The Nation Newspaper

Tag: regionalism

  • Alaafin of Oyo, others advise Fed Govt on regionalism

    Leaders of thought, intellectuals, self- determination groups and others in Yorubaland yesterday urged the Federal Government to return the country to regionalism.

    They said the government should return to regional system of government operated in the country before the military coup d’état of 1966, before it is too late.

    The leaders described the present political, economic and social structures as a marriage of inconvenience which would breed disunity, starvation, underdevelopment and insecurity.

    The leaders, led by the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba  Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III, Aare Onakakafo of Yorubaland Gani Adams, retired Archbishop of Methodist Church Ayo Ladigbolu, retired Assistant Inspector-General of Police Tunji Alapini, eminent scholar Prof. Wale Fatunde,  media entrepreneur Otunba ‘Deji Osibogun and others enjoined Southwest states and the Yoruba across the globe to prioritise agriculture.

    They said oil, which generates 75 per cent of the country’s revenue, has caused the people more evil than good.

    The leaders, who spoke at an interactive conference on food security in Yorubaland, organised by a Pan-Yoruba socio-cultural group, Yoruba KO’YA Movement, at Atiba Hall, Oyo town, said unless the governors were empowered to secure citizens, insecurity would continue.

    In his speech with the theme: “Protecting Yorubaland”, Oba Adeyemi advised President Muhammadu Buhari to consider implementing the resolutions of the 2014 National Conference, saying the nation’s problems were addressed by the resolutions of the conference.

     

     

  • The Yoruba, regionalism and future of Nigeria

    The Yoruba, regionalism and future of Nigeria

    IN a move certain to inspire the Southeast and South-South on how to peacefully pursue self-determination within a united Nigeria, prominent leaders and governors of the Southwest met in Ibadan last Thursday to examine the structure of the country and suggest ways in which peaceful co-existence among the people can be guaranteed. The meeting was well attended, and the resolutions exhaustive and pertinent. In summary, the Southwest recognised the positive attributes of the constitutions that were freely entered into by the regions and their representatives before independence and shortly after, and advocated for a return to regionalism in order to guarantee peace, development and harmony.

    As readers of this column know, the virtues of regionalism have been well promoted on this page. It is clear to any observer that the current structure cannot work, nor has it worked since the military began brusquely dismantling the pre-independence structure and inexpertly cobbling new ones together. With each constitution supervised by the military, worse, impracticable and indefensible structures had been devised. Now, despite much talk about federalism and the conviction that some tinkering can do the existing constitution much good, the fact on the ground is that the 1999 constitution is an amorphous document that makes false claims and fails to address the political, social and economic problems tearing the country apart.

    At the bottom of the cry for regionalism are the indisputable facts that Nigeria is made up of nations which were at different levels of civilisation before colonial rule, possess different worldviews, and were at varying stages of economic development. These differences do not have to be mutually exclusive, but the many crude and incompetent attempts to weld these nations together by a constitution so insufficient and so tentative that it is proving practically useless and worthless have only led to more conflicts, bitterness and chaos. Somehow, and unimaginably, it is suggested that attitudinal changes could help heal the bitterness and divisions plaguing the country. This is sheer fantasy.

    If deep structural changes are not instituted, if the restructuring most parts of Nigeria are advocating is not carried out, if Nigerian leaders do not appreciate that the crises in the Niger Delta, Southeast, Southwest and parts of the North could not be assuaged by tinkering with the current constitution, they must be prepared for far worse consequences than they imagine. The agitations will simply not go away. If civil war could not prevent the recurrence of these agitations, and the pain of punishment and all forms of political alienation could not slow the campaigns, why does anyone think that after a while the agitations will burn themselves out? What gives the self-determination campaigns ammunition and fire is the disarticulation in the country’s superstructure. Until this anomaly is recognised and tackled, the country will continue to reel from one crisis to another until the problem becomes unmanageable.

    Fortunately, a few Southeast and South-South leaders attended the Ibadan summit. The deliberations and resolutions that accompanied the summit should encourage them to coax their own agitators away from the violent and nihilistic tendencies shown by many Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) members, including their grandiloquent leader, Nnamdi kanu, and hard line militants operating in the creeks. Regions not bewildered by the search for the chimerical definition of restructuring should come together, put their feet down, and ask firmly and unequivocally for a new structure and constitution that would enable regionalism. The relevant political zones must insist on restructuring being at the core of the 2019 campaigns.

    The Yoruba leaders who gathered in Ibadan last Thursday may not be truly representative of the Yoruba people as a whole, but the resolutions they forged are in fact a much fairer representation of the ideas and principles the Southwest has fought for decades, ideas and principles they may be willing to sacrifice everything for. The Buhari presidency may be loth to pay attention to the undercurrents going on in the country, and in the case of last Thursday, in Yoruba land; it is, however, important that political leaders who seek office in 2019 must recognise the untenable position they occupy trying futilely to preside over the affairs of an unhappy and dissatisfied people.

  • Back to regionalism?

    Back to regionalism?

    For their valiant and unparalleled efforts to forge stronger economic integration and cooperation as well as socio-cultural cohesion within the states that constitute their territorial jurisdiction, the present South-West governors deserve the commendation of all. The South West governors have surely taken concrete actions that demonstrate that, for them, the issue of South West economic integration goes beyond mere rhetoric. Not only have they met fairly regularly to brainstorm on how to collaborate across diverse spheres for the collective benefit of their people, they have decided that henceforth, the group will be known as Western Nigeria Governors’ Forum. In doing so, the governors are putting the interest of the region above partisan proclivities, ideological differences and individual idiosyncrasies.

    The governors showed their seriousness in this regard when they readily accepted, endorsed and facilitated the establishment of the Development Agenda of Nigeria (DAWN) as the institutional Think Tank to drive the idea of Western Regional Integration on the intellectual plane. It is a testimony to the efficacy of DAWN within its short life span that the governors have adopted its proposed 25-year master plan for the continuous integration and development of the region’s economy in different areas including agriculture, industrialization, commerce and security among others.

    Beyond this, the governors have helped in no small measure to facilitate the ongoing resurgence of the O’odua Group of companies, owned by the six states in the zone, as the Special Purpose Vehicle to spearhead the rejuvenation of the region’s economy. This they have done by not only allowing the emergence of a competent Group Managing Director of the company, Mr. Adewale Raji, through a rigorous and thorough process but also ensuring that the conglomerate no longer experiences the kind of partisan interference in its management that had been its bane in the past. Beyond this, Lagos State has been absorbed into the O’odua Group with her phenomenal resource base as well as tremendous expertise. This is a giant stride forward.

    However, at their last quarterly meeting which took place in Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital, the governors made some assertions, which are quite thought provoking, provocative and even not a little incurious. Their central contention was that the splitting of the old Western Region into six states had hampered the development of the South West and created dysfunctional divisions among a people once bonded in unity. The host governor, Senator Ibikunle Amosun, set the tone of the meeting when in his opening address he lamented that the West is no more recording the kind of feats that dazzled the world when the region was one entity under the leadership of the great sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo.

