I think it is paradoxical that on one hand folks are kicking against the balkanization of Kano’s symbol of “greatness”, aka traditional institutions in Kano, and on the other hand they’ve been severally lamenting Kano’s symbols of mediocrity such as almajiranci, poverty, low educational enrollment and attainment, etc. So, which one is it? Is the traditional institution “great” at the exclusion of everything else?
Meanwhile, beyond the nostalgia of historical “greatness” and some level of emotional satisfaction (I’ll refer to this as pseudo opium-effect), what practical and verifiable hallmarks of “greatness” are there for one to see? I don’t see many and that’s why I disagree with the notion that SLS is currently sitting on a “great” throne. Surely, any throne upon which actionable decisions that can transform the lives of the people cannot be made, or which, by its very existence, does not bolster tourism and the huge incomes that come with it, cannot be considered to be “great”. Moreover, how “great” is a throne that can easily be balkanized by a handful of politically motivated goons in a little under 72 hours?
So, in my opinion, the conversation to be had is on how to make the Kano (and other Nigerian traditional institutions) “great”, but certainly not one on how to maintain any phantom “greatness”. If we agree, then there’s the need for constitutional provisions to protect traditional institutions from the wrath of disgruntled politicians. If on the other hand we think that they are simply relics from the past, with no relevance in contemporary times, then we should abolish them altogether and save cost. Another alternative, of course, is to maintain the status quo in which the fear of sitting governors is the beginning of wisdom, even for “great” traditional rulers.
the community chronicle news 