The advocacy for fiscal federalism and restructuring in Nigeria got a boost on Wednesday when renowned professor of African history, Toyin Falola, stated that the need for Nigeria to be properly restructured with the intent to re-distribute resources and power was more critical now than it could ever be, adding that fiscal federalism had become more appropriate for the nation if the coveted development and progress were to be achieved.
For him, “We must re-think all of these paradigms because they are not working. Why don’t we provide opportunities for everyone to compete? We must rethink federalism, and restructuring in Nigeria without saying we want to break up. There is no need to talk about breaking up the country. We can rethink the distribution of power and do consensual framing. We can say regions have equal rights. We can rethink fiscal federalism; the Ijaw people are angry. People in the Nigerian Union are very angry for different reasons. The Igbo people are angry; the Fulani are angry; the Yoruba are angry. Where everybody is angry, it means that you have to rethink that which produces their anger. Why are we producing anger all over the place?
“We must also rethink the followership. This is because the followership is also a problem. Citizens should also be blamed for the Nigerian situation. If you nourish the ambition of corruption, this becomes a problem. It is a problem when you are not seeking transparency. In some instances, you may be too poor to be active and therefore unable to create the problem. But we also have followership whose minds and attitudes are not different from those who are governing them. We have corrupt followers.”
Falola, a celebrated scholar of African history, dedicated academic and prolific writer based in the United States of America, gave this admonition while being honored at the African Humanities Research and Development Conference (AHRDC 2024) organized by the African Humanities Research and Development Circle in partnership with the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu-Alike, Ebonyi State.
Speaking at the conference with the theme woven around citizenship, Falola equally noted that leadership should be with accountability and without the corrosive elements which come with corruption.
“There is leadership without accountability and corruption. There is no adult in Nigeria who has not been affected by this. Money to ensure citizens’ rights and privileges has been stolen. Corruption sabotages development, privileges, and rights of citizenship. This is a major challenge. There is representation without transparency. Our lawmakers are not representing us; they are representing themselves. Their salaries are humongous. Their privileges are out of proportion to the nation’s resources; they are not humble; they flaunt their wealth. They don’t care about their citizens and you can see that as people are hungry, they are interested in making more money. They have no conscience. We have to use the most extreme language to describe this generation of politicians.
“Do we have a social contract? It only exists on paper in which the state is now saying it doesn’t owe you anything but the state owes you something as a citizen. At the very minimum, the state should owe you security. Part of the food challenges includes inflation but people cannot go to their farms in Zamfara, parts of Sokoto, Borno states. If they cannot go to their farms, what food will be available to consume? If the social contract is broken what are the citizens expected to do? No amount of police officers and the army can solve the problem if you don’t give them food. Are we not in an age where we can say that we do not have to define citizenship by birth and state solely? Must we be permanently locked to our place of birth and why do we limit opportunities to state of origin? Why can’t a Fulani mathematician teach at Ibadan? Why can’t a Hausa man become a chief in Ibadan? When I was born with some people who were born in Sabo (a Hausa-dominated suburb in Ibadan), they had never left Ibadan in their entire lives. Why can’t that person be a governor of Oyo State? It was his parents who told him that he is Hausa; he doesn’t even know. Why do we limit opportunities to people? Why can’t I be a professor at the University of Nigeria and have an ambition to be a vice chancellor? What is wrong with that? With due respect, Nigerian scholars have also joined in this problem in which we deny our colleagues opportunities because of their state of origin. This is sad. Who owns Lagos? If you enjoy Afrobeats, they combine Igbo with Yoruba to produce great songs. They were born there and we have turned citizenship into politics. You can hear people bearing Chukwuemeka in Lagos or Burnaboy but they have never left Lagos. They speak Yoruba. I have a friend who is Yoruba but he has an Igbo name. The first time he would go to an Igbo land was in his 40s when he went to bury his mum. We must re-think all of these paradigms because they are not working. Why don’t we provide opportunities for everyone to compete? We must rethink federalism, and restructuring in Nigeria without saying we want to break up. There is no need to talk about breaking up the country. We can rethink the distribution of power and do consensual framing. We can say regions have equal rights. We can rethink fiscal federalism; the Ijaw people are angry. People in the Nigerian Union are very angry for different reasons. The Igbo people are angry; the Fulani are angry; the Yoruba are angry. Where everybody is angry, it means that you have to rethink that which produces their anger. Why are we producing anger all over the place?” He said.
On identity and the concept of difference, Falola said the conference became necessary because, according to him, “This concept of difference in which we use color, genotype, and others is of crucial significance. If I were to put in the same room a Hutu and Tutsi (because I have been to Rwanda, unless they tell you, you won’t know the difference. If they tell you the difference, they will weave it around color and the nose. And you ask yourself: what is going on here? Why are you characterizing a white skin and black one as two different kinds of identity? Many of you may know that if you see a Palestinian and a Jewish person, you won’t know the difference. It is the same color. There are Arabs in Israel; there are Christians in Israel; there are Muslims in Israel. On the other side of Gaza where they are fighting, they look alike; and there are Christians and Muslims there; there is also Judaism there. You can see how complicated this notion of citizenship is.
“If I go to an American store, if I don’t talk thereby revealing my accent, they won’t know where I am from. They could say that I am an African American. This is so that even an accent can be part of this conversation. It is also significant because historically, many have been excluded from citizenship. The president of the association which organized this conference is a woman. She would tell you that in many historical moments, women have been excluded as citizens. The case of slaves is well known. Black slaves in America were not accepted as citizens; the case of indentured labor is also well known; they were human beings but not citizens. If you think these examples are farfetched and far-removed, you can divide Nigerians into two: people like me who are older than the Nigerian nation and many others who are younger than Nigeria. Those of us who were born before the nation got independence were not citizens; we were colonial subjects. Colonial subjects could only carry the passports of those who controlled them. So you find people within my age bracket transferring from colonial subjects to colonial citizens. So you can map out this conversation in terms of its historicity.”
Post Views: 1,461
