Tag: Abuja

The latest circus of muscle-flexing over local government autonomy hardly comes as a surprise. If it seems an indication of how muddled our federalism has come to be in the hand of our slow-learning operators, it partly reflects the desperation in some quarters to perpetrate their retrogressive reign and anti-development agenda on the polity.

I don’t want to go into the matter of how our federal lawmakers came to read their manual on federalism upside down. That is not important; at least not now. Rather, of great interest to me is that the two chambers of the National Assembly have taken their positions on the raging debate of local government autonomy: one for, the other against.

The House of Representatives, persuaded that autonomy is the way to go, voted –according to the reports – overwhelmingly to give “full financial, administrative, executive and legislative autonomy to local government councils in Nigeria”.

In the Senate, a determined group of minority senators – 34 in number – used the filibuster to deny the pro- autonomy senators the needed 73 votes! And that on an issue that have the potentials of altering the terrain of our federal practice!

Should anyone therefore feign surprise that the division came that close? I don’t think anyone should. At least, not while everyone remains hung on the Niger Delta freebies and the rentier economy it promotes, and not when power is seen as an end an itself rather as an opportunity for service.

I think I understand the Lower House’ love for the fancy word “autonomy” a phrase increasingly used exclusively for the councils. It starts from their opinion of the 36 governors as the bad boys who need to be stopped forthwith from dipping itchy fingers into the councils’ tills. Where the idea came from, I do not know but suffice to say that the attitudes of some of the governors, who, often times carry on like the Lords of the Manor have simply not helped matters.

What could be wrong with councils insisting on taking control of their funds? I think there is a world of difference between being allowed to take charge of their affairs and the clamour to have council officials sit at table with their federal and states counterparts to share revenue from a common pool. How about blending the confounding three-tier federal arithmetic with the monthly conclave of 774+ 36+1 officials to share oil money in the name of autonomy? How does that square to the imperative to devolve more powers to the states?

And to what effect? More funds for council officials to buy those fancy toys that make them objects of adoration in those far flung communities after leaving just enough left to pay the bills of their bored staff?

What are the problems with our councils? I can number them in dozens. In the first place, I believe that the capabilities of our local councils are overstated. Majority are simply nowhere there yet, at least not as far as being agents of change and development is concerned. Take a trip to any of the rural local governments and you will be amazed at the number of absentee officials – officials on AWOL – men and women who only show up either when their wage is due or when there is something to share!

No doubt, there are few exceptions in notably, urban local government areas which for obvious reasons, have very little choice than to perform even if minimally. The truth is that the records of our local councils overall, have been dismal. That explains why nothing of development is going on, and why basic social services are not provided at that level. Fact is; majority are no more than mere outposts for sharing the federal freebie.

So how does the quest for “autonomy” cure what is fundamentally a structural problem? How does a monthly excursion to Abuja promote development or even lift the status of the local council? Will the craving to share in the wealth they did not help to create encourage responsible fiscal practice? Would it not produce alternate governors – officials who will consider themselves answerable to no one in the long run?

This is where I believe that those pushing the autonomy miss the argument. It starts with their inability or unwillingness to isolate the problem. Left to me, we should rather be discussing whether indeed the current local government structure has not outlived its usefulness. Imagine the chairman of a local government whose internally generated revenue would not even suffice to purchase the diesel needed to run its generators making a case for autonomy. What he means is that he needs a licence to live off the wealth created by others. True autonomy means living off your sweat. Has anyone ever queried any chairman for spending their internal revenues the way they deem fit?

I need to make one important point. I do not wish to suggest that the governors are entirely blameless in the mismanagement of our councils. Indeed, one of the problems is the absence of democracy at that level. The obverse side is that claims of meddlesomeness by the governors are often times exaggerated. The problems of the local governments are largely endogenous, hence my position that the prescription of autonomy is a wrong therapy to consider.

While fiscal federalism is yet a long way yet in practice, let the local governments make do with what they have. Yes, we need democracy at the grass roots; we also need development. Autonomy in the circumstance cannot be the end. The councils surely have a long way to prove that they are worthy of our trust. They are a long way from there.