SUNDAY MUSINGS
Choosing the SNC delegates and their voting methods

By: Mobolaji E. Aluko, PhD , Burtonsville, MD, USA

Post Your Comments Here | View Posted Comments

 

Sunday, April 16, 2000

Printer Friendly Version

Introduction
As the campaign for convoking a Popular National Conference subject to the sovereign will of the Nigerian people (shorthand name: Sovereign National Conference) picks up steam with the return of Chief Anthony Enahoro to Nigeria (see Enahoro Speech - April 11, 2000), three of the constant questions that often arise are:

1. How do you choose delegates to this SNC?
2. How will voting be done? and
3. What happens if consensus is not reached?

The main subject of this article is to offer a few suggestions to these questions.

One presumes of course that these are questions being asked by people who GENUINELY are interested in a national conversation, but just need some assurances as to its "modus operandi."

There are of course those others who are OPPOSED ab initio to an SNC, either because

1. they seek PATIENCE with the present "democratic" dispensation;
2. they FEAR the outcome of ANY SNC and
3. they are SATISFIED with the status-quo.

To those people, no amount of re-assurance may do the trick - but that does not mean that one should not try.

My response to those people are also as follows:

First, we must all thank God that the military is no longer in power in Nigeria, and that Abacha and his ways are buried - his ways hopefully.

Abacha was BAD NEWS for Nigeria, but his incidence was God's gift to Nigeria because hardly any Nigerian (maybe Senator Waku excepted) now wants that kind of regime EVER AGAIN - and the next military regime will have to be more brutal than Abacha's to keep itself in power in Nigeria for more than 6 months. But that realization must not lull us, the legislatures or the Executive into complacency by dealing with each other with impunity.

I also seek patience for the present post-military civilian dispensation, but I wish to categorically state that I believe that what we have is not a "democratic" dispensation. I have called it elsewhere "a political twilight zone" between military rule and that democratic dispensation (see Sunday Musings - Jan 23, 2000) which must be PERMANENTLY stamped with democratic legitimacy by the people. No constitution is perfect, but all our constitutions, lack LEGITIMACY, which cannot be conferrred merely by line-by-line amendments.

The 1999 Constitution in particular is too full of non-consensus issues among our people.

You do not hear in the USA for example, people arguing that "The sovereignty of the US is non-negotiable." A confederacy flag up the pole in the South Carolina legislature does not THREATEN the sovereignty of the US, but merely raises ethnic bitterness - and president Clinton does not lecture anyone on treason thereby.

That US sovereignty is GIVEN, is a SETTLED issue. When in Nigeria a CIVILIAN government and a MILITARY government sound alike about the NON-NEGOTIABILITY of the unity and sovereignty of Nigeria, then you KNOW that you have a problem.

While a MILITARY government would try to impose such, a civilian government should try to get the people once and for all to LEGITIMIZE that so that it is no longer an issue. Until that is done, both the unity and the sovereignty of the Nigerian state are threatened. Those who delay that legitimization actually delay the day when that will no longer become an issue.

There are those who fear the OUTCOME of the SNC, and have in their minds chosen to FOCUS on two of the possible outcomes that frighten them:

1. confederacy and
2. outright break-up.

In fact, since the post-Sharia/Kaduna/Aba outburst of the South-Eastern governors, some have now taken the SNC to be synonymous to confederacy. I believe that that is wrong, but they have the right to that opinion.

Those who belong to Option (ii) have said that confederacy is the last bus-stop to a break-up, and hence there is really no difference between the two options.

But these very fears are an admission that there is SOMETHING fundamentally wrong in the country. Why such a fear? Choosing an option will not be AT THE BEGINNING of an SNC but at its end, when an architecture that confers the greatest good for the greatest number of Nigerians is agreed. It will be AT ITS END, when we are almost sure that Nigerians will choose to remain united, but under new terms.

Is that not the purpose of government - the greatest good for the greatest number? The history of Nigeria, in particular the military government history, has been the greatest good for the tiniest minority of Nigerians however you describe that minority, whether by ethnicity or by class. That dynamic has to be changed IN THE EARLIEST TIME possible.

Those of us who are advocates believe that it is best done in an SNC, and that any other method might take such a much longer time that could imperil the Nigerian state as we know it.

To those who are satisfied with the status-quo, we have but one message:

there were those who were satisfied with the status-quo in slavery;
there were those who were satisfied with the status-quo under colonialism;
there were those who were satisfied with the status-quo under Abacha.

Nothing changes more than the status-quo.

Choosing the delegates
It is again to be re-iterated that the Sovereign National Conference is a PROCESS, not an event, and that participation will be from the grass-roots upwards (see Sunday Musing - Dec 12, 1999) over a period no less than one year, non-threatening to the status of the present legislatures and executive, and much preferably under constitutional authorization.

The delegates that we refer to here are to the FINAL SUMMIT, having had sub-conversations of:

1. the Conference of the National/State Assembly - ie all or a subset of the present NA/SA members.
2. the Sub-Conferences of the Masses - ie on a local government basis.
3. the Sub-Conferences of Civil Society - lawyers, labour union, women, youth, other professional organizations.
4. Sub-Conferences of Ethnic Nationalities

In fact, we will focus on the choice of delegates TO THE FINAL SUMMIT OF THE SNC from the Sub-conferences of Ethnic Nationalites to illustrate some larger points which might be adapted to the other sub-conferences.

