The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • Nigeria at 57

    Nigeria at 57

    The occasion of the 57th birthday of mother Nigeria, offers another opportunity for deep reflections on the Nigerian Project from the vantage point of the experience of the eventful year that is on the way out. A year ago, on this page, I offered my one cent on the path that had been trodden till then, and some ideas about the desirable approach to national greatness.

    Of course, every Independence Day has offered the same opportunity and our national and state leaders have never failed to take advantage of such opportunities since 1960. “To what end or purpose?” you might ask.

    We are still a divided nation. We are still at the bottom rung of the ladder of development. The avoidable diseases of ignorance, poverty and hunger still afflict our people. While we have collectively identified corruption as a formidable enemy, we have failed to rise to the defense of the nation against it. As a result, it has spawn other fearsome enemies including terrorism, cultism, gangsterism, and kidnapping, all entities in the industry of hopelessness. On top of these, we are not even sure of a common national identity.

    While national political leaders publicly espouse lofty ideals of unity and pontificate on the indivisibility of the nation, sectional leaders do not fail to question the sincerity of such rhetoric which eschews the reality of social dysfunction in the body politics of the nation. Subnational entities resent the public recourse to slogans of indivisibility because, such rhetoric elide their private recourse to undermining the same ideal of unity.

    None of the foregoing observations is deniable. But because they capture the reality of our national angst does not mean we should give up and throw up our arms in the air in frustration. I do not give an inch to cynicism. If we agree that the nation has known better times, we can also agree that if, and when reason prevails, we have the solution to the current malaise. Therefore, until we reach the promise land of global recognition as a giant that acts like one, no rational thinker must give up.

    The state of the nation is one of unease. But much of the wound that causes the pain is self-inflicted. We know of how it all started. An experiment in federalism was the consensus of national leadership at independence. The structure was perfect for the diversity which everyone understood to be our strength. That leadership was also a thoughtful, disciplined and committed one. Aware of the needs of their peoples, they left no stone unturned in search of opportunities for satisfying them.

    In Awolowo’s Western Region that I grew up in, I do not recall seeing many Yoruba adults begging for alms on the streets. There was a traditional ritual of women with twin babies obeying oracular instructions to solicit for alms from the public. Many of those women devised creative ways of obeying this injunction. Some would have their household turn-tables play in the open courtyard of their compounds, where they dance with their babies, one on their backs, one in their hands. They did this because they wanted to avoid the indignity of alms begging.

    In today’s Southwest zone, however, begging is an industry with a variety of factories and brands. It is not limited to the poor. There is the smart begging factory of police and private securities on the beat. There is the alliance of airport begging aides. The menace of begging party crushers cannot be ignored. There is the coalition of Area Boys and gangsters and their violent begging culture. Young Almajeris used to go out at night after a full day’s recitation of the Koran with their masters. Now, they are out in the streets in daylight, raising the question what time they have for learning the Holy Book.

    These are anomalies that we have come to accept and live with as if they are a normal process of growing and aging. At 57, the country is not able to provide for the needs of her citizens. That is not normal and it ought to give leaders who voluntarily assume responsibility to lead sleepless nights. Imagine adult couples at 57 who are unable to provide for their families. We would not consider them as a success. Indeed, any such couple would be the first to consider itself a failure.

    To the extent that this country has failed in her responsibilities to her citizens, the harsh judgment of history is unavoidable that she is not a success story. To suggest that she is moving in the right direction, even if true, is a copout. Therefore, verdict is undeniable that, thus far, the nation is a failure.

    It is in the context of this reality that we must understand the various agitations and complaints. While everyone would happily identify with success, it is natural that human beings detest being associated with failure. And while it may be true that the failure of the country is attributable to the failure of individuals to contribute to the pool of resources that it needs to succeed, leadership bears the brunt of the blame. Therefore, it is no use telling dissatisfied citizens that they share in the blame game.

    Leadership that is voluntarily assumed has enormous responsibilities to bear. Insightfulness is required. Knowledge of what needs to be done is essential. Objectivity in the investigation of issues and in the proffering of solutions is a must. On the part of national leadership, an eagle’s eyes on the national horizon with a determination to give every part a sense of belonging is an indispensable quality. Platitudes about national unity does not cut it when the foregoing are missing. Unfortunately, events of the recent past have not demonstrated a clear commitment to satisfying these requirements.

    With regards to the agitations for secession, internal autonomy, true federalism, and the like, leaders have approached the matter from a variety of angles, ranging from contemptuous dismissiveness to deceptive understanding. For some, it’s political posturing at best, and treason at worst. For others, the agitation is an unfortunate tactic on the part of some sections to impose their will on others. While neither of these positions deny the truth that the nation started on a foundation of a federal structure which it abandoned by military fiat, it does not have an answer for why the present quasi unitary structure is better than the original federal structure. Naturally, agitators see deception and manipulation and they are not impressed.

    A year ago, I made the following remarks on this page:

    “If we are true to ourselves, we must realize that since its inception, nation building and national unity have not been taken seriously as an indispensable factor in the advancement of the country. We counted on raw power to cow individuals and groups into submission. It has not proved effective and there is no reason to believe that it will. Too much over dependence on political power as the be-all and end-all is dangerous for a country still in the throes of ethnic divisions and sectarian suspicions. To build a nation where no human is oppressed, we need to invite all elements to the architectural desk for the design, and once they feel a part of the project, it shouldn’t be difficult to attract them to the construction site.”

    I still reaffirm here the kernel of that position, which I think recent events have proved true.

    Raw power has not stopped the new agitation for Biafra. What fuels it is not a single individual malcontent, no matter how irrational leaders may take him to be. The raucous crowd that he attracts are not all irrational rabble-rousers. Many have genuine grievances as those in other zones. At it is not a question of one zone or section trying to impose its will on others. The thought of the advocates of restructuring for true federalism is for the good of all as it was during the pre-independence constitutional debates when advocates of a federal constitution rationally convinced all regional leaders and political parties to its merits.

    Happy October 1st!

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

     

     

     

  • Confronting multiple loyalties in Nigerian politics

    Loyalty is an important quality of character for a politician to demonstrate. Loyalty is faithfulness to an obligation that is voluntarily assumed. To be loyal, therefore, is to be dependable. In its simplest understanding, loyalty in politics is the bond that secures the players in the field of politics in mutual expectations. For the politician, he or she is secure in the belief that if he or she plays by the rule and does not betray the trust of the people that elected him or her into office, their loyalty is assured. For the electorate, a politician’s fidelity to campaign promises is the test of loyalty.

    Loyalty is the bedrock of any relationship, more so, political relationship. Having the back of a politician gives him or her the courage to fight for a cause that supporters invest in. And for supporters to know that a politician has their back is also reassuring as they give their all to the cause. It is a game of mutual reassurance. From recent history, we also know that electorates will forgive a politician’s indiscretions and moral failings if they appreciate his or her loyalty to a cause they espouse and invest in.

    For many politicians, however, the matter of loyalty is not a simple one because they have several objects of loyalty. For instance, sometimes loyalty to constituents may end up as disloyalty to a party when pursuit of a local cause conflicts with the core of a party’s ideology. To have a good handle on the discussion, therefore, we need to come to terms with the many objects of loyalty. As I will argue, while there may be genuine and understandable conflicts, some of such conflicts grow out of clearly indefensible objects of a politician’s loyalty. There are legitimate and illegitimate objects of loyalty in politics.

