Lagos – The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) governorship candidate in Lagos state, Gov. Babatunde Fashola has declared thad Our diversity should be our source of strength, as he also urged Nigerians to right the wrongs of the past by ensuring free and fair elections in April.

Fashola made the call at Yaba International Christian Solemn Assembly thanksgiving and prayer service organised for him, Mrs Oluremi Tinubu—senatorial aspirant– and other candidates for the April elections under the ACN.

The inter-denominational service, organised by 16 churches, was held at the Yaba Baptist Church, Lagos.
.
“We should stop pointing accusing fingers at one another and let us show that we are the leaders of this country with the outcome of the elections,’’ Fashola said.

He said that the successful conduct of the elections would afford Nigerians the opportunity of realising unfulfilled promises, especially as the country celebrated its golden independence anniversary.

The governor urged Nigerians to debunk claims that the county’s ethnic diversity was its undoing over the years.

“Our diversity should be our source of strength just as Israel’s diversity as a nation has continued to be its source of strength.

“So let nobody tell us that we can not prosper and develop politically and economically because we are a nation of many tribes,’’ he said.

He implored the congregation to vote for ACN candidates at both state and national levels for a positive change.

He reminded them that the sanctity of their votes was a step to freedom, and re-iterated his determination to make Lagos an envy of others if voted into power.

Rev. Wilson Badejo, Chairman, Lagos State Christian Pilgrims Welfare Board, one of the organisers said the service was to encourage the candidates to perform well when elected.

“Through your programmes, you have raised the standard of Lagos beyond where you met it and we pray God for you to be able to do better during your second tenure,’’ he said

The congregation later prayed for the State, Nigeria and the candidates for the success of the general elections. (NAN)

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/03/our-diversity-should-be-our-source-of-strength-says-fashola/

jason123:



“Our diversity should be our source of strength just as Israel’s diversity as a nation has continued to be its source of strength.

Bad comparison, honestly.

^-- Maybe he means some sort of tribes of Israel, biblical stuff? I don't know.

fashola is right and that is why GEJ is never getting my vote

ekt_bear:

^-- Maybe he means some sort of tribes of Israel, biblical stuff? I don't know.

Doubtful.

It seemed like he was making a modern reference, given his wording ("Israel’s diversity as a nation has continued to be. . ."


The Ashkenazim/Sephardi divide was a problem at one point and the Ashkenazi claims about the lack of authenticity of the Falasha (Ethiopian Jews) or Beta Israel's claim to Jewishness are a modern problem. The Falasha may not really be Jewish, yet Israel has imported 100,000+ of them into their society and will have to deal with the consequences of having yet another (apparently) non-Jewish population in what is meant to be a Jewish state. Then there is the Arab population in Israel, which I don't even need to go into detail about.

I have no clue what he means then.

And yeah, I've always had the impression that Ashkenazi are "born to rule" in that country.

Switzerland might be a better example, I dunno.

Anyway, his words don't have much value to me. . . diversity in my opinion is a weakness w/o political federalism and a weak federal government.

ekt_bear:

I have no clue what he means then.

And yeah, I've always had the impression that Ashkenazi are "born to rule" in that country.

Switzerland might be a better example, I dunno.

Anyway, his words don't have much value to me. . . diversity in my opinion is a weakness w/o political federalism and a weak federal government.

Yeah. Countries with one large majority group are far better. Israel's majority is Ashkenazi (to the best of my knowledge), so it's actually a good argument for limiting the amount of diversity in a successful country and having only one main group be the driving force in the country.

Ghana is nearly half Akan, UK is majority English, China is 90%+ Chinese, etc. The examples go on and on.

It's easier for government to move forward when there's a group that's clearly going to be in the driver's seat and when purposeless (as far as development goes) concessions don't have to be made along ethnic/sectional lines.

What I wonder is why Nigeria just wasn't formed as three countries.

Why were the British not bold enough to take this step? A federation of three regions seems so inherently unstable to me. . .

Did they purposefully want to see Nigeria fail? Or did they somehow think that the federation would be enough?

It puzzles me.

ekt_bear:

What I wonder is why Nigeria just wasn't formed as three countries.

Why were the British not bold enough to take this step? A federation of three regions seems so inherently unstable to me. . .

Did they purposefully want to see Nigeria fail? Or did they somehow think that the federation would be enough?

