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. They want a modern, equitable Nigerian society, not one packed with unfulfilled almajiri's and all sorts of other bigots that might ultimately target the free flow of oil. You will note how desperate the Americans were about supervising the elections and supplying voting software; it really upset them that Yar Adua and Iwu didn't give them what they wanted. It also really upset them that Yar Adua's govt tilted sharply toward Iran, Saudi and China.

The current govt in Nigeria is exactly what the  is happy with; a son of the soil who can pacify folk from the SS and begin the introduction of civil behaviour and law and order (no more gra gra id!ots). Watch out for massive changes in PDP too, there will be little space for ethnocentric champions and crude politicians after GEJ's 2011 victory.

I don't see the US's interest in Nigeria as a bad thing, we need a lot of help and a partner that can offer that help, similar to the experience of South Korea. We just need to outgrow our ethnic bigotry and begin to embrace merit. The relationship will be what we make of it.

Beaf, to be honest, I understand what you mean but do you not think the statement above (bold) would be difficult? Even if Nigeria splits (north and south), do you not think the minorities in the South would scream marginalisation, domination of igbos and yorubas etc? Who would such a country work?

In my opinion, I think what the North needs is just massive educational programs. Once they are educated, their leaders would not be able to use the religion card to get votes. Also, i think going back to regional governments would be the best bet! Although, when a region becomes too powerful and has nothing to gain from Nigeria, it might break away. Also, the SS cannot complain because they collect the highest allocation from the oil revenue but it is being used to enrich the political elite's pocket so we cannot blame Nigeria or the North

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

What do you think the solution would be? I want to know your answer. BTW, the idea of SS republic etc is flawed because they would also encounter these problems.

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.

The Muslims militants in the Middle East not only threaten the flow of oil there, the power of US allies like the Saudi royal family, but have also successfully struck at US interests not only in America, but elsewhere in the world (e.g., the US Cole attack.)

I don't think making parallels between the Muslim fanatics in the Middle East and those in the North of Nigeria makes that much sense. Their ability to threaten the flow of oil in Southern Nigeria is very limited, imo (of course, if Boko Haram starts blowing up pipelines in the ND, I'll revise my opinions   ).

With that said, the US obviously doesn't view it as a good thing if the North became radicalized. And certainly they'd be unhappy if it turns out Iran or somebody else is sponsoring terrorism in Northern Nigeria.

But in the grand scheme of things, is this what concerns them the most in Nigeria? Doubtful.

Now, the situation would change entirely if it was in fact the North which produced most of Nigeria's oil. Or if some radical Muslim Northern leader somehow became dictator of Nigeria.

But neither of these two latter situations are reality.

Kilode?!, I love your quote by the world renowned Diderot, "men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." Truer words were never spoken. Are you by chance a fan of Romanticism? I find many of the philosophers during the Age of Enlightenment as some of the finest philosophers that have ever lived. This one of the few aspects of European culture that is worthy of praise in my honest opinion. These philosopher were truly kings amongst men. From Diderot to Voltaire, I enjoy reading their works of art.

Kilode?!:

LOL and SMH@ our prospects but;

I'm confident we have a good imperial future with warriors like Beaf and my Ijaw brothas, it's time we stop the rancour and look at how we can re-colonise little little irritants like Gambia and Ghana.

BTW, we will post the scenario on NL. Yes we can!

Dude, ND people are only tired of being treated like dirt. There is no country in the World where citizens are exploited in the fashion the ND is in Nigeria, in fact other nations are appalled by it; that is why the ND kept cropping up in discussions throughout the BP spill in the US. But did Nigerians care or even feel any shame?

What we are asking for is so simple. Let us practice true federalism, it is the only govt framework that can bring rapid development and equity to Nigeria.
You've got to wonder why there are such staunch enemies of true federalism in the core North, this is a link to an article in which Jubril Aminu ambushes every sensible progressive thought on Nigeria, I posted it in 2009:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-358828.0.html

jason123:

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

Nah, tribalism is just the way of life. Everybody in the world is tribalist. It is only in Nigeria that it is made out to be some great evil (or something somehow only Yoruba are guilty of.)

The problem is that there is so much power at the center. If you devolve this power downwards, then a lot of these purported "tribalist" problems would go away, imo.

We should stop blaming human nature and instead look at the real reason for the problems (namely, a lack of federalism.)

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. They want a modern, equitable Nigerian society, not one packed with unfulfilled almajiri's and all sorts of other bigots that might ultimately target the free flow of oil.