    One immediate concern is whether political loyalty is or ought to be to individuals or to a cause, a party, or to the institutions that define the nation. To the extent that a political or government leader demonstrates fidelity to the common political cause that unites them, he or she deserves the loyalty of associates or followers. What is indefensible is the demand of blind loyalty even when it is obvious that the leader is morally bankrupt and clearly averse to the ideals of democratic citizenship.

    The first of the legitimate objects of loyalty, therefore, is ideology, the belief system regarding the objective of and rationale for politics. Politics is an institution whose purpose is the development of humanity in a particular nation-state. Ideology answers the question “what is worth fighting for?” in a simple catchphrase that is understandable to the people. Even when the catchphrase is as highfaluting as Democratic Socialism, Action Group broke it down for local consumption as “Freedom for All, Life More Abundant” or Afenifere. And with that ideological formulation, it rallied the troop to action.

    If ideology is a legitimate object of loyalty, the political party, the organized group that promotes it deserves the loyalty of the politician who subscribes to the ideology. It is commonsensical. Indeed, to behave otherwise is self-destructive. Again, Awolowo’s position on the supremacy of the party is unassailable. Voters embrace a political party based on the ideological product it sells to them. Therefore, those politicians that the party presents to the voters as its candidates have an obligation of loyalty to its ideals and programs.

    Third is the politician’s constituents whether they voted for or against her but whose interests he promised to advance through her party’s ideology. While many of the constituents may believe in a different ideology, the fact that the politician wins the race demands loyalty to his promise to all of them. Normally, then, there should be no conflict in the discharge of the politician’s obligation to all three objects of loyalty, namely ideology, political party, and constituency. The party reinforces the ideology and the constituency stands to benefit from the realization of the promise of the ideology.

    But there are other objects of loyalty that may not fit neatly into the political chessboard. For, the politician, like other human beings, is a creature of many parts. He or she is a member of a family, an ethnic nation, and a religious organization. Each of these may have no input into the ideological orientation of the political party. However, primordial and spiritual loyalties, attributed to human nature, sometimes trump ideological beliefs. Thus, to the disappointment of the party and its leaders who must defend its beliefs and promises, one or more of their own members may be compromised in an essential requirement of commitment to its ideology.

    As annoying as it may appear, the kind of conflicting loyalties that a politician may experience in such situations cannot be written off or dismissed as outcomes of an irrational distraction from the single goal of achieving ideological purity. In a multi-national and multi-religious polity, where politicians are products of particular ethnic and religious upbringing, it is a challenge for them to see beyond the confines of ethnic and religious identities. It is more so, where, in our own case, the seed of mistrust represented by colonial divide and rule strategy germinated into a giant tree of political cynicism about anything national.

    As politicians face the challenge, the challenge for political leaders is to keep the focus of their associates on the prize of national greatness. It is a challenge, but it is not one that committed national leadership cannot overcome. Requirements for success include open and verifiable fairness, demonstrable commitment to the tenets of democratic governance and the practice of true federalism, and a formidable credential in forging alliances across the major divides of ethnic and religious loyalties. Unfortunately for Nigeria, a leadership with a preponderance of these qualities has yet to emerge.

    The point of the above is this. Politicians are required to demonstrate loyalty to an ideology to which they subscribe, and which successfully attracts the electorate, and to the political party that initiates and promotes it. On the other hand, politicians also have primordial connections, including their ethnic nationality, religious affiliation, and family connections which also demand their loyalty. Loyalty to all is bound to conflict because of their different and opposing interests. Where that is the case, leadership intervention is essential to smoothen the edges of conflict. But leadership also has to be above board.

    There is one loyalty, however, that is questionable. Loyalty to self-interest is the culprit. Here, however, we also have to pay attention to nuances. Self-interest, as such, is not bad. In fact, the true self-interest of a politician should lead him or her in the way of doing the right thing.

    It is in the self-interest of a politician to have the trust of the electorate. if he or she wants to continue to serve as their public servant. But where the politician hasn’t demonstrated loyalty to the ideology that the electorates embrace, or to the party that they trust to promote it, then he or she risks losing their support. Therefore, if a politician sticks to his or her true self-interest, the appearance of a conflict may just be that, an appearance.

    On the other hand, greed, which we often confuse with self-interest, is the undoing of many politicians. Greed is the absence of self-control in the pursuit of selfish ends in public service and it evidences disloyalty to ideology, party, and constituency. An ethnic nationality or a religious organization is ill-served by a politician’s loyalty to greed.

    When a politician turns the coffers of the state to his personal use, not minding the hunger and disease ravaging his or her constituency, it is the height of disloyalty. A conscience that justifies that practice is dead. If political leaders bear any blame, it is that they should have known not to place such politicians in positions of responsibility. But that may be asking too much of humans that they are.

    In the matter of political loyalty, therefore, everyone has to wear their crown of glory or carry their cross of shame.

  • Hate speech and the liberal state

    Hate speech and the liberal state

    The perennial question of how a liberal state ought to deal with speech it considers inimical to its interest, including its unity and progress, has been a challenge from the inception of liberalism as a governing philosophy. There does not appear to be a consensus on the solution, not for lack of trying, but for the fact that many self-described liberal political systems feature conflicting interests which yield different emphasis.

    Some states, reeling from past atrocities in the exercise of freedom, choose the legal route to preserve the unity and dignity of the state and prevent a repeat of history. This is the case of Germany and its clampdown on seditious and defamatory speech. Others, not minding a fallout from hurtful expressions, choose fidelity to the liberal ideal which protects free speech even if it is at the expense of national unity. The United States is a leading example.

    Writing for four Justices in the Matal versus Tam case in June, Justice Alito of the U. S. Supreme Court observed that ‘the idea that the government may restrict speech expressing ideas that offend…strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful, but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”’

    For many, the opinion is too liberal. However, a state that gives no credence to freedom of expression but chooses the weapon of the law to regulate all speech is by no means an exemplar of liberalism. That is the road to totalitarianism, which is now generally discredited as a legitimate political practice even by those who exemplify it.

    The question may be raised “what is so unique about liberalism that its principles which prioritize individual freedom must trump competing ones which prioritize state or national interest?” There is no better answer to this question than the one provided by its foremost apostle, John Stuart Mill.

    For us to appreciate the thinking behind the prioritization of individual freedom, we must come to terms with the conceptual understanding that instructs it. And in doing so, we may also come to appreciate the gulf between that understanding and the reality of our own society.

    For Mill, individuality is to be appreciated, valued, and respected because individual human beings are endowed with great potentials for outstanding moral choices. When society enables those potentials to be freely realized, the consequence is a community of great human beings who care for one another and for the community. On the other hand, when those potentials are wrecked by an overbearing social control, whether in the form of public opinion or legal imposition, the consequence for society is social dysfunction, including alienation and anomie.

    Thus, beside his view that individual freedom is an end in itself, Mill offered its promotion as instrumental to the end of social cohesion and social progress. This was why he decried the “likings and dislikings of society” as the determinants of the rules that individuals are supposed to follow. For, such likings and dislikings could be idiosyncratic at best, or at worst, inimical to social progress. Case in point: social dress codes. Mill offers a “very simple principle”:

    “The sole principle for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Mill specifically ruled out the personal good of individuals as a legitimate reason for subjecting them to social control.

    We may rightly respond: but this is not the point of the regulation of speech, which may well conform with Mill’s principle because unregulated speech can harm other individuals as well as an entire society. Therefore, regulation of speech is not anti-liberal. A clear example is the case of declaring a false fire alarm in a crowded movie theater. Certainly, that kind of speech is subject to control because of its potential for catastrophe.

