The Crave For Restructuring And Government’s Subtle Leaning Towards A Project For More Inclusive Governance

The Emerging Six-Zonal Developmental Architecture as a Pathway to Equity, Inclusion and an End to the Tyranny of Majorities

Authored by Air Vice Marshal Monday Riku Morgan (Rtd) — Akii-Kwararafa Empire

— • —

Nigeria has, for decades, struggled with a fundamental contradiction: a country of extraordinary ethnic, cultural and geographical diversity governed through political structures that have often encouraged the concentration of power, resources and influence in the hands of dominant groups.

The consequences are well known. Across the federation, communities that are numerically smaller within particular political units have frequently complained of marginalisation, political exclusion and unequal access to public resources. In some cases, the numerical strength of one group has translated into what may be described as the “tyranny of the majority” — not necessarily because every member of the majority seeks to dominate others, but because political arithmetic can make the interests of smaller communities perpetually subordinate to those of the dominant population.

This is why the current national conversation about restructuring deserves serious attention.

The recent movement towards establishing six zonal developmental agencies corresponding broadly to Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones can be interpreted as more than an administrative experiment. It may represent an important philosophical shift: from a highly centralised system towards a more balanced architecture in which geographical regions can increasingly organise their development, compete constructively and address their internal inequalities.

If properly designed and constitutionally strengthened, such a model could become one of the most important building blocks for a more inclusive Nigerian federation.

1. Restructuring Should Be About Equity, Not the Break-Up of Nigeria

The word restructuring is sometimes presented as though it necessarily means the fragmentation of Nigeria. That interpretation is unnecessarily narrow.

Restructuring can simply mean reorganising the Nigerian federation so that government becomes more responsive, development becomes more locally driven and political power becomes less concentrated.

The objective should not be to weaken Nigeria. It should be to strengthen Nigeria by making every part of the country feel that it has a meaningful stake in the Nigerian project. A federation becomes stronger when its constituent communities believe that the system is fair. Conversely, persistent perceptions of exclusion create alienation, political resentment and, eventually, demands for separation.

Nigeria therefore needs a restructuring philosophy based on three principles: fairness, inclusion and competitive development.

The six geopolitical zones provide a natural foundation for such an approach because they already constitute the country’s broadest informal political and developmental identities. Rather than allowing every major ethnic group to seek dominance over smaller communities within existing states, a zonal framework can encourage cooperation across ethnic boundaries while giving every constituent community a voice.

2. The Six Zones Can Become Developmental Competition Centres

The greatest potential of the emerging zonal architecture lies in its ability to transform the six geopolitical zones into centres of developmental competition.

Imagine a Nigeria in which the North Central competes with the South West in agricultural productivity, the South East competes in manufacturing, the South South in energy and maritime development, the North West in agro-industrial production, the North East in reconstruction and trans-Sahelian commerce, and each zone develops specialised economic strengths without abandoning diversification.

Such competition would be healthy. Instead of political competition being dominated by the question of “who controls the government?”, the national conversation could gradually shift towards: who creates the most jobs, who attracts the most investment, who develops the best infrastructure, who produces the most food, who has the best human-capital outcomes, and who creates the most competitive industries.

This would represent a profound transformation of Nigerian politics. Development, rather than ethnic dominance, would become the principal measure of political success.

3. The Most Important Benefit: Reducing the Tyranny of Majorities

The greatest promise of the zonal concept may not actually be economic. It may be political.

Nigeria’s complex ethnic geography means that virtually every region contains multiple peoples with different histories, languages, traditional institutions and political aspirations. If political power is structured solely around numerical majority, the smaller groups can become permanently disadvantaged.

But a properly designed zonal structure can change the equation. A zone is sufficiently large and sufficiently diverse that no single ethnic community should automatically be entitled to dominate it. That is precisely where the genius of the arrangement could lie.

The major ethnic group in a zone would still have an important role, but it would have to negotiate, cooperate and build alliances with other communities. The smaller communities would no longer need to confront the larger group purely through the arithmetic of population. They could negotiate through institutional representation. This would create a culture of consensus rather than conquest.

The principle should be simple: no community should be powerful enough to permanently exclude another, and no community should be so small that its interests become irrelevant. That principle is central to genuine federalism.

4. The North Central Provides a Particularly Important Test Case

The North Central perhaps demonstrates why this conversation is necessary. The region is not a single ethnic or cultural bloc. It contains numerous peoples whose histories predate modern administrative boundaries.

Among them are the Tiv, Idoma, Igede, Jukun, Igala-related communities, Nupe, Ebira, Gbagyi, Berom, Afizere, Eggon, Goemai, Ngas and many other peoples and communities. The history of the Middle Belt cannot therefore be reduced to the political dominance of any one contemporary ethnic group. Indeed, many of these communities have historical, cultural and traditional connections that transcend present-day state boundaries.

The Kwararafa historical tradition is particularly relevant to this discussion. The relationships among communities associated with the Kwararafa sphere demonstrate that the political and cultural history of the Middle Belt is much older and more interconnected than the boundaries created by colonial and post-colonial administration.