The current govt in Nigeria is exactly what the  is happy with; a son of the soil who can pacify folk from the SS and begin the introduction of civil behaviour and law and order (no more gra gra id!ots). Watch out for massive changes in PDP too, there will be little space for ethnocentric champions and crude politicians after GEJ's 2011 victory.

I don't see the US's interest in Nigeria as a bad thing, we need a lot of help and a partner that can offer that help, similar to the experience of South Korea. We just need to outgrow our ethnic bigotry and begin to embrace merit. The relationship will be what we make of it.

You do have a point, especially with the increased use of war against Islamic terrorism as a political agenda in the USA.  Also, the popularity of political rhetoric against their dependency on Middle east/Terrorist oil helps your point.  


I'm confident the winner of this election -PDP or ACN- will for the most part be the one who can get the backing of powerful foreign oil interests, that is our cross until we get a leader with the balls to fight for Nigerians against them or the ability to beat them at their own game.

GEJ does not strike me as a man that can do it. I'm yet to be convinced of his ability do these things.

Beaf:

Dude, ND people are only tired of being treated like dirt. There is no country in the World where citizens are exploited in the fashion the ND is in Nigeria, in fact other nations are appalled by it; that is why the ND kept cropping up in discussions throughout the BP spill in the US. But did Nigerians care or even feel any shame?

Are you sure this is true? I can think of a few nations that treat their citizens in that manner. Just ask the Tibetans whose country was incorporated into China. How about the people of Papua whose island is being exploited by the Indonesian government of its resources. Or the Tamils of Northern Sri Lanka. Let us not forget the Kurds who are found in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Northern Iraq who want a nation of their own, but four different countries see these people as a threat. The Niger Deltan plight is very sad indeed, but there are many people throughout the world who are suffering from oppressive regimes. The Niger Deltan people have every right to be tired and I support their cause. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere as the great Martin Luther King Jr. would say.

eku_bear:

Nah, tribalism is just the way of life. Everybody in the world is tribalist. It is only in Nigeria that it is made out to be some great evil (or something somehow only Yoruba are guilty of.)

The problem is that there is so much power at the center. If you devolve this power downwards, then a lot of these purported "tribalist" problems would go away, imo.

We should stop blaming human nature and instead look at the real reason for the problems (namely, a lack of federalism.)

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:

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?

You and your repeated biafra fears lol

Ola edo:



You and your repeated biafra fears lol

Its not about biafra fear or anything. I was trying to make a point ( I also included the SS). So, its not about biafra.
Moreover, anyone can develop a regional army. Even Awo trained some men in Ghana

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?

Eh, forced marriages tend to be pretty unsuccessful. If the first thing that a region does when getting some measure of power is seeking to leave the union, then maybe it is best if Nigeria peacefully negotiates a breakup. It isn't a do or die thing, is it?

Anyway, I think if you devolve power from the central government to the states and local governments, increase derivations to something like 50% (do it slowly over say 5-10 years to cushion the impact), most people would be inclined to stay. I don't mind staying in a Nigeria like that, personally.

A true federation is imo slightly or vastly superior to leaving outright (I think most would agree on this.)

jason123:

Beaf, to be honest, I understand what you mean but do you not think the statement above (bold) would be difficult? Even if Nigeria splits (north and south), do you not think the minorities in the South would scream marginalisation, domination of igbos and yorubas etc? Who would such a country work?

In my opinion, I think what the North needs is just massive educational programs. Once they are educated, their leaders would not be able to use the religion card to get votes. Also, i think going back to regional governments would be the best bet! Although, when a region becomes too powerful and has nothing to gain from Nigeria, it might break away. Also, the SS cannot complain because they collect the highest allocation from the oil revenue but it is being used to enrich the political elite's pocket so we cannot blame Nigeria or the North

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

What do you think the solution would be? I want to know your answer. BTW, the idea of SS republic etc is flawed because they would also encounter these problems.

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.

Rousseau:

Kilode?!, I love your quote by the world renowned Diderot, "men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." Truer words were never spoken. Are you by chance a fan of Romanticism? I find many of the philosophers during the Age of Enlightenment as some of the finest philosophers that have ever lived. This one of the few aspects of European culture that is worthy of praise in my honest opinion. These philosopher were truly kings amongst men. From Diderot to Voltaire, I enjoy reading their works of art.

@Rosseau. Yes I've read a bit of Diderot and a fair amount of Voltaire's writings. But I do consider myself just a Dilettante , a lazy one these days,  I blame the internet!

I'm chiefly interested in the works and thoughts of European Philosophers as it compares with our own traditional philosophies and ideas, especially our ancient philosophers, creeds, norms and thoughts in the areas of nation building, religion and other social-political stuffs.