    The liberal contention, as stipulated by Mill, is that the example we just cited is an isolated one and not all opinions that have been subjected to social control belong to that category. What is decried is the coercion of opinion based on “the likings and dislikings” of society. Silencing the opinion expressed by individuals, no matter how noxious it is, is an illiberal device. “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

    Based on the belief that the clash of opinions in the market-place of ideas promotes the truth, liberals oppose regulation of speech which could negate the benefits of such exchange. Still, doesn’t it depend on the content of the opinions? If you insist that the world is round and I insist that it is flat, we have a clash of opinions. With an open public debate, backed up with evidence on both sides, the truth will come out. No harm is done to society by the free exchange.

    What about hate speech, of which there are several variants, including political campaign jabs at individuals, ethnic stereotypes, religious diatribe, clannish rhetoric within the same ethnic nation, etc.? At the expense of analytical clarity, we could group all together and pronounce an edict of prohibition on them. But it may do more harm than good. While some expressions in these various groups may be considered hateful, not all are.

    Indeed, many such expressions are considered as merely funny expressions even by the parties presumably targeted. Consider the following: Oyo dobale inu e loso (An Oyo man prostrates, but really his innermost part is standing erect). This is a remark about the alleged duplicity of an Oyo indigene, which covers the entire old Oyo province. This has become such a common parlance that presumably no Oyo man would reasonably consider it necessary to take offence. It is in the same category as Ibadan le mo e o mo layipo, which refers to the potential of an Ibadan indigene as a skillful social dribbler.

    What then is the major target of the government’s offensive against hate speech, which in the words of the Vice President is identical with terrorism?

    Minister Lai Mohammed combined hate speech, disinformation, and fake news in his well-publicized remarks on the matter, on the ground that they all have the same motive of causing disaffection among the populace and discrediting the government. If we abstract from the hard to fathom potential motivation, however, there appears to be a difference. Disinformation and fake news are easily debunked as the Minister did on several occasions that he referenced in his Jos address.

    Further, while purveyors of disinformation may have no motive of hate or disaffection because they may genuinely believe that what they convey is true; hate speech is, by definition, an expression of hate with a view to incite a group or groups to violence. If you pronounce that a group or an individual is nothing more than vermin or maggot, you are declaring that they are fitting creatures for elimination from the human race to which you do not believe they belong.

    George Lakoff, a Cognitive Scientist and Linguist at the University of Berkeley has argued that language can change brains for the better and the worse. “Hate speech changes the brains of those hated for the worse, creating toxic stress, fear and distrust—all physical.” He also observed that this internal harm can even be more “severe than an attack with a fist.”

    Hate speech is speech-act, fighting words, which directly harm their targets. As such, consistent with Mill’s principle of liberty, they are subject to public control. Therefore, the provisions of our legal system which criminalize such speech-acts are defensible by appeal to Mill’s liberal principle.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • The challenge of restructuring (2)

    The challenge of restructuring (2)

    At the end of this column last week, I submitted that, for the sake of its credibility and the well-being of Nigerians, which the party promised to promote, the least that APC can do now is fulfill its campaign promise to devolve power to the states. I also suggested that while the simplest form of restructuring is devolution of power from the center to the states, more complicated approaches had been proposed.

    Today, I will discuss two other proposals on restructuring, both of which start with a regional structure in which the current six geo-political zones serve as the federating units, differing only in the extent to which the regions are to control their resources. The first prescribes full resource control for regions and it requires them to pay taxes and royalties to the federal government. While the other proposal does not require full resource control, it demands an acceptable revenue allocation formula, which includes 50% for derivation. Thus, with the federation account still in place and 50% allocation to derivation, regions are encouraged to explore resources for their development agenda.

    In addition to these structural proposals, there have been suggestions for a change in the mode of governance from presidential to parliamentary system of government for reason of its simplicity of operation and modesty of financial expenses.

    I will start with the proposal for regional structure and an acceptable revenue allocation that favors derivation. What recommends it?

    Many are justifiably nostalgic about the exploits of regions in the first republic. This nostalgia, often passionately espoused, is sometimes couched in naturalistic idiom. As I once interpreted it: “We are regional beings. We were born regional. We matured regional. Regional development was the source of national development before the reverse gear was engaged and national development, slow and unpredictable as it was, became the driver of (negative) regional development. But even as we prioritized national development and focus on regional development took a retreat, we were still thinking regional.

    “From 1966 till 1979 at the height of national unity discourse and practice, regionalism as a habit of the mind never retreated. Military Governors as representatives of the Commander-in-Chief from Gowon to Obasanjo and from Buhari to Abacha were not immune to the sentiment behind regionalism. Even when they came from different regions or states, they lived among regionalists. They had regionalists in their cabinets. And more importantly, they were under pressure to improve the conditions of life in their areas of jurisdiction.”

    However, the foremost reason for the championing of regional structure now is that states, with their constitutional mandate, have not been up to the task with regards to the development and welfare of their various constituencies. The sorry state of the financial condition of most states and their inability to pay workers’ salaries, is just indicative of a last straw. The constitution prioritizes states as political and administrative units of the federation, but they are severely handicapped because they are practically unequal in their relationship with the Federal Government which controls a disproportionate amount of resources.

    It is undeniable that regions contributed to national development in the 50s and 60s. Groundnut pyramids and cotton sacks in the North, cocoa stores in the west, palm oil barrels in the east, and the various Marketing Boards were the foremost foreign exchange earners even well into the early 70s. Development plans in each region benefitted from these sources of regional wealth as was the case in the West which saw a boom in infrastructural development and social welfare programs.

    While the legal reality of states is recognized, thinking out of the box of statism requires the acknowledgement of the present ugly reality which makes it impossible for states to extract a sustainable development from the meager resources accruable to them internally, without running cap in hand to the Federal Government.

    There is, however, a powerful force against regionalism and it is more widespread than the power of the force in its favor: “We have been there, done that; and we aren’t going back there.” This sentiment is common to all the zones in the belief that states have brought even development to the remote areas of the old regions than any of them experienced in the era of the regions. This explains the demand for the creation of more states.

    Even in the south, the voices in support of regionalization are those of the political and intellectual elites whose justification is the economy of scale that regions enjoy. The issue, however, should not be determined by the number in support but by the effectiveness of the prescription for the nation’s ailment. Due to their size and limited resources, states lack the wherewithal to serve as development agents. Combining the human and material resources of states in regions can usher in a new era of development and progress for citizens.

    A formal regional arrangement is better wired for success in the matter of resource generation and integrated development. The present structure does not support regional coordination of development in many areas, including transportation, internal security, health delivery, and education. Where regions are viable federating units, the federal government has no business in education, including higher education. University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) was doing very well before its take-over by the Federal Government. Now there are many state universities that are no more than glorified secondary schools, and are not ashamed of producing unemployable graduates.

    But what becomes of states? One proposal is to make them provinces, albeit with more powers that assure residents of even development across the regions. A regional structure with regional parliament and executive could focus on developmental agenda such as transportation networks, tertiary education and research, mineral development, and health. As provinces, states can focus on basic education from Kindergarten to High School, agriculture and rural development.

    The proposal for regionalism with full resource control, with payment of tax and royalty to the federal government by the regions, is unquestionably the most controversial and least acceptable to core unitarists who prefer a strong center. What recommends it?

