Traditional institutions must evolve or die off - Vanguard News
Anniversaries are always a time for reflection. At 65 years as a nation, where are we? Where are we supposed to be? Where are we falling short in performance indices? What is to be done? What are the fundamentals holding us back from reaching our potential? Are we still being held back by the success of traditions from the old days, or are we ready to evolve? Life changes according to the dictates of the times. We have seen it move from single nation-states to globalisation. We are now back to the era of fervent nationalism, with Trump’s USA at the forefront. Where does our nation stand on issues of strength in the global hemisphere? Critically, in our quest to become a nation-state, we have failed to achieve unity; the diversity that is supposed to be our strength has become an albatross to our progress. People are still holding on to religious and cultural biases that served them in the past but which are not relevant to today’s world if we want to be part of it. Are the people ready to be integrated and become one nation?
Are our leaders ready to take the bold step and make strong decisions, even if they go contrary to their religious and ethnic sentiments? Are they ready to remove selfishness, cronyism and other nation destroyers from our culture? People, society and nations must now look inward for their survival, and as this happens, the grassroots are drawn more closely to governance. That is where the traditional institutions come in. The local and traditional leaders are relating directly with the people; empower them with the necessary tools and give them the responsibility of taking care of lives and property in their environment. For there to be sustainable progress and development, there must be guaranteed security of lives and property. For this to happen, we must institutionalise our traditional institutions for effective delivery. That is why we must immerse ourselves in the execution of true fiscal federalism because, in the long run, that is where we will end up. We have to be sincere about the situation of our country.
It is badly fractionalised, and how do you run or administer a multicultural and multi-plural country like ours without running into a cul-de-sac like the one we are in now? Are there other countries in the world presently faced with our situation and managing it successfully? How did they handle their situations? Let us take a few countries with cultural and religious multiplicity as examples. I will use Canada, Switzerland, India, Great Britain and the United States of America as examples. Canada handles its multiculturalism by adopting an official policy aimed at transforming diversity into a core element of its national identity. Unlike nations that push for a cultural “melting pot,” Canada promotes a “cultural mosaic” where immigrants are encouraged to maintain their distinct heritage. For Switzerland, its multiculturalism is exhibited through its institutional multilingualism, recognising four national languages and using a decentralised federal system that grants strong autonomy to regional linguistic groups.
Rather than enforcing a single national identity, Switzerland operates as a “nation of will” — Willensnation — where unity is sustained through shared political values, direct democracy and mutual economic interests, rather than a shared ethnic background. For the United States, its multiculturalism is acknowledged through its historical identity as a melting pot and “mosaic,” where diverse ethnic, religious and cultural groups coexist and shape the nation’s identity. Because the country was built on waves of global immigration, multiculturalism is woven directly into its social fabric, laws and daily traditions. They observe different holidays, manifesting diverse cultural attributes. Britain exemplifies multiculturalism through its diverse demographics, shared cultural integration and historical ties to the British Empire. Cities like London showcase extreme diversity, where over 300 languages are spoken and half the population identifies as Black British.
For India, the nation exemplifies its multiculturalism through the peaceful coexistence of a vast array of religions, languages, ethnicities and regional traditions under a single democratic framework. All religions thrive side by side — Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism and Zoroastrianism. Articles 25 to 30 of the Indian Constitution guarantee freedom of religion and protect the rights of minorities to preserve their distinct language, script and culture. These are examples of countries that have used their diversity to make progress and impact the world. What do all of these have in common? Respect for diversity, relative peace, technological development, a sense of belonging among the people, and respect from the entire world. There are bound to be internal disagreements based on ideologies and other issues, but these will not lead to threats to the nation’s existence, as we have here in Nigeria. So, why is our case different? This is because of the refusal of people in leadership and certain sentimental interests to allow the common good to prevail. Some use their population to suppress the minority ethnic groups around them, while others use religion, with negative religious preachers.
Why don’t we start by acknowledging all ethnic groups in the country and picking leaders from amongst them to serve in a general parliament? Why don’t we give everyone the right to worship their own religion irrespective of what part of the country they belong to? Why don’t we give local traditional leaders the responsibility to take charge of their enclaves and bear the consequences of failure? Why don’t we remove class discrimination in all forms and make everyone equal according to the laws of our land? Above all, equity and justice are the best security for any nation, but to achieve that, you must fix the local and traditional institutions. Our penchant for trying to subvert the will of others and impose ours is a serious hindrance to our progress. And when you get the people’s involvement, the traditional institutions must come into play or they will die off. Some say that they have exhausted their usefulness; I do not think so. I think their role should be redefined with specific criteria for leadership and should not be an all-comers affair. It should either be done in a truly democratic manner or through the age-long traditional way of choosing leadership, which is grassroots-based. If we do not involve the grassroots, there cannot be peace and tranquillity, and therefore progress.
Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.
