1 | P a g e

DEMOCRACY AND THE FUTURE OF THE TRADITIONAL

INSTITUTION: THE PERSPECTIVE OF A CONCERNED

MONARCH

PROTOCOLS

I want to thank my very good friend and colleague of many years, HRM N. A

Achebe the Obi of Onitsha, and his highly distinguished Council of Traditional

Rulers for inviting me to share a few thoughts with you on the future of the

traditional institution in Nigeria.

Before I venture into the topic of the day, however, I want to briefly

acknowledge the abiding reciprocity of appreciation and admiration that the

people of the Niger Delta and Indi-Igbo, especially of Onitsha, Oguta,

Arochukwu, Obosi, Awka and their environs have had for each other down the

centuries.

The Igbo man’s capacity and dexterity to improvise have always provided the

2 | P a g e

romance of contrast against the inscrutable adaptability of the ijaws to the

challenging frontier of open seas and endless waterways.

Over time, we became trading partners long before the incursion of the

whiteman, which we resisted in convergence of purpose, to pre-empt

colonialism and the desecration of our institutions, values and traditions.

Ndi-Igbo, especially the so-called waterside Igbos (Onitsha, Oguta, the Aros,

Aboh, Ahaba etc.) not only traded but also inter married with us, producing

many men of renown and valor, representing the best of our two traditions, of

whom the King Jaja dynasty of Opobo and my own past two predecessors (the

Alagoas) of the Mingi dynasty must be counted among the foremost.

With this weight of history on my mind, my first inclination to turn down the

invitation for this address in the end proved futile. And so here I am to take a

shot at a topic I chose myself, knowing its enormous breath and depth, to

which I can hardly claim to be able to do full justice, try as I would.

For reasons of practicality and focus, I have chosen to speak not as an

academic would do, but rather entirely from the perspective of a traditional

father, who is very concerned for the future of our institution within the brand

of democracy that Nigeria has chosen for itself.

3 | P a g e

Timing was the second reason for my choice of topic. Next year will make a

hundred years since Lord Lugard ‘s amalgamation of the Northern and

Southern Protectorates of Nigeria, the celebration of which has already been

officially flagged off. It seemed apposite to me therefore, that the traditional

institution should reflect on its roles past, present and future, even as the

nation takes stock of its political evolution. My own observation of events so

far, is that the political class is not likely to do this for us, if we fail to do it for

ourselves.

Still on timing, we are all aware of the ongoing constitutional amendment

process to which sundary inputs have been made advocating recognition of

our institution. My chosen topic should thus be of general interest at the

present time.

Needless to say too, that 2015 is around the corner and the jostling for political

power has already begun. It seems to me crucial therefore, that we make our

voice heard now before the electoral manifestos of the contending political

parties are finalised. After all, the advocacy of group interest is very much a

corner-stone of the American-type presidential system of government that we

have rightly or wrongly chosen for ourselves.

We may be too late or even be ignored in this electoral cycle, but we cannot be

ignored indefinitely.

4 | P a g e

As I stated earlier, this is one vast ocean of a subject to navigate, but for it to

be both concise and of practical interest, I have chosen to quarter it under the

following sub-heads:

the democratic ideal, generally and specific to Nigeria;

the traditional institution, its roles and evolution from pre-colonial times

to the present;

consequences thus far of the neglect of the traditional institution in

governance and, increasingly also in the civil society at large, and

a few scenarios for the traditional institution as we look to the future.

THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL

Just about anybody, who has been through secondary school will tell you that

democracy is a system of government of all for all by all ( or at least a

majority). The words in which this ideal is framed, and their romantic appeal

in the modern era, can however be said to be partly an after-glow of the

cataclysm of the French Revolution in the 18th Century and of the American

Civil war in the 19th . Quotes such as Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (French

Revolution) and Government of the People for the People and by the People

5 | P a g e

(Lincoln at Gettysburg), have resonated with successive generations for two

centuries or a little less.

