The drums calling for “restructuring” are beginning to be heard all over again, several years after they went dead. President Goodluck Jonathan was the last president, who attempted rather halfheartedly, to appease the “Let’s re-structure” movement when, in March 3 2014, he called a national conference. It turned out to be no more than a talk shop. No wonder its decisions never saw the light of day.

Now, the agitation has returned, inspired by, no less, the emergence of President Bola Tinubu, himself a pro-restructuring campaigner. The major plank of the campaign is that Nigeria return to the independence constitution that entrenched regionalism – a power sharing arrangement between three regions. The agitators, including the influential Olu Falae, a one time presidential aspirant, claim that the constitution was negotiated and accepted by Nigerians, whereas the present presidential constitution proclaimed since 1999, was “imposed” by the military and that it favoured only one part of the country. Their other argument is that the presidential system is too expensive to sustain. The sponsors of this renewed agitations have backgrounded the danger of a potential division of Nigeria along regional lines, which poses threats to the indivisibility of Nigeria as one united, soveregn political entity. What will remain of the country’s sovereignty if the regions become autonomous, with each in control of it’s resources and security architecture the way the campaigners are angling for?

Also, there is a group in the federal House of Representatives that calls itself “Reform Minded Lawmakers”, 35 in number from “different political parties”. They haven’t said they align with the regionalists but advocate a constitutional change that allows a single presidential term of six years and two vice presidents. Their spokesman Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere said during a press conference, earlier in the month in Abuja, that they had proposed 50 amendment bills, one of which seeks power rotation between the six geo-political zones “to ensure equal representation and reduce desperation and the tempo of agitation for the creation of states.”

Our position on all these is to urge caution because the re-structure campaign is based on ignorance of our political history mostly, and criminal reconstruction of it. For example, it is wrong to say that the 1956/7 London conferences that negotiated Nigerian self government and produced the independence/ republican constitution (1963) was an entirely Nigerian affair. The fact is, the British teleguided everything from start to finish. It was nothing but a rehash of the colonial Richards constitution of 1946 that deliberately failed to lay the foundation for a truly Nigeria consciousness. And that for a reason: to undermine the emergence of a pan-Nigeria political movement. One more thing. Why were the conferences not held in Lagos but London? It was for the purpose of distancing Nigerian politicians from their constituencies and putting the colonial authority in a position to influence them. And that they succeeded in doing.

Secondly, unlike what the re-structuralists would have us believe, it was the military that recognized that the more a national outlook was emphasized, the better for the country. Therefore, the 1979 and 1999 constitutions which the military produced set out to right “the poisonous political atmosphere of regionalism and regional politics.” It is this progressive outlook that our politicians today want to kill in the name of re-structuring by insisting on north-south politics. Is this what we need? Certainly not. Thirdly, the 1999 constitution says the president should be directly elected by the people. It is not enough to get the majority of votes; you must also get one quarter of votes in two thirds of the states that make up the nation. This is markedly better than what happens under the regional parliamentary system where the party with the most votes in an election chooses the head of government. Fourthly, the claim that the presidential system is unsustainable because it is expensive is neither here nor there. It was the elected leaders that came to office in 1999 that fixed the remunerations of political office holders high above the living conditions of Nigerians and what the country could pay. This anomaly can be corrected in line with the current realities. Second Republic elected politicians, for instance, didn’t earn so much in terms of salaries and allowances.

We have painstakingly exposed these fallacies and deliberate misrepresentations of re-structuring advocates to show that it is their narrow selfish interests they are fighting for, not the common good. What is in the interest of Nigeria is for it to grow its democracy to the point where it stands head to head with the advanced democracies. A return to regionalism, surely, isn’t the way to go. We’ve taken the first faltering step by replacing our homemade national anthem with a colonial one. We need not go further.
Besides, the political reform bills initiated by some pro-restructuring members of the House of Reps which prescribe six year single term for president, and two vice presidents, one for succession purpose and the other for administration is a recipe for conflict in governance. If the law passes by any means, the current president will likely take the first shot, thereby spending ten years instead of the constitutional eight years of two terms. These alterations, we believe, will not be expedient for a nation already smarting from multidimensional economic crisis that require patriotic, enduring solutions. We must avoid the distractions and focus on good governance to make life and living meaningful to Nigerians. That was what they voted for.