    One idea behind the demand for regionalism with full resource control is the principle of federalism which makes federating units equal partners in the federal project. As such, each is expected to voluntarily grant some of its original powers to the center. However, along with the granting of powers is the granting of resources to discharge those responsibilities. Thus, if the external security of the nation is the responsibility of the center, the federating units must contribute resources for the center to carry out its security responsibilities. Regional control of resources does not inhibit this central responsibility provided that each region pays taxes on the resources it controls.

    Such an arrangement preserves the autonomy of the federating units and allows them to use their resources for the development of their region and its peoples. It also encourages healthy competition and collaboration among the regions.

    The drawback, which opponents have not failed to notice, is that regionalism with full resource control weakens the central government vis-à-vis the regions. And for those who are genuinely averse to national disintegration, it is a cause for worry. If every region is equally endowed in terms of resources, the fear may be misplaced. Where regional endowment is unequal as it appears to be the case now, and there is a consensus for resource control, there is a precondition that the federal government and the regions can agree upon.

    For both regionalism with full resource control and regionalism with derivation, there will be an agreeable implementation delay period. During this period, a percentage of funds from the federation account will be set aside for the exploration and development of resources in the various regions. Provided there is an even resource development across the regions in the end, either partial or regional resource control may be implemented with the federal government receiving taxes and royalties from the regions for its responsibilities.

    If the political will exists, the difficulty of any of these approaches should not make them inaccessible. Of course, that “if” is significant.

  • The challenge of restructuring

    The challenge of restructuring

    There are two opposing sides to the debate over the need for the political restructuring of Nigeria. On one side are the proponents of restructuring. These are concerned patriots who have thoughtfully reflected on our journey as a nation since independence and have concluded that we need to do something radical about the structure of the country which has impeded its growth and progressive development and undermined the welfare of citizens. Knowing that they are right about their diagnosis of what the country needs, it is frustrating having to keep repeating themselves and not being heard right, or worse, being misunderstood as charlatans and opportunists. What else can they do?

    On the other side are the opponents of restructuring who feel that those advocates have a burden of explanation which they have failed to discharge adequately or to their satisfaction. While they may be accused of second-guessing and name-calling, these opponents are not necessarily being difficult. They may be genuinely interested in a dialogue on the path of progress for the nation that we all love.

    For instance, the common refrain from opponents of restructuring is that they are not even sure what its advocates mean by restructuring. Former President Obasanjo repeated this claim just a few days ago. Since there has been more than one interpretation of restructuring by its advocates, opponents have a point. Therefore, until we reach a common ground, advocates must not relent. It is for this reason that I am making this attempt at conceptual clarification.

    Now, of course, it stands to reason that if you do not understand something, you seek clarification and you just do not dismiss it offhand or reject it out of ignorance. But it is no use bringing this up. The one who seeks explanation seeks understanding. Advocates have a duty to provide that explanation for as long as it is needed.

    -But first, why restructuring and why now? The answer is not far-fetched. If we are all true to our conscience, we cannot deny that we have gone through series of restructurings since independence. Nigeria was constitutionally founded on a federal structure. In January 1966, it was restructured as a unitary system by the military. We seem not to think too much of it now as restructuring. But it was, albeit by military fiat. We did not have any say in the matter. Why did the military do it? They misdiagnosed the disease that afflicted the First Republic. The federal system of governance with its emphasis on derivation as the principle of revenue allocation was not the culprit. Rather, it was the imbalance in the relationship between the regions that stressed the system.

    A more effective remedy would have been the creation of more regions so that no one region was able to impose its will on the rest. General Yakubu Gowon did just this in 1967 but he retained the unitary structure of governance. For the past 50 years, it is what Nigeria has been saddled with. The various constitutional conferences and amendments have only just validated and replicated the military fiat of 1966. That was the case with the 1979 and 1999 constitutions. For those who question the need for restructuring now, the question they should answer is this: has the country been better off with the present unitary structure? And if not, is there a more auspicious time?

    That the country is not better off is visible to the blind. In 1963, no regional government ran to the federal government for bailout funds to pay its regional employees. Every regional government depended on the resources available to it because the revenue allocation formula encouraged regions to develop the natural resources available to them which they then used to promote the welfare of their citizens. On the other hand, the unitarization of the country with the revenue allocation in favor of the center has not encouraged states to explore resources available to them. Instead they depend on allocation from the center, which also dictates how much they pay to their state employees.

    From the foregoing, it seems clear that opponents of restructuring now mock reason when they suggest that advocates are a bunch of “unelectable” political opportunists and elites looking for jobs. Or that advocates are ethnic jingoists looking to destabilize the country. That an elder statesman could suggest that restructuring means secession is beyond the pale. Do you demand restructuring if you want secession? Obviously no. You demand disintegration! Let me assume, however, that not all opponents of restructuring are reason mockers. With those who are genuinely interested in a rational discourse on what restructuring means and why it is necessary now, we can come together in the hall of reason.

    From the various positions that have been presented on this matter, I would like to suggest that we understand political restructuring in three senses, ranging from the simplest to the complex. Once we come to an understanding of what each involves, it might be possible to reach a consensus on the advisability of starting with the simplest of the proposals.  If the simplest sense works by correcting the errors of the extant structure, so much the better. After all, the advocacy of restructuring starts from the premise of the reality of the malfunctioning of the present structure. I will discuss the simplest today.

    The most daring restructuring idea is regionalization plus full fiscal autonomy. This means that the six zones will serve as federating units with full control over their regional resources while they only pay royalty and taxes to the federal government.

    A less daring idea of restructuring points the present 36-state-structure as incongruous as the foundation of a true federal system. In the First Republic, the regions were economically viable due to the economy of scale that each enjoyed. With the proliferation of states, the advantages that accrued to the former regions based on their territorial scope are lost. Therefore, the proposal is that the present six zones be the federating units and the states be provinces or development areas. A revenue formula which prioritizes regions will be put in place. I will take these two up next week.

    In its simplest form, however, restructuring is devolution of power from the center to the component units. In a federation, the component units are the states or the regions. This assumes that the center is saddled with too many responsibilities that it cannot possibly discharge as effectively as the component units. Therefore, it needs to shed some responsibilities and transfer resources for the states to take on those responsibilities.

    The rationale for this cannot be clearer. The federal government takes on matters which states are more capable of discharging effectively to their residents. These include education, health, and agriculture. The usual response to this observation is that states are not even now able to pay their workers. What is not acknowledged is that the resources that the federal government corners for itself now would have to be released to the states when they take on these responsibilities.

    Along with the foregoing reasoning is that when revenue allocation was based on 50% derivation, regions scamper to exploit the resources available to them whether in agriculture or mineral deposits. Nobody has provided the justification for the shift in revenue allocation in favor of the federal government, which did not even occur during the civil war years. Why did the federal government reduce the percentage of revenue allocated to derivation from 50% to 45% in 1975 and continued to crash it to 1.5% and 3% until it was moved to 13% in the Fourth Republic? We behave as if this is normal but the advocacy for a return to status quo ante is not! Yet, clearly, this is the reason that states have not fared well and their citizens are wallowing in abject poverty.

    I hazard a guess that APC Campaign Manifesto promises devolution of power because it sees it as the least radical. I hope that the party will get on with it for the sake of its credibility and the well-being of Nigerians.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

  • Reflections on Buhari’s address

    Reflections on Buhari’s address

    President Buhari is back from medical vacation and Nigerians are rightly thrilled about his return after more than one hundred days. With the understanding that the President would not have ventured back without his doctors’ clearance, many are relieved that he has been declared medically fit for resumption of duty. They also understand that he needs to take it easy. Therefore, nothing much can be read into the news of the cancelation of the Wednesday meeting of the Federal Executive Council. The President certainly has the best wishes of his fellow Nigerians for a full recovery.

