Tag: challenge

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.

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