Lagos: Perhaps, nothing captures the state of Nigeria's nationhood better than the current controversy over "zoning". Fifty years after gaining independence from the British colonialists, there is still a mutual feeling of suspicion among the federating units of Nigeria. There is still a strong agitation that political power must be appropriated in such a way that no section of the country would dominate the other. If anyone thought 50 years is a long enough period for Nigeria's component units to concretise their relationship, the current "zoning" debate-punctuated with threats and counter threats-should be a wake-up call. In truth, Nigeria is still locked in the vicious circle of political instability, both real and imagined.

I intend to argue, today, that at the root of our frequent political crises is the failure to understand or define the very nature of our federalism. Is Nigeria a federation of states, regions, geo-political zones, ethnic groups or religions? I have noticed over a long period that we are a bit confused over this and it usually deforms public debate. We sometimes assume that Nigeria is North and South. We talk of "Northern Nigeria" and "Southern Nigeria" as if they were two established entities that fused into one. In fact, the South was never one. The North could lay claim to a semblance of oneness before colonial rule, considering the size of the caliphate, but it was not one either. It was the colonialists that created the two protectorates and amalgamated them in 1914 for the convenience of trading and administration.

The concept that Nigeria is North and South is, therefore, very weak and this misconception causes tension at regular intervals. Were Nigeria to be simply North and South, anytime something comes to the South, for instance, every Southerner should be satisfied. President Olusegun Obasanjo, a Southerner, spent eight years as President. That should have pacified the South-east (Igbo) and South-south if indeed Southern Nigeria were one. But that is not the case. It is also assumed that when power goes to the North, and a Musa or Ibrahim gets it, the interest of an Afolabi from Kwara or Mshelia from Borno has been automatically served ("one North"). This again is incorrect. The differences up North are far deeper than that, even if not glaring.

We need to understand these complex issues. To the Yoruba, everybody from the North is "Awusa" (Hausa). So when they see a list of federal appointments with a couple of Abdullahis and Yakubus, it is immediately assumed that "these Awusa people have come again". Yet Yakubu could be a Kataf from Kaduna and Abdullahi an Igala from Kogi! The Hausa/Fulani, meanwhile, will complain about how Christians dominate a ministry, even if the Christians in question are Northerners like them. So how should "balancing" be defined? Is federal character balancing on the basis of states or ethnicity or religion or the North/South regional divide? This question, as simple as it sounds, is one that hurts our nationhood all the time. It allows for political mischief which politicians never run away from.

We are 50 and still full of pranks. The original fault lines are still clearly marked, if not enlarged. We advance self-serving arguments just to make a point that suits our bias. We mobilise different sentiments depending on our motive. We play up religion when we want; geo-political zone when it suits us; ethnic origin when we like it and region as we deem fit. This, I suggest, fuels a lot of political tension in Nigeria. Fifty years after independence, we are still neck-deep in this divisive game. When we resolve the basis of the union and define federal character in very clear terms, then we would be able to structure political debate properly. Everything should be clear to everybody so that there would be less room for manipulation.

But I also have to admit that something makes the mobilisation of sectional sentiments thrive. We run a federation where it is believed that before you can get something out of government, your own "brother" must be in charge. It is not just in Abuja but also at state and local government levels. The location of projects, the distribution of "juicy" appointments and contracts, as well as the bragging rights make Nigerians think it is always better to have one of your own in power. This may be true to an extent, but it is not always to the benefit of the people. Of Nigeria's 50 years of independence, Northerners have ruled for 35 years or thereabouts, but Northern Nigeria is far behind the South in basic development indices. Obasanjo was President from 1999 to 2007, yet the road to Ota, where he lives, is in shambles.

Nevertheless, we have to agree that it is very easy to mobilise ethnic sentiments. It is not really about logic or fact but emotions and political mischief. The key issue, I believe, is the sharing of economic benefits. Chief Obafemi Awolowo once said: "There can never be peace in a kennel where you have three bones to four dogs." How true. For as long as government controls the bulk of economic resources and for as long as poverty pervades the land, we will always quarrel and fight along sectional lines. We will always believe and act on the premise that one section is trying to dominate the other, even when it is the elite from different ethnic groups that are lording it over us. The actual factions in Nigeria are the elite vs the people, but the debate is couched as North vs South, Christian vs Muslim, etc.

The basic needs of Nigerians from all the 36 states of the federation are the same: food, shelter, clothing, education, roads and healthcare. If you doubt me, travel round the country. I have taken time to ask common people questions about what matters to them most. The least of their worries is the ethnic origin of our leaders. But the elite and their satellites who frame public discourse are saying something else. Fifty years of our union and we are still saddled with arguments about breaking up Nigeria as if that is the solution to our problem. Incompetence, corruption and "leadership without conscience" can be found in every village and every city and every state in Nigeria. No ethnic group is worse than the other. Ask EFCC and ICPC.

The good news is that as we journey into another 50 years, I believe that someday, Nigerians will come to realise that the solution to our problem is not ethnic or regional or religious affinity. Breaking up the country, as attractive as it may sound to some sections of the country, is not a fool-proof option. In fact, it may create more problems and re-awaken dormant animosities that had been curtailed by the amalgamation of Nigeria in 1914. Ultimately, I insist, the solution to this negative, divisive politics is good leadership. For as long as we are ruled by leaders who have no conscience and no ideas of how Nigeria can take its pride of place in the comity of nations, we should not expect a turnaround in the way we play politics here.

If we look back at 50 years, the conclusion is very clear: Nigeria can be better than this. This is not the best we can offer. We should not be discussing potholes and cholera and candles in 2010! We should be celebrating Made-in-Nigeria electronics (which is very possible). We should be celebrating industrialisation and technological advancement. We should be celebrating Nigerian universities ranking in the world's Top 50. We should be discussing per capita income of $20,000 and GDP in trillions of dollars! We would have had less time for bickering over power rotation and ethnic balancing and federal allocation of oil petrodollars.

I am very reluctant to say happy birthday to Nigeria, but each time I remember that this clueless clique of self-serving leaders will not be in charge forever, I sigh in relief. Then I am able to say happy birthday-in hope and in expectation.

* The Simon Kolawole "Live" column