    Back to the welcoming hands and voices of jubilant admirers and grateful citizens, the President wasted no time in signaling his readiness to deal with some of the major issues that have roiled the nation in his absence. To be fair, many of the challenges that he was distressed about abroad did not sneak in after he left the shores of the country. Acting President Osinbajo did not drop the ball on the challenges in the President’s absence. Rather, these issues had been slowly but surely creeping into the body politic. Nnamdi Kanu was in detention. Boko Haram was degraded but still vicious. Kidnappers were on the loose. Militants were determined to ruin the economy in pursuit of resource control agenda.

    It is true that bad news gets exaggerated in their escape to other lands and the president may have been subjected to a barrage of social media fake news. Now, he will have a first-hand information to place matters in proper perspective.

    The foregoing observation notwithstanding, the President is right to take seriously the challenges that he referenced in his speech and it appears that many Nigerians agreed with the content and tone of his address. The injunctions from the bully pulpit were well-received. As one distinguished senator observed, the lion king has roared from the throne and his obedient subjects are in awe of the majesty of his utterances.

    Except that the President himself is the first to acknowledge the incongruity of the metaphor. We do him no favor when we adorn him in the unflattering robe of a ferocious king of the jungle roaring down orders. It denies him the legitimacy of a hard-fought and well- won democratic race, which must always be present to our thinking and action. The reality of our democratic dispensation presents some important takeaways from the President’s address.

    First, the president was distressed that some social media commentators “crossed our national red lines by daring to question our collective existence as a nation.” He thinks it is a step too far. There are a couple of points for reflection on this concern of Mr. President. One is that agitation of any kind is the oxygen of democracy which a well-ordered state does not have to worry about because its institutions can hold their own.

    A few weeks ago, this column discussed this issue under the title, “Understanding secessionist struggles.” After examining the secessionist attempts of Scotland and California and the responses of their various governments, I ended with the crisis generated by the detention of Kanu for his secessionist struggle. I asked rhetorically if the crisis can be effectively resolved through the legal system or through a thoughtful process which takes account of the political context in which the crime is committed and addresses the fundamental issues it raises.

    I reminded readers that Great Britain tried to deal with the Scottish independence movement with devolution before the English ventured again into Brexit crisis but that the California and Texas movements were largely ignored by the U.S. government because those movements had no oxygen to sustain them. I referred to the Eastern Consultative Assembly (ECA) which had restated one more time the grievances that caused the agitation for secession. The group identified the perceived injustice of “oppressive census figures”, “asphyxiation through state and local government creation, and “opposition of the Nigerian government to peaceful restructuring. I then suggested that from the ECA’s perspective, once these grievances are addressed, the agitation will cease.

    Furthermore, on the same point of red lines and questions about our collective existence, we should see any such questioning, not as an occasion for call to arms, but as an opportunity for self-examination and soul searching. A child does not cheerfully question his or her family identity and there is no smoke without some fire causing it. Therefore, when citizens cross a national red line, it is the responsibility of leaders to look inward and seek reconciliation.

    Second, President Buhari insisted that “every Nigerian has the right to live and pursue his business anywhere in Nigeria without let or hindrance.” This is to the point and the President has risen to the occasion. Yet it is a sad reflection on the state of the union that the President needed to remind us about this fundamental principle of a state which craves the loyalty and love of every citizen. The expression of an interest to secede on the part of a group is a notice to the government which it can handle appropriately. It is not a notice to other groups within the state. Therefore, other groups cannot morally or legitimately take upon themselves the duty of the state. In this wise, the Northern youths and the elders that supported them erred.

    Third, the President acknowledges that “ there are legitimate concerns” and that “every group has a grievance.”  This acknowledgment is the beginning of political sagacity, the end of which is providing adequate responses to the concerns. President Buhari appears to get it that such concerns cannot be swept under the carpet of national unity if we do not want them to pollute the environment with dangerous mold.

    Fourth, in what appears to be an unacknowledged Eureka moment, President Buhari praised “the beauty and attraction of a federation” in that “it allows different groups to air their grievances and work out a mode of existence.” This is a big deal. Mr. President appreciates the beauty and attraction of a federation. We have a democracy, which is also beautiful. But the beauty of our democracy is enhanced by the federal system.

    I only have a friendly amendment to Mr. President’s observation here. Two features of a federation are most impressive. It recognizes the fundamental differences between the groups of people that are federating. Second, it allows the different groups to work out a mode of existence that is acceptable to all. If, at some point after this agreement, there are grievances, it allows them to resolve those grievances through the institutions it had set up for the purpose. Therefore, working out an acceptable mode of existence is pivotal to the success of a federation.

    Fifth, the President identifies “the National Assembly (NASS) and the National Council of State (NCS) as the legitimate and appropriate bodies for national discourse.” There could be various interpretations of this, and not all will be agreeable to many people. It does not help that NASS has not endeared itself to many Nigerians who perceive it as a self-serving body.

    What is more to the point, however, is that national discourse cannot be the exclusive preserve of these bodies. While it is true that NASS is responsible for lawmaking and NCS is an advisory body to the President, the two do not have the monopoly of wisdom on matters of national importance. And sometimes they have used their positions to promote self-regarding agendas at the expense of the nation.

    If, as observed above, working out a mode of existence is pivotal to the success of a federation, this is the responsibility of all component groups within the federation. And while it is acknowledged that we now have NASS and NCS as governing institutions, the fundamental issue of working out an acceptable mode of existence should normally precede the establishment of those governing institutions. We have therefore put the cart before the horse. The solution is to demand that these institutions listen to and receive counsel from the different groups concerning the mode of existence acceptable to them.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs   

  • Self-governing status for Western Region: 60 years after

    Self-governing status for Western Region: 60 years after

    The British government granted self-governing status to the old Western Region on August 8, 1957.  Prior to that day, with the election of 1951, the Action Group, under the leadership of Chief Obafemi Awolowo had taken over the control of the Western Region government, with Chief Awolowo as Leader of Government Business. Between 1952 and 1957, the Action Group government had dramatically changed the fortunes of the region, with one landmark policy and action after another.

    With a laser beam focus on human development, education became a priority and the driving force of development for the new administration. It initiated a huge investment in Universal Free Primary Education, with adequate planning for its success, including the training of teachers, and subsequent avenues for the further education of the products of its products. The introduction of free primary education, with the implication that both rich and poor had a right to it, and the success of the plan for post-primary institutions to absorb its products, led to a phenomenal expansion of educational opportunities that ultimately paid off to the advantage of the region.

    The regional government took seriously the formal planning of the economy with an emphasis on agriculture and rural development and agriculture-based industries. From 1952 to 1957 when it attained self-governing status, the region had witnessed great returns on its meticulous planning, efficient bureaucracy, and effective leadership. Three years later, on the eve of Nigerian independence in 1960, Western Region had recorded enviable growth scoring a “First in Africa” record in some critical indices of social development.

    In sports, the region had completed the Liberty Stadium, an Olympic standard sports facility. In information and entertainment, it had established WNTV television station. It had championed the promotion of agriculture with the establishment of research farms, farmers’ cooperative societies, and farm settlements for young school leavers to practice modernised agriculture. It was obvious that the Western Region was ready for its industrial take-off.