From the origin of its practice in ancient times and from its capture of the

popular imagination from the early 19th century, down to our own modern

political dispensation, the democratic ideal has continued to carry the notion

of being the best possible system of government. Everybody is enamoured

with the notion that they have equal say with everybody else in the way they

are governed. Yet we all know how seriously limited the notion is in actual

practice and the extent to which its promise of equal say by all, has been

perverted by the privileged classes that have operated it down the centuries.

These limitations led the great Churchill to quip that democracy was the

“worst “ system of government, except there weren’t any better.Even more

extreme, was King Charles I of England who said in the early 17th century that

democracy was “ a drolery invented by the French who thought that there

were extra-ordinary possibilities in ordinary human beings”.

Indeed, in our own modern dispensation, democratic governance has become

such an all comers affair in some countries that some of you may well be

inclined to the view of King Charles I.

6 | P a g e

I am sure it has not escaped your notice that some of the most repressive

regimes in the world are actually the ones that call themselves “Democratic”

Republic of this or that.

So, the age old challenge remains to find the right balance between too little

and too much democracy.

From the misty past when the human species first learnt the value of

cooperation, there has been some mechanism or other for collective decision

making. From these primitive models of collective decision making through the

great civilizations of Sumeria, India, Egypt and Greece, there always has been

some form of higher guidance behind the mass participation structures of

governance. This form of higher guidance was invariably a monarchy and or

the nobility in larger or smaller cliques, for which the Spartans coined the

name Oligarchy.

Thus the essence of democracy can be viewed as the balance of power

dynamics between three institutions: the monarchy, Oligarchy, and the

masses(or a mass based institution of governance)

If the King was powerful enough to dispense with the oligarchy and maybe

even the “assembly” we call such government, a monarchy. If, as in Greece

there was only a loose oligarchy (stronger in Sparta than Athens) and a

7 | P a g e

stronger assembly, we call it democracy in the classical Greek sense. In, pre-

imperial Rome, the oligarchy was made up of two tribunes (one for the

Plebeians and the other for the Senate). The Senate itself represented the

“assembly” presided over and often manipulated and dominated by the

“Oligarchy”.

A deep reflection on the evolution of governance structures leads me to the

belief that no society can permanently banish any one of these three

fundamental elements of ordered human society without paying the price. The

ideal to strive for is thus to find the best accomodation between the three.

Accordingly, in those countries where the kingship institution is at least as

ancient and well established, as it is in Nigeria, it would amount to a grave

error of judgement to not seek to involve it for effective governance.

In Rome for example, the last Tarquin king, Tarquinius Superbus was

overthrown in 510BC, they thought for good. Yet in course of time, the Senate

became corrupt, and the Oligarchy of Julius Gaius Caesar and Flavius Pompey

fell out with itself, leading to the emergence of an Emperor who was simply a

king by another name. In our own days we have seen the re-call of king Juan

Carlos in Spain after the Fascists made their exit, leading inexorably to the

8 | P a g e

return of a monarchy. The question is: are we being adequately guided by the

lessons of history? Can Nigeria really do away with the monarchy?

This brings me to the Nigerian experience with democracy. Democracy

by leave of the British Colonial power, may be said to have started in Nigeria

with the Hugh Clifford Constitution of 1922, when the first ever legislative

Council was set up, initially with limited indigene participation.

Traditional rulers still administered large parts of the country under

supervision of the colonial authorities. With time, the participation of Nigerian

elites and politicians increased by stages to the point where an elected

assembly of Nigerians emerged in 1951 under the Macpherson Constitution,

effectively signalling the winding down of traditional authority. However,

thanks to the unique structure of the westminster type of government,

traditional authority in diluted form, survived through the ‘Housees of Chiefs’

instituted in the 1954 Lyttleton Constitution.