    According to the governor: “However, the creation of States from the old Western Region in 1976, which should have been an impetus for further socio economic development has been allowed to create artificial boundaries between our people. And to further worsen the situation, some of our people are also making themselves available as instruments of division because of their selfish political gains. The consequence is that our people begin to see themselves as a people of one state or the other rather than as a sub-unit of the entity of the Yoruba people.”

    Reinforcing this view, Osun State Governor, Ogbeni Raufu Aregbesola, was no less unambiguous when he said that “We must be mindful of the fact that as a singular state then, we achieved more than now when we are divided into six states. We must identify our strengths, unify those strengths and explore the strengths for the benefit of our people. We must use the development to galvanize our people”.  It was, of course, bold, courageous and selfless of the governors to have made this point. However, the logical conclusion of their postulation would have been to suggest a regression to the four-regional -structure of the First Republic.

    Yet, the governors know that this is not an idea that will fly with their people. It has become empirically and logically impossible to go back to the politically monolithic regions of the past. The states have taken on a life and identity of their own. No state will be willing to exchange the perceived suzerainty of an all powerful federal government for that of a no less dominant regional behemoth. It would amount to what the noted Political Scientist, Mahmud Mamdani, described as ‘decentralized despotism.’

    In any case, the four-regional structure was broken down into 12 states in 1967 largely due to pressure from the minorities who wanted to be free from the perceived dominion of the ethnic majorities within each region. It is certainly not fortuitous that the first state creation exercise took place when the then Colonel Yakubu Gowon from a minority ethnic group was Head of State. Ironically, the 2014 National Conference convened by the Dr. Goodluck Jonathan administration, rather than recommend a reversion to four or six zonal- structure wanted the number of states increased to 54! In spite of whatever anyone may think of him, there are still many Ekiti indigenes that remain grateful to the brutal dictator, General Sani Abacha, for creating for them a state they ardently desired. Right now, the sentiments are still very strong for the creation of Ijebu, Ibadan and Oke-Ogun states, for instance, in the South West.

    In any case, Awo himself wanted the regions broken down by advocating the creation of states along ethno-linguistic lines although unviable but contiguous merged. Even then, going by Awo’s formula, the major ethnic groups would still have remained intact within their states while the minority ethnic groups would have been atomized into a multiplicity of states. That would still have skewed the overall structure of the polity in favour of the ethnic majority groups.

    It is true that the military abused the state creation process by allegedly creating states sometimes in favour of wives, concubines or cronies. Overall, however, I think the stated reasons for state creation, which is to bring government closer to the people, have largely, even if insufficiently, been met. Many parts of the country that today have been opened to some basic artifacts of modernity would not have had that opportunity but for state creation. The problem has been an over centralized structure where everybody has become addicted to and dependent on oil and the states have been constitutionally constrained from utilizing the resources within their jurisdiction for the benefit of their people and ultimately boosting the fiscal health of the country as a whole.

    Now, could the attainments of the Awolowo-led regional government in the first republic be attributed solely to the fact that the region was one entity? I think not. In the first place, the Yoruba have never in this country’s political history followed a one way traffic in terms of partisan political affiliation or even ideological orientation. However, a not insignificant part of the population has oftentimes expressed preference for progressive parties with federalist and welfarist bent. But we must not forget that it was the bitter, irresolvable fight to the finish among factions of the Yoruba political class, some in alliance with outside forces that led to the turmoil in the Western Region that eventually engulfed the entire country, brought down the First Republic and eventually led to the tragic civil war. This was long before the creation of states.

    Beyond the existence of the Western Region as a single entity, I believe that the remarkable success of the region’s government particularly between 1952 and 1959, could be attributed to Awo’s own capacity and vision as a leader, the Action Group’s discipline, sense of purpose and ideological clarity as a party, Awo’s predilection for picking and working with highly capable aides who had the freedom to debate the leader on policy issues with everybody in the end bowing to and implementing the demonstrably superior idea and the caliber of first rate intellectuals that constituted the Action Group’s Think Tank. This is why when he was Minister of Finance and Vice Chairman of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) during the war, Awo was able to demonstrate once more in unmistakable terms his wizardry in financial management and his overall leadership capability.

    To their credit many of the current South West governments are delivering commendably on quality infrastructure, environmental renewal and social services. They are following creditably in the footsteps of their forbears including Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Chief Olusegun Osoba, late Chief Adefarati, late Alhaji Lam Adesina, Chief Bisi Akande, Otunba Niyi Adebayo and later Mr. Babatunde Raji Fashola (SASN), Dr Kayode Fayemi to name a few. There is a smattering of governors across the country that is also reported to be taking commendable developmental strides in their respective jurisdictions.

    In the Second Republic, the performances of Governors like Alhaji Lateef Jakande in Lagos, Chief Bola Ige in Oyo, Chief Adekunle Ajasin in Ondo, Chief Bisi Onabanjo in Ogun, Professor Ambrose Alli in Bendel, Mallam Abubakar Rimi in Kano, Alhaji Balarabe Musa in Kaduna or Mr Sam Mbakwe in Imo showed clearly that whether you have states or regions, a visionary leader with discipline and a sense of purpose will make an impact for the greatest good of the greatest number of the people.

    The South West governors would do well not to waste valuable time in nostalgia over a past that cannot be recalled. Given the current constellation of forces in the country, too much energy and time must not be dissipated on the endless debate on restructuring. The governors have adopted an ambitious and audacious  regionalroad map in Abeokuta. That must be the object of their undivided focus and energy.

  • OPC advocates regionalism

    OPC advocates regionalism

    The Oodua People’s Congress (OPC) has condemned the rejection of regionalism, by some northern elders, as agreed at the 2014 National Conference organised by the last administration.

    Rising from an emergency meeting in Lagos, OPC described the pronouncement of the northern elders as an affront on the collective psyche of Nigerians and a deliberate breach to a collective agreement.

    The group said regionalism was the minimum option for a united Nigeria, failure of which the country would be heading towards the path of disintegration

    The Northern elders, many of who members of the 2014 National Conference, rose from their meeting, decrying regionalism.

    The northern elders’ declaration came days after the British and the French envoys to Nigeria canvassed a one indivisible Nigeria, even at a time when self-determinism is gaining ground across the world.

    The National Coordinator of OPC Otunba Gani Adams, condemned the pronouncement of the Arewa elders, saying it was a call for anarchy.

    According to Adams, the declaration of the northern elders is a mere figment of imagination that cannot represent the position of the majority of northerners.

    He said: “We view the recent back out of some northern elders on the resolution for regionalisation of the country as panacea for a stronger Nigeria as a gross display of irresponsibility, reckless approach to sensitive matter bothering on national security cum unity and an affront on the collective psyche of Nigerians.

