Restructuring means different things to those calmouring for it. Ondo State Governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu is advising that restructuring the polity without taking into consideration its fundamentals could be counter-productive. In his lecture entitled: “Implications of restructuring Nigeria on development”, at the 2018 Distinguished Lecture/Award of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife, the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) says ongoing agitations must be put in perspective to avoid the pitfalls of the past.
THE challenges of existence have compelled Nigerians to interrogate the current system which has ensured that majority of our people are despondent and desperate. The issue of insecurity appears intractable, considering the incessant loss of lives and property. The economic problems seemed to defy all discernible solutions as our people slip into a state of desperation and despair, steadily. This regrettable state of affairs has promoted cynicism beyond measure.
There have been deliberations on the structure of government at all levels. While some opine that the system best suited for our peculiar socio-political system is the British parliamentary system, others believe that the American style should be the most appropriate. There is yet another school of thought, which supports the adaptation and adoption of the “home-grown” political system. Some hold, tenaciously, to the belief that the inherited colonial structure of governance is the root cause of the problem. Some are very quick to conclude that the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates by the British colonialists was a fundamental error of judgement.
Not a few believe that the raging controversies on the best form of political arrangement for the country are influenced by current politics of relevance. The inability of the purveyors of this idea to present their thesis devoid of ambiguity creates doubt and perpetuates the needless cacophony dominating political discourse in the public space.
It is important that the issue of definition is resolved for appropriate contextual appreciation of issues. When politicians hold on to a viewpoint, one must be hesitant in jumping into the fray. The question to ask is, why now? And the answer may well be, why not?
What is restructuring?
The lexical value of the word with the seeming infinitely elastic propensities in the Nigerian political landscape must be appreciated before any meaningful understanding of terms can be achieved. Development is the other key word in the topic of today’s lecture. It is often confused with mere growth or haphazard accretions.
There are some in our country today who believe that unless we “restructure” the polity, there will be no progress. Others, depending on which side of the political divide from where the query emanates, hold that the government should concentrate on improving the economy and all problems will be solved.
To some still, this new political lexicon is about state creation and the control of resources. The “cure-all” remedy will address all socio-economic cum political issues once it is applied to suit parochial preferences. We must clarify these issues for appreciable understanding.
The gathering storm
The seeds of discord had been sown, deliberately, by the colonial administration with the amalgamation of disparate ethnic nationalities with varied and variegated interests. These erstwhile traditional formations were ill-prepared for the new system which discounted their cultural ethos. They were simply corralled to become one administrative unit. The sudden transformation was sudden and total.
Dislocation ensued and the linear progression towards development by the traditional societies became truncated. Social issues, such as unemployment, crime and generally low productivity crept into the consciousness of the peoples who had just metamorphosed from free-born natives of their various communities to British subjects.
The mode of production also experienced fundamental alteration. A basically agrarian economy, which sustained the society and ensured that unemployment rate was almost zero, was substituted with a new economic arrangement which concentrated mainly on exportation for the benefit of the colonisers.
The new system of government instituted was alien to the people. The traditional institutions were subsumed under the colonial political governance structure. It did not matter if the natives were hungry for as long as they could have what could barely sustain them wherever and whenever their services were needed. Their energies constructed rail lines, roads, bridges and other infrastructure of exploitation. Amidst the confusion, there emerged an efficient bureaucracy established for the fulfilment of the purpose for which the colonial administration was established in the country.
The entire system was not designed for the benefit of the people. That ought to have been the main focus of agitation during the fight for independence, and not some nebulous claims to the right of representation, a misconstrued right of entitlement, consequent upon the acquisition of Western education.
The inherited structure could not engender growth. Most of the Nigerian elites, who led the agitations, easily passed as opportunists interested only in what their newly acquired status would offer. They only mobilised the people for self-service.
The introduction of the Legislative Council by the Sir Clifford’s Constitution of 1922 encouraged the agitation for a more inclusive administration by the Nigerian elites. Their grouse was that the hand-picked representatives were some illiterate traditional rulers. They wanted more participation in the “decision-making” process even when the Council was a mere advisory body.
These elites were unable to articulate their position on the structure of exploitation which had rendered hitherto productive and enterprising peoples of the newly amalgamated country dependent on the colonial government. They did not mind for as long as they were accommodated.
