed constitutional reforms.
One of the key lessons from countries that have restructured is that incremental reforms, rather than wholesale changes, often yield better results. Nigeria’s challenges are indeed vast, but addressing them through gradual reforms—focused on governance, economic policies, and institution-building—might be more sustainable and less risky than total restructuring. As argued above, gradual restructuring is a natural phenomenon. From 1960 to date, Nigeria has been gradually restructured beyond imagination. Today, you may hear a primary pupil chanting the names of 36 states and their respective capitals; but at the independence; Nigeria was a federal state of three regions: Northern, Western, and Eastern. Later, these were replaced with 12 states, then 19 states, 21 states, 30 states, to the present number. After many years of discussions, today oil-producing states receive 13 percent as oil revenue. The advocates of total restructuring have tunnel vision on matters of their resources. Nobody counts the contribution of a toiling-farmer in the northwest to the low food cost in the southwest or that of the itinerant-herder in the northcentral to the delicious and abundant supply of meat in the southeast. As somebody said, ‘not everything that counts is counted”. We must appreciate the fact that, while the country still faces significant evolving challenges, it has avoided the kind of internal fragmentation and economic collapse seen in other nations that attempted total restructuring. We must remember that the Nigerian civil war was a result of an attempt at a sudden unilateral restructuring of Nigeria by declaring the state of Biafra. Nigerians rejected it. Then, federal might prevailed and the structure was restored. Let us avoid similar, impulsive mistakes.
Let me end with some advice for those advocating total restructuring of Nigeria – it is becoming increasingly normal for people to hear or read such phrases. The more incendiary the demand, the more the people consider it unobtainable. Therefore, it is more productive to consider a gradual approach. Nigeria’s problems are real, and the desire for restructuring is natural and understandable. However, the risks associated with total restructuring may outweigh the benefits. History teaches us that restructuring often leads to fragmentation, economic disparities, governance challenges, and unintended consequences. Rather than the Nigerian Tribune advocating a path of total restructuring, it should join the nation-building efforts of ACF to show the benefits of gradual reforms aimed at strengthening institutions, promoting inclusive economic development, and together improving governance. As Martin Luther King, Jr beautifully put it, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools”. It is my firm believe that by uniting and taking a more measured approach, Nigeria can avoid the mistakes of other countries and continue its journey towards stability and prosperity.
