The Chairman of the session, Chief Solomon Lar was a Second Republic Governor of Plateau State whose era witnessed some of the most trying challenges of democracy and governance in a multi-ethnic and plural society. Chief Lar was also the first chairman of Board of Trustees of our Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Africa's largest political organization. Alhaji Balarabe Musa's gubernatorial tenure as Second Republic Governor of Kaduna State provided a litmus test for the practice of multi-partism and ideological radicalism in a milieu dominated by conservative and anti-democratic forces. His impeachment in 1981 was a prelude to the demise of the Second Republic which came to pass in December 1983. The fact that juggernauts like Lar and Musa are still active in politics serves as a great inspiration for some members of my generation who are faced with tribulations and pressures similar to the ones they encountered.

Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife was Governor of Anambra State in the aborted Third Republic of 1991 - 93. His radical views and academic credentials from Harvard stood him out of the motley crowd of the time. Bruised though he was by the annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential elections and its aftermath, Dr. Ezeife has not shed his plumagee of a tireless and progressive federalist and crusader for justice and democratic decorum.

Comrade Adams Oshiomhole is the President of the Nigeria Labour Congress. But he is much more than that. A warrior for democracy and freedom, Oshiomhole is one of Africa's finest examples of a committed proletarian leader whose ornate eloquence and mental depth always assure us of a reincarnated Michael Omnibus Imoudu, Nigeria's foremost labour leader. They both hail from the same cultural area of Edo State. Oshomhole's indomitable and combative spirit reminds us of nationalists like the late Aminu Kano, Isaac Adaka Boro, Ken Saro-Wiwa of Nigeria and Cyril Rhamaphosa of the Congress of South African Trade Unions. For Oshiomhole, democracy, good governance and workers' power are inseparable.

Alhaji Adamu Muazu, Governor of Bauchi State is my fellow traveller in the perilous task of trying to restore democratic governance to a land long famished by military rule and autocracy. Luckily for Muazu, he does not yet face the kind of pressures which the abuse of democratic governance has brought to bear on me and others who insist that Nigeria must be run as a genuine federal country.

With this pantheon of eminent Nigerians and political veterans, it is difficult to offer any views that can be truly novel and original. The more I think of these names, the more I am tempted to assume that they have seen it all. Yet the search for new ways and options for our country must continue because Nigeria is too important in Africa and the world to be left to its fate. It is in this spirit that I hope to examine some of the issues that follow.

WHAT IS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE?

In October 2003, I delivered a paper on "Nigeria: The Challenges of Democratic Transition" at the Ohio State University, United States of America. It was under the auspices of the Nigerian Association which used the opportunity of the 43rd anniversary of our independence to reflect on the way forward for our nascent democracy. Some of the views I will express at this session are contained in that paper. I intend to draw attention to issues such as democracy, federalism, resource ownership and control, violence in politics, and the option of state or decentralized police. I will conclude with some remarks on the need to intensify the process of demilitarizing the polity so that democracy can grow.

The first matter to deal with is the term "democracy" which derives its meaning from the Greek words of "demos" (people) and "kratia" (rule). The concept has undergone many variations with practice but the universally acceptable definition is the one simplified by President Abraham Lincoln of America as "government of the people, by the people, for the people" There are American scholars who argue that even their country does not practice democracy but plutocracy, that is, government of the rich by the rich and for the rich.

There are purists who will argue that Nigeria does not yet have a democratic system. Rather, what we have is a system of periodic elections for choosing political office holders. There is no need to split hairs over definitions because the experiences of people in the world differ a great deal in relation to the forms and traditions of democratic governance. In any case, the holding of periodic elections is an essential element of democracy.

