The Nation Newspaper

Tag: restructuring

  • No to hate speech, yes to restructuring!

    Those who governed well did not arm, those who were armed well did not set up battle lines, those who set up battle lines well did not fight, those who fought well did not lose, and those who lost well did not perish – Zhuge Liang, third century.

    It was the legendary essayist C.P. Scott who once wrote that ‘Comment is free, but facts are sacred’. This statement has endured over the years as the strategic point of reference for free speech and indeed free press in a democracy and it will continue to underscore the way individuals and political leaders conduct themselves in the public arena. However, recent hate speeches, messages and comments coming from the perfidious and distressed leaders of political parties, pseudo – intellectual analysts, ethnic extremists and the media is disquieting and awkward at this time of our nation-building efforts.

    Today, the traditional and social media is being used by mischief-makers, conceited individuals and ethnic organisations across the political divide to threaten and taunt us with footage of their most horrendous and atrocious acts of communication barbarity and hateful messages.  Nevertheless, in my view, the most difficult new element is the attraction that a tiny but relevant majority of Nigerians have seen this hate speech to the point that they are ready to internalize the messages as true and sacrosanct. Therefore, it will require a much more difficult and long-term effort to win back the hearts and minds of people that today seek to destroy the society because of their selfish desires. Equally worrisome, is the government disregard for structured national debates and dialogue to unveil strategy and action plans to resolving the knotty issues of fiscal federalism, constitutional reforms, justice and transparency, which are the hallmarks of sustainable democracy.

    This article draws attention to a few of the complex interrelated issues of hate speech and propaganda rather than the fundamental issues of nation- building and the uncensored social media rape on our collective consciousness as people and a nation. The challenges ahead in my view are undeniably serious for our democratic enterprise and the likely fall-out of uncontrollable hostility cannot be ruled out and as people we must be vigilant not truncate this democratic milestone.

    For the avoidance of doubt, hate speech is one which attacks a person or group based on label, ethnicity, gender or religious persuasion. It can be propagated through spoken words, gesture or conduct, writing, or display, which, is forbidden in many countries because it incites violence or prejudice against a group or individual based on their membership of the group.

    While there is unprecedented interest in the devolution of power, fiscal federalism and restructuring and the fundamental rights of every Nigerian to defend their democratic principles and values as well as the expressions of solidarity for a better country, we should walk and speak cautiously and avoid the bullish media manipulations and the outward show of shame that has characterised the conversations for true federalism so far.

    Most nerve-racking of all in my view is the increasing socio-political affectation from the various ethnic groups and the untamed falsehood resonating from press releases, interviews, conferences and indeed the town hall meetings by their narrow-minded leaders and obscure supporters which can only predict trouble for the nation.

    Sadly, content analysis of the Nigerian media particularly newspapers could easily leave one with the impression of extreme anxiety by our leaders and the political culture of improbability that is evolving and the half-hearted speeches of a do or die restructuring that is spreading like harmattan fire and it is likely to consume us as a nation if self-regulation is not brought to bear in our national dialogue and conversations.

    Therefore, going forward, we must draw insights and lessons from other jurisdiction like Ethiopia. It is instructive to note that in 1996, the 14 historical provinces of Ethiopia were dissolved and nine autonomous regions and two chartered cities – Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa were created to replace them. Six of these regions are inhabited almost entirely by a single ethnic group each, with the three remaining regions more ethnically diverse. The federal authorities deal with issues of national concern, including economic and social development, national standards and policy criteria for health and education, defence, federal police, foreign policy, foreign commerce, and immigration. Therefore, the renewed calls of restructuring of the Nigeria state is a welcome development but a workable document, must be brought to the table and each groups canvass critical positions for the creation of autonomous regions in line with resource endowment and homogenous ethnic group through referendum, which is not in  the 1999 constitution.

    Disappointedly, the leadership at all levels in my view has not set the moral, ethical, social, motivational climate in their narratives and blueprint to earn the untainted trust of the average Nigerian. What is more is that their actions and inactions do not reflect the moral and reputational compass that we required as a people to retool this great nation.

    Besides, the quality of message, resources and presentation skills of what constitute the critical milestone for nation-building are totally absent from their body language and utterances. Reasonably, there are institutional frameworks and conference reports irrespective the conveners that address the core issues of our nationhood. Therefore, it is expedient that we adopt citizens’ diplomacy to lobby and take steps as pressure groups through the National Assembly to do needful.

    Pointedly, one of the damaging impact of hate speech on good governance will be the erosion of social and moral fabric of the Nigerian society which will weaken institutions, undermine leadership competency, accommodation of alternative views, diversity of opinions and more importantly, mediocrity is sacrificed at the negative altar of representation by constituent parts which has been one of the bane nation-building efforts in Nigeria.

