By Umar Ardo, Ph.D
The advertorial by the New Nigeria Movement (NNM) with the title “Towards the Rebirth of Nigeria: Imperative for Restructuring” advocates for “Equity Restructuring” in Nigeria. This concept and content of this advert appear fraught with various inconsistencies, biases and assumptions that, upon scrutiny, clearly undermine the advert’s feasibility and ideological soundness. In its context, therefore, it cannot possibly be a viable solution to Nigeria’s national problems. The following core arguments of the NNM are addressed below in rejecting the proposed solutions:-
- Biased Depiction of Nigerian History and Governance:
The NNM narrative suggests an overwhelmingly negative portrayal of Nigeria’s historical events and leadership since the amalgamation in 1914, highlighting only failures and “evil” governance. This selective perspective disregards the complexities of Nigerian political development and overlooks instances of progress, reform and efforts toward unity, even if incomplete. By framing Nigerian history as a continuous “humongous disaster,” the narrative not only betrays its inherent bias against certain groups in the Nigerian state, but also alienates those who have worked toward national development and stability, regardless of the challenges.
- False Sense of Consensus:
The advertorial claims that “almost everyone” agrees on the premise that Nigeria is on the brink of collapse and must be restructured. This is misleading and ignores the diversity of opinions among Nigerians regarding restructuring, unity and the future of the nation. While many citizens recognize issues within the system, there is no universal consensus on radical restructuring, nor is there evidence that all but “less than 1%” feel this way. The assumption of near-total agreement lacks substantiation and appears as rhetorical rather than a reflection of reality.
- Over-Simplified Solutions for Complex Issues:
The suggestion to create “Single-Ethnic Regions” alongside “Multi-Ethnic Regions” both ignores the interwoven demographics of Nigerian society and demonstrates the poor understanding of our nationstate. Nigeria is a highly diverse country where ethnic groups do not exist in neatly defined, isolated regions. Proposing a structure based on ethnic homogeneity neglects the reality of mixed communities and fails to address how issues of inclusion, equality and resource generation and sharing would function in a model that inherently emphasizes separation rather than unity.
- Inflammatory Language and Prejudicial Claims:
Throughout the text, language such as “wandering cow Fulani” and “caliphatist warring agents” displays a clear ethnic bias and hatred. Such inflammatory phrases will provoke divisiveness rather than foster constructive dialogue. Instead of promoting solutions based on mutual respect, this unguided tone can only encourage ethnic tensions, which run counter to the goals of a united, restructured Nigeria.
- Questionable Historical Interpretation:
The NNM implies that colonialism has left indelible “external” marks on Nigeria, yet argues that internal issues are more to blame. While the impact of colonialism should not excuse current challenges, it remains an oversimplification to assume that colonial structures, which carved arbitrary borders and disrupted indigenous governance systems, do not still influence present-day issues. Ignoring this nuance risks overlooking valid historical grievances that could inform a more balanced approach to restructuring.
- Unrealistic Administrative Proposals:
The movement’s advocacy for 10 autonomous regions, governed independently with control over resources again not only betrays the ignorance of the authors of Nigeria’s ethnic code KD, but also presents practical difficulties. This approach does not address how federal cohesion, resource generation, distribution and revenue allocation would be managed. Furthermore, resource control by regions risks perpetuating inequality if certain regions have disproportionate access to wealth-generating resources, while others do not. Such a structure could exacerbate regional disparities rather than address them.
- Flawed Comparisons to Mono-Ethnic Nations:
The advertorial again ignorantly contrasts Nigeria with “mono-ethnic” European nations. Nigeria, with its rich ethnic diversity, cannot be compared to small, relatively homogenous European countries without risking a misinterpretation of what federalism entails. True federalism involves managing and embracing diversity, not attempting to enforce artificial homogeneity or selectively applied separatism.
- Potential to Fuel Separatist Tendencies:
The NNM’s argument for restructuring includes a series of demands that resemble autonomy more than unity, with nebulous emphasis on ethnic-based territorial governance. While they assert this will not encourage secession, it is difficult to see how such a model would not embolden regional separatist sentiments. By focusing on ethnic divides, the proposal risks disunity and may weaken national cohesion rather than reinforcing it.
- Assumption of Exclusive Ethnic Claims to Territory and Resources:
The NNM’s concept of “resource ownership and control” by “ancestral” ethnic groups is exclusionary and problematic. It overlooks the rights of Nigerians who may not share the dominant ethnicity within a region but are nevertheless citizens with equal rights to live, work and prosper anywhere in the country. Such an approach could lead to localized discrimination, contrary to the principles of federalism, which aim to balance regional interests with national integrity.
- Underestimating the Role of Existing Democratic Processes:
While critiquing Nigeria’s constitutional processes, the NNM largely dismisses ongoing legislative and constitutional reforms. This stance shows a disregard for democratic mechanisms through which change can occur and minimizes the potential of electoral accountability and constitutional amendments to gradually address pressing issues. Pushing for sweeping, extra-constitutional changes risks undermining democratic processes that, while imperfect, are the legitimate means to reform.
- Lack of Clear Mechanisms for Implementation:
Although the advertorial lays out broad principles for restructuring, it fails to provide actionable steps on how such an overhaul would be achieved within Nigeria’s constitutional framework. There is no discussion of the legal or political processes required to adopt these changes, nor an acknowledgment of the likely resistance from various interest groups. The lack of a detailed pathway weakens the proposal’s credibility.
In sum, the advertorial by the New Nigeria Movement, while raising few pertinent issues on the need for reform, employs hateful inflammatory rhetoric, misrepresents national consensus, oversimplifies ethnic relations and suggests divisive solutions that will only further complicate Nigeria’s unity. Its proposals thus betray ill-intention, lack practical clarity, founded on questionable assumptions and risk undermining national cohesion rather than fostering a resilient, united Nigeria. A more balanced, less hostile inclusive approach rooted in Nigeria’s real democratic framework and respectful of the country’s diversity would better serve the nation’s needs for sustainable development and unity.