    “The agreement to the regionalisation of the country after failed attempts to unite the country in the past was a collective one at a rare seating where every ethnic nationalities that make up the country had the rare chance to sit together to discuss the future of the country. To now make a detour at this time that the country is almost approaching a brick wall on the path of national cohesion is simply unpatriotic.

    Adams added: “We are not unaware of the desperate moves going on underground by a cabal that have all the while constituted the tail wagging the dog of unity in Nigeria, that are so comfortable with the lingering lopsided presidential system that is deliberately skewed to favour indolence  and evil manipulations that allows a few to benefit at the expense of others.”

  • Regionalism and growth: angles from the North

    The only place where there is availability of work is the north because it produces a greater percentage of the food we eat as well as those used by some of our industries. 

    As this column had observed several times in the past, regionalism is creeping back into the country’s political lexicon, and justifiably so. The latest region to enlist members of its elite corps in the choir of progressive regionalism is what used to be called The Northern Region before the fragmentation of the country’s four regions into 36 states, affectionately referred to by admirers of unitary governance as the country’s new federating units. The three top members of the region’s elite who have chosen to expand the conversation about regionalism are the Emir of Kano and a former governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, former Vice Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University and Spokesman of the Northern Elders Forum, Professor Ango Abdullahi, and former Vice President of the country, Abubakar Atiku. The views of these three vertical figures will form the core of today’s discussion.

    Regionalism, a word that defined Nigeria until 1966, gradually went into extinction during the decades of military dictatorship in the country. Regionalism and other synonyms: true federalism, regional autonomy, restoration of federalism, and re-federalisation crawled back into the country’s political vocabulary in the 1990s, particularly during the pro-democracy struggle against annulment of MKO Abiola’s electoral victory in 1993. But these words featured prominently in the circles of politicians and pro-democracy activists from the southern states. Regionalism until recently remained a word that was hardly used by politicians and political activists in the northern states. Most recently, Abubakar Atiku is referenced as the first major political figure from the north to popularise the concept of regionalism since the Sardauna of Sokoto.

    Atiku had acknowledged the importance of regionalism since the coming to power of President Mohammadu Buhari and the recession that has trailed his assumption of power: “Our current constitution does indeed concentrate too much power and resources at the centre, which has, in my view, impeded national development, security, peace and stability…. There is no doubt that many of our states are not viable, and were not viable from the start, once you take away the federal allocations from Abuja. We have to find creative ways to make them viable in a changed federal system. Collaboration among states in a region or zone will help.

    Atiku’s pro-regionalism rhetoric became more strident when he said: “It is clear to me that the resistance against restructuring is based on three interrelated factors, namely dependency, fear and mistrust. Dependency of all segments of the country on oil revenues, fear of loss of oil revenues by non-oil producing states or regions and mistrust of the motives of those angling for restructuring. And his conviction about the importance of re-federalisation and de-militarisation of the polity acquired more vigour when he advised: “We have a unique opportunity now, with all the agitation and clamour for restructuring, to have a conversation that would lead to changes in the structure of our federation in order to make it stronger, enhance our unity and promote peace, security, and better and more accountable governance.”

    Of course, Atiku has been criticised by many for attempting to take political advantage of calls for regionalism in the southern states as someone known to be interested in contesting for the presidency in the event of a vacancy in Aso Rock. And his analysis of the disadvantage of unitary governance in the country would have remained as playing to the gallery in the south if two other vertical figures in the north: Emir of Kano and Professor Ango Abdullahi had not raised issues about the source of underdevelopment in the north.

    With specific reference to human development indices in the north, the Emir affirmed at a recent conference in Kaduna: “We are in denial. The North-west and the North-east, demographically, constitute the bulk of Nigeria’s population. But, look at human development indices, look at the number of children out of school, look at adult literacy, look at maternal mortality, look at infant mortality, look at girl-child completion rate, look at income per capita, the North-east and the North-west are among the poorest parts of the world….As far back as 2000, I looked at the numbers, Borno and Yobe states, UNDP figures… Borno and Yobe states, if they were a country on their own, were poorer than Niger, Cameroon and Chad. Nobody saw this because we were looking at Nigeria as a country that averages the oil-rich Niger Delta, the industrial and commercial-rich Lagos, the commercially viable South-east, and you have an average. Break Nigeria into its component parts and these parts of the country are among the poorest, if it were a country. And, we do not realise we are in trouble.”  Of course, this statement does not canvass for return to regionalism the way that Atiku’s statement has done, yet it certainly has started to engender controversy in the north for giving the north a negative profile

    Unlike Atiku, Sanusi’s analysis of the situation of the north does not emphasise the issue of federalism. It, however, focuses on cultural or ideological problems that had inhibited development in the northern states (and other parts of the country) during the decades of unitary governance across the country. Unlike in the era of autonomous northern region of the 1960s, the region in the days of fragmented 19 states is seen by the former CBN governor as characterised by under-development that has arisen from northern leaders’ adoption of wrong values. However, the Emir has been forthcoming on the need for northern leaders to change governance philosophy and practice as well as their values. Relatedly, a special conference of political and cultural leaders of the 19 northern states convened a few months ago in Kaduna also addressed some of the issues raised by the Emir of Kano, without drawing a lot of flak.

    Perhaps, the issues raised by the Emir would have remained an intra-regional matter if Professor Ango Abdullahi had not brought up the imperative of breaking the country to allow the north to realise its huge potential arising from land, natural and human resources. Abdullahi’s claim: “The greatest advantage of the north over other regions is that 75 per cent of land in Nigeria comes from the North; agriculture contributes 45 per cent of the GDP against oil, which contributes 14 per cent. Apart from the foreign exchange which oil provides, which in fact has always been stolen by the leaders, there is nothing much to talk about. Presently, there is potential of oil in many parts of Northern Nigeria. Let me tell you that oil money is idle money, which Nigeria has not worked for. The only place where there is availability of work is the north because it produces a greater percentage of the food we eat as well as those used by some of our industries. In any case, there are countries that said they are not moving forward and decided that the best thing to do was to divide. So, what is wrong in dividing the country?” raises the issue of a new form of regionalism, one which allows the North to become an independent country free to exploit its abundant resources. This position contrasts with the view of southern leaders on the type of political structure that can advance the status of Nigeria as a country.

    Two issues that are referenced with varying emphasis by all the three positions are leadership and structure. These two concepts are often considered to be alternatives, especially by lovers of the political re-engineering of Nigeria during the decades of military dictatorship and the authors of the 1979 and 1999 constitutions. For example, references to the golden age under Ahmadu Bello, Obafemi Awolowo, and Nnamdi Azikiwe often ignored that these founding fathers also worked under a different structure, one which allowed each to be creative in governing his region and accountable to those they governed, without undue interference from the central government. It is ahistorical to emphasise the quality of individual leaders in the first republic at the expense of the quality of the structure in which they operated.