I agree, those were great men who laid a good foundation for the establishment of the ideas and freedom they use and enjoy in the west today including egalite, liberte and even "federalism" I believe there are good parallels in our history too.

Ok, I think I've derailed the thread enough

Thanks for asking bro!

jason123:

Its not about biafra fear or anything. I was trying to make a point ( I also included the SS). So, its not about biafra.
Moreover, anyone can develop a regional army. Even Awo trained some men in Ghana

That was believe to be untrue.It is said that the government made up that story in order to throw him in jail for treason.

Also Biafra included south-south areas as well, but i see ur point.

I empathize with the minorities of the Niger Delta though. The dream of self-determination that is found in the region is something to behold. All peoples have the right of self-determination and this is something that I wished the nations of the world respected. There is nothing wrong with drawing new borders. It is the people's right to determine their government and how they should be governed. This is an inalienable right that I feel this right is abused daily within many states. I support the self-determination struggle of the Basque people, Igbo people, Ijaw people, Chechen people, Palestinian people, the Southern Sudanese people etc. The right to govern yourself is something I truly believe in. If the people support it, then their will should be done.

eku_bear:

Eh, forced marriages tend to be pretty unsuccessful. If the first thing that a region does when getting some measure of power is seeking to leave the union, then maybe it is best if Nigeria peacefully negotiates a breakup. It isn't a do or die thing, is it?

Anyway, I think if you devolve power from the central government to the states and local governments, increase derivations to something like 50% (do it slowly over say 5-10 years to cushion the impact), most people would be inclined to stay. I don't mind staying in a Nigeria like that, personally.

A true federation is imo slightly or vastly superior to leaving outright (I think most would agree on this.)

Hey Engineer,

You keep repeating the highlighted above as if it were some sort of truism. The truth is that breaking away 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.

I agree with the sentiment, but am concerned a bit about the implementation. But in this proposed Senate of yours. . . why can't I declare the Ekiti an ethnic group, as a ploy to grab X more senate seats? After all, one can argue that to an extent that Ekiti, Ijebu, Owo, Egba, etc are just as deserving of being recognized as "ethnic groups" as say Urhobo.

Or if I am bold enough, why cannot I declare my own village as its own ethnic group?  After all, our dialect is different from other Ekiti dialects, not to talk of central Yoruba.

Like, how do you prevent cheating like this from happening? Or is this irrelevant, perhaps? I dunno, somehow I think it'd be bad. Perhaps one could take a LGA-based approach instead, and thus avoid having to define ethnic groups. I'm not quite sure.

fstrangest:

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.

Your analogy does not work. Why would Canada be part of the union when they have never and never will be part of the US?

Nigeria has been formed and true federalism is the answer, (minus the North of course, they are murderers). As an ardent Biafra supporter, the minimum I'll go for is Biafra (SE & SS) which is multi-ethnic as well. I'll equally go for Southern Nigeria because we need a bigger population to be meaningful in the world. If we get Southern Nigeria, Biafra agitation will die.

I once thought of Alaigbo Republic but that is an option if the opportunity to leave arise and the rest of S. Nigeria opt to stay put in Nigeria.

Obiagu1:

Your analogy does not work. Why would Canada be part of the union when they have never and never will be part of the US?

Nigeria has been formed and true federalism is the answer, (minus the North of course, they are murderers). As an ardent Biafra supporter, the minimum I'll go for is Biafra (SE & SS) which is multi-ethnic as well. I'll equally go for Southern Nigeria because we need a bigger population to be meaningful in the world. If we get Southern Nigeria, Biafra agitation will die.

I once thought of Alaigbo Republic but that is an option if the opportunity to leave arise and the rest of S. Nigeria opt to stay put in Nigeria.

Alsaka was never part of the union as well. FYI, Alsaka is bigger than Nigeria. Alaska only joined the union as recent as 1959

eku_bear:

I agree with the sentiment, but am concerned a bit about the implementation. But in this proposed Senate of yours. . . why can't I declare the Ekiti an ethnic group, as a ploy to grab X more senate seats? After all, one can argue that to an extent that Ekiti, Ijebu, Owo, Egba, etc are just as deserving of being recognized as "ethnic groups" as say Urhobo.

Or if I am bold enough, why cannot I declare my own village as its own ethnic group?   After all, our dialect is different from other Ekiti dialects, not to talk of central Yoruba.

Like, how do you prevent cheating like this from happening? Or is this irrelevant, perhaps? I dunno, somehow I think it'd be bad. Perhaps one could take a LGA-based approach instead, and thus avoid having to define ethnic groups. I'm not quite sure.