With the suspension of the independence constitution, following the 1966

Coup, the military ruled until 1979. Then, in clear rejection of the traditional

institution, the military handed over to HE Alhaji Shehu Shagari a Presidential

Constitution, which had no room for two chambers in the States Legislatures,

and a higher chamber (the Senate) at the Federal level with no seats for

traditional rulers. The 1966 Coup, thus practically concluded the winding down

9 | P a g e

process of traditional authority started in 1951 by the colonial administrators,

who never forgot nor forgave the stiff resistance to colonial incursion by our

illustrious ancestors. The process was all along aided and abetted by our own

politicians, and completed by the military in the 1979 Constitution.

The North has fared a lot better in this regard, because of the in-built

administrative/Judicial(Sharia) structures of Islam, though strictly speaking

Islam itself was foreign to the original indigenous traditions of the North, just

as Christianity was to ours. I simply leave this as an observation as it would be

too much of a digression to explore these differences further.

The smaller, kingdoms and city-states of the coastal and southern forest

belt(excepting Benin and Oyo) have not been so fortunate. With the virtual

proscription of our once potent tribal religious beliefs (e.g. Igwekala Ojukwu

Diobu, Ogidiga, Ekonko, Ekpo etc) by the colonial authorities as retribution for

our stubborn resistance to them, the traditional institution in the south, lost

the core spiritual values and sanctions that could have protected us from

assault by the then emergent political class. As our trado-religions were driven

underground by Christianity, so were we more or less disarmed and no longer

able to enforce traditional authority over former client communities. The latter

took licence and relished the balkanisation of the kingdoms that once held

10 | P a g e

sway over them. Emerging demographic imbalances became a ready excuse

for this balkamisation and unbundling of the natural rulerships of the southern

kingdoms and city-states.

The rout that traditional authority has suffered under the US-type presidential

system, compels me to trace the roots of the sentiments that gave rise to it in

the first place in Nigeria.

Begining with the first generation of politicians in Nigeria, two impulses could

be discerned: one, adversorial the other consensual. The first in time was

Westminster in style and was embraced by our founding fathers who were

well read and understood its foundations in the British and european

phylosophies of John Locke, Emmanuel Kant, Georg Hegel and others.

The second was a consensual impulse, which shunned the Westminster style of

governance in which the Prime Minister , was daily exposed to public debate

and scrutiny. So it was that as the pool of foreign educated first generation-

type leaders ran dry, and the military made their incursion into politics, the

Presidential system gained preference. The Head of State and Government

could choose to stay remote a-la-Abacha and still have all he wants done, using

his immense constitutional powers of reward, coercion, blackmail and

manipulation, all in the name of concensus.

11 | P a g e

Currently, the executive arm of government in many states is actually beyond

censure or any form of accountability. This said, it is clear also that the

Presidential system was prefered by the military with collusion of the political

class for the same reason that the US founding fathers did: a rejection of

monarchy. Sadly, they have and we are, yet to fully acquire the maturity and

the institutions to moderate/check the one-way flow of authority implicit in

the US-style presidential system.

I have dealt at length with the democratic ideal and must now turn my

attention to the indigenous Nigerian ideal.

In the interest of time, I will simply enumerate the main elements of what I

consider to be the Nigerian ideal of old:

Morality as an expression of trado-spiritual values: Before we acquired

foreign legal systems, immorality was inseparable from illegality and was

punishable up to banishment or death. This is in contrast to the

European systems of jurisprudence where all manner of immoralities

abound that are regarded as purely private and are neither justiceable

nor punishable.

Respect and fear for oaths as a binding commitment, breach of which

was believed to bring swift retribution, physical or spiritual.

12 | P a g e

Respect for tradition and its custodians as the basis for group self-

identity. The custodians were the kings, chiefs and elders.

Responsive leadership: There was constant dynamic exchange between

the community leader, his counsellors and the common people, these

three forming an organic whole as captured by the German phylosopher

Johann Fichte(1762) , and our very own Chinua Achebe in ‘Things Fall

Apart’. The heroic ideal, once cherished as the beacon towards which

good leadership aspired, is now all but a thing of the past, replaced by

consolidated mediocrity.

Abhorrence of those who broke the social code or committed

abomination: The community always had its way of dealing with such

people, with the result that social crimes were very rare. Most houses

made do with make-shift doors and windows, not the heavy barricades

we see today, because they were for privacy, not to keep out robbers.