    The import of the divergent views of the three commenters on development of the north is not the absolute rightness of one or the other but the open expression of such views in a region often considered inviolably monolithic. A region that has cast itself as the father and protector of the unitary model of governance and fragmentation of states that had sustained unitarism for decades of military and post-military governance seems to be moving away from the belief that there is nothing wrong with the north, and by extension, other parts of the country. The divergent views of the three northern leaders referenced in this column certainly suggest the beginning of change in vision and orientation required to galvanise a national conversation on the way to change Nigeria in a way that encourages open debate about how best to redesign Nigeria for sustainable political democracy and economic development.

  • Resurgence of regionalism?

    Resurgence of regionalism?

    Ironically, just about every region or cluster of states in former regions is now meeting openly to celebrate the idea of regional development.

    Some aspects of a popular Yoruba proverb: Eni eegun n le ko maa roju, bo se n re ara aye nii re ara orun (Whoever is being pursued by a spirit should endure, since runners from the world of mortals and those from the spirit world equally get tired) are showing in what looks like beginning of post-petroleum economy in Nigeria. A political vocabulary that several military dictators believed they had obliterated from the country’s political dictionary seems to be creeping back to circulation, in particular in the Southwest and the North, and without being considered dangerous even by those who see themselves as the police of unitary governance.

    When Nigeria started as three regions: East, North, and West, ordinary Nigerians from the three regions felt sufficiently united by the economic bonds engendered by colonialism and were ready to make the country work and grow on the federal constitutional arrangement bequeathed by departing colonialists. After the regions became four with the splitting of Western Region into two, peace and stability in intra- and inter-regional relations did not suffer, until attempts were made by the ruling party at the centre to change the political orientation of the Western Region.

    In particular, it was when the number of states ballooned further that traces of regional governance and development began to be forced out of the country’s political dictionary: assets owned together by new states while they were in the same region were sold, shared in what was called assets sharing, or assets transfer to corporations or private companies. Just as politicians were ordered by military dictators not to meet under any guise, so were states warned to desist from doing anything together as a region, as doing so was full of risk for the national unity that the military was installing across the country. This order to states became pronounced once abundant flow of oil from the Niger Delta made it possible to keep each of the 36 mini-states afloat through allocation of funds to 36 states and later to 774 local governments from the Federation Account, a code for funds made from sale of petroleum.

    But since the emergence of Development Agenda for Western Nigeria (DAWN) a few years ago when fracking or shale-gas revolution increased substantially supply of fossil fuel in the world, other regions including those that had been mortally opposed to regionalism have been holding meetings on crafting strategies for Integrated Regional Development. Even individuals who would not listen to anyone utter the word Regionalism at the 2014 National Conference under President Jonathan are now advocates for regionalist approach to development. Even at a conference in which the North presented a position paper titled: The North, the Strength and Pillar of Nigeria and the Southwest offered one on Regionalism, many delegates still cried foul at any move to re-introduce regionalism to the country, which such delegates believed to be a harbinger of disintegration or erosion of ‘national unity. ‘

    Ironically, just about every region or cluster of states in former regions is now meeting openly to celebrate the idea of regional development. The enthusiasm displayed at the last meeting of Northern governors, emirs, and elders amounted to a declaration of another governance philosophy in the country, just as several meetings of Yoruba governors have dramatised the birth of a new economic and cultural renewal in the Southwest. Even the South-south that used to meet religiously as a region since announcement of the Jonathan National Conference has not discontinued doing so, almost two years after the exit of Jonathan, just as several organisations and pundits in the South-East are calling for Igbo regional development initiative.

    For the avoidance of doubt, advocates for regionalism are distinct from those calling for restoration of federalism. While the former may not believe in migrating from a constricting unitary system to a freedom-promoting governance structure, the latter may not necessarily believe that there is any gain from groups of states working together to improve the chances of each member of the group. For example, Professor Ango Abdullahi celebrates oneness of the states of the old North while casting those who ask for loosening of the current unitary structure as enemies of one Nigeria.  Similarly, there is no evidence that the governors of the Southwest from two diametrically opposed political parties would have been able to tolerate each other if DAWN had asked them to endorse a document on imperative of re-federalisation of the country, for fear of offending their political patrons. This is despite the fact that the PDP has no space for restructuring in its manifesto and APC that does in its manifesto has looked away from its promise, on the excuse of devoting political energy presumably to ‘more serious’ problems: corruption and recession.

    In effect, revival of regionalism is an innocuous attempt to respond to unitary governance without upsetting it. It may not bring smiles to advocates for federalism or autonomy, but it may be a useful move to avoid the implications of a pseudo-federal system for the lives of millions of citizens left behind in most of the mini-states made possible by petrodollars. In addition, the connotation of contemporary calls for regionalism does not include any attempt to reduce the power of the central government as determined by the 1999 Constitution. If anything, the return to regional planning and development is to reduce the damage done to individual states by fragmentation of the country into 36 states sustained by proceeds from oil revenue, now dwindling because of what happens in other countries. It is logical that politicians with insight are not ignoring implications of the imperative of a new economy in the country.

    One good thing about the resurgence of regionalism is that just about every region now believes there is benefit in it as a strategy to improve the life chances of its citizens, now that petroleum seems more endangered than before. Something that may be missed easily about new emphasis on regionalism is the growing popularity of the notion of unity of purpose among states and even between regions, as demonstrated at the recent meeting of 19 states in the North. It is remarkable that political and cultural leaders hitherto glued to politics of the size of allocation from the federation account to states and local governments are seeing the handwriting on the wall in respect of sustainable development. While states are recognising the advantage of economy of scale in physical and social infrastructure development with neighbouring states, those obsessed with keeping the states apart or isolated for purpose of easy domination by agencies in control of the central government are also aware that the pie is getting too small to sustain parasitic governance systems made possible during the era of military dictatorship and abundant revenue from petroleum. All over the country, political and cultural leaders are responding appropriately to external stimuli that they cannot afford to ignore.

    Governors of the Southwest deserve to be commended for their readiness to take risk on the side of consultative and cooperative governance of states joined by history and culture. By agreeing to share ideas, methods, and resources among the six states, irrespective of ideological or political party affiliations, they deserve to be congratulated for agreeing to think out of the box. It is reassuring that the governors have accepted to work with DAWN on joint projects that can save cost and enhance efficiency in each of the states in the region. This is a recognition of the fact that there is nothing mystical about unity among human beings, as most human beings with common or similar interests are generally likely to work together for self-improvement.  It is commendable that the region’s governors are also ready to re-invent Odu’a Investment to meet the demands of the time. Mobilisation of citizens to buy into the ideology of integrated regional development stands a good chance to benefit from the enthusiasm of their governors, demonstrated visibly at Ibadan, Ekiti, and most recently at the Abeokuta Governance Innovation Conference.

    There are so many projects for the six states to do together: transportation, education, vocational training, energy, agriculture, industrialisation, cultural tourism, physical and social infrastructure, health care, comprehensive health insurance for citizens, public service delivery, and environmental management, to name a few.  This column congratulates the governors for a good idea waiting to become a laudable action.

