The failure of the Nigerian state to attain her potentials is neither strange nor unwarranted, but it needs to be better understood. Nigeria didn’t exist as a genuine nation until 1960, at independence. Before then, the country was, in strict terms, under British subjugation and enslavement. The people who came to be known as Nigerians were as varied and different as there can be. Intertribal conflicts were the order of the day – even amidst seemingly similar cultures before British conquest. So when talks about independence became intense, there was equally the need to negotiate the terms of engagement of a nation whose existence had hitherto been forced on the different ethnic nationalities.
Understanding that imperative, the political elite at the time constituted series of what will pass as a national conference with its composition spanning all relevant groups to the Nigerian project. In the document that emanated from the final conference, the new nation was to be a truly federal state, with independent federal and regional governments. That document was the independence constitution. Another revision was done in 1963.
Therein, the regional governments could control their resources while making minimal contributions to the centre. As such, key drivers of development like basic education and health care were responsibilities of the regional governments and could be better managed. Only some issues pertaining to international relations, monetary policy, and defence were the exclusive preserve of the central government.
That system ensured that the regions were self-sustaining federating units who could explore their comparative advantages. The economy of the country was assorted and there was a healthy rivalry between the regions. Competition among the regions drove productivity which in turn led to development. It was indeed an era of unprecedented progress. The economic indices of the nation were similar to that of nations like India, and Brazil. Such was the rate of advancement that the late sage – Chief Obafemi Awolowo is credited to have boasted at some point that the Western Region would in few years be on the same pedestal as European economies like Spain and Portugal.
But that season of progress was soon to be thwarted by the foray of the military into politics. The jackboots desired absolute power. The regional governments which were autonomous and even had separate constitutions were made subservient to an aberration called the Supreme Military Council. And the country was from then run like a unitary state with federal camouflage, against the wishes and aspirations of her people. But not enough temerity could be mustered to challenge or resist that violation of civilian space by the military. Regime after regime, the reign of impunity continued until the country was plundered into oblivion.
Crude oil from the Niger Delta became the sole commodity of the nation. But the increased revenue from oil did not bring commensurate growth. There was widespread corruption and there was no longer innovation in the regions since the country was jointly run on oil. In what was a calculated attempt to further lay hold to power, the military governments broke the regions into states that are incapable of independent existence. That is the origin of the Nigerian structure of an all-powerful federal government with subordinate states. Agriculture and other industries that were previously explored were abandoned and the general systemic neglect led to the rot that is visible in the country today.
Return to democracy in 1999 notwithstanding, the Nigerian aberration continued, despite agitations to restore normalcy. Though the military transferred power to civilians, the terms of engagement are as defined in the 1999 constitution – a document designed by hellish generals to further their pseudo-federalist agenda and unjustly allocate resources to their regions. But why should those in the corridors of power prefer the current arrangement? This system makes it easy to perpetuate corruption. The government is far from the people, so there is little citizen participation in governance. Also, since revenue is generated majorly from oil and not directly from the people by taxation, it is widely seen as free money.
Thus, the issue of restructuring is not just about positioning the country for sustainable development. Rather, it is about delivering Nigerian people from slavish bondage as orchestrated by the nation’s military. It is about letting the Nigerian people determine the conditions under which they are governed. It is about letting the ordinary Nigerian have a say in government. It is about allowing the Nigerian people take charge of their destinies.
Thankfully, there is a general consensus on the need for some tinkering with the Nigerian structure, to attain meaningful development. What is often debated is what form such re-engineering should take. The popular propositions are mainly three. For a group, Nigerians are the problem of Nigeria. What the country needs is a change in mindset, a sort of reorientation of her citizens. Another group advocates for a truly federal state where federating units will be autonomous with resource control, while the more radical group thinks the entity Nigeria cannot work – so agitate for secession.
Although there is a need to change the mentality of Nigerians, such change can only occur in the face of an enabling structure. Vanity is not peculiar to the DNA of the Nigerian. What differentiates saner climes is that they have effective institutions that help curtail unworthy ambitions of man. For example, if there is fiscal federalism, the federating units will be forced to look inwards and tap previously unexplored options for revenue. The struggle for survival will be initially painful but it will, in the long run, increase productivity. Because of the struggle for survival, fiscal federalism will help diversify the economy, and provide the necessary jobs for the youths.
Also, while agitations for secession may not be illegitimate considering the right to self-determination, such call will not serve the interest of any ethnic nationality in Nigeria. The sheer size and population of Nigeria are what makes her relevant in Africa and the international community. Balkanization of the country will reduce that advantage. There is also the opportunity to leverage the potentials of the different regions and the Nigerian nation is a large market for goods and services.
The advantage of true federalism is not lost on the elite at the centre of government. However, it takes tremendous discipline and courage to submit power. And successive Nigerian governments have not shown such reserve. Return to true federalism will mean the federal government will be weaker, and governance will be closer to the people. That is why whoever occupies the presidency will be unwilling to devolve power or jettison the fraudulent system that has enriched the political elite over the years.
No doubt, issues bordering on the technicalities of true federalism like – revenue allocation, exclusive and concurrent list of governments, state policing, and questions on how the new federating units should be constituted, will prove contentious. But they can be resolved amicably with genuine national interest. Many Nigerian states can no longer meet their monthly recurrent expenditures and there is no need to wait till the country is plunged into another recession occasioned by fall in crude oil price. The promise of a buoyant and diversified economy offered by fiscal federalism will help douse the existing tension.
- Adeyoose writes via <adeyoosesola@yahoo.com>