Genuine care for the under-privileged the aged, sick, lame, orphans and

widows. In our present urbanised society, good-neighbourliness has lost

its meaning, replaced by the rat race and dog-eat-dog syndrome.

I have so far traced the roots of democracy in general and its Nigerian home-

grown variety in particular from ancient times, through the ideals of Europe

and the USA. To this I have juxtaposed the Nigerian trado-social ideal to show

13 | P a g e

that our so-called home-grown democracy is a local brew served up with

imported ingredients and not the ingredients that we would genuinely call

home-grown. Is it any wonder that our polity of today is so dysfunctional?

THE TRADITIONAL KINGDOMS: PARADIGMS PAST & PRESENT

Please permit me, ladies and gentlemen to now trace the changing roles of the

traditional institution from pre-colonial times to the present. Before the

incursion of colonial administration, the area which later became Nigeria was a

patchwork of kingdoms of greater or lesser extent, power and cohesion. In the

northern territories of that time, some uniformity in State administration was

introduced by the Jihad of Othman dan Fodio in the mid-nineteenth century,

while the rest of the yet-to-be Nigeria consisted of a mix of empires, kingdoms

and States, that were autonomous but varied in grandeur, size and

organization. The Oyo, Benin, Bornu, Nupe and Zazzau empires and kingdoms

were among the larger ones. In the east, were the city States of Onitsha,

Nembe, Kalabari, Bonny/ Opobo, Arochukwu, Calabar and Oguta.

The above and others have been described in varying degrees of detail by

renowed historians such as Dike, Crowder, Fage, Alagoa, Ikime, Tamuno and so

on. It is sufficient simply to give the key highlights.

14 | P a g e

In size, the bigger empires such as Benin and Kanem-Bornu were at least a

fifth of the present size of nigeria or perhaps the equivalent of one geopolitical

zone.

There was a well structured administrative system in Benin before the arrival

of the Portuguese in the 15th century, when the 15th Oba, Eweka I was on the

stool, following the long reign of the Ogisos. Different departments and

institutions of the traditional government were headed by tittled chiefs under

the king, either reporting directly to him or through a traditional Prime

Minister. A standing army of 20,000 – 30,000, expandable to 80,000 or 100,000

by call-up, existed under a commander who reported to the Oba. Some of the

Obas such as Ewuare, were well travelled beyond present day Nigeria and

maintained ambassadors to the European countries that made first contact,

notably Portugal. The Obas exacted tribute from vasal kings and adjudicated

on matters brought to them from subordinate kingdoms. Internal taxes were

collected and a strict system of ethics was enforced .

Above is the bearest outline of the organisation of a typical Nigerian traditional

empire. With the entry of the colonial powers, all this began to change. The

early british entry into Nigeria was for purpose of trade, initially in competition

with the French and Dutch, after the collapse of the exclusive papal rights

hitherto enjoyed by the Portuguese.

15 | P a g e

The arrowhead was the Liverpool company later displaced by the Royal Niger

Company of Mc Gregor Laird. Just as in South America, the missionaries played

a crucial role in “softening “ up our people, by getting them to abandon the

traditional belief system that had served them so well in war, peace,

jurisprudence and ethics.

The white traders were welcomed at first, as they recognised the organised

power centres and kingdoms, which acted as middlemen between their client

hinterland communities and white traders along the coast and up the major

rivers.

Treaties were signed to protect this trade initially in slaves, and were revised

when the slave trade was abolished in England and palm produce became the

new commodity of trade.

Trouble began when the white traders, driven by greed, started to impose

unfavourable conditions on our people, including a restriction on our access to

the hinterland, insisting on penetrating there themselves. Thereon, the British

traders began to apply force and threachery. King Jaja of Opobo was lured into

a ship and abducted for his astuteness and lack of cooperation. When the

behaviour of the traders became intolerable, King Koko, the 8th Mingi of

Nembe, took the fight to them, and sacked their trading station at Akassa, in a

lightening raid with a well organised fleet of some thirty war canoes.