  • ‘Regionalism can’t work in Nigeria’

    ‘Regionalism can’t work in Nigeria’

    Osita Okechukwu is the Director General of Voice of Nigeria (VON), until his appointment, he was the spokesman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the South East. In this interview with Tony Akowe, he speaks on the agitation for restructuring of the country, sale of national assets and his vision for VON.

    THERE is this agitation for restructuring of the country. Do you think that restructuring is solution to the nation’s problem especially at a time like this?
    When you talk of restructuring, there is a paradox on the canvass for restructuring. Let us even go by the official conferences that have been held in this country. Those who canvass for restructuring are saying we should go back to the regions have failed. Even in the Jonathan conferences of 2014 going back to regions failed. Coming to the South East, my state of Enugu for instance and Ebonyi voted against regionalism during the Jonathan conference and Lagos voted against it in the South West. The South South didn’t support it, majority of the states in the north didn’t support it. I have asked my friends in Enugu whether they want with this agitation and they said they want South East as a region and I said but our people said no to region. What is affecting the issue of restructuring is that most people who are agitating for restructuring are using what is called the clan based agitation. They take it that it is only in their clan that you have good people and that corrupt people are not in their clan. But ask them whether there is any state where the House of Assembly is doing oversight functions? A lot of people don’t even know the name of the man in the House of Assembly because he has never raised his hand. There is no state in Nigeria where local government election is free and fair and that means the governors are in charge of the council. So, if you now tell me that you want to make Enugu state a country, I will start telling you about the crisis on ground because I don’t believe in clan thinking.
    During the formation of the APC and the campaigns that brought the party to power, the party consistently said it will prefer government ownership of public assets rather than giving them up in the name of privatisation. How would you compare it with the recent move by President Buhari to sell off some national assets as a way of beefing up the economy?
    On the issues of the sale of national assets, if it is the President Buhari that I know, I don’t think he would sell national assets that are profitable. I haven’t discussed with him, but the little I have known about him for over a decade and his own disposition towards public asset, I don’t see him selling something like NLNG because luckily for Nigeria, we have 49 percent and our partners; Shell, Eni, Total that are managing the process are holding 51 percent. Nobody has accused them of mismanagement and so there is no justification for selling it. My thinking is that those that are clamouring for the sale of such priced assets or our shares in Africa Development Bank are those people who were chopped up by 1999, 2015 nebulous economic policy. A policy that told us that government has no business in business and ended up throwing up the richest African and producing millions of poor Nigerians, which is a paradox. If you look back, part of the reason President Buhari was overthrown in 1985 was because he opposed those policies to devalue the naira.
    The organised Labour believe that one of the major ways we can get out of recession is through proper taxation. They argued that the rich don’t pay tax and that only the working people who earn little stipends are the ones paying tax. What is your take on this?
    I think Labour is very correct. To be honest with you, those Lagos group that transformed Lagos are in charge of our Federal Inland Revenue Service today and so far the result has been very encouraging. They are taxing even the rich you think they are abandoning. Don’t forget when you hear about VAT, VAT is about the man who is buying and if you don’t have money you won’t buy. It is the rich man that buys because he consumes more toilet rolls in his household, he consumes more water in his household, he consumes more electricity, he consumes more food in his household. So one way or the other, the taxation in place has produced more money. When they were talking about the 2016 budget, if you look at the organogram of how to source the money, you will realize that was part of it. What Mr. President is saying is please try to avoid multiple taxations so that the rural sector will not be weighed down by over taxation.
    There has been increase in the activities of militants in recent times. What do you think is the way out?
    I condemn it strongly and I also understand what Mr. President is thinking. He is saying that it is very difficult to understand why a nation that has an army, navy, air force that is almost 100 years in existence should start paying some local warlords big money to guard installations. So what do you do if another comes to bring the same idea? There is a road called East/West road that passes from one state of the Niger Delta region to the other that was started over 10 years ago but wasn’t completed. I talked about the three refineries, if I were the avengers, when some of us were on the streets saying that Jonathan should be confirmed as president, where were those people who called themselves avengers now? When Jonathan was voted in 2011, they would have told him that if by 2012, you don’t complete these refineries, we will start avenging. That could have been a worthwhile avenging. But if you allow your money to be distributed recklessly and the next day you start glooming, people will say that your fight is actually not genuine. It is self centred and poor in concept because at the end of the day, the Nigerian state and all of us including the avengers are the losers. So it is in their interest and the interest of the government, but more on their own side because if you blow up the pipeline the pollution increases and it is your neighbourhood. Your water is polluted and cleanup becomes difficult. So at the end of the day, you are trying to tarnish the imagine of not only Nigeria, but of your community. So it is better they also think twice. They allowed the golden opportunity they had to go to waste. Part of the greatest reasons why Jonathan lost first of all was because he breached zoning and if we are lucky President Buhari rules to 2023, we would make a valid case based on equity and justice because our brothers from the South West has also been president for eight years since 1999 till 2007 and we voted for Obasanjo even when the South west didn’t vote for him. We voted for Jonathan even when we knew that he would lose and so we have a valid case. That is why I told those who are talking of Biafra to wait and not allow what happened to the avengers to happen to you.
    What is the way forward in our quest to take the country to next level?
    When we asked President Buhari why did you take Colonel Ali to Customs, he said “look with all these problems, we need someone that can prudently help us to manage one source of revenue.” If you notice, with the little importation going on, the custom has been tidying up better than they did before. There is dwindling importation because there is no money on ground. But in spite of that, the little that comes in from that axis is being better managed. But what Mr. President is doing that I think is the greatest armour is the prudent management of that little because before you even borrow, how did you manage the little that comes in? He said there is a law that says you can’t spend money that is not appropriated. The naira fall was envisaged because if you don’t have inflow of foreign currency and we are importing everything naturally the naira would get weaker.
    A lot of people believed that your appointment as the Director General of Voice of Nigeria opened another window for Nigeria to try to better its image. How do you think that the VON can be reinvigorated to achieve the goal for which it was established?
    When I was a teacher 1978 I always listen to Voice of Nigeria and at a certain point I was asking myself what actually happened. Just like I said about President Muhammadu Buhari, I knew there was some rot which also affected the Voice of Nigeria. But I didn’t know it was that deep. Today, out of the eight transmitters we have, only two are working and there is a huge debt to pay. A small agency like this is indebted to contractors N1.2 billion. Even some flimsy claims are not paid. The first job I have to do here every day is to articulate and beg and beg. So, I asked them to bring the totality of all monies released to the agency from 2009 till date. Some of the debts were owed in 2013, some in 2010 and some 2011. I am aware that in government, you inherit both the assets and liabilities. But now that we have little funds, I will find time and gradually try to attend to our liabilities. But first, let me attend to the fact that we have six collapsed transmitters that we use to air our news and programmes only six hours in twenty four hours a day. We are supposed to be on news social media platform but we are not.
    How do you assess the Buhari administration so far?
    Let me start by saying that Nigeria and Nigerians in the fullness of time will not regret voting for President Buhari as president in 2015. What we are doing now is laying a foundation for a prosperous and progressive country. Yes it has not been easy as President Buhari admitted himself. He knows there is hunger and despair in the land. He has consistently asked himself why the unprecedented oil revenue that came our way since 1999 wasn’t properly invested. Why is it that enough savings weren’t made. By the time he ends his term, the prudent management of resources will be one of the greatest legacies he is going to leave on ground.