The Idoma, Igede, Jukun and other communities with historical connections to the Kwararafa tradition should therefore not be treated as isolated political entities whose interests can be conveniently separated whenever contemporary political calculations demand it. Their historical interconnectedness is an important reminder that Nigeria’s present political map does not necessarily represent the deeper cultural map of its peoples.

This is precisely why restructuring must be approached with sensitivity. It must not become another mechanism for one community to redraw political boundaries in its own favour.

5. Zonal Development Should Not Become Zonal Domination

There is, however, an important warning.

The creation of zonal developmental structures will achieve little if the same old politics of domination simply moves from the state level to the regional level. The purpose must never be to replace six national power centres with six new regional majorities. That would merely reproduce the problem at another level.

The architecture must therefore contain strong safeguards for intra-zonal inclusion. Every zonal developmental institution should have equitable representation based on objective criteria. Minority communities must have guaranteed institutional access. Development funds must be allocated according to measurable needs rather than political influence. Projects must be geographically distributed. Employment must not become the exclusive preserve of the dominant group. Traditional institutions, civil society, professional bodies, women, youth and marginalised communities should all have avenues for participation.

In other words, regional autonomy must be accompanied by internal democracy.

6. From Marginalisation to Participatory Development

One of the greatest weaknesses of Nigeria’s present political system is that communities frequently define development through access to political office. If a community produces the governor, it feels empowered. If it does not, it often feels excluded.

This creates a dangerous cycle in which political office becomes a proxy for ethnic survival.

A better system would make development less dependent on who occupies the governor’s office. A community should be able to say: “Even if we do not produce the governor, our children will have access to good schools; our roads will be built; our farms will have markets; our hospitals will function; our young people will have employment; and our traditional and cultural identity will be respected.”

That is the true meaning of inclusive governance. Development should become a right of citizenship, not a reward for political loyalty.

7. The Zonal Agencies Should Become Engines of Economic Growth

The six agencies should therefore not become another layer of bureaucracy. They should become development engines.

Each agency should have the capacity to coordinate major regional priorities, attract investment, develop infrastructure corridors and facilitate economic partnerships among states. For example, the North Central could develop an integrated agricultural and agro-industrial strategy around its extraordinary land and water resources. It could connect farming communities to processing centres, storage facilities, rail and road networks, export markets and research institutions.

Similarly, other zones could identify their comparative advantages. The objective should be to create a Nigeria in which every zone has an economic reason to succeed — and every zone’s success contributes to national prosperity.

8. A New Social Contract for Nigeria

Ultimately, the restructuring debate is about more than administrative boundaries. It is about creating a new social contract.

The old political formula has too often encouraged communities to ask: “Who controls power?” The new formula should encourage Nigerians to ask: “How can everybody benefit from power?”

That is a fundamental distinction. The first produces domination. The second produces inclusion. The first encourages ethnic competition. The second encourages regional cooperation. The first creates winners and losers. The second creates shared prosperity.

Nigeria does not need a political system in which one community must lose for another to win. It needs a system in which every community can win without another being defeated.

9. The Road Ahead

The emerging zonal developmental architecture should therefore be regarded as an opportunity to begin a much larger national conversation. Government should deliberately examine how these institutions can evolve into stronger regional development platforms while remaining firmly within the Nigerian federation.

There should be constitutional, legislative and administrative discussions about: stronger regional development coordination; equitable representation within zonal institutions; transparent allocation of developmental resources; inter-state infrastructure planning; regional economic investment authorities; protection of minority interests; stronger local government autonomy; competitive regional development indices; and mechanisms for measuring inclusion and equitable development.

The ultimate objective should be a competitive federal Nigeria in which every region is encouraged to excel while every constituent community is protected from political exclusion.

— • —

Conclusion: A Nigeria Where Nobody Has to Be a Majority to Matter

Nigeria has reached a point where restructuring should no longer be treated merely as a political slogan. It should be treated as a governance imperative.

The creation and strengthening of zonal developmental institutions may be an indication that the country is gradually recognising the limitations of excessive centralisation and the enormous potential of regional cooperation. If this process is handled intelligently, Nigeria could move towards a new model of governance in which the six zones become engines of development rather than arenas of ethnic rivalry.

More importantly, the model can help dismantle the tyranny of majorities that has historically produced feelings of marginalisation in many parts of the country. No major ethnic group should be able to enter a region and treat every other community as politically insignificant. At the same time, no minority community should seek to exclude the majority. The answer is inclusive power-sharing, equitable development and institutionalised cooperation.

The future Nigeria should not be one in which the strength of a people is measured by the ability to dominate others. It should be one in which strength is measured by the ability to bring others along. That is the essence of true federalism. That is the promise of restructuring.

And that may ultimately be the pathway towards a Nigeria where every region competes, every community participates, and every citizen has a reason to believe that the Nigerian project belongs to them.