16 | P a g e

After the various centres of pre-colonial power were subjugated by military

force, treachery, or subterfuge, the ethnicities so conquered were organised

by the British Government into the Southern and Northern Protectorates at

the dawn of the 20th century. At this stage, governance was still through the

various treaty kingdoms headed by rulers amenable to dictation by the

emerging colonial authority. In the case of the 8th Mingi of Nembe, who died

in 1898 after waging the Akassa war of 1895, the British authorities did not

want another strong leader to emerge by the people’s choice, but were

content to deal with the first Alagoa as regent until 1928, when one of the

earlier converts to the Christian faith and a pastor, Rev Anthony O. Ockiya

emerged as the 9th Mingi with their full endorsement.

This was the pattern in many parts of proto-Nigeria until the formal

amalgamation of 1914 and the eventual dismantling of traditional authority

that started in 1922.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE REJECTION OF INDIGENOUS TRADITIONAL IDEALS

I turn now to the consequencies of the delibrate emasculation of the

traditional institution over the years. My generation has the unique advantage

that at independence in 1960, we were still young and romantic enough to

17 | P a g e

believe that the heroic accomplishments of our ancestors, as told by our

elders, could be projected forward to a glorious future, once the whiteman had

packed up and gone. This was not to be, and it is what the present reality lacks

as critical success factor from our ancient traditions that I want to discuss now.

In politics and governance, generally, the traditional institution can play the

following roles:

Provide wise counsel to government

Provide two-way communication between government and the people

in matters of grass-root, health, empowerment, security, enlightenment

and development.

Our institution is one of lifetime tenure. Our advice is thus more

objective and takes into account the long term benefits and potential

consequences. We address sustainability, while the political class, by

their limited term calling, addresses expediency.

We are closer to the pulse of our people, and cannot do anything

contrary to their long term interest, without risking serious

consequencies.

The traditional fathers carry more credibility and trust for the reason

above cited.

18 | P a g e

The traditional institution can mobilize the grassroots for sustainable

self-help programmes.

It has an abiding responsibility for adjudication/intervention in local

disputes and crises, as well as in security.

In morality and ethics, the traditional institution brings to the table

values that are beyond the letter of our laws and constitution. I would

venture further to say that the morality and ethics of our ancient

institution is as far from that encoded in our jurisprudence as the law of

the New Testament is from that of Moses.

In the Mosaic law you could look at a woman and fantasise and not be guilty

of adultery, but in the law of our Lord you are guilty indeed, just as in our

indigenous tradition looking on female nudity is abomination. It is also

abomination to beat one’s parents or even to threaten them physically,

morality being the first consideration, while the modern law on such action

starts from justification as a base.

Many more examples could be cited of a whole range of traditional

abominations and taboos which under our laws are perfectly acceptable. This

enhancement of national values and ethos is what our nation is missing by the

near exclusion of the traditional institution from governance.

19 | P a g e

In matters of security, crime and punishment, our institution has much to offer

that has simply been overtaken by the brand of democracy that we have

adopted and the so-called modern values that go with it. Trial by oracle and

trial by ordeal have been banished in favour of legal trial, where one loses or

wins a case based largely on technicalities, the quality of advocacy and the

integrity of the trial judge. So called oaths are simply a joke now, but in Mosaic

law, crimes such as adultery were settled by oath believed for example, to

make woman swell if she was guilty. The punishment of criminals in ancient

times is in many instances still admissible in Sharia Law, but not in our western

laws. Examples are stoning, dismemberment or decapitation. Even the

traditional custom of parading a criminal in caricature garb is nowadays

considered offensive and repugnant in our laws.

I am in no way advocating a wholesale return to our old ways of establishing

guilt and allotting punishment, barbaric as some of them can be. But to the

African mind that is still subliminally in awe of the past, the adaptation and

refinement of a select range of the ways of our ancestors can be very effective

in the fight against the growing wave of crime, and the seeming powerlessness

of the law to deal with it.