    In a recent paper, (“The Awo Legacy and the Challenges of Political Leadership and governance in Present-Day Nigeria”), Professor Akin Mabogunje gave an insightful account of how the Awolowo government developed its regional cement industry. The Colonial Government controlled the exploitation of mineral resources. However, with the derivation principle of revenue allocation, 50% of the royalty that the federal government received was returned to the region in which minerals were exploited.

    The derivation principle encouraged regional governments to develop interest in the exploitation of minerals in their regions alongside the federal government. However, while the federal government had developed a cement factory in Nkalagu, Eastern Region in 1957, and had plans for another one in the North, it left the Western Region out of calculation. But the Awolowo-led administration took its fate in its hands, and with its own consultants, it soon discovered limestone at Ewekoro, where the region commissioned its cement industry in 1960. That was how true federalism worked.

    Professor Mabogunje compared that Colonial era constitution with the 1979 Second Republic Constitution which vested exclusive control of mineral exploitation in the Federal Government and required that licenses for prospecting be issued only by Federal Government. This requirement adversely affected the effort of the Bola Ige administration to develop Igbetti marbles for the economic benefit of the state.

    The situation has persisted since. Under the 1999 Constitution, Mines and Minerals are on the Exclusive Legislative List. Therefore, the federal government has exclusive powers and jurisdiction over all matters relating to mining and it pockets the taxes and royalties derived from mining with minimal incentives for individual States. What this does is deprive states of the use of minerals under their soil for the benefit of their citizens. In true federal democracies, even individual citizens have control over mineral resources, especially oil and gas under their land and are simply required to pay taxes on the proceed. For this reason, citizens of oil rich states such as Texas do not pay income tax.

    Between 1952 and 1960, Chief Awolowo and his team led the Western region government under a federal constitution which made the federal and regional governments co-equal partners. That constitution favored regions in revenue allocation with 50% of mining rent and royalty from Distributable Pool Account versus 20% to the Federal Government.

    It was that revenue formula, especially the percentage allocated to derivation that made the difference in the rapid development of the regions. Regions with visionary leaders, which was the case with the three regions, took advantage of the favorable revenue allocation formula. The pace of development in Western region between 1952 and 1960 can be attributed to both favorable revenue base and visionary leadership.

    However, contrary to the provision of 50% derivation in 1960, the 1999 Constitution provided that “the principle of derivation shall be constantly reflected in any approved formula as being not less than thirteen per cent (13%) of the revenue accruing to the Federation Account directly from any natural resources.

    The crash of revenue allocated to states on basis of derivation from 50% to 13% is responsible for the state of the states vis-à-vis the center. First, states do not have any incentive to develop the natural resources in their areas because they have no control over them. Second, a greater percentage of revenue from such exploitation now goes to the center. Third, as a result, the states are deprived of funds to cater for the development of their states and for the promotion the welfare of their citizens.

    It should be noted, however, that the reversal of the fortune of states in respect of revenue allocation from the federation account does not come with a reduction in their responsibilities. As successive military administrations from 1966 to 1999 and civil administrations from 1999 to date grabbed more revenue to the center, they also imposed additional fiscal responsibilities on the states. The Udoji Commission of 1974 recommended a unified salary structure for federal and state civil services. The federal government orders the payment of common minimum wage to workers throughout the country with no concern for differences in cost of living.

    The result is that state governments are unwittingly set up to fail, unless they are extraordinarily resourceful or fortunate to have a self-sustaining economy. Visionary leadership played a great role in the success of Chief Awolowo. But so did a true federal structure that ensured that he had the resources to achieve his visionary goals.

    Let us allow our imagination to run as wide as it can. If Chief Awolowo remained in Western region in 1959; if the military coup of 1966 did not take place; if the federal government remained truly federal with a revenue formula that allowed regions to compete healthily for development, where might the Western region be now?

    Of course, any number of events might have occurred that could break the scenario that those hypotheticals assume. More regions might have been created. Different leadership might have emerged for any number of reasons. But if the constitution had remained true to the original federal principle, the states/regions and the entire country would have seen more rapid and progressive development than has been the case. In the race to excel, states/regions would learn from one another for the benefit of their residents. That was certainly the case in the First Republic.

    The moral of the foregoing is simple. Advocates of restructuring are not power-hungry exploiters looking to impose their will on others. They have a sense of history which they witnessed as adults. This country once worked. This nation was once on a trajectory of fast growth and sustainable development. They witnessed peer nations with whom we started at independence zoom past us in the sprint of life. They are now dying to witness a transformation of the nation toward the realization of its full potential.

    True, even in the state of retarded growth to which the nation has been condemned by its present structure, some individuals are making it big. But it is also in their interest that they are not islands of filthy wealth in an ocean of abject poverty.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

     

    @SegunGbade2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

     

  • Between advocates and opponents of restructuring

    Between advocates and opponents of restructuring

    The souring of our national political discourse over the matter of restructuring the quasi-unitary system that the military imposed on the country since 1966 is not in the interest of anyone, whether advocates or foes of restructuring. Name-calling certainly does not help. Threat is counter-productive. There is no viable substitute for an adult discourse that privileges rationality over emotion no matter the depth of passion that the latter invokes.

    On the other hand, however, the state of the debate is a true reflection of who we are: true offspring of our founding fathers. They did not initially zero in on federalism. They had robust debates, sometimes inflamed with ruinous rhetoric, including, yes, name-calling! Threats of withdrawal from the union were made by all sides. But in the end, it was reason that prevailed and won initial opponents of federalism to the side of its advocates. The leaders saw the wisdom in the federal option, they embraced it and made the best of it.  Indeed, shortly after the motion for independence was passed in 1957, Alhaji Tafawa Balewa, who would later be named Prime Minister of the new nation, celebrated the choice of the federal system for the new nation in the following words:

    “But to me the most important result of the constitutional changes in 1954 was the introduction of a federal form of government for Nigeria—a system which I had advocated as far back as 1948 in the old Legislative Council. I am pleased to see that we are now all agreed that the federal system is, under present conditions, the only sure basis on which Nigeria can remain united. We must recognise our diversity and the peculiar conditions under which the different tribal (sic) communities live in this country. To us in Nigeria therefore unity in diversity is a source of great strength, and we must do all in our power to see that this federal system of government is strengthened and maintained.”

    A few years later after independence, the all-powerful forces of human nature invaded the system. Instead of strengthening the federal system, they subjected it to series of assaults. Those who sought to strengthen the system were treated as pariahs and for their intransigence, they were made to pay a heavy price, including long-term incarceration.

    Its lopsided nature was the first major concern for the strength of the federation. From 1954 to 1960, there was nothing resembling a common national identity beside the occupation of a common territory. Political parties were formed based on regional and ethnic identities. An obvious population imbalance between the three regions meant that in a parliamentary system, the region whose census figure was more than double that of the other two can expect to rule the country in perpetuity. Obviously too, if the unity of the new country was the consensual vision of its leadership, this kind of imbalance needed to be addressed for the sake of a more perfect union.

    Working for a more perfect federal union which accommodated diversity without jeopardising the goal of unity was the rationale of the agitation for the creation of more regions and especially for drawing the boundaries of regions to coincide with linguistic identities, which Chief Obafemi Awolowo championed. It was what attracted ethnic minorities to his political philosophy. Unfortunately, it was what irritated his fellow political leaders, especially the great Ahmadu Bello and Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa both of whom had been staunchly in favour of true federalism and regional autonomy. The idea that the North can be broken up into more regions was unacceptable to them. And it did not happen even when the Midwest was carved out of the Western Region.