Good point. I think a very clear definition of an ethnic group and clan will be enshrined in the constitution. It might cause confusion but I don't think ekiti would want to be outside an Odua province if such is created.

fstrangest:

Alsaka was never part of the union as well. FYI, Alsaka is bigger than Nigeria. Alaska only joined the union as recent as 1959

Alaska just like Hawaii was independent but opted to join the union on their own volition. It's like saying Benin Republic joining Nigeria if they decide it will favour them.

Your statement was: If true federalism were superior to breaking out, why is Canada not part of 'the union'?
So there was never a time when Canada was part of the Union that's why I said your analogy did not work.

jason123:

Its not about biafra fear or anything. I was trying to make a point ( I also included the SS). So, its not about biafra.
Moreover, anyone can develop a regional army. Even Awo trained some men in Ghana

jason,,, not not post to ola edo

he is one really mumu and he is still as stu.pid as his first post,,,you remember

Obiagu1:

Alaska just like Hawaii was independent but opted to join the union on their own volition. It's like saying Benin Republic joining Nigeria if they decide it will favour them.

Your statement was: If true federalism were superior to breaking out, why is Canada not part of 'the union'?
So there was never a time when Canada was part of the Union that's why I said your analogy did not work.

My point is that with their close proximity, if truly a bigger country practising federalism were superior to maintaining separate countries, America and Canada should be doing everything possible to come together.

I brought Alaska up to show you that Alsaka was bought from the Russians because the people believed, somewhat, in Americanism, and would rather enjoy the security of being part of the union, than risk the uncertainties involved in standing apart; after all, Alaska has oil and they could have opted to stay away from America, and by so doing would not have to contribute to the coffers of the central government. BTW, do you know that people dont pay tax in Alsaka? At the end of the year, everyone receives a tax return

Now in the case of the SS, they derive nothing from being part of Nigeria. As a matter of fact, it pays more if they were a standalone country. They have the population, the resources, the education , and the necessary man-power to run their own government. In the case of Nigeria, unlike in America, there is really nothing to rally round, and as such each running her own affair is a better setup  than the best federalism.

Again, what would the SS gain from trying to share their resources, no matter how small, with the rest of the country, when they could have it all to themselves.

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.

A very tough question. Let me chew on this a bit. In fact, I'll only address this last question you raise (in bold); the rest requires more thought.

Well, let me put myself in the boots of an Ijaw SS man. (I think the calculus changes for Itsekiri, Urhobo, and other ethnic groups, so let's not lump all their interests together.)

So if I were an Ijaw SS man, what arrangement would best serve my interests?

Well, the best arrangement imo is one in which:

A) I keep almost all of the resources that come out of my territory. So let's say 100% derivation.
B) I also get to control who enters and leaves my territory, to avoid being overwhelmed numerically by less wealthy but very numerous neighbors.
C) I also don't have to spend much money on security and preventing myself from being dominated from my neighbors or the strong powers of the world.
D) I am not only secure from my neighbors, I have great influence over them (some might view this as optional, but personally I'd want this myself.)

Suppose you could guarantee that a hypothetical Ijawland would never be threatened by its neighbors or by the great powers of the world (US, Europe, etc.) In other words, (C) is automatically guaranteed.

The current Nigeria setup doesn't give me any of (A) through (D), as an Ijawman. Federalism in Nigeria probably doesn't give me (A) or (B) (at least, not completely.) However, independence (under this assumption that (C) is automatically guaranteed) gives me everything, I think.

So in this hypothetical scenario, I think the best bet would be independence.

Now of course, in the real world, (C) will not be automatically true. In fact, I'd have to spend assloads of cash keeping my neighbors, the US, Europe, and China from screwing me over. And in the first few years of a new nation, my nation would be fairly weak. . . so the probability of me becoming a puppet of one of these foreign powers is pretty high.

eku_bear:

I agree with the sentiment, but am concerned a bit about the implementation. But in this proposed Senate of yours. . . why can't I declare the Ekiti an ethnic group, as a ploy to grab X more senate seats? After all, one can argue that to an extent that Ekiti, Ijebu, Owo, Egba, etc are just as deserving of being recognized as "ethnic groups" as say Urhobo.

Or if I am bold enough, why cannot I declare my own village as its own ethnic group?   After all, our dialect is different from other Ekiti dialects, not to talk of central Yoruba.

Like, how do you prevent cheating like this from happening? Or is this irrelevant, perhaps? I dunno, somehow I think it'd be bad. Perhaps one could take a LGA-based approach instead, and thus avoid having to define ethnic groups. I'm not quite sure.

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.

eku_bear:

A very tough question. Let me chew on this a bit. In fact, I'll only address this last question you raise (in bold); the rest requires more thought.