    All things considered, the radicalization of the traditional and social media space and the complex phenomenon of Nigerians embracing subtle but radical ideology of ethnicity and hate, which are very disturbing trends,  must be checked, by deliberate and a sustained national conversations that put the nation above all interest and the time is now!

     

    • Orovwuje is founder, Humanitarian Care for Displaced Persons, Lagos.
  • The challenge of restructuring (2)

    The challenge of restructuring (2)

    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.

  • ‘Restructuring ‘II prevent disintegration’

    ‘Restructuring ‘II prevent disintegration’

    National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) and Afenifere chieftain Dr. Amos Akingba spoke with EMMANUEL OLADESU and MUSA ODOSHIMOKHE in Lagos on why prominent Yoruba leaders are organising a summit in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, today, to drum support for resturcturing.

    What is the motive behind the Yoruba Summit at Ibadan?

    The Yoruba Summit is designed to bring together various self-determination groups, to address the degrading situation the Yoruba people found themselves under in the Nigerian unitary constitution. The constitution of the country is not feasible for a multi-ethnic society that we are in Nigeria. We have been advocating in our different groups the need to restructure Nigeria on the basis of truth, justice and progress. The more we agitate for these objectives, the more we express the need to have the issue quickly addressed. And so, we decided that the various groups in Yoruba should meet at summit. The delegates will come from all over the Yoruba lands and others who believe in our cause. The objective is to meet and to audit the situation of the Yoruba in Nigeria and to look at the way forward within the Nigerian state. It would also take appropriate action to redress all the imbalances that have not made the country to forge ahead. That is the objective, motive, philosophy, ideology etc behind the Yoruba submits. We want to allow our people to assess where we are and to see whether it is conducive to progress. We want to say this to them and listen to them and look at how to adjust our situation within Nigeria.

    Can you shed light on the elements of restructuring that you are clamouring for?

    We will be looking at how the restructuring requirement and constitutional arrangement which is much more comprehensive during the constitutional conference that was put together by former President Goodluck Jonathan. In the conference, it was decided then how best Nigerians can live together. But, the succeeding administration of President Muhammadu Buhari adamantly refused to put in place and implement the report of that conference. The conference can be regarded as the constituents of all the stakeholders in Nigeria. Now the best thing to do is for this administration that succeeded the previous Jonathan administration to prepare a referendum through which Nigerians assess the recommendation of the conference. The main element in that reports has been categorised into different definitional options, some call it devolution, and some call it true federalism and all sorts of names. And regardless of the definitional thing, Nigeria can always prosper in a federal structure. This has been the practice, until 1966, when the military struck and stole our government with the barrel of the guns. Nigeria went into the civil war and the military designed various constitutions and that of the 1999, which they lied to us by saying, we Nigerians gave ourselves this constitution, that is falsehood. We never went to referendum, never elected or selected the constituent members to decide. So, who decided on the so– called 1999 Constitution? In fact, since 1962, Nigeria ceased to have the peoples’ constitution. All we are now saying is that, since we have leaders elected by the people, the civilians can get rid of the military constitution and return it to the 1963 Constitution. Any amendment necessary from that can be taken up. The Yoruba people are saying let us use the 1963 and any other document that can assist us including the reports from previous conference reports, work on them to give the country the best. We should work on them and come out with what we think is the best for Nigeria, but the serving political power said no. They said they won’t do it even though they promised in their manifesto that they would do it. As we are here, Nigeria is not working that is the bottom line. Nothing works better in Nigeria now. Education is gone, health is gone, electricity is gone, waters and other infrastructures are gone. The human behavior is degrading, corruption is rampant, the judiciary has been corrupted. Legislators have become legis-looters, irresponsibility rules our lives, and these are the things we say must be redressed. We are not saying that Nigeria should split. We are saying that it should be reworked so that it can benefit everybody regardless of religion, ethnic and geographic centre. But, the oppressors want to keep oppressing, but in this role they have herculean task, because the oppressed have become uncontrollable under their poverty inflicted society. And all sorts of proposals are now being put on the table that appear to question the ethno-centric relationship of Nigeria. It unfortunate, as they say, if you make peaceful change impossible, you make a violent one inevitable. Those of us who are agitating for restructuring are doing that to make the system work better for everybody. We don’t want anybody to go away, but if you refuse, it will only delay for a while because there is no amount of force under the planet earth that can stop the people, who have decided to move. You can slow down their movement but, you cannot stop them.