  • Regionalism as ‘decentralized despotism’

    It was with a grand flourish and spectacular élan that the brand new Ibadan School of Government and Public Policy (IGPP) held its inaugural conference in Ibadan on Monday, February 1. If the morning is an indication of what the future will look like, then one can confidently say that the IGPP is set to become one of the country’s foremost Think Tanks with great potential of contributing productively to the quality of public policy conceptualisation and implementation in Nigeria through rigorous research and advocacy. The quality of attendance at the conference was no doubt a function, largely, of the high esteem in which the Executive  Vice Chairman of the school, Dr Tunji Olaopa until recently a federal Permanent Secretary, who is also the brain behind the project, is held in diverse quarters.

    In his thought-provoking keynote address at the event, former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, made a valiant case for a retreat from the current 36 states structure of the federation to one in which the existing six geo-political zones will become the federating units of the policy. Arguing that the current 36 states are mostly economically unviable, he believes that six strong regions will be more feasible and sustainable. In Chief Anyaoku’s words: “Instead of the present structure of 36 economically unviable states with concentrated power at the centre, the National Assembly should convert the existing six geo-political zones, which are being used for a number of political decisions and actions, into the more viable federating units of a truly Federal Republic of Nigeria. The 36 states can be retained as development zones within the region but without full administrative paraphernalia. And it would be up to the six federating units to consider and meet any demands for the creation of new development zones within them”.

    Chief Anyaoku is of the view that the six zones as the country’s federating units will be more viable for planning, attracting investments for large scale projects as well as shifting emphasis from sharing of the national cake to production based on the Internally Generated Revenues of the six proposed zones. He also proposes a revenue allocation formula of 40% to the Federal Government with the balance of 60% to be shared by the six geo-political zones. This is in contrast to the existing arrangement in which the Federal Government receives 56% of national revenues while the states and local governments receive 24 and 20 per cent respectively. Underpinning Anyaoku’s advocacy for a polity of six federating units is the belief that the regional governments of the First Republic promoted accelerated development in their respective spheres of jurisdiction especially because there was a healthy competition among the regions in this regard.

    Of course, much of what Chief Anyaoku says is true. However, it appears to me that his argument is largely non sequitor. The conclusions he reaches do not flow necessarily and logically from his premises. Yes, the current arrangement, as he rightly says, cannot be regarded as genuinely federal. At best, it is a unitary-federal structure if there is any such thing. The centre is too powerful. The states are too weak and their potentials suffocated by an over centralized and overbearing federal government. But the solution to this problem cannot, as is implicit in Chief Anyaoku’s submission, be the creation at regional level of the kind of choking centralism that subsists under the current admittedly defective federal arrangement. This advocacy for the replacement of the current Abuja-dominated centralism with another form of centralism based on the six geopolitical regions is what I call ‘decentralized despotism’ to borrow the evocative phrase of Professor Mahmood Mamdani in his book ‘Citizen and Subject’.

    It appears that Chief Anyaoku and other advocates of a regression to regionalism do not take into proper account the historical reasons for the country’s evolution from a federation of four regions to the current polity of 36 states. Professor Eghosa Osaghae’s classic, ‘Nigeria since Independence: Crippled Giant’ gives useful information and informed analysis in this regard.  In the aftermath of the January and July 1966 coup and counter coup, respectively, the Eastern and Western delegations to the Ad Hoc Constitutional Conference convened by General Yakubu Gowon in September 1966 supported a confederal constitutional arrangement in which the regions would for all practical purposes be autonomous with the centre absolutely dependent on the federating units. The Western and Lagos delegations proposed an 18-state federal structure with the states controlling the armed forces. In the alternative, the West and Lagos wanted a commonwealth of Nigeria based on the then existing regions, with each region being ‘completely sovereign in all matters except the few delegated to the central authority’.

    Contrary to these proposals of the majority ethnic group’s delegations to the conference, which would most probably have culminated in the break-up of the country, the Mid-West delegation advocated the creation of more states and a federation in which the centre would be strong, injustices of the past corrected and one in which no state would be allowed to secede. As Professor Osaghae explains “As the only minorities’ region and representatives at the conference, the Mid-West was influenced in its position by the historical experience which continually led minorities in Nigeria to favour a strong centre as a guarantee against majority oppression in the regions. Such preferences provided the middle ground which saved the country from breaking up as the majority groups demanded (it probably also helped that Gowon himself was a minority Angas and not from one of the major groups”.

    Having tasted autonomy, it is unlikely that any of the existing states will ever allow themselves to be subordinated to the authority of any regional government. It is inconceivable, for instance, that Lagos will be willing to subject itself to some mythical western regional entity with its headquarters in Ibadan. Indeed, the trend is more likely to be in the direction of demand for the creation of more states rather than the fusion of existing states into six geo-political regions. It is an impractical and romantic proposition. In any case, there is absolutely no reason why the decentralization of powers, resources and responsibilities advocated by Chief Anyaoku cannot be carried out within the framework of the existing 36 states structure. Again, the introduction of a regional level of administration will only needlessly increase the cost of governance in a country already widely perceived as being excessively administered. This is particularly so as Chief Anyaoku is silent on what will be the fate of the existing 774 local government areas in his proposed new arrangement.

    Chief Anyaoku assumes that the four regional structure of the First Republic was responsible for the impressive developmental strides taken by the regions in that dispensation. This is not entirely true. The existence of a genuine federal arrangement, particularly adherence to the principles of fiscal federalism, as well as competent and visionary leadership in the regions was responsible for accelerated development in the regions. In the same way, it is not particularly accurate to assume that the current 36 states are inherently unviable because of their sizes. The states can be made more viable if greater powers, responsibilities and resources are devolved to them as advocated by Anyaoku for the regions. There is indeed absolutely no reason why there can be no healthy developmental competition among the states as was the case between the regions in the First Republic. Indeed, we already have such healthy competition at work in the South West with Ogun, Oyo and Osun states, for example, doing their utmost best within the limits of available resources to rival Lagos in the sphere particularly of infrastructure renewal, expansion and modernization.

    Like most advocates of restructuring of the polity, Chief Anyaoku is preoccupied with formal structures. Yet, equally pertinent and perhaps even more crucial is the question of the values, which under-gird and ought to support the viable functioning of any political structure. Without a fundamental transformation in our political and social values, not even the adoption of a six regional federal structure will result in any meaningful development. I think former President Olusegun Obasanjo was quite on target when in his speech on the occasion, he posed a number of critical questions: “Have we embraced the principles and values of the presidential system of government such as to enable us to realize our vision of a great country?…When are we going to be able to practice federalism in a way that promotes healthy competition among the states for the benefit of citizens?…Why is it that every model that has worked elsewhere never seem to work sustainably in Nigeria?”. I congratulate Dr Olaopa and all those associated with the IGPP on its successful debut on the terrain of academic research and public intellectual discourse in Nigeria. I pray that the institution will fulfil its purpose of contributing productively towards enriching the public policy process in the country.