    The rebalancing of the federation, which political leaders failed to do, the Gowon military administration accomplished with the creation of 12 states. However, this was after the federal constitution had been suspended and the system had been unitarised to conform with the military ideal of unity without diversity.

    The 1963 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria opened with the following preamble:

    “Having firmly resolved to establish the Federal Republic of Nigeria, with a view to ensuring the unity of our people and faith in our fatherland, for the purpose of promoting inter-African co-operation and solidarity, in order to ensure world peace and international understanding, and so as to further the ends of liberty, equality and justice both in our country and in the world at large, we the people of Nigeria, by our representatives here in Parliament assembled, do hereby declare, enact and give to ourselves the following Constitution….:”

    That made the 1963 Constitution the first and last sincere declaration on behalf of the people by their representatives. It was a federal constitution that respected the diversity of the country, acknowledged the right of regions to have their own constitutions, and accommodated their rights and responsibilities in the running of the country with the establishment of exclusive and concurrent legislative lists. Since then, every military constitution that has parroted the language of the 1963 preamble has been a bogus lie. But it is not just the lie that makes those constitutions intolerable as the foundation of our union, it is also because they have proved incongruent with the aspirations of the teeming population of the nation.

    First, the fact that states have become mere appendages to the central government makes it impossible for them to effectively promote the interests of their residents. This is especially with regards to their responsibility for the social and economic welfare of their citizens. Whereas the 1963 revenue formula prioritises the interests of regions vis-à-vis the allocation of revenue, the 1999 formula reverses this in favour of the central government. In real terms, since states are closer to the people than the central government, they are better placed to know and promote the people’s social and economic well-being than the central government. Therefore, it stands to reason that more revenue be available to states/regions.

    Second, the security interests of regions/states have been compromised with the pivot of the 1999 Constitution to the central government in the matter of the institution of the police. It has become clear that the Nigeria Police is incapable of securing the totality of the country. The upsurge in criminal activities, including kidnapping, cultism and armed robbery is an incontrovertible evidence. But the Constitution has apparently barred states from establishing their own police. It is unclear which interest is more important—the abstract interest of the state in unity or the concrete interest of citizens in security.

    Third, the radical change from an emphasis on regional autonomy which respects diversity and healthy competition to state dependency which objectifies uniformity has been a mockery of the practice of federalism. It is more so when the change was not wrought through a democratic consensus but with the fiat of an unelected military junta which pretended that it knew better than an overwhelming majority of citizens what was good for the country. That majority has relentlessly voiced its concern for the direction that the military has taken the country and has demanded a return to a true federal structure.

    Fourth, while the creation of states has made government closer to the people than the former regions, it is also clear that the balkanisation that state creation represents has made the states weaker vis-à-vis the centre. Whereas the regions were almost self-sufficient in their economic needs, the states have proven incapable of satisfying the yearnings of their people.

    These are the reasons for the call for a return to regional structure. Human nature being what it is, this has not gone down well with those who have benefitted from the current system even if it is not working for all. It is clear, however, that we must come up with a creative approach to our governance structure. To this end, almost every zone of the federation has championed voluntary regional integration. While those efforts are commendable, they are not a substitute for a formal process that recognises the challenge of a wobbly system and summons courage to fix it.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPub

  • The devolution debacle

    The devolution debacle

    The promise to “initiate action to amend the Constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties, and responsibilities to States and local governments in order to entrench true federalism and the federal spirit” is number one bullet item on the highlights of APC manifesto. This shows the importance that the party attached to this issue.

    The manifesto is the contract between the party and the voters who expect the party to fulfill its promise. However, since the party won the general elections across the nation, it has prevaricated over its declared commitment to devolution of power. Some party leaders have declared ignorance of the meaning of restructuring. And when they were reminded of the party’s position on devolution, which is an important element of restructuring, they replied that it was not a priority because Nigerians needed food on their tables. Apparently, APC leaders have not drawn a direct link between devolution of power and the economic and social welfare of Nigerians.

    Yet, devolution is not an end in itself. Of course, some could insist on the right of self-determination as an end in itself and then argue that Nigeria is made up of different ethnic nationalities which need to be as self-determined as possible without jeopardising the integrity of the unity of the country. Devolution of power to states meets this condition.

    For a good reason, the writers of the manifesto did not go that route. While the ideal of cultural and ethnic self-determination cannot be philosophically second-guessed, the politics of manifesto writing has a logic of its own. Self-determination can be alienating. No political party wants to endanger its electoral interest a politically suspicious language. Therefore, APC avoided that path. The closest it gets to a semblance of self-determination rationale is its linkage of devolution with true federalism and the federal spirit.

    As it turned out, even “true federalism and the federal spirit” can be suspect to segments of the population worried about its impact on bread and butter issues. Writers of the manifesto and defenders of devolution and restructuring have a responsibility to reassure fellow citizens about the practical end of the path they advocate. This is a politically safe route that APC manifesto and, unfortunately, its leaders have not explored. The defeat of the constitutional amendment bill on devolution is an embarrassment for the ruling party. Now it must go back to the drawing board.

    An argument that recognises devolution as means to the end of economic and social wellbeing and political stability is persuasive. Every ethnic nationality and every administrative state would like to advance the welfare of their people. Devolution of more powers from the centre to the states is a viable means to this end. But before we go further in this direction, we need to address the concern of those who plead ignorance of what devolution stands for.

    Truly, there are multiple understandings of what restructuring is. For some, it means modified regionalism. For others, it is using the present zones as federating units. Yet, for some others, it is resource control. For others still, it means return to the parliamentary system of government. In view of the various conceptions of the notion, one cannot dismiss offhand those who plead ignorance of the meaning of restructuring. Advocates have a job to do.

    However, if restructuring has multiple meanings for multiple advocates, this is not the case with devolution of power. No one can deny that APC leaders understood what devolution means when they adopted it in their manifesto. Indeed, devolution is the least common denominator for all advocates of restructuring. They all want more power to be assigned to federating units.

    Devolution means the transfer of power from one entity to another. Family heads monitor their children’s development from infancy to adolescence. In their teenage years, they devolve some responsibilities to them, granting them allowances which they are expected to use responsibly for their needs. We appreciate the fact that they know best their needs while we monitor them.

    Our founding fathers struggled for a federal constitution on one important ground. As peoples of diverse backgrounds and cultures, we have diverse interests which others may not share but which are not necessarily inimical to our union. Each can best promote those interests without the direction or intervention of the central government. On the other hand, there are common interests that bind us and for which the federal government is best placed to promote and advance. The former include our economic interests, educational interests, health interests, and customs and conventions. The latter include external defense, currency, and foreign affairs.

    The compromise that the founding fathers reached was a federal constitution that gives many responsibilities to the regions. But this was not seen as an end in itself. They were convinced that with each focusing on those areas of economic and social life that it alone knows best, national interest would be advanced. It worked in the first republic.

    Undeniably, due to human nature, healthy competition gave way to unhealthy rivalry. But the military misread the cause of the fall of the first republic and threw the baby of federalism out with the bath water of crude partisanship. The later was the culprit, not the former.

    The nation advanced socio-economically in the first republic because power was devolved to the regions. Now the center has taken over many of the responsibilities that used to belong to the regions. In education, the federal military government took over state universities, including the University of Ife. It delved into primary education through the Universal Free Primary Education decree. It got into secondary education with the creation of unity schools. The federal government has continued to create more federal universities around the country despite the glaring evidence of inadequate facilities and financial support for the existing institutions.