Well, let me put myself in the boots of an Ijaw SS man. (I think the calculus changes for Itsekiri, Urhobo, and other ethnic groups, so let's not lump all their interests together.)

So if I were an Ijaw SS man, what arrangement would best serve my interests?

Well, the best arrangement imo is one in which:

A) I keep almost all of the resources that come out of my territory. So let's say 100% derivation.
B) I also get to control who enters and leaves my territory, to avoid being overwhelmed numerically by less wealthy but very numerous neighbors.
C) I also don't have to spend much money on security and preventing myself from being dominated from my neighbors or the strong powers of the world.
D) I am not only secure from my neighbors, I have great influence over them (some might view this as optional, but personally I'd want this myself.)

Suppose you could guarantee that a hypothetical Ijawland would never be threatened by its neighbors or by the great powers of the world (US, Europe, etc.) In other words, (C) is automatically guaranteed.

The current Nigeria setup doesn't give me any of (A) through (D), as an Ijawman. Federalism in Nigeria probably doesn't give me (A) or (B) (at least, not completely.) However, independence (under this assumption that (C) is automatically guaranteed) gives me everything, I think.

So in this hypothetical scenario, I think the best bet would be independence.

Now of course, in the real world, (C) will not be automatically true. In fact, I'd have to spend assloads of cash keeping my neighbors, the US, Europe, and China from screwing me over. And in the first few years of a new nation, my nation would be fairly weak. . . so the probability of me becoming a puppet of one of these foreign powers is pretty high.

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.

Why can't we do that today?
Well, the answer is because of the very same problems that will manifest then -people denying their ethnic group just to hoodwink the rest of us!

We have that already in Nigeria, which is why Ohanaeze pressed hard for ethnicity to be included in the census forms, an idea which was rejected by Obasanjo.

So that can only happen AFTER Nigeria disintegrates. I don't see it happening under one Nigeria. The system is a cesspit.

^
Something tells me that voter registration will produce several interesting shockers. I am hoping that will be the case, so we can have an oblique path toward realistic population figures.

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.

What about these random small Igboid groups in the SS who claim to be distinct from Igbo, but speak a similar language? Are each of those considered separate groups?

Itsekiri I guess would also be considered distinct, despite someone here making a jibe earlier in the thread that they should return to Ijebu?  

What about some small group in the North who live in a tiny pocket of one LGA, have only 500 people, who speak Hausa, have no secondary language, but have slightly different customs and don't consider themselves Hausa?

What of Christian Hausa (which there are a goodly number of, it seems.) What of the Middle Belt, where almost every tiny chunk of land claims to be a distinct ethnic group?

I dunno man, this seems a bit complicated. You are creating an incentive for people to make up new ethnic groups, basically. . .

eku_bear:

A very tough question. Let me chew on this a bit. In fact, I'll only address this last question you raise (in bold); the rest requires more thought.

Well, let me put myself in the boots of an Ijaw SS man. (I think the calculus changes for Itsekiri, Urhobo, and other ethnic groups, so let's not lump all their interests together.)

So if I were an Ijaw SS man, what arrangement would best serve my interests?

Well, the best arrangement imo is one in which:

A) I keep almost all of the resources that come out of my territory. So let's say 100% derivation.
B) I also get to control who enters and leaves my territory, to avoid being overwhelmed numerically by less wealthy but very numerous neighbors.
C) I also don't have to spend much money on security and preventing myself from being dominated from my neighbors or the strong powers of the world.
D) I am not only secure from my neighbors, I have great influence over them (some might view this as optional, but personally I'd want this myself.)

Suppose you could guarantee that a hypothetical Ijawland would never be threatened by its neighbors or by the great powers of the world (US, Europe, etc.) In other words, (C) is automatically guaranteed.

The current Nigeria setup doesn't give me any of (A) through (D), as an Ijawman. Federalism in Nigeria probably doesn't give me (A) or (B) (at least, not completely.) However, independence (under this assumption that (C) is automatically guaranteed) gives me everything, I think.

So in this hypothetical scenario, I think the best bet would be independence.

Now of course, in the real world, (C) will not be automatically true. In fact, I'd have to spend assloads of cash keeping my neighbors, the US, Europe, and China from screwing me over. And in the first few years of a new nation, my nation would be fairly weak. . . so the probability of me becoming a puppet of one of these foreign powers is pretty high.

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.

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.

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.

Eh, Itsekiri seem to have zero interest in being in the same country with the Ijaws, lol. I don't know as much about the other minorities in Delta state (I should probably read a bit or chat with my uncle, who is based in Warri and would know these things), but somehow I doubt that your interests all line up exactly.