₦airaland Forum

jason123:
It is possible. okay for instance, what if the northern senators and the yoruba senators for a cabal to siphon development towards their region. what would the rest do? majority carries the prize, isn't it?

jason123:
I have followed your argument and it is quite impressive but i have a question. what if some of the groups start pursuing REGIONAL interest instead of individual or national interest? What i mean is, the groups start to form bonds with other groups (eg yoruba and itsekiri) until a cabal of more than 50% of the entire senate body is formed. Then, what happens? No matter how the remain 40% agitate, it still falls on deaf ears since they become a minority cabal.

I will be waiting for your reply.

Katsumoto:
Nice idea but we no go gree.     Your idea na ojoro

Mo ni gba

There are more people in my village alone than the entire Isoko group. I suspect OnlyTruth, Dede1, EzeUche, and NduChuks will agree to your proposal.

Beaf:
There will only ever be say 1 Isoko Senator. That number will never ever change. There will also be 1 hausa, 1 Igbo, 1 Igbira, 1 Koma etc.
Say we have 250 ethnic groups, that will be 250 senators. How loud will the Isoko voice or the Hausa voice or any other ethnic voice be in such a setting?

That solution would effectively remove politics that is driven by ethnic bigotry from the national scene. If the Isoko Senator decides to live, eat and drink Isoko, his Isoko voice will be completely dilluted by 249 other voices and he will soon learn to live, eat and drink 100% Nigerian interests instead.

Katsumoto:
It appears that my original message is lost. Ill start again

People identify with one group or the other and are innately prejudiced by that identification. That identification can be by race, ethnicity or social class. The group that has more numbers has the advantage. There are more minorities in the house of rep for two reason

1. There are more positions
2. There are congressional seats that are resident in areas dominated by minorities

Now even in states that have a lot of minorities, they still do not have the numbers to vote one of their own in. The US senate was not created to cater for ethnicities but ample evidence suggests that there are more white people than others in almost every state in the US.

It is the same scenario in the UK, white areas have white MPs and Asian areas have asian MPs. My point again, white vote white, black vote black, asian vote asian, Yoruba vote Yoruba, etc. People ignore affiliation when their candidates are not running. So between Bush and Kerry, black people will choose one but between Dukakis and Jesse Jackson, black voted Jackson.

OAM4J:
Apart from the flawed population census, I think the idea of North supremacy is now overrated. About time we stop considering Ahmadu Bello's North as being the same as the present North.

North has since changed tremendously over time. I dont know if we can still consider Plateau, Bornu, Nasarawa, Benue and to a large extent the entire middle belt as charing common interest with the core North

Katsumoto:
Jubril Aminu once said that if Nigeria disintegrates, the North would have access to the ocean.  

Katsumoto:
You are proving the point that I am making, that larger groups have more representation. regardless of who got there first. Otherwise there will be an equal number of senators for Caucasian, Negroes, Asians and Native Americans. If there are more ghanians in Yorubaland, they will have more representation than Yoruba.

Katsumoto:
A truly representative US senate will include Caucasian, black, hispanic, Asian, red, native American, etc but the system has been designed such that it is always composed mainly of Caucasians.

Even in Areas where there are huge numbers of non-Caucasians, Caucasians always win the seats because they always invariably have the numbers to vote in their 'people'.

Onlytruth:
I only hope bro Jona no dey eye am o! Anyway, Patience dey mark am closely! hehehe!

Katsumoto:
Correct me if I am wrong but there are almost 100 caucasians in the senate.  That idea worked when caucasians set the rules. How many indians are in the senate. The point I am making is that representation is always based on association (ethnicity, race, etc) by numbers.

Beaf:
There is little they will be able to do about that. They are already in the same state and not crying that they want to leave. So forget about impracticalities.

Your uncle is unlikely to know anything about the Warri crisis, otherwise he would have told you Awo caused it in 1956.

Today, the governor of Delta state is Itsekiri, even though Itsekiri population is only about 500,000. Where else on Earth do you think they can ever get such a deal?
The population of Urhobo's and Igbo's is in the millions, yet Uduaghan is most likely to win the governorship again. Dude, Delta state is the best state in the country.

Katsumoto:
Simply naive.

Can you name one country that uses this unfair representation? Following the new US census, electoral boundaries are being re-drawn to take population into consideration. I repeat, the major ethnic groups will not accept that idea.

The framers of the Constitution created a bicameral Congress primarily as a compromise between those who felt that each state, since it was sovereign, should be equally represented, and those who felt the Legislature must directly represent the People, as did the House of Commons in Britain. There was also a desire to have two Houses that could act as an internal check on each other. One was intended to be a "People's House" directly elected by the People, and with short terms obliging the representatives to remain close to their constituents. The other was intended to represent the states to such extent as they retained their sovereignties not expressly delegated to the national government. The Senate is thus not intended to represent the people of the United States equally. The Constitution provides that the approval of both chambers is necessary for the passage of legislation.
The Senate of the United States was formed on the example of the ancient Roman Senate. The name is derived from the senatus, Latin for council of elders (from senex meaning old man in Latin).[11]
The Constitution stipulates that no constitutional amendment may be created to deprive a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without that state's consent. The District of Columbia and all other territories (including territories, protectorates, etc.) are not entitled to representation in either House of the Congress.[12] The United States has had 50 states since 1959, thus the Senate has had 100 senators since 1959.
The disparity between the most and least populous states has grown since the Great Compromise, which granted each state equal representation in the Senate and a minimum of three presidential Electors, regardless of population. In 1787, Virginia had roughly 10 times the population of Rhode Island, whereas today California has roughly 70 times the population of Wyoming, based on the 1790 and 2000 censuses. This means some citizens are effectively an order of magnitude better represented in the senate than than those in other states. Seats in the House of Representatives are approximately proportionate to the population of each state, reducing the disparity of representation.

fstrangest:
Again, Kuwait comes to mind. When it comes to being dominated by your neighbor, well, we now have Africom, and in the not so distant future, there would be a base in Liberia, with all the influence and capabilities of the best military force in the world. Strictly speaking, the Ijaws, my hypothetical SS, need only to suck up to America. As long as America has access to their Oil at a very good discount, they really have nothing to worry about from America. America will always pay for any service they enjoy.