It puzzles me.

They did think a federation would be enough. Splitting up into three was just not an option from their point of view. (At least, that's the way I see it.)

From what I've read, Lugard and other colonialists had a positive view of the north (saw them as basically civilized "Mohammedans" and a negative view of the south, so there was no way they would let their favorites (northerners), who they (the British) had failed to educate or modernize -because the British followed Lugard's dumb policies that let the North continue in a lifestyle little different from their pre-colonial lifestyle - be left landlocked and impoverished.

^-- A federation involving three factions though? Isn't that inherently. . . unstable? Isn't it almost obvious that two of the three factions would ally to undermine the interests of the third?

I understand why they inflated the North's population and gave them control of the army though. They needed to give the North *something* to maintain parity.

BTW, I remember you mentioned before something about the GDP figures of the three regions in the 50s? Where did you read that?

And yeah, the British really hated southerners, for some reason. I get the sense that they especially didn't like Yoruba, heh.

I don't remember posting anything about the GDP of the three regions in the 50s, but maybe I did.


I posted something here:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-563542.64.html#msg7294689

that mentions a fiscal imbalance between the three regions in an excerpt from the article "Federalism, Fiscal Centralism and the Realities of Democratisation in Nigeria: The Case of the Niger Delta" by Edlyne E. Anugwom

Damn:

Overview of the History of Revenue Allocation in Nigeria
The derivation principle was first mooted by the Phillipson Commission of 1946 that saw it as the principle through which a region would benefit from its non-declared revenue according to the proportion of its contribution to the central revenue (Adebayo, 1988).  Despite the fact that this principle was equally challenged early enough by the Northern delegates to the General Conference on the review of the Richards Constitution at Ibadan in 1950, it was retained. Between 1954 and 1957, the derivation principle became the chief allocation principle mainly as a result of the dominance of Nigeria�s export market by primary products from the three major ethnic groups especially the cocoa rich Western region. [size=18pt]Also in 1957, a new revenue commission, the Raisman and Tress Commission argued for a reduction of the fiscal gap or imbalance between the Western and other regions.[/size] Thus, the committee narrowed the scope of the application of derivation by setting up the Distributive Pool Account (DPA) for other taxes not declared regional or federal. These were made up of mining royalties (30%) and general import revenue (30%) that are to be allocated to the regional governments.

Were we selling cocoa in the Western region, or cocaine?

Kind of amazed it brought in that much cash.

Cocoa was apparently extremely profitable at one point and then far less profitable soon after. A kind of "cocoa boom."


For more on derivation, finances and the three (and later, four) regions, see: http://www.jstor.org/stable/159671  (A very revealing article that I came across.)

There are a lot of quotables in that article that would rubbish some common assumptions and misconceptions on this forum.

^-- Heh, very interesting read.

kool

How can our diversity be the source of our strength when we can't even agree to all abide by one set of laws? In one part of the country customary courts apply customary law, in another part sharia courts apply sharia law, each of which is radically different from the other. When people from one region of the country travel to another region they are denied the same freedoms that abound in the region from which they came. When people from one part of the country put religion ahead of national interests, regardless of whether it stymies national growth and inhibits the creation and communication of ideas, how can we grow together as a country? How can we have strength when our Constitution establishes and promotes one religion over the other religions in the country. What happened to equal protection for everyone? Why can't everyone's religion be treated the same? Why can't the government not "establish" and support one religion over another, and not mix government affairs with religion? I am cautiously optimistic for our country, but at the same time I am realistic.

I've still not come across any country in the world that has similar tribal composition like Nigeria where there are 3 Major ethnicities and hundreds of relatively large ethnic groups.

And why is he campaigning in a church? Na waoo.

Story story story, Fashola lets be reasonable we are like oil and water (we dont mix) so stop living in lala land

Nigeria is a big country with so many ethnic groups. As a result, Unity in diversity will continue to be a great source of controvercy  in this country untill we have found out the best way to go about. Chief Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe and Alhaji Tafewa Belewa tried it during their time but they failed to come to a compromise. Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe was of the view that, if we must live together as one, then we must forget our differences. However, Alhaji Tafewa Belewa vehemently disagreed with that philosophy. He was of the school of thought that we must know our differences and not to forget it, in order to be able to live together as one. So what do you think is the best way out?