The urban-rural drift had become a reality as the peasants had begun to lose their peasantry. New centres of commerce had emerged, and the articles of trade were not mainly locally produced goods. The whole facade of development, evidenced by infrastructural advancement, had given birth to a complex network of subjugation and disempowerment. Dislocation was profound and complete. The focus of the elite was representation through participation in the whole scheme of dispossessing the people of their creative ingenuity.
The Arthur Richard’s Constitution of 1946 brought in the regional system of government. This statutory order engendered a semblance of autonomy to the constituent units recognised by the colonial administration. The peoples of these regions experimented with the idea of self-governance. The Macpherson’s Constitution of 1951 and Lyttleton’s Constitution of 1954 also retained regionalism. It is worth to note that this period is often regarded as the golden era in the history of economic and political development in the country.
The 1957 and 1958 conferences, held in London, discussed the grant of independence of the country. The product of these deliberations was the 1960 Independence Constitution which still recognised the semi-autonomous status of the regions in a federation. The slow pace of adaptation to the new political realities led to deep crises in the nascent country.
The 1960 Independence Constitution and the 1963 Republican Constitution retained regionalism as a system of government in the newly independent state. The crisis of confidence among the major political gladiators in the West soon exposed the fragile nature of the structure bequeathed by the departing colonialists. The disagreement was not about the quality of service to the people but “representation” for its own sake. A few politicians, led by the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and a Grand Commander Federal Republic (GCFR), who raised issues bordering on the desirability of nationhood for development, soon found themselves behind bars for holding what was perceived as strong views inimical to the perpetuation of the lie sold as liberal democracy to us.
So deep was this crisis that the constitutional order was suspended and a State of Emergency was imposed in 1962. The confusion continued unabated until the first military coup overthrew the government on January 15, 1966. This event marked the turning point in the political development of the country.
All regional structures were dismantled and a unitary system was foisted on a country of multicultural entities. The initial successes recorded through the practice of self-rule under regionalism were reversed. The country proceeded to build on the defective structure inherited from the British overlords.
A civil war soon ensued at the start of the military interregnum. The new military rulers conceived a novel idea to forge unity among these regions via decrees, the most notorious and controversial being the Unification Decree of 1966. This regrettable attitude of living in denial continued progressively until all regional assets were “nationalised” via proclamation in a wave of unthinking hypocrisy.
The zeal to excel through competition was killed effectively. The oil boom of the early seventies imposed complacency on a once promising populace. Our people became accustomed to the culture of dependency.
The calm after the tempest
The 1979 Constitution proceeded with denial; Nigeria was once again under civil rule. The four regions had become, at first, 12 states in 1967, and later 19 states in 1976. The unicameral legislature adopted to suit the parliamentary system of government had changed to bicameral. The presidential system replaced the Westminster model. There appeared to be a semblance of a federal system of government with the president at the centre and the governors at the states. The local government administration was also guaranteed in the new constitution.
This specious presentation of regularity is deceptive. There were indeed no federating units but administrative posts manned by the so called elected prefects. The presidency had assumed the stature of a patriarchy with an all-powerful president.
The federation was more of a unitary system as more items had found their way into the exclusive list in the constitution. States existed mainly as convenient creations to meet political exigencies.
The oil boom had ensured that revenue allocation from the central administration substituted the very creative essence of the federating units. The states had been reduced to the status of insolvency, perpetually begging for survival. Nigeria was running a monolithic economy and creating miseries instead of jobs. Industries started to fold up. All states abandoned other means of generating revenue because the country was awash with petro-dollars. The seat of power at the centre was so attractive that every politician strove to partake of the largesse mindlessly shared. Crass consumerism was the overriding philosophy. Nigeria was rich; money must be shared.
The Second Republic barely lasted four years before the return of the military on December 31, 1983. The political itinerary between 1983 and 1999 was tortuous. The structure of dependence became firmly entrenched despite the appearances of attempts at self-reliance by the military government. This period witnessed some remarkable improvement in infrastructure, no doubt. No state was, however, allowed to showcase ingenuous creativity towards self-reliance. The created states had lost their creativity and identity.
The means of production had shifted heavily to the Federal Government. Crude oil was the only commodity upon which aspirations were hinged. Nigerians, however, lacked, still do not have the capacity to participate meaningfully in the industry. The healthy competition, which had existed among the defunct regions, had disappeared. Administrators of states sought approval and received orders from the Federal Military Government on execution of projects considered beneficial to the people.
