Chowing,

These Northern rulers (ruled Nigeria for 38 years) never bothered for the support of Northern masses. They merely proclaimed themselves as leaders of the North and did whatever they wished to do.

Part of the blame lies in the British who largely left a feudal system intact (and in some cases expanded it - Muslim aristocrats were put in charge of non-Muslim peoples). The South was administered much differently.

(You can see parallels in Pakistan where the feudal system was untouched - Benazir Bhutto was a scion of one of the largest land-owning families. Wisely, India did away with the power of the Maharajahs after independence).

The sad truth is that Northern leadership is not really interested in improving educational and quality of life indices in Northern Nigeria - they don't want people challenging the status quo. (It is easier to bribe and rig elections when the population is poor and uninformed).

The appeal of Boko Haram to the poor is that it offers a vehicle to vent long suppressed frustrations on the Northern elite. On the other hand, BH has an appeal to the Northern elite - they can use it to demand for more resources from the centre (which of course will be squandered).

No one in the Northern elite really speaks for the masses and that is the problem.

However, there is nothing really to negotiate. BH's demands are unrealistic. What is sorely needed is competent administration at the local level and the Northern elite seems incapable or unwilling to offer it.

The North is gradually accepting the necessity of greater devolution of powers from the center and is opening up to the need for a conference to discuss the future of the Nigerian state.

Yes, what she wrote is 99 pc correct.