    Some have said the restructuring will work against Nigerian unity…

    If you say Nigeria is not negotiable and the term and condition of our unity cannot be worked in line to our requirement, the question you ask should be is Nigeria working? Nigeria is not working in all the areas of our lives; we have been corrupted by the oppressors in our midst. Everybody is cutting corners., This is not the Nigeria ways we used to know. When we were younger, and everybody, including market women, politicians and bureaucrats are cheating Nigeria, some of them are being abetted by international organizations and countries. Nigeria is decaying, both in domestic and external relations. Those who say our unity is not negotiable are living in fool’s paradise. Nobody is asking for the unity to be negotiated, but we are asking that we should negotiate the terms to make the unity stronger and more prosperous for all citizens of this country.

    Government is saying that Nigerians should channel their grievances through the Council of State and the National Assembly…

    Both organs are not part and parcel of what we should use. They are product of military constitution, which is unitary constitution. The Nigerians people are the one who should do the articles of memorandum and association. They will hand it over to the government to implement just like what management does. The management does not own the company; they are paid to run the company. The government does not own Nigeria; Nigerians own the government and where they believe that they are not getting good results, they go back to the drawing board to rework it. So, it is healthy to say those who want restructuring wants to divide Nigeria. It is like those of us who want restructuring do not want to keep Nigeria alive, that is not true. What we are saying is that the foundation of the super structure must be solid. We never had one after the First Republic, we only had military dictatorship and the military itself is ethnically filled. It is not democratic, it not truthful to Nigerians. The structure is defected; trillions of naira spent on food importation yearly can be produced in Nigeria. We cannot guarantee electricity; we have four refineries none of them is working. We export crude oil and import refines crude oil. Nobody is benefitting from Nigeria. Both the oppressors and the oppressed are in trouble.

    Some have argued that the 2014 national conference reports can douse tension. What is your position?

    The 2014 conference report cannot solve all Nigeria’s problem but it can make lots of impact. The report will point a way out and methods on how to solve the problems. I was a member of that conference and we produce a document that will stand the test of time. You cannot trample on it. It is already in public domain. The document looked at all the issues that can make the country work. The Nigeria constitution says the country is a secular state, which means it must not promote religious matter, yet government send people to Hajj and Israel pilgrimages with tax payers’ money, contrary to the constitution. We keep lying to ourselves and if we keep lying, there is no way we can make progress. We keep saying that we are one people, one nation. We are multi ethnic group and never one nation, just like the world is full of people.

    What is your reaction to the lopsided appointment in the federal apparatus?

    It is most unfair; you cannot discriminate against somebody just on the basis of his ethnicity or religion which is not his fault. And you think he is going to be submissive or loyal. We have federal character enshrined in the constitution and a commission to supervise it. Recruitment into public office, is supposed to be federally characterized. And there should be no ethnic group that must have undue advantage over others. But, when we continue to see the dominance of one group and another, the people will agitate, this brews discount and disloyalty.

    How united is the Yoruba race?

    Yoruba is not isolated from the Nigerian malaise, but by and large, the Yoruba are still very conscious of its good nature, Omoluabi, which is Afenifere. Omoluabi wants things to be good for you and good for him. They believe that everybody should be well accommodated within the society. That has been the foundation of the Yoruba civilisation. The Yoruba accommodate people and there is no community in Yoruba settlement that you cannot find other ethnic groups living harmoniously among Yoruba. That cannot be said of other ethnic groups. When different people come to us, we see them as one.  Most Yoruba are now feeling uncomfortable because of the way they are being treated when they find themselves living among other ethnic groups outside their domains. They are not happy about the act of ingratitude towards them. Looking back to when this country was created, they have been marginalized and when you marginalize any component of the country, you are causing trouble for the system. It is time this attitude change, everybody must be encouraged. Individual will come and go but the community will remain, if we do not build the community, we shortchange ourselves, them thing will not get better. If you are in the water and it is drying up, you will dry up with the water, there is no alternative to that. And when the water dries up, you are gone. So, you must make sure that the water is replenished. All that the Yoruba are saying and those who believe us is, let us make room for our individualism to blossom within our collective existence. There is no individual that is an Island, it is combination of the individuals that make a country, we can do better than what we are doing.

    If Nigeria is restructured, will it aid the cause of the Southwest integration?  

