There are two forces contending for the future of Nigeria. One is the force of change and progress. The other is the force of conservatism and status quo. The former argues that Nigeria’s political and governance structure is deeply flawed and not working, and that Nigeria must be restructured to make progress.
Take the United Kingdom. The patron saint of traditionalist conservativism was Edmund Burke, the eighteenth-century politician and philosopher who favoured institutional stasis. But today, the UK has undergone significant restructuring. For instance, whereas power was once centralised and concentrated in Westminster, there have been, since 1997, devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with separate legislatures and executives – something unimaginable about 30 years ago.
For that reason, I found Emir Sanusi’s recent intervention on regionalism and the parliamentary system misguided, not because he disagreed with the two modes of governance but because he rested his argument on flawed premises. In the interview, Sanusi rejected regionalism and the parliamentary system. But then, went on to say: “We had a regional system in the First Republic. How did it end? We had a parliamentary system in the First Republic.
Strangely, Emir Sanusi asked: “Is there any documentary evidence that the systems were fundamentally better than what we have now?” Really? Can he compare economic development and standards of living under the three or four regions with economic development and standards of living under today’s 36 states? Is there any university created by any of the 36 states that can match the one created by any of the three regions, namely: Ahmadu Bello University , University of Nigeria, Nsukka or...