The truth is that the evolution of democratic culture in Nigeria has been troubled by too many interruptions. First, the British did not show enough commitment to enthroning democracy in the sixty years of their colonial rule. They hardly left when the armed forces seized power and truncated the development. Second, the residues of feudal autocracy have survived for too long, especially in the northern sections of the country. Balarabe Musa can bear me witness in this matter. Feudal aristocracy and military dictatorship have combined to undermine the possibilities of fostering a democratic order suitable for our multi-ethnic and plural society. I am aware that the factor of individual failures and temperament is important, but it is more rewarding to identify the fundamental causes of the difficulties being faced by our democratic experiment.

CARICATURE FEDERALISM
For me, the most stubborn impediment to democratic governance is the demolition of the federalist system in Nigeria during military rule. Lest we forget, the federal arrangement was discussed and negotiated for over a decade before its experiment started in 1954. Refinement was brought into its theory and operation from 1954 to 1963 with the Independence and Republican constitutions. Being diverse and plural like India, Nigeria chose the federal mechanism to mediate the differences and varieties in culture, politics and resource endowment. The system encountered strains and stresses, but it worked.

There is no need to recount the details of the advantages that federalism brought to Nigeria from 1954-1966. To take only one example: perhaps many of the achievers and professionals gathered in this session would not have had the benefit of education if the regional governments of the time did not enjoy the autonomy to devote substantial funds to that sector. The industrial estates in Lagos were established under Chief Awolowo's regime with money derived from agricultural produce of Western Nigeria. The government of Ahmadu Bello opened up the Northern Region to rapid modernization because there was ample surplus from groundnut, cotton and other produce.

The Eastern Nigeria government under Michael Okpara set up farm settlements and industrial districts in Port Harcourt and other major towns with revenue that accrued from oil palm and other forest resources. In just two years (1964-66), Dennis Osadebay's tenure as premier of the Midwest Region created a record in industrialization which successive governments have not met, much more surpass. Had the federal government of the time seized the money of the regions as it has done to the crude oil wealth of the Niger Delta, Nigeria would have been poorer for it. I will comment more on this matter under the section on resource control.

There is one other democratic reward of the federal system which is hardly mentioned. This relates to the principle of sovereignty and autonomy by the constituent units of the federation. Professor Wheare whose work is the cornerstone of the federalist debate insisted that in a federal system, all the layers or levels of government are co-equal, each with its own authority. None is subordinate to the other. In the period 1954-66, each of the regions in the country had it is own constitution in addition to the central one to which they all subscribed. There was no conflict of interest. The regions also expressed unfettered autonomy by sending their own representatives to countries with which Nigeria had diplomatic relations. The ambassadors of federal Nigeria and the representatives of the regions did not contest for supremacy. They collaborated to explore the economic and consular opportunities that Nigeria needed to promote development.

As we seek democratic restoration for Nigeria, we must insist on the reinstatement of these fundamentals of federalist governance, namely, autonomy for the constituent units, constitutions for each unit and freedom to relate to the global community.

RESOURCE OWNERSHIP/CONTROL

This is by far the most controversial political issue of our time and it is at the core of the federalist debate. The minimum demand of the revenue-yielding states is that
each unit of the federation must exercise the power of owner-ship and control over its natural and other resources. The historical and political justification for this clamour are evident in the summaries given in the foregoing paragraphs. Nigeria will never become a stable and economically buoyant country unless and until the political
units enjoy this autonomy as a constitutional right. The meager concessions of 13 % derivation in Section 162(2) of the 1999 Constitution is not a substitute for resource
control. It is a palliative grudgingly granted the oil-producing states in order to temporarily arrest the trend towards violent revolt by the masses. The 13% derivation
does not even go to Lagos State whose sea ports and consumer tax bring more money into the Federation Account than comes from some oil-producing states.

We in Delta State will never abandon the struggle for resource control because our losses are far too enormous to be forgotten. On each day, oil production from Delta States grosses about $25 million. The Naira equivalent for a year is about ONE TRILLION. From the derivation formula, Delta State gets no more than N50 billion in a year. When the British conquered Nigeria, our people did not suffer losses of this magnitude. Why should this injustice be perpetuated against our people four decades after
independence. It is unacceptable.

