Nigeria Should Adopt the Swiss Cantonal System of Government

Thank you, TheLDDebator, for accepting this challenge.I will state at the outset of this rejoinder that my opponent cited several arguments that are unrelated to, and that divert attention from, the core premise of this debate which, for the avoidance of doubt, is: Nigeria is a multi-lingual and multi-religious society that can, and would, benefit by remaining as one country. However, there is tremendous corruption which is affecting the progress of the country. I believe that the inability to properly address the endemic corruption is because the political structure makes it difficult to hold leaders accountable. Likewise, there is persistent agitation with regards to from which ethnic group the president comes and this affects the peace and stability of our union. These issues merit addressing with a system that has proven to work for a society similar to Nigeria's. Switzerland is also a multi-lingual and multi-religious society and the best example of such society that is stable and progressive. Since there is empirical evidence that the Swiss Cantonal System of government works for a multi-lingual and multi-religious state this system is worth emulating by Nigeria and other multi-lingual and multi-religious countries that desire political stability and progress.As I earlier stated my opponent has lumped into his/her discourse what I believe are several arguments unrelated to the debate. I believe that my opponent has overwhelmed himself mostly with "how" Nigeria may adopt or embrace the Cantonal System; my admonition to my opponent and other readers is to first determine whether the system may work for Nigeria without concerning themselves with "how" this may be achieved; that can come later. Nonetheless, I will challenge most of the issues raised and, hopefully, enlighten my opponent and readers that the issues raised by my opponent are red herrings.My opponent's exposition about several religions being practiced amongst Nigeria's several ethnic groups acknowledges the premise of my opening remarks so I will accept that he is agreeable to the basic facts about Nigeria.I am mystified by my opponent's reference to cantons being sovereign states as well as his concluding remark that "Canton's (sic) create multiple separating individual sovereign states". Majority, if not all, of Nigeria's ethnic groups were distinct sovereign kingdoms before the British began trading with West Africans preceding colonization; so? And, might I correct my opponent that Swiss cantons today are not "separating individual sovereign states"; Swiss cantons have local autonomy but are all part of one country - Switzerland!My opponent's reference that "About half a million Muslims and Hindus were killed in communal riots following the partition of British India" is misleading because he is comparing the division of one country into two/three (India and Pakistan/Bangladesh) with the creation of states/communes within one country. Nigeria has had several states created since her 1967 civil war and I am not aware of any of these state creations leading to bloodshed. Therefore, my opponent's argument here is not well-reasoned and is better dismissed out of hand.I assume that, with the reference to "according to History, there have been no peaceful transitions between governments", my opponent actually meant to write "according to History, there have been no peaceful transitions between [different styles or types of] governments". Even if true, this is not a reason to preserve a system that is clearly not working. Clearly, if there were no conflict, the assumption is that all is well and to maintain the status quo. Conflict amongst the Swiss in the nineteenth century eventually led to the evolution of their stable cantonal system of government. Agitation by pro-democracy groups in Nigeria and the death of the dictator Abacha eventually led to Nigeria's transition from military dictatorship to democracy in 1998. Americans fought the British to gain independence and evolve an enduring democracy and the most powerful nation on earth yet. The Kenyan 2007 political crisis that was mentioned by my opponent led to reforms that are similar to the cantonal system: "On 4 August 2010, the Kenyan public voted to accept a new draft constitution, with 67% of Kenyans approving the referendum. The constitution devolves power to local governments...It also strips the presidency of certain powers and patronage that previously allowed for centralized control within the office of the President." (http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org...). Nigerians, and Africans, are clearly not benefitting from the status quo (as my opponent clearly stated in his expositions). However, with his statement, my opponent is also implicitly accepting that we can't have positive change without some agitation. Therefore, it is cowardly and pessimistic to expect not to agitate for progress because the transition might not be peaceful; one might as well cease to live (http://en.wikipedia.org...!)!In the "Impact Section" my opponent made several vexing assertions and I'll reference a few: "There has never been peaceful transitions in governments, much less to think Africa is capable of it". Is my opponent concluding that the future of Africa is condemned to what it is now and that Africa should just give up, roll over, die, and cease attempting to make political progress? Before the Swiss evolved their stable Cantonal System would it have been wise to conclude that stable democracy in a multi-lingual and multi-religious country was impossible? Also, my opponent states: "Thus, there would be death and a power struggle over who would be the leaders in the new government". Let me elaborate to my opponent and other readers that one of the features of the Swiss Cantonal System is that the federal government's jurisdiction is limited because of the local autonomy of the cantons and communes. In fact, "a different president is elected by members of the central government every year" (http://isil.org...). So, with regards to my opponent's concern about power struggle" - what is new? A lot of African governments today already contend with power struggles. One of the reasons for the often violent power struggles for African presidencies is the enormous centralization of power that the presidency confers and the opportunity for enrichment through plunder of state resources with impunity! The new Kenyan constitution as well as the Cantonal system deliberately whittle down the power of the presidency, which is very necessary in a multi-lingual and multi-religious state. With the cantonal system, there is less incentive for all the fracas that is encouraged by the current systems of government in Nigeria and in most of Africa.My opponent states: "Creating these individual states would lead to death and destruction in Nigeria, as there are many ethnic and religious groups that would not want to be in the same state". But "many ethnic and religious groups are already in the same state" in today's Nigeria and that hasn't led to "death and destruction" as my opponent would have us believe. However, clearly these artificial states that were created by the federal government without the consent of the people often have troubled state elections; these maladies are addressed in the Cantonal system. My proposal (the Cantonal System) is better as I stated in my opening remarks: "If the Swiss model is adopted each linguistic group in Nigeria would need to decide with which neighboring linguistic group it wishes to join to form a local government...; neighboring local governments can decide to join together to form cantons or states. The reverse can also occur." My own proposal addresses what my opponent agrees is a problem of the current system which is that the federal government creates these artificial state borders without recourse to the language or religious groups within the states and without their consent to co-habit.With regards to my opponent's comment that "the Nigerian government isn't fit to distribute resources to different areas" - again, this is the status quo today but I did not even address whether the federal government should distribute resources in my proposal - my opponent leaped to this conclusion on his/her own! In my suggestion that "sections of Nigeria with richer resources" be willing to share resources with less privileged sections I was attempting to address what might be immediate opposition to the idea of local/linguistic autonomy. Virtually all states in Nigeria today depend on the funds accruing from sale of the crude oil from the land of the Niger Delta people; the funds are shared amongst the federal, state and local governments. I was advocating that it is better to gradually wean newly formed (using methods suggested above) local governments and states off this dependency and that it might take some time to do so. I advocated 30 to 50 years but these are just suggestions. And I did not address how this voluntary sharing of resources would be done.My overall impression from my opponent's arguments is that he/she did not fully grasp and understand the basic structure and functioning of the Cantonal System as laid out in my opening remarks and which makes it a fairly resilient system that is also best suited for multi-lingual and multi-religious societies. I suggest that my opponent re-read my opening remarks and ask for clarifications where necessary before he responds in the next round.Best regards!