Political life essentially opposes two social categories. On the one hand, men who decide, direct or govern, and on the other, men whose modes of existence, in their thoughts and actions, depend on the first cities. It is a relationship of power that determines the place, role and value of each member of the social body. All forms of government must strike a balance between those who decide and others.

In the democratic system, this balance appears found with the concept of sovereignty of the people (the people who holds power) and the constitution, which establishes the basic law that all citizens must respect. In any case, the people is the notion and the basic principle of power since the advent of the modern republics in the 18th century of the Enlightenment: the government of the people by the people and for the people.

If the people are the alpha and the omega of the exercise of power in modern republics, if the people are an end and not merely a means to be used, then it must be recognized that the debate, in the present context, Seems ill-committed. At least for two (2) key reasons.

The questionable sovereignty

What dominates, when we speak of sovereignty, is the fact of being able to decide or do something for oneself and for oneself. In law, this supreme authority represented by sovereignty refers to the people, as the first expression or seat of the original political power, that is to say the one from which all other powers (legislative, executive and judicial) take their legitimate sources. It is the people who decide, not God or the king, as in the ancient monarchies. The sovereignty of the people also reflects what is called national sovereignty, that is, the idea, in law, that a State is autonomous, independent of all others.

In Nigeria, often the bloody conflicts of succession, rebellions, coups d'etat, dismantle the notion of sovereignty of the people. Thus, in place of the sovereign people, understood as the original political power, one finds oneself in the presence of conflicts of all kinds or political arrangements. It should be noted that in these troubled times national sovereignty is in principle flouted during the numerous agreements (obtained or imposed) negotiated abroad, with participants whose true representation can not be said to be the nation. How can we talk about the sovereignty of the people?

The constitution: reflection of a population

The materiality of the people's sovereignty is the Constitution. If every people is sovereign, then all constitutions can not be identical! In fact, every constitution translates the soul of a people, its specificity. This is why, concretely, there is a very close link between the experiences of a people (its history) and its constitution. In it, each people expresses their apprehension of life, and especially its fears, its anguishes, its pains, its deepest desires and aspirations, conscious or unconscious. Thus, the criteria of eligibility for the supreme magistracy, the regime of government, the social and economic rules, are very relative. The constitution, therefore, every constitution a people gives itself, seems to be conceived, both to ensure its welfare and to protect itself.

From this perspective, we must not necessarily look at what is done elsewhere to say that this or that people has an aberrant, irrational constitution. Citizens who have voted by a very large majority a law that may seem out of place in other heavens are not necessarily idiots. Allowing the death penalty or not, restricting the accession to the Supreme Judiciary on certain conditions, restricting or not limiting immigration, protecting land ownership or not, authorizing the free movement of persons and goods, etc. , It is not only the sovereignty of peoples, but also their intelligence to propose the solutions that guarantee their best being

In constitutional matters, and in order to respect the sovereignty of the people, there is nothing to be imposed on the basis of imported external standards, although it is true that the goat and the cabbage must be kept alive. All nations defend their interests above all, even in the face of international business law. On the other hand, the recent United Kingdom exit from the European Union shows that the interests of a (sovereign) people can not be decided in the light of the interests of others. That would be alienation.

Thus, a draft constitution can not be made precipitately, without a real popular foundation. It requires intense reflection work out of purely politician games. Nor should it be a pretext for diverting attention from the social and economic problems that undermine the daily lives of the people. A modification of the fundamental law should in no way be a tool in the service of sinners in troubled waters to give life to personal or clan occult interests as is unfortunately too often the case in Nigeria.

Source: http://www.up9ja.com/2017/07/nigeria-or-biafra-decision-from-masses.html

Only a fool and a useless hyenana would choose Nigeria over BIAFRA....The sun shall rise again..

Biafra all the way