    What will devolution of power mean in the case of education? Based on the proven assumption that states know best the educational interests of their citizens, the federal government will shift the responsibility of educating citizens to each state of the federation. But since the federal government still controls the largest portion of the resources of the country, it will give block grants to states for the purpose of education. With appropriate guidelines from the federal government, the states will design and pursue their educational policies and use the federal grants for same. The Federal Ministry of Education will be the policy writing and monitoring authority on behalf of the federal government.

    With regard to health, the federal government will devolve the responsibility for basic health centers to the states. This is long overdue. There have been reports of basic health centers overgrown with weeds and serving as refuge for reptiles in the remote areas of the country. This is what can be expected from an overreaching and overbearing state. Devolution of power and responsibility in respect of health means that state governments will take better care of their citizens with block grants for health from the federal government.

    Employment creation and poverty alleviation programmes have been implemented with limited success because they have not paid attention to the importance of local buy-in. Political parties controlling the center have always seen such programmes as political hand-out for supporters. In sane environments, such programmes will go to needy citizens. It would not matter which political party controls a state, every state will receive its block grant for the purpose of benefitting its citizens while the federal grant-making agencies provide the guidelines.

    In short, devolution of powers is not necessarily resource control because in the model that I have advanced here, the federal government still controls the purse-string. If we are really serious about righting the wrong of a lopsided federal bureaucracy, devolution is the least that the APC ruling party can adopt right away while we clarify the meaning and requirements of full restructuring. I would have thought that it was because of its simplicity and limited political danger that the party adopted devolution in the beginning. That it still generated so much resistance that the North voted as a block against it is a failure of leadership.

  • A promising consensus on restructuring

    A promising consensus on restructuring

    As the country prays for the health of the president and his safe return, and as grateful citizens commend the Acting president for steering the ship of the state as a faithful team player, it is not too early to think about what the legacy of this administration might be. Every president wants a legacy, a lasting monument to their names to which generations will look back and applaud.

    With a liberal communications policy that spread ownership of telephone across the board, Chief Obasanjo opened the country to the new Information Age. As important as the legacy of material innovation is, however, it cannot be the most important for a country that is deeply divided along the fault lines of nationality, language, and class. And with its use to spread hate on social media platforms which further deepens our division and threatens the fragile tie that seeks to bind, the new technology is a double edged sword.

    The legacy of material innovation such as the telephone is especially volatile when it is not complimented by a robust economic policy that opens the doors of job opportunities for citizens. Without these, young and old are tempted to vent their frustration through the means available to them, that is, social media, a veritable source of social tension and unrest.

    Since Obasanjo, succeeding presidents have not been as effective even when they belonged to the same political party. President Yar’Adua’s seven point agenda unfortunately did not get started before the cold hands of death snatched him. It was a case of a willing spirit and an unhealthy body.

    Due to an inexplicable weakness of the will, President Jonathan, the luckiest political actor, failed to find his presidential mojo until it was too late. He transformation agenda attracted many who saw it as the sign of a new dawn. I was one of the early supporters. Three key elements were eye catching in the agenda: inclusive and non-inflationary growth, employment generation and poverty alleviation, and value reorientation. If the new administration was able to succeed in the three areas, Nigeria was going to have its breakthrough in no distant future. So we thought, until the agenda collapsed under the weight of ineptitude and the cultivation of vice replaced value orientation.

    President Buhari and the All Progressives Congress were the beneficiaries of the collapse of Jonathan’s transformation agenda. They campaigned with a promise to restore security, revive the economy, and fight corruption, a partial list of a manifesto which includes devolution of power. Will the President and his team embrace this legacy-enhancing program?

    Nigeria is at the crossroads of history. She may restructure according to the wishes of the vast majority of citizens and remain a united, prospectively prosperous country with happy citizens. Or she may remain a quasi-unitary state with its attendant social tension, political instability, general unrest and the real risk of another civil war, which may end it all.

    Obviously, the first option is more attractive, not only because it promises the best possible outcome, but more importantly because it satisfies one of the most essential requirements of democratic governance, namely, that the government respond to the yearning of citizens and that the voluntary consent of the people is the immovable pillar of democracy. What has been the yearning and how has it been expressed?

    The demand for restructuring, which started in the South in the 90s up until the last Confab has now spread to the entire country, with key voices in the North joining the chorus. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and former Military President Babangida have been very clear about where they stand on this critical national issue.

    In many thoughtful interventions in the last six years, Atiku has appealed to the rational capacity of his listeners, the latest in his reaction to the APC Governors’ Forum. Atiku observed rightly, that the “agitations for secession would not have arisen if the country had shown sincere readiness to address the underlying problems that feed the agitations by separatist forces.”

    But Atiku’s intervention is not a reaction to recent agitations. As far back as 2012, he had made the issue of restructuring a major plank of his politics. As he observed then, there is “too much concentration of power and resources at the centre. And it is stifling our march to true greatness as a nation and threatening our unity because of all the abuses, inefficiencies, corruption, and reactive tensions it has been generating.” He urged a reconsideration of the structure along the lines of the six geopolitical zones as regions and the states as provinces. We can be cynical about Atiku’s motive. However, he cannot be faulted for seeing the light much early on this matter.

    On his part, Babangida has also joined the chorus of rational voices on the solution to the political problems facing the country. Apparently dismissing the fear of disintegration, the former military president argued that “the talk to have the country restructured means that Nigerians are agreed to our unity in diversity, but that we should strengthen our structures to make the union more functional based on our comparative advantages.” He also threw his support behind a constitutional amendment to provide for state police.

    APC Governors’ Forum also made public its position on the agitation for political restructuring and true federalism, which the Forum claimed can be met through “adjustments in the Nigerian federal system. The focus of this restructuring is to restore the principle of non-centralization of power in the country’s federal arrangement being the defining element of a federal polity.” And in a show of inter-party solidarity, its PDP counterpart concurred. Restructuring is thus favorably adopted by the entire country.

    Interestingly, the positions enunciated by prominent citizens and the Governors’ Forums are reiterations of the position of the ruling party, APC, as contained in its 2015 manifesto. The first item on the highlights of the manifesto is the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. And in the first bullet point of that item, APC promises to “initiate action to amend our constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to states, local governments in order to entrench true federalism and the federal spirit.”

    The second item on the manifesto is National Security. In Bullet 3 under that item, the party promised that it will “begin widespread consultations to amend the constitution to enable state and local government employ state and community police to address the peculiar needs of each community.”

    A laser beam focus on these two items on which the party made a voluntary promise of restructuring is the needed response to the current agitation. Granted, the economic reality that APC found on the ground prevented a timely fulfilment of its promise; the time is ripe now for the progressive party to do the needful.

    But some items on the APC manifesto could also conflict with its promise of devolution as they are certain to extend the reach of the federal government in almost every area, particularly health and education. The manifesto expressed a willingness of the party to engage in “national inspection” of schools, a purview of provincial governments in the 50s and 60s. The promise to establish vocational schools in each state of the federation is another. Whereas devolution of powers would require the shrinking of the responsibilities of the federal government, the manifesto appears to enlarge its scope.

    PMB will get better and get back to work. He needs a lasting legacy. A successful restructuring of the federation will make him a true champion and father of a new Nigeria in which the idea of unity in diversity is fully realized and true federalism is enhanced.

    Meanwhile, however, there is a loyal and competent Acting President, who enjoys the confidence of every section of the country, the National Assembly, and the ruling party. The three sides must collectively initiate the processes enunciated in the party’s manifesto to devolve power to the states and local governments and establish state and community police.

     

    • PS. July is vacation time. This column will be back in August.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

     

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPub