In Nigeria, the transformation to democracy must be seen as a long and painful process because most of our expectations may be slow in coming and some may never be realized in our lifetime. But one thing that posterity will remember this era for is that we have collectively opted to utilize the democratic process in conduct of our national affairs. Some interest groups have touted the notion of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) as the best way to extricate Nigeria from the political logjam in which it has found itself. The call for an SNC originated in the waning days of military dictatorship when the concept was deployed in mustering support for opposition to army rule. The political transition that led to this democratic dispensation was perceived by some as a viable alternative to continuing the agitation for convoking an SNC from all ethnic nationalities in Nigeria for the purpose of charting a future political course for the nation. The multitude of crises that have bedeviled the Obasanjo administration are now making the proponents of the SNC to raise the pitch of their call for the immediate convening of a conference of nationalities in spite of the functional democratic government of the Fourth Republic. The present attitude of the authorities in Aso Rock and leaders of the Federal Houses of Legislature toward this issue may not be to our best national interest in the long run. In a democracy, issues that are of importance to a large segment of the population ought to be subjected to both a public debate and due process in the appropriate houses of legislature.

Even the much-reviled past military administrations occasionally allowed for public debates on issues that were assessed to be of unique national interest. The Babangida administration, for example, coordinated public debates on the issues of IMF loan conditionalities and political choices for the Third Republic's transition program. Those debates were quite popular with the generality of the citizens as shown by active participation in them by various interest groups nationwide. Unfortunately, the eventual utility of the public input during those debates was lost in the fact that the ultimate power of policy decision resided within the select wise men in khaki who constituted the apex executive body of the military junta in power. In this dispensation, it is the sole duty of the houses of legislature at the state and national levels to make the ultimate decision about the import of the SNC, after the matter has been subjected to a thorough debate. The confused strategy of the proponents of the SNC tends to be relying more on the President to be the convener of the proposed conference. In actuality, a Sovereign National Conference should be an end product of a long process of both public and legislative dialogue and not a confab that a Head of State should convoke. The proponents of the SNC may be chasing a shadow if their calculation for attaining their objective is to bypass the due processes of democracy and constitutional provisions in order to focus pressure on the executive Head of State to do the heavy lifting on their behalf.

GOLDEN NUGGET What is desirable, in my opinion, is the need to debate the idea of an SNC and not its convocation per se. Many people, who have previously dismissed the notion of an SNC with a wave of the hand, may have done so because of the lack of merit in convoking a body which would attempt to accomplish a duty that the present constitution has already vested in the houses of legislature. But such a bias should not negate the need to have the "SNC Bill" properly tabled and deliberated upon in the usual fashion in both the state and national assemblies.

Just like the so-called "Patriots' Bill", which is designed to canvass for a constitutional amendment to establish a regional tier of government to correspond with present geopolitical zones, the proponents of the nationalities conference should draft and submit an "SNC Bill" to the houses of legislatures for due debate. Already, all the 6 sates of the Southwest have debated and passed such a bill in their respective houses of assembly several months ago. Similar bills ought to be introduced in other states and even at the Federal Houses of Legislature in Abuja for the people's representatives to begin their deliberative process. It would appear that the master strategists for the SNC might be ambivalent on the utility or the universal acceptability of their idea. Otherwise, how could one explain their reluctance to make any further legislative effort to push the SNC concept nationwide since the initial successes in the Southwest zone? In fact, this apparent stalling of the SNC movement in the Southwest makes some to consider the idea to be parochial in nature and a brainchild of an ethnopolitical interest group. The sooner the "SNC Bill" gets to be debated for possible approval in the remaining 30 states of the federation, the better are the chances that the idea will one day provide the cure to the many national ills for which the proponents conceived it in the first place.

What is desirable, in my opinion, is the need to debate the idea of an SNC and not its convocation per se. Many people, who have previously dismissed the notion of an SNC with a wave of the hand, may have done so because of the lack of merit in convoking a body which would attempt to accomplish a duty that the present constitution has already vested in the houses of legislature. But such a bias should not negate the need to have the "SNC Bill" properly tabled and deliberated upon in the usual fashion in both the state and national assemblies. If, however, the proponents of the nationalities conference are having a second thought on the viability of their concept, them the idea ought to be scrapped for good. The present hit-and-run tactic of using the media, especially the Internet to extol the virtues of convening an SNC, is both an unnecessary waste of time and a diversionary gimmick. There are more pressing issues that confront Nigeria at this time amongst which is the speedy implementation of proper economic programs that can begin to uplift the livelihood of the citizenry. The most recent prank of the proponents of the SNC is to focus their pressure on the executive Head of State through the writing of petitions and signature collections. If, indeed, there are no concrete plans to foster the idea of an SNC beyond the regular grandstanding in mass media and empty threats of petition writers, then the nation is better served if the whole idea is formally abandoned.

The notion of an SNC initially sounds quite attractive to many who feel that the reason why Nigeria's dilemma seems to defy solution is because no one has found the need to bring every interest group under one roof to hammer out all the outstanding differences once and for all. On closer review, however, it may be only the Southwest zone that actually has a clear-cut agenda of what to bring to the negotiating table if such a conference were convoked today. I had the opportunity to ask an ardent agitator, who happens to be Igbo, what he envisions to take to the SNC today that will reflect his people's interests if his wish for an SNC were granted. Well, the response was quite predictable - stuttering followed by long silence. That encounter began to confirm my fears that even those who clamor for the SNC with their last breath may indeed not have the slightest idea of what to do with such a confab if and when it comes. The clamor for an SNC has now become a fad that appeals to individuals who are desirous to see a quick solution to Nigeria's national dilemma. Unfortunately, it is impossible to find quick and acceptable solutions to many complex problems of a nation like Nigeria through the convocation of a single conference. There is an opinion group that strongly believes that, contrary to becoming a panacea to the present quandary, the provision of a platform for showcasing micro nationalistic fervor amongst the hundreds of ethnic groups that comprise Nigeria may be akin to stirring of the hornets' nest.

It is confusing to hear the most vocal advocates of the SNC deride the adequacy of present constitution and competence of the elected representatives to debate the SNC.

For the deliberations and resolutions of the proposed SNC to have any credibility, it should first have proper constitutional backing by having an "SNC Bill" submitted to the houses of legislature for proper review and debate. If the elected representatives in the assemblies of the states of the Southwest are competent enough to debate and approve the "SNC Bill", their colleagues in the other 30 states and the Federal Houses should not be denied the opportunity to make their own input as they see fit. One of the attributes of democracy is the capacity to thoroughly deliberate on the pros and cons of issues of public interest before giving them legal backing. Maybe, by the time the bill undergoes all the expected legislative amendments by our lawmakers, what will be left of it may no longer be appetizing to the proponents of the nationalities confab. That possibility, however, must not dissuade the protagonists of SNC from pursuing the normal processes for getting things done in a democracy. It is time to put the SNC issue to the ultimate test. If it is indeed as popular and necessary, as is being touted by the proponents, the idea should be adopted and the lawmakers should delineate the modalities for an immediate convocation of an SNC. The correct process has already started in the Southwest. Those who like the notion of an SNC ought to follow that paradigm instead of wasting their time and effort collecting signatures and petition letters for President Obasanjo's desk.

Okenwa R. Nwosu, M.D.
Greenbelt, Maryland
U.S.A.