Our campaign has been so misunderstood and distorted that I crave your indulgence to stress a little how resource control will benefit the whole country and transform its
economy and technology within a decade. With resource control, Nigeria will be freed from the tragedy of sole dependence on revenue from crude oil. Other mineral
deposits will be exploited to diversity the economy and millions of jobs and investments will be generated.

Let me illustrate with the potentials of states in the North of the country From beef and processed fruits alone, Bauchi can earn foreign exchange that is larger than what the entire country currently gets from oil export. Agricultural cultivation has limitless treasures. Even the grass in the savannah region can be processed into newsprint and paper products for the 21 million students in the country's educational institutions. The ginneries and textile industry in Kaduna State can produce enough material to clothe Nigeria and West Africans. A boom in this industry will free Nigerians from the indignity of dressing in borrowed robes or second-hand materials discarded by foreigners. What I have indicated in respect of those states is applicable to all the 19 northern states and Abuja.

I will return to the endowments in solid minerals. The entire middle belt of Nigeria is a treasure land of solid minerals, including columbite and uranium. The most visible mineral asset is granite stone whose huge hills and mountains stretch 800 kilometres from the Benin Republic border in the west to Cameroons in the east. The radius of this mineral includes all the southwest states excluding Lagos; it encompasses Kebbi, Sokoto, Zamfara, Niger, Kwara, Kano, Kaduna, Jigawa, Nassarawa, Plateau,
Benue, Bauchi, Gombe, Yobe, Borno, Adamawa, Taraba, Enugu, upper Cross River, Kogi, Edo, and Abuja Capital. Experts are of the view that the exploration of the
granite deposits can last for 100 years. What that means is that the solid minerals alone can sustain a thriving national economy for a century.

When we restore resource control, there will be mutual rivalry amongst the various states to attract foreign partners to develop all natural resources and those that will be
brought into being through hi-tech engineering. The country that will emerge from this economic and industrial revolution will be truly African giant and an economic world power. This is the goal that we seek for Nigeria. This is the primary motive of those of us involved in the resource control struggle.

THE MENACE OF VIOLENCE

The phenomenon of electoral violence is another frightening aspect of politics in Nigeria. Those who do not understand the problem seem to think that Nigerians are bound to violence. Its origin goes deep into the evolution of the Nigerian state formation. The roots of it are explained in studies such as Professor Remi Anifowose's book,, Violence and Politics in Nigeria: The Tiv and Yoruba Experience (Enugu: NOK Publishers International, 1982) Valuable information is also available in Professor J. I. Tsayo's, Conflict and Incorporation in Nigeria (Zaria: Gaskiya Corporation, 1974) and Professor T. N. Tamuno's The Evolution of the Nigerian State (London: Longman, 1972). Professor Richard S. Sklar did a pioneering study on the matter in his Nigerian Political Parties: Power in an Emergent African Nation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963).

The evidence from scholarly works shows that institutionalised violence has always been an attractive alternative in the quest for power in the past 200 years. The Fulani who conquered the Hausa indigenous states in 1804 used maximum violence to establish their supremacy. The Kanuri, Tiv, Nupe and other minority groups employed warfare to counter the expansion of the Othman Dan Fodio regime. The Yoruba who halted the extension of the Jihad to the Atlantic coast did so through war. The Yoruba themselves underwent a prolonged civil war from 1860s to 1903 when the Bower Treaty at Ibadan in 1903 brought the turbulence under control.

The British who unified the Nigerian nations into one in 1914 achieved it through the application of maximum force. They used war to seize Lagos in 1861. The Ijebu and Egba fell to British superior arms in the 1890s. Nana of Itsekiri was overthrown in 1894 as the Americans did to Saddam Hussein of Iraq in 2003. The Nembe (Ijaw) war of 1895 was quelled in pools of blood by the British. The Benin empire was overrun in 1897; Oba Ovonramwen Nogbaisi was deported to Calabar along with King Oghwe of Agbarha. The Nupe and adjoining districts of the middle Niger were overcome by Frederick Lugard in the early decades of the twentieth century.