  • Buhari, globalisation and regionalism

    The  fact  that the first official  visit of Nigeria’s  new president was to neighboring Niger Republic and  Chad generated  the   topic  of today. We  will  look at this  topic in the context of the anti – corruption reputation that President  Muhammadu  Buhari brings  to his high  office and  the pointed contents  of  his Inaugural  speech that referred to our cherished ancestors as Nigerians as well as to  the  laudable  achievements of Nigeria’s  first  set  of  political  leaders  at  Independence  in 1960. These  issues hook into the ongoing corruption scandal at FIFA leading to the election and resignation  of FIFA ‘s  President  Sepp  Blatter  and  the denial  by   S Africa that  it paid a  $ 10m  bribe  to  FIFA  to  host  the 2010  World  Cup  in that nation.

    It  is important  and  necessary  to read  meanings and  draw  inferences  and  insinuations on the actions and  inactions  of new leaders as they  assume office and  claim  power especially  after  winning elections and  President   Muhammadu  Buhari who  won Nigeria’s  much  anticipated 2015  presidential  elections   cannot  be an  exception. Events  that happened  globally  and locally at his emergence  as  Nigeria’s  new  president   cast  a shadow on what to expect as his reaction to them, in  line with his perceived orientation and track  record  as well as the  expectations of  the electorate  that put  him  in power.

    It  is our contention here that the visits to  Niger and Chad showed  clearly the importance  that the new president attaches to the issue  of security and  Boko Haram  as this is the area  of  Nigeria bordering the two nations and  this  is where Boko  Haram has  been operating with  impunity  for  some time. The  fact that the Nigerian president has directed the  military to move its operational  headquarters to Maiduguri, the capital of Borno state and the nagging target of Boko Haram’s incessant bomb blasts  again showed the  concern  of the new president as well as the direction of Nigeria’s  foreign policy on regional  security in the global  fight against terrorism generally and Boko  Haram in particular.

    Given  the new president’s  antecedents  and military background this must  have been a carefully  calculated,  orchestrated move  and military strategy involving  near  humiliating  albeit pragmatic  considerations. The  saying that if the mountain does not move to Muhammed, then Muhammed  must move to the mountain could very well  have been  applied for this visit and  it could not have  been an easy decision to pay  the two visits so  quickly. This  is because the Nigerian  visitor  and   president  was a general in the Nigerian army  that  of recent  made the armies  of the two neighboring  nations shake and quaver at the mere mention of its name, not to talk  of its approach in the entire Sahel  bordering the Sahara desert  or even the entire  ECOWAS  region. That  reputation of the invincibility of the Nigerian  army during his time must  have weighed heavily  on the mind of the Nigerian president as  he contemplated going to Chad  and  Niger for help on Boko  Haram but  he swallowed his pride,  ate the humble pie and allowed  regionalism  to overshadow  nationalism in  the pursuit  of both national  and regional  security.  That  surely  is a step in the right  direction.

    While  one  may  describe  the visit as a pragmatic  and realistic  approach one  should  also look at the way the same president used nationalism to garner  support  for his crusade against  the many  ills he must  confront  successfully and as soon  as possible if he is not to lose his honeymoon with Nigerians in the shortest possible time. While  acknowledging that he knew where  the shoe pinched Nigerians  in his Inaugural  speech especially  on lack  of electricity, fuel  scarcity, youth  unemployment, and insecurity, the president reminded  Nigerians that they were  offsprings of great rulers who ruled empires that the Europeans carved out into the present African  nations. He  recalled  our great leaders at Independence and literally  challenged that if those leaders  could lead that well  in their time there is no reason why Nigerians should lose  confidence that all will be well  during his tenure. To  me that is using our history and pedigree positively to galvanise Nigerians into a type of positive nationalism that Nigeria as a nation expects every  Nigerian  to  do  his duty.  That   again to me is the rationale for his quoting Shakespeare’s  Julius Caesar  that there  is a tide  in the affairs of men. To that I add another Shakespearean injunction  this time  from  Henry  the  Fifth  on the eve  of the Battle  at  Agincourt where the English  troops faced overwhelming odds as they were outnumbered  by the French  but yet were able  to achieve  a famous and historical  victory. Henry  the Fifth rallied  his troops by saying that  ‘when  the blast  of war blows  in our ears then  imitate  the action  of the tiger’. He  urged his troops  on by saying –‘Now  attest that those whom  ye called  fathers did  beget you’.  ‘Be copy  now  to men of lesser blood  and teach them  how  to war.‘  What  I am saying in  essence  is that Buhari’s Inaugural speech  was a call to arms for all Nigerians to play their part in helping him  to  confront the cancers of unemployment, power failure and fuel scarcity by playing their part as bona fide and well bred Nigerians with an illustrious past  and  history –just  like  Henry the fifth did and rallied  his troops to victory even when vastly  outnumbered  by the French  army at the Battle of  Agincourt  ages  ago.

    However  in  the regionalism or  regional diplomacy   that the new Nigerian  president has embarked on,  he must  be prepared for  meeting  a new  French interest different from the one that the English defeated at  Agincourt. In  fact the scenario is different  nowadays  in the way  the British and the French are reacting  to the Boko  Haram terror  in our midst or terrorism in  Africa  generally. While  France has been active militarily  in Africa  driving out   the Tuaregs  and saving the sovereignty  of  Mali  and  having military bases in Chad and Niger,  the  British  have  been luke warm in helping Nigeria on  Boko  Haram. In  fact  the rise of negative nationalism and xenophobia  in Europe  has rubbed  off on Britain and that explains why David  Cameron had to stay at home to campaign and that has paid off  in the victory of the Tories in the May general  elections in Britain. The  brutal truth  however  is that  France  has stood  by its former  colonies in providing military support against Islamist  terrorism  generally in  Africa while Britain  has  diplomatically  looked  the other way because  it feared a political  backlash  at  home where it is crippled  by the policy of multiculturalism which  does  not allow its leaders to  play a leading role as before in world  politics today. Which, considering Britain’s  diplomatic  and  military  pedigree,  is a  great shame  indeed.