Choosing the Delegates: The Ethnography of Nigeria Re-visited
The ethnography of Nigeria shows that the Hausa/Fulani, the Yoruba and the Ndiigbo make up about 70% of the (say) 100 million population. When you add about 9 more ethnic groups - the Ijaw, Tiv, Nupe, Edo, Ibibio/Efik, Urhobo, the Kanuri, the Annang, the Gwari, you would have gotten about 90% of the population.

Although Nigeria has the reputation of anywhere from 250 - 380 ethnic groups, by the time you have included the top 25 ethnic groups (in terms of population), you would have actually gotten about 95-98% of the population.

A conference that includes such a high percentage of Nigerians cannot be condemned as being exclusionary, and the usual charge that there will be too many ethnic nationalities on the table will be a red herring.

Let us take the ethnic nationality representation sensitivity one step further: 25 ethnic groups into 100 million people means on average 4 million people per ethnic group at a conference.

We then state that ANY ethnic group that has anywhere greater than 200,000 to 400,000 people upwards (we can project this from the 1963 or 1991 census, whichever has the numbers) will be at the conference table. That gives an ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM of 250 ethnic groups, but it will actually be more like 50.

Having decided on the LIST of ethnic nationalities, we have many choices about composition of ethnic delegates: we can require

1. each ethnic nationality; OR
2. each state; OR
3. each political zone (ie group of states)

to produce EXACTLY the same number of delegates - say 50 or 100 each - with a proviso that the sub-delegation represents the diversity of the ethnic (or even sub-ethnic) groups in each state or region according to the list.

How each chooses its 50-100 sub-delegates should be worked out WITHIN each caucus. Those who wish only their kings and queens to represent them are free to do so. Those who wish their present legislators to represent are also free. There will be those who wish to choose theirs via elections - INEC is not necessarily needed, but can be called in if requested by the caucus - but the principle of AUTONOMY OF CHOICE and EQUALITY OF NUMBERS between the sub-nationalities should be strictly adhered to.

These two principles by themselves will ensure a different set of representation from the present National Assembly.

Note that this method, particularly if done by states or region - by regions is my preferred choice because it is less unwieldy, but any method agreed will serve reasonabley well - will allow ethnic groups that cut across states or regions or who have migrated in large numbers to other parts of the country to have their say in those subdivisions.

Voting
The final clincher of course is the question of VOTING on whatever political or social issue that has been tabled for decision. In order for minority rights to be protected to the largest extent, that voting should be done by PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. This could work as follows:

1. each subdelegation of 50 (say) is assigned a vote count of 10 (say).
2. each subdelegation votes within itself for an issue, tallying the votes.

On the general floor (where its votes are to be added to other subdelegation votes), it assigns its votes depending on the fraction of subdelegates that voted for the issue. If the issue is a YES or NO, and half voted YES and half voted NO, then on the general floor, that subdelegation will be assigned 5 votes for YES and 5 votes for NO - and so on. This applies to ALL subdelegations on all issues.

Now, on the general floor, there can be several permutations as to voting pattern:

1. unanimous votes are automatically carried and are to be included in the Constitution.
2. supermajority votes (ie 2/3 majority for or 2/3 majority against) are AUTOMATICALLY carried or rejected accordingly.
3. simple majority votes for or against are voted for a second time. A vote that wins a simple majority twice is carried accordingly, but may (or may not) be put in the National Constitution, but will be allowed in the regional or state constitutions.
4. a simple majority vote that loses in a second vote, or a losing vote that wins a simple majority on a second vote, is tabled for further discussion. After a third vote, it is PERMANENTLY TABLED, and will not be put in the National or regional/state Constitution, if it loses. They are EXPUNGED if already in the Constitution.

Some may already think that this voting is COMPLICATED, but proportional representation is a well-known avenue of taking minority concerns into consideration. Consensus and supermajorities show excellent support for a particular cause - particularly in a constitution which as much as possible should include issues MOST GREATLY agreed to. Voting once after a simple majority might either make people change their mind to yield a simple/supermajority, or defeat a cause.

Conclusion
These suggestions are offered with the hope to counter the usual red-herring refrain that the advocates of SNC have not thought through their proposals. Where there is a will, there is a way.

If there any proposals that need modifications, make those suggestions IF YOU FUNDAMENTALLY believe in the SNC, rather than revert to the notion that an SNC is unfeasible.

Finally, I leave you with the analogy that Nigeria of a track whereon there is fast multi-car train with a blind driver, going in the wrong direction. But there are sighted people walking inside the train IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION who think that they are making progress.

YOU CANNOT MAKE PROGRESS BY WALKING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN A TRAIN MOVING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. But you can make progress even if some people are moving in a wrong direction within a right-direction-moving train.

What some of us are saying is this:

1. we must be able to change the driver to a sighted one, so that he realises that Nigeria is going in the right direction.
2. we must call the people who are happily walking in the right direction (and even whistling!) inside the train that their macro-movement is in the wrong direction, and that they are simply deluding themselves.
3. now knowing the correct situation, we must get together to stop the train, and then change its direction.
4. in the mean-time, we must warn that there are those in some of the cars who are BUSY detaching their own cars from the wrong-moving train so that they can drive their own cars in the right direction, and maybe watch the rest of the train hurtle beyond the abyss.

A word, friends, is enough for the wise.

Best wishes all.

 

Post Your Comments Here | View Posted Comments

Printer Friendly Version

Published with the permission of Dr. Bolaji Aluko