Nigeria Should Adopt the Swiss Cantonal System of Government

- MY OPPONENT'S COMPARISON BETWEEN THE USA AND SUDAN PROVES MY POINT - My opponent's comparison of corruption in the United States to that in Sudan despite both countries practicing similar forms of government does ultimately prove my point. http://en.wikipedia.org...: "Approximately 70 languages are native to Sudan" and "...for much of Sudan's history the nation has suffered from rampant ethnic strife". On the contrary, the United States has one dominant language - English. I would like my opponent to pause for a moment and reflect on this fact, and then again read my opening remarks about precisely what the Swiss model was evolved to solve. The Swiss model is best for multi-lingual and multi-religious societies. Clearly, Sudan should be copying the Swiss model rather than the US Republican style of Democracy! So should Nigeria! Let me also buttress the preceding point: Kenya, with its language diversity and religions, adopted a political system in 2010 that reflects features of the Swiss model after its bloody 2007 elections (http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org...); its recent 2013 elections were relatively peaceful. Clearly, as I earlier stated, "we should...allow the implementation of this system of government time to work before declaring it unworkable"; the Swiss certainly didn't get it right on day one but over time their system of decentralization in a multi-lingual and multi-religious society has proven successful. The facts and empirical evidence are glaring and should not be quickly dismissed by those who wish multi-lingual and multi-religious African societies well. - WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF POLITICAL CONFLICTS IN MULTI-LINGUAL AND MULTI-RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES? - When my opponent states that "...Democracy hasn't worked in Africa, which is another reason why the Swiss version won't work" I am dismayed. If so, why does my opponent support the US style democracy that Nigeria is currently practicing? My opponent also states: "...Swiz. is a first world country, with (not to be bigoted) better values and better control for the lack of a better word;..."; it is necessary to ask the question: were the Swiss born with better values that enabled them to achieve "first world country" status or did the better values that enabled them to achieve this status evolve over time? My opponent adds"…whereas Nigeria is a third world country, with conflict constant bubbling" (emphasis mine); I ask: what are the key causes of the conflict that is constantly bubbling that my opponent refers to? My opponent's answers to these two questions should help him to be more reflective; I have also helped with answers below in response to my opponent's GDP information on Nigeria. However, the following from my original debate post should help: Advantages of Decentralization Embraces Diversity. One important reason for this de-centralization of power in Switzerland is that, unlike most European countries, Switzerland is made up of several different major ethnic groups "Germans, French, Italians, and Rhaeto-Romansch. Over the centuries, whenever conflicts have arisen between these language groups, and between Catholics and Protestants, the Swiss have resolved the conflict by allowing each of the warring groups to govern themselves. Thus single cantons have divided into half-cantons, new cantons have been formed and border communes have opted to leave one canton to join another. In this way the Swiss have developed a system which permits people of different languages, cultures, religions and traditions to live together in peace and harmony. This makes the Swiss system particularly well suited to ethnically-divided countries. The above is based on empirical evidence! My opponent needs to show which other multi-lingual and multi-religious countries have practiced the Swiss style of government and have failed. On the other hand, it is very easy to identify several multi-lingual and multi-religious countries that practice other forms (non-Swiss model) of government that have failed or are failing even after decades of trying. I believe that the Swiss model is worth trying for these countries and should be given time to evolve. - INCONSISTENCIES IN MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS - My opponent is being less than judicious with the truth when he claims that I conceded his point that "according to History, there have been no peaceful transitions between [different styles or types of] governments". My opponent's observation is pointless because why else would there be a transition between styles of governments? The point being that these transitions occur as a result of discontent with a previous style and there is agitation for a better style, usually resisted by those benefitting from the status quo. Necessarily, such changes in the styles of governments are driven by agitations, they are progressive, and they are the reason why we have progressive nations like the US and Switzerland today. Africa cannot be an exception if we expect to make progress. Nonetheless, a change in the style of government doesn't necessarily need to be violent even if the change came about through agitations for change. Nigeria is currently having a national confab. The confab is happening because Nigerians are generally not satisfied with the state of the nation and have been agitating for a national conference to discuss our union. The outcome of the confab could well be recommendations for changes to the current style of government. In response to my claim that Nigerians and Africans are clearly not benefitting from the status quo my opponent writes: "This is false, as with the current government, Nigeria is prospering, becoming, according to Citigroup, "the highest average GDP growth in the world between 2010"2050." Along with other things, Nigeria is doing well with the current government, and changing it wouldn't help in any way". However, following are unassailable facts that prove my point and makes meaningless my opponent’s comments about Nigeria’s GDP growth: (1) "Poverty in Nigeria remains significant despite high economic growth it first started sometime during the British empire. Nigeria has one of the world's highest economic growth rates (averaging 7.4%[1] over the last decade), a well-developed economy, and plenty of natural resources such as oil. However, it retains a high level of poverty, with 63% living on below $1 daily,[2] implying a decline in equity. Poverty in Nigeria can be also caused by the political instability of the country. However, these programs have largely failed to overcome the three reasons for this persistent poverty: income inequality, ethnic conflict, and political instability." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org.... (2) "Poverty in Nigeria? Steady GDP growth, a thriving agricultural sector and a booming oil industry should be raising the quality of life of poor Nigerians. But, political instability and widespread corruption is undermining economic progress and widening the inequality gap." Source: http://borgenproject.org.... (3) In the news today, the World Bank released data that Nigeria is third On World Poverty Index (http://allafrica.com...). The above facts leave no doubt that Nigeria is retrogressing, that Nigerians are not prospering as claimed by my opponent, and that ethnic conflicts, political instability and widespread corruption are causes of poverty in Nigeria. A nation where increasing numbers of its citizens remain poor cannot be claimed to be prospering. My opponent argues that "...Africa needs to learn how to become a better continent by itself, just as Teenagers need to learn life lessons by themselves". With this statement my opponent essentially concedes that African governments need to change. But does that mean that we can't learn from history just as other nations have evolved stable governments by building on what already existed, which is the essence of this debate - i.e., - to copy a system that suits our multi-lingual and multi-religious societies? The system that most African governments have been copying is more suited for homogenous societies which is what most European countries are. Even if African governments evolved something new it would still require changes in styles of government, which my opponent is equally arguing against, viz.: "according to History, there have been no peaceful transitions between governments". So, to my opponent: which is it? Do we need to change and deal with the fact that agitation for change may not be peaceful, or retrogress because you want peace which, by the way, we don't currently have? My opponent can't have it both ways! And my opponent needs to understand his own quote about history: is it the transition that is often not peaceful or the agitation for the transition? It is clearly obvious that my opponent's entire argument and opposition is premised on his opinion that the adoption of the Swiss model by Nigeria would be violent. So, disabusing him of this premise may help him change his mind and support my proposal for a Swiss model for Nigeria. I hope to be able to suggest a few tentative ways in the next round where space would permit. However, in the next round, I would first like TheLDDebator's honest assessment, given the empirical evidence available, that had Nigeria adopted the Swiss democratic model as opposed to American style democracy in 1998, whether he believes that Nigeria might be better off today than it is under American style democracy; I want TheLDDebator to suspend any thoughts about how that might have happened and to only consider that, were the Swiss model what Nigeria practices today, would accountability of public officials be better, would corruption be lower, would local self-sufficiency increase (relative to excessive focus on crude oil revenue sharing at different tiers of government), would the society be developing faster, etc.? Over to you TheLDDebator. Cheers!