    Lastly the eventual  resignation of FIFA’s President  Sepp  Blatter after his earlier  controversial election as  Fifa’s  president exemplify  the  inherent nature and  qualities  of today’s  topic. President  Buhari has a no nonsense, zero tolerance  reputation  for corruption  and  Nigeria is a member nation  of FIFA, which  is a global  organization enjoying the goodwill of soccer which is the most popular sport seen all over the world,  thanks  to the emergence  of   globalization and  the breakdown  of trade and national barriers  through communication  and  information technology. But  Fifa  under Blatter presents a unique  case of using multiple and organized nationalism in one  body to  thwart  the efforts of those involved in the global  effort to eradicate  the cancer  of  corruption  in society. At  FIFA  according  to the US  investigators officials take bribes  to enable FIFA stage  its  competitions in some nations. If  that is the case that should stop. The  fact  that FIFA  under Blatter has  done a lot for sports  development in African  and Asian  member  nations does  not make corruption  right at  Fifa. Indeed  it turns FIFA  into  a type of modern day  robber baron or Robin  Hood. Thievery or  robbing the rich to pay the poor has never been a sustainable  moral  platform  in any age  or time. It  is  certainly in order to suspect  the British  or the Americans of sour grapes in losing their World  Cup  hosting bids to Russia  and  Quatar and hoping  to use charges  of  corruption against FIFA  under Blatter to have them  back. That  too is a  form of corruption that should  be examined and condemned if found to be so. That however  does not make it right for Asian and African  nations to turn  a blind  eye  to  charges of corruption in Fifa  under  Blatter  because  of his official  magnanimity and largesse  to  the  soccer  federations  in Asia  and  Africa.

    Certainly  two  wrongs do not make a  right and the globalized  effort to contain and create zero tolerance  to corruption should be sustained and not  circumscribed because  of FIFA’s  current president’s generosity which  has feet  of clay in terms of transparency and probity. Anyway  in  Nigeria’s  case there is no need to warn  anybody as the new  president  has said that he belongs  to every  body and  belongs  nobody and his  reputation on zero tolerance on corruption has preceded him into office and  Nigeria  is a member  of FIFA.  A  word  is  surely  enough for the wise.

  • Statism, regionalism and nationalism

    Statism, regionalism and nationalism

    I take advantage of a concern addressed to me and a couple of other compatriots early Wednesday morning by a leader whom I trust and respect for his dedication and commitment to the progressive agenda. His concern was about regional development agenda and the effort we make in their pursuit. The concern is apt and timely, especially because we are just transitioning to a new administration which needs all the help it can get in terms of ideas and suggestions.

    Why “regional development agenda?” you may ask? “Is focus on such agenda not inimical to national integration and development?” These are pertinent questions. And as Opalaba would observe, he who asks a question deserves an answer that probes the foundation of the issue.

    The questions are answerable in few sentences. We are regional beings. We were born regional. We grew up 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 prioritised 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 imbibed the ideas that animated the people. They had regionalists in their cabinets. And more importantly, they were under pressure to improve the conditions of life in their areas of jurisdiction.

    Between 1979 and 1983 when different political parties more or less controlled different regions, regional thinking held sway with the Southwest leading the pack and UPN Governors churning out ideas, including the four cardinal programmes of the party, which they aimed at the development of the region.

    Since 1999, regionalism has been championed not just by the Southwest but also by the Southsouth, Southeast and the entire North, which has always considered the North as one indivisible region. Instructively, Arewa Consultative Forum has been more united and more focused than Afenifere or Yoruba Council of Elders.

    In spite of all the available and incontrovertible evidence that we are regional beings, at various times, there has been an incomprehensible ambivalence attitude of affirmation and denial towards the regions. This comes in various forms and from multiple sources.

    On the one hand, every region or zone has lamented its perceived marginalisation one time or the other since 1999. Recently, there has been an unsubstantiated allegation of some zones ganging up against others. This confirms our fixation on regions or zones. Significantly, states have not been particularly vocal in this matter of marginalisation.

    On the other hand, however, some of the same regional advocates who complain about regional marginalisation have confusedly bashed regional (aka zonal) arrangements as extra-constitutional and therefore unacceptable, using regional platform to carry out their assault on region. This came up especially during the Constitutional conferences of 2005 and 2014.

    Now, it is possible to explain such volte-face in charitable terms. There is no constitutional provision for regional or zonal arrangements or institutions for regional development. “Regions or zones are not known to the 1999 Constitution”, they insist. Therefore any regional arrangements or institutions must be private and without governmental imprimatur.

    The reasoning is legalistic; but it fails in two respects. First, it is common knowledge that not every arrangement that we have made since 1999 is constitutionally mandated. We have created institutions and organisations with full budgetary allocations even when they have not been part of the constitutional provisions. We did so because there were urgent problems to be solved that were not anticipated in the groundnorm; and the legislative branch, in its wisdom, gave the proper legal backing.

    Second, we know that states, with their constitutional mandate, have not been up to the task with regards to the development and welfare of their various constituencies. Just last week, we heard about the sorry state of the financial condition of most states and their inability to pay workers’ salaries, and their appeal to President-elect Buhari for federal assistance. The constitution prioritises 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.

    Statism is the belief, sometimes advanced to the level of doctrine, that since states are constitutionally recognised as political and administrative units of the federation, they have a legal autonomy which cannot be compromised and no other arrangements can be allowed or recognised.

    In view of our experience since 1999, it is abundantly clear that statism is wrong and it is the major obstacle to the survival and development of states. It is time to think outside the box of static statism toward a dynamic agenda for national development.

    No one can deny 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 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.

    No one denies the legal reality of states. But 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.

    Regionalism doesn’t pose any danger to nationalism. On the contrary, it benefits the nationalist agenda by promoting equitable regional development throughout the nation. We know, for instance, that in the 50s, regions exchanged useful development strategies even when they were controlled by different political parties. But when states are left to their fate, and resources are meager and inequitably distributed, the resentment thus generated could be inimical to national harmony and national development.

    Here then is the choice facing the Buhari administration: encourage regional ideas for national development or dismiss them as unconstitutional. For a progressive administration that focuses on equitable development, the right choice is not difficult to identify in the light of the foregoing.

    How does the administration go about it? There are various strategic options. States still hold all the aces. Already some regions have prototype ideas with the setting up of institutions such as Development Agenda for Western Nigeria (DAWN) in the Southwest and Strategic Agenda for Northern Development (STAND) in the North. While DAWN is a creation of Southwest leadership, including the Governors, it appears that STAND is a creation of the intellectual and political vanguards for Northern development. DAWN is set up as a Commission in which each Governor has a representative Commissioner. Now existing as extra-constitutional entities, each of these development institutions can be given legal backings by an Act of the National Assembly.

    I can then imagine the following scenario. The President invites the Governors to a round table session on regional development and its centrality to national development. Assume that infrastructure, education, and energy are in play. Surely, a good number of the challenges we have had in these areas can best be addressed with a regional strategy.

    Consider for instance the Lagos-Ibadan expressway which had been in a state of disrepair since 1999 until just last year when the Jonathan administration decided it had to do something. The Southwest could have addressed the matter a long time ago if it was ceded to the region with appropriate resource allocation for infrastructural development. To the objection that it is a federal road, I answer that this objection begs the question: Shouldn’t such roads be regional roads for which regions have responsibility that they can discharge more effectively than the Federal Government?