When we recall the amalgamation of 1914, we sometimes assume that it was done in a peaceful atmosphere. Rather, it was the terminal event in a long period of bloodshed and massive destructions. The colonial state that resulted from the amalgamation was sustained through the force of arms for 50 years until 1960 when Independence was granted. Contrary to what Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe said, Nigeria's freedom was not won on a platter of gold but on rivers of blood. Some of the gruesome details can be found in Mokwugo Okoye's Storms on the Niger (1963), Professor Obaro Ikime's Niger Delta Rivalry (1969) and various books of history on Nigeria.

From the independence years, violence continued to be deployed in the political struggle for power. Violent protests arising from the 1964-65 elections spilled over into the 1966 military coup and the civil war (1967-70) The 30 years of military rule can be described as the triumph of violence and force. Coups d'etat were executed through the barrel of the gun and those whose attempts failed were massacred in the full glare of the public. The annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential polls is an equivalent of a coup. The suppression of the popular uprising against the annulment caused the death of many and dislocation of social and economic life. Nigeria is yet to be free from that trauma.

Those of us in the Niger Delta have lived with violence for nearly forty years on account of the politics of oil resources. The 1999 Human Rights Watch monograph titled the Price of Oil contains copious reports of the devastating effects of the oil economy on the region. Those who seek more passionate account can read Ken Saro-Wiwa's On a Darkling Plain and A Month and a Day. Hapless and helpless, some youths of the Niger Delta have resorted to militant protests to dramatize their plight. Killing by security agents are frequent. Five years into civil rule, there is a police/military checkpoint at intervals of every five kilometres of Niger Delta highways with fierce-looking operatives brandishing lethal weapons. For travellers on these militarized roads, the image of terror gives the impression that the Niger Delta is under conquest by foreign powers.

I have given the above history in order to underline the point that the environment for politics in Nigeria is saturated with violence and use of force. Dialogue and compromise are essential features of democratic practice. For the hundred years of Nigeria's existence there has not been ample opportunity to imbibe these democratic virtues and promote them in politics. This is a philosophical problem that has to be tackled in order to foster the spirit of true democracy.

STATE OR DECENTRALISED POLICE
This is one of the contentious issues of public discourse. It is related to the agitation for resource control and a fair and just federal system. I am a vocal advocate of the restoration of the decentralization of policing and security responsibilities of government because it is an integral part of the federal system of government. Nigeria has the dubious reputation of being only country claiming to be a federation that does not practise the system of decentralized policing.

The case for the restoration of state (regional) police is overwhelmingly popular. First, the system was operated from colonial times up to the First Republic of 1960 - 66. Second, the experience with a unified police force has proved to be a monumental failure. The Federal Police is too small in size, grossly under-funded and woefully ill-armed to offer satisfactory service for the large country and population.

The British had enough imperial power to control the country from a central authority. Yet, they were enlightened enough to establish regional autonomy for administration and policing. The Nigeria Police Force which developed from the West African Frontier Force had its functions. The regional police and local authority police had their areas of work. Even the United African Company had its police outfit. The Nigerian Railways had its constabulary. All of them complemented one another and thus were able to provide adequate security for life and property.

The military regime abolished the decentralized and provincial police in order to impose a unitary system. The military probably had other reasons to undermine the police which is a civil force that is closest to the people. The outbreak of the 1967-70 civil war necessitated the unification of authority and command. The same argument was applied in the demolition of fiscal federalism as the Federal Government took over, first, all oil revenue, and later other vital resources such as universities and media organizations. The exigencies of the war explained these drastic measures.