As for China and Europe, none of them really would like to face America in any direct talk/combat; again, AFRICOM is there to deter any overambitious foreign power. Events leading to Gulf war I readily come to mind.

Even though, I hate to see them leave. It is in their best interest to break away from this contraption. IMHO, what they lack is purposeful leadership. If they had an Ojukwu or even a Ken Saro Wiwa, they would have been gone by now. And, i tell you, America would actually prefer an independent state for the Ijaws and they would be supported they way Honkong is being supported, and would probably set-up a base in the country like they have in South Korea.

Katsumoto:
You will agree to 4 representatives for Yoruba and 4 representatives for some small minority group?  

Please elucidate

Katsumoto:
You are suggesting that, for instance, 4 senators represent Isoko (200,000) and 4 senators represent Hausa (15,000,000). No one will agree to that. The major ethnic groups will never accept that idea. Every Ethnic Group should be represented but it should be on the basis of population.

Beaf:
The calculus certainly doesn't change for the rest of us non Ijaw. The Ijaw might go their own way, which will leave the old Bendel (perhaps, without Delta Igbos who will join Biafra) and the Eastern groups, Ibibio, Anang etc, who will form their own country or join with the Igbo.
The likelyhood though, is that the whole SS would remain one country of minorities, from Obudu to Ofosu.

Beaf:
It should be fairly easy to stop such cheating. We already know all the ethnic groups in Nigeria and no artificial "new" ones will be allowed to form. In fact, everyone would laugh if Ekiti people suddenly declared they were no longer Yoruba!
As Obiagu suggested, we could also write all the ethnic groups into the constitution and seal it.

fstrangest:
Hey Engineer,

You keep repeating the highlighted above as if it were some sort of truism. The truth is that breaking a way is better than a true federalism in a multi-ethnic society like this. I accept that in a true federalism, what SS gains more than anything is security. Other than security, the SS gains nothing from the union.

If true federalism were superior to breaking out, why is Canada not part of 'the union'? why is America trying to wall itself against Mexico? Federalism works better in a mono-ethnic society, where each group contribute to the betterment of the country somewhat equally, more than in a multi-ethnic society. And it works well/better if the majority have something in common that they can rally around. The truth is that a group of people with same /shared history and belief would always want to be together, away from 'the other' group they have nothing in common with. Truth be told, unlike in the case of America, where the American dream/Americanism draws people together,there is nothing like the Nigerian dream. I feel nothing/desire,  to be in a country/union with say Hausas and Ibos, and as long as we continue to be in this unholy alliance, I will never wish the country well. The sense of ownership of the country in my opinion is not there; the north sees the oil as something to leech off of (not minding the environmental implication of oil drilling), not something to be taken care of; the SS views the rest of the country with disdain, unable to see the benefits they enjoy from being part of Nigeria; the SE, forever resentful of the rest of the country, especially the SW and the North for the ignoble role they play in the death/massacre of more than 2 million Biafrans; and the SW, always looking down on the rest of the country, never able to understand how the rest of the country can be this stupit and retrogressive not see things the way we see it.

Now tell me, how is federalism better than breaking away, from the view point of a south southerner, looking at the ideals of having a separate country of like minds, not necessarily at the perils involved at the initial stage of nationhood.

Beaf:
You have got it all wrong. If anybody wants out of Nigeria, or a more equitable Nigeria, why would they try to repeat the same failings in the current set up? I don't get your reasoning.

My mantra is true federalism which to a very large extent, negates ethnicity or ethnic population and at the same time, increases citizen representation at every level by several magnitudes over what we now have. The entire constitution will have to be rewritten to accomodate this.
It should all be about the citizen, not their ethnicity and the easiest way to achieve this is to give every ethnic group the same representation at the centre (same number of senators). Within the ethnic groups themselves, they can have the number of LG's that their population requires; the House of reps will also be population driven. The benefit of such a system is that, no ugly law passed by the house based on the population of a section (eg sharia) will be able to pass through the Senate (which will be based on representation.

It will be impossible to marginalise any group with the above innovation. And with the other benefits of true federalism, we will be guaranteed a rapidly developing and focussed country, not the chaotic rat hole we now inhabit.

jason123:
okay, if the power is devolved downwards, do you not think a region probably the SE or SS (no offence) might break away since they gain nothing from the union?

EDIT: remember that in someone once said that he had the biggest army in black africa. He achieved this feat by regional policies. Dyou not think it can happen again?

jason123:
Can you see the country is in a dilemma . Just to add, regional system promotes tribalism (the SW is a living example).

Beaf:
You mean after the huge amounts of problems the US has caused in the Middle East, you think they don't care? The wikileaks talks between Jonathan and their ambassador that showed how concerned the US is about free and fair elections should be a pointer.

Beaf:
The only reason the US will not support an outright breakaway of the oil bearing areas from the rest of the country, is that they are likely to consider the South as an important block to put down Islamic terrorism in the North, bring modernisation, eliminate crude practises like child marriages and educate almajiri's. These things are immensely valuable to the US who do not want any religious or ethnic bigots disturbing their most important new source of oil (they are diversting from the Middle East, cos the area is too troublesome). The North is unlikely to see power for the next generation if that calculation is correct.