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 colonialist 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?
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.
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.
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.
- Akeredolu is governor, Ondo State.