When the war ended in 1970, Nigeria should have restored the federalist arrangement that our early nationalists subscribed to at independence. Sadly, the 1979 Constitution reinforced the anti-federal structure and thus impeded the orderly development of democracy and its institutions. The police is one victim of this arrested process of nation-building. Rather than serve as a civil force to meditate private and inter-government relations, the Nigeria Police is often abused by the central government to intimidate the populace and parties other than those in control of the centre. In their time, Governor Solomon Lar and Balarabe Musa had a raw deal from the police. This is why the force is so notoriously ineffective in combating crime and safeguarding life and property.

For Nigeria to develop democracy and the economy, it has to restore the system of decentralized policing. The advantages are numerous. The system will allow for state, local, community and municipal police formations. They will be owned and maintained by these various authorities. The officers, rank and file of these formations will be drawn from the local areas where they will operate. Their intimacy with the populace will enhance confidence and efficiency. The integration of the police into the cultural milieu will fortify their moral and morale as the dread of failure or professional misconduct will constantly inspire them to excel in order to earn the love, support and appreciation of those they serve. Corruption will be minimized and so will resort to brutality and brigandage. With a decentralized police, the image of imperial superiority will disappear. This is the kind of police that can work with local vigilance groups to ensure order and safety.

Job creation is another advantage that will be boosted. Currently there are less than 500,000 police in a country that is four times the size of the United Kingdom. On the average each state has less than 10,000 officers and men. This figure is woefully inadequate to police even the major urban centres in each state. In Delta State where half the territory is riverine hardly any police presence is visible in the areas which, though lavishly endowed with natural resources and oil, are neglected and underdeveloped. With decentralization, millions of idle and angry youths will find employment. In states like Lagos and Kano with numerous local councils, the existence of policing opportunities will absorb all the so-called "area boys and girls" whose frustrations and criminal antics pose a real threat to society. In fact, these street-wise recruits will be useful in detecting sources of crime.

Even with these various formations, there will be need for a federal police. At it is in the United States of America, the federal security outfits such as the Marines complement the operations of the state and municipal police when an exigency demands so. Because they are relieved of the burden of local policing, the federal services are efficient and professionally competent. I submit that Nigeria cannot practise sustainable federalism and democracy without a truly decentralized police system.

CONCLUSION
I would like to conclude my remarks with a plea for sustained effort to demilitarize our society to make it conducive for democratic governance. The ideology of central command and intolerance of dissenting views is still too strong. The military which presided over the transition to civilian rule in 1999 probably had their fears about the imminent danger posed to the nation's unity by the torrent of pro-democracy agitations. This, perhaps, explains why the conditions for participation in party politics were made constraining and financial demanding. The restriction in number of parties and the requirement for national spread are antithetical to free democratic practice. For example, an apparently innocuous rule in the PDP constitution on endorsement of local election candidates by the National Secretariat of the Party has turned out to be a legal hurdle.

The creation of new local government councils is constitutionally recognized as a prerogative of a State House of Assembly. Some states have gone ahead to implement this provision by establishing new councils to meet local demands for grassroots participation in politics. The ruling PDP and the National Assembly are unwilling to accept the new councils. Even the uniform date for holding local government elections does not accord with the principle of freedom.

All of us involved in this discussion had had their unique experience in terms of tribulations of office. We have all been targets of the misuse of "federal might" in dealing with states and leaders who treasure the independence and division of power guaranteed by the Constitution. The joys and toils we have had are part of the collective history of Nigeria's nation-building process.

As you would have noticed, I have refrained from blaming individual players for the problems and challenges of democracy. It is more rewarding, in my view, to take a scientific and holistic approach to Nigeria's predicament, because as Professor J. P. Clark lamented in one of his civil war poems, we are all casualties of coups d'etat and military dictatorship. It is my conviction that working honestly in concert, we can pull Nigeria out of the quagmire and put it in the path of democratic renaissance and greatness.