Hypocrisy of zoning and federal character

Hypocrisy of zoning and federal character
Thursday, 14 October 2010 01:00 Ken Ugbechie

Suddenly, Nigerian politicians have found their voice again. They had been in lexical limbo; an indicator of inactivity in the polity. This is also an aberration because in the nation's political space, there is no dormancy. Brickbats, diatribes and raucous twaddle form a rich part of the vocal vocation of the Nigerian politician. Thus, in our very short history of constitutional government, they have foisted on our subconscious some words and phraseologies. Checklist: austerity measures, two-thirds, landslide, moonslide, seaslide (suggesting margins of victory at the polls), resource control, Ghana-must-go, federal character, marginalisation, quota system, etcetera.

Now, there is yet another word: Zoning! It is a cousin of Federal Character, a constitutional coinage meant to enforce a semblance of equity in the distribution of the nation's wealth through equitable sharing of positions to suit its diversity. But zoning has no place in the constitution. Rather, it was coined by the ruling Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to reflect a sharing principle that would ensure no part of the country gets undue dominance in the sharing of electoral positions. Nothing wrong with a formula that seeks equity, fairness and justice.

The chief argument against zoning is that it breeds a culture of mediocrity. I disagree. There is currently no part of the country that cannot produce fit and proper persons for any advertised position. A section of the country may have more skilled personnel than the other but no more. On that score, this argument fizzles. Therefore, zoning is good in so far as it would engender equity and fairness. Zoning is beautiful if it is pursued with a sense of responsibility and sincerity. But zoning becomes evil, in fact immoral, if the protagonists are themselves vile men of ignoble conduct and despicable reputation.

And this is my angst against those who are mouthing zoning in obvious rage against President Goodluck Jonathan's intent to run for election in 2011. They are a bunch of vile men; at best a tribe of hypocrites. This essay is not to endorse the propriety or otherwise of Mr President to run; no. It is, instead, to underscore the futility, deviant desperation and sheer hypocrisy that garb the argument that the zoning principle of the PDP should be respected. Truth is, nothing has ever been respected in Nigeria . This nation has wobbled for 50 years on the ramparts of duplicity and bureaucratic tomfoolery. We have often mouthed zoning, federal character and quota system, all of which seek to enthrone a system of equity and justice. But where is justice to the people of the Niger Delta who have over the years produced the wealth of the nation but who never got the opportunity to preside over the affairs of the same nation they have sustained with the resources that flow in their veins? This is why zoning in its present configuration is deceptive, deceitful and defective and does not address the cries of the long neglected people of the South South.

Shouldn't we also zone resource control in the spirit of true fiscal federalism by allowing every state to have control over its resources? Was there no quota system, federal character or a semblance of zoning when one northern general would hand over to another northern general? Why do we not have zoning or federal character in the leadership of the Nigeria Customs Service or the military for that matter until early 2000 when ex-President Obasanjo rejigged that key security apparatchik? Let's ponder the list of our past leaders from Independence : Tafawa Balewa, Ironsi, Gowon, Murtala Mohammed, Obasanjo, Shagari, Buhari, IBB, Shonekan, Abacha, Abdulsalami Abubakar, Obasanjo (second time around), Yar'Adua and Jonathan. Does this list reflect federal character or zoning in any way? Shouldn't we spare a thought for the silent and hurting minorities?

Latter day champions of zoning think of it as a ping-pong ball that swings between the North and the South. This is wrong. Zoning in its proper meaning must take into cognition the diverse and solidly discrete components that make up the geographical North and South; it must not be the simplistic bipartition of North and South otherwise it would as it were remain a horse whip in the hands of the majority to perpetually lord it over the variegated minorities. This is what the current zoning arrangement in the PDP and in fact other political parties is; an instrument for marginalisation. But zoning ought to integrate not alienate. Zoning in its pure sense should provide a rallying corpus for the various components of the nation including the minorities. It must assure them that they are a part of the larger Nigerian union. Pray, of what use is zoning if it does not succour the pains of that part of the nation which produces the wealth that ravishes the flamboyance of the same politicians who only see zoning as a North and South hymnal.

Zoning, the type that would promote peace and national integration, must transcend the bipartite frontiers of North and South, it must recognise the fact that the minorities also have as much right to lead the nation as any other group of persons. This is why the PDP must rethink and rework its zoning arrangement.