The culture of dependence was pervasive and total. A few states which were regarded as economically viable availed themselves of the advantages accruable from their locations and history. The politics of domination played a key role in the intervention of the Federal Government to the so called states. Political patronage of pliant politicians became prevalent.
Erecting structures on quicksand
The return to civil rule in 1999 held a lot of redemptive promises. The problems of nationhood remain largely unresolved. The new dispensation commenced on a shaky foundation. The basic law of the land, promulgated by the departing military, had no significant input of the populace.
The status quo has been retained and the periodic elections held to change political leadership is seen as progress. The structure of dependence, which stultifies growth, has been exacerbated. Virtually all states of the Federation have become insolvent.
The current agitations for restructuring of the polity must be put in perspective. There is an unassailable logic in the proposition which holds that unless the country re-examines the basis for co-existence among the ethnic nationalities in the country, any reference to development will continue to be a mirage. This is very correct. But, the proponents of this “new political theory” have been unable to articulate their positions with clarity. Many people are, however, convinced that the new wave of agitations gained currency after the last general elections held in 2015 which saw the incumbent President lose his office.
It appears that there are different reasons for the positions being canvassed by politicians, social activists, professional associations and labour unions. The word “restructuring” adorns the garb of omnibus expressions for barely-disguised intent. To some, it connotes creation of more states to address the issue of “imbalance and marginalisation”. Others consider it as the return to regionalism, the political system of the First Republic which witnessed tremendous developmental strides in the country.
Some aggrieved persons, whose environments have been destroyed as a result of oil exploration and exploitation, and their people live in abject poverty, see restructuring as “Resource Control”. Others still imagine a state of economic independence through it. The states should be able to produce what they need according to their capabilities. There should be no hindrance, whatsoever, in their quest for prosperity through ingenuity.
There are a few who advert their minds to the challenges created by the inherited colonial structure of exploitation sustained and maintained by successive government functionaries, who put forth a hypocritical stance of genuine concern for progress. These people posit that it is practically impossible to erect abiding structures for the well-being of the people on a foundation designed for exploitation. The British government never introduced a system that was meant to be beneficial, in the main, to the natives.
Development is about the people
There can be no remarkable progress in a country whose citizens work at cross purposes. The inability of the Nigerian elite to identify the fundamental issues militating against our march to nationhood is a major impediment. Reducing issues of existence to the largely unprofitable participation in liberal democracy as solution to the myriad of problems bedeviling the country depicts ignorance and/or mischief. The welfare of the people cannot be subjected to the whimsical preferences of elite whose interests stand at variance with yearnings and aspirations of the people.
The inherited colonial political system upon which subsequent systems have been built have not addressed the issue of difference. It was designed to create division among the peoples of Nigeria for ease of administration. It was, and still is, an instrument of disempowerment of the mass of the people. No economic prosperity can take place in an atmosphere of uncertainty and confusion.
A situation, which ensures that states approach the Federal Government cap in hand for issues as basic as payment of salaries and meeting statutory obligations calls for deep introspection.
A system which insists that the wealth in the belly of your land cannot be explored unless an approval is given at the centre requires an urgent review. A practice which has seen Federal agencies control, exclusively, inland waterways is not helpful. The establishment of certain security agencies such as the Police and Fire Service as federal agencies will militate against development.
Any political arrangement, which excludes the people in the scheme of things, is banditry. The process must ensure that the welfare of the people forms the primary focus of government.
The training of the people must seek to address the peculiar challenges faced by them. We must build the capacity of the people to provide basic needs for the society.
Development should be about how the challenges faced by them are addressed realistically, scientifically and holistically. The people must be the beneficiaries of development.
Recommendations and conclusions
- The country must expunge state of origin and federal character from its statutes.
- Citizenship should be promoted above ethnic origin.
- Place of domicile must replace state of origin.
- All states must be encouraged to look inwards for survival. They must depend, primarily, on their immediate environment for sustenance.
- Our educational curricula must reflect our peculiar challenges. Our youths must be trained to address these challenges.
- The country should take, seriously, the issue of state and local government police for adequate security.
Nigerians should be encouraged to eat what they produce.