In the maintenance of social stability, the traditional institution

continues to prove again and again its indispensable role. In 2001,

20 | P a g e

when the nation was near to break-up from the proliferation of

various ethnic militia such as OPC, APC, Egbesu, Bakassi and so on, it

was the senior traditional rulers that rose up to the occasion to give

Nigeria another lease of life. In 2011, when the bog-bear of ethnicity

and religion again raised its head over the internal politics of PDP

with regards to zoning and consensus candidacy, and the general

sense of political uncertainty, the South South Monarchs Forum

undertook a physically taxing and risky reach out to a cross section of

the senior monarchs across the nation. Our message was one of

goodwill and hope, moderation mutual tolerance and unity. By God’s

infinite mercy, the country was able to conclude the elections, and

we remain one today, against all the powerful forces of

disintegrattion.

The above may seem long, but is still only a small sample of what the nation

needs to put back in the system to counter its increasing dysfuctionality. There

cannot be a better time than now, given the present high calibre of the

incumbents of senior stools across the nation.

21 | P a g e

OPTIONS FOR THE WAY FORWARD

Fellow traditional fathers, ladies and gentlemen, please permit me to now

conclude with five scenarios or options for the future development of the

traditional institution.

Before dealing with the scenarios, I would like to inform you that a number of

initiatives have been made between 2009 and 2011 to re-gain formal

recognition of the traditional institution as was the case in the 1979

Constitution, or better.

The National Council of Traditional Rulers of Nigeria (NCTRN) led by the Etsu

Nupe, made a submission to the National Assemly in 2010, following which

the South South Monarchs Forum led by myself, also led a delegation to the

House of Representatives on the same issue. Subsequent to these initiatives

and prior to the 2011 Presidential Election, Mr. President(HE Dr. Goodluck

Jonathan), personally promised the NCTRN during a vist to him, that within 6

months of being returned to power, he would send a bill to the NASS on the

issue of constitutional recognition and empowerment.

When the above, failed to materialise, a small working group headed by the

Etsu Nupe and consisting of Gbong Gwom Jos, Eze Akaliro, Oba Alayimore, the

Emir of Kazaure, and myself met and finalised a draft bill to NASS under the

22 | P a g e

sponsorship of Senator Abdulahi Adamu, former Governor of Nassarawa State.

This bill had received second reading before the ongoing collation exercise of

state by state input to the planned amendment of the 1999 constitution.

Needless to say that our legislative approach now faces the risk of being

overtaken by the constitutional amendment process which could take quite a

while to be concluded.

Given this state of uncertainty, it is very important that we look at a few

scenariors of the way forward, just in case.

The scenariors I want to put forward are:

1. Do nothing. Simply continue with the roles we presently play, whether

we are recognised and empowered or not. The danger of this approach,

of course is that nothing stands still in nature, and it is more likely than

not that we will lose ground from the present already unsatisfactory

position.

2. Let government simply abrogate the institution, in which case we cannot

be held accountible for the social consequencies that will follow,

especially at the grassroot level. This may sound too extreme to

contemplate but you may not be surprised that a very well known

Senator and former minister under President Abacha made remarks of

this sort during the 2nd reading of the bill aforementioned.

23 | P a g e

3. Through unrelenting advocacy, develop into a major estate of the realm

over time. This could start at the state level, where the third tier of

government could report officially and directly to the appropriate

monarch, as was the case in the NATIVE AUTHORITY SYSTEM of the

1920’s and 30’s, at least up to the James Robertson Constitution of

1959.

4. Structured institutional convergence, merging the best of our ancient

traditions with the best of western democracy. This will call for major

constitutional reforms that can finally deliver a true “home-grown”

system of government in both content and style, not what merely passes

by that name now. Likelihood of this happening in our life-time or ever?

Possibly Zero!

My fellow traditional fathers, ladies and gentlemen, I do not want to add a

word more, but simply to leave the above for your thoughtful consideration.

Thank you and may God bless you all.