    It will. When we went the 2014 National Conference, the Yoruba went there to say the 36 federating units have doubled and too expensive. They say bureaucracy is taking away our wealth and that the best for Nigeria will be when the six geo-political zones proposed by Dr. Alex Ekweme is adopted. The zones should have three in the north and three in the south. During the conference, it was made known to us that six regions would not be good for some states. For instance, Ebonyi people say they don’t want to be part of Enugu, there are some in the Northwest who say they want to leave the region and Lagos said they don’t want to go to Ibadan. That was when the proposal to balance the composition in terms of the state came up. The Northwest said they want two more to the seven they had. It was then that we decided that let every region has nine states and that was how we became 54 states. The Yoruba pointed out to them, if there are complaint those 36 states is too expensive, what is the rationale for 54 states? They now suggested to us that the Southwest should create nine states in their region and when it works other regions can copy from the Southwest. So, the recommendation was that there will be 54 states and each of the regions will have nine states each. They agreed also that we should write our own constitution, whether state constitution or regional constitution in line with the dictate of the conference proposals. The world is looking forward to the southwest regional integration. And so, regional integration is the best way to go.

  • How to process restructuring

    In the statements emanating from the Buhari presidency soon after the president returned home a couple of weeks ago, Nigerians were told that, in effect, the president was not sure how restructuring should be processed – especially who was to do what? The National Assembly, it was said, has the duty of undertaking amendments to the constitution; and the National Assembly and the National Council of State were the two institutions in which national discourses should be conducted. It was also said that this president, being an elected president in a democracy, could not possibly decree restructuring like a military ruler. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, the presidency made the process of restructuring look confused, tangled, and even intractable. In reality, it is not. If a president recognizes that it is his duty to lead his country through the kind of mammoth national debate that Nigeria is now going through concerning restructuring, he would not, and should not, give in to any confusion – he would do his duty. We Nigerians expect President Buhari to step forth and do his duty. We have the right to demand it.

    Yes, it is time for President Buhari to get into action. The time of debate over whether we should or should not restructure our federation is over. Of the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria, virtually all Nigerians of note from the South-west, South-east, South-south and North-central support and demand restructuring. From the North-west, some of the topmost notables support and demand it – including one of the most experienced citizens in the governing of Nigeria under our present constitution, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and, very significantly, the Sultan of Sokoto. The Sultan has given his huge voice to some of the key points that the proponents of restructuring have been repeating – first, that restructuring does not divide or break up Nigeria, and second, that restructuring will redress the power and wealth imbalance that threaten Nigeria with conflict and disintegration. It is by no means presumptuous to claim that the proponents of restructuring have won this debate resoundingly. Repeat: It is time for President Buhari to embark on the process of leading us through the process of restructuring our country, in the best interest of our country, and in the best interest of all of us Nigerians.

    Since the president has said that he is in doubt about how to work on this important project, any Nigerians who may have any idea to suggest to him should now suggest it. I hereby offer a suggestion, and it is a suggestion from my knowledge of how a country similar to Nigeria once handled the task of restructuring its federation. I refer to India – the Union of India.

    India is similar to Nigeria in important particulars. Like Nigeria, India is made up of very many nationalities. Like Nigeria, India needed to restructure its federation after independence (in 1947); the nationalities were demanding self-determination and some measure of autonomy. Religious differences added to the tension. As no response to the self-determination agitations were forthcoming, the northern, predominantly Muslim, provinces seceded and became Pakistan and, soon after, Pakistan broke up into Pakistan and Bangladesh. What remained of India was still very large – it is the largest country in territory in the world today, and it has over 2000 nationalities. Increasingly in the country, demands began to be voiced for restructuring, so as to let different sections manage their affairs and development in their own ways. Most of the foremost politicians, including Prime Minister Nehru, opposed restructuring, for fear that it would result in the breaking up of India. In fact, Nehru threatened that if it was decided to restructure, he would resign as Prime Minister. But that did not reduce the demand. The demand kept escalating. At last, the Prime Minister and most of the big politicians surrendered to the wish of their people, and the road became clear to restructuring.

    Therefore, in 1953, Nehru’s government set up a States Reorganization Commission charged with the task of charting the process of restructuring. The commission started with the principle that the nationalities (called the linguistic nations) of India were the fundamental component entities of India, and therefore the real makers of the Indian Federation – which they ultimately named the Indian Union (Union of the nationalities of India). On that basis, they established the further principle that the structure of the Indian Union, as well as the governance of it, would respect the integrity and culture of the nationalities.

    To delineate the federating units (that is, the states) of the Indian Union, the commission decided that each large nationality would be one state, and that small contiguous nationalities in other parts of India would join hands together to form states. Also, no small nationality would be split by any state boundaries, and each nationality would be intact and undivided in the state to which it belonged. Furthermore, no small nationality would be forced to join any particular state; each would be free to choose the state it wanted to join. On the basis of all these criteria, 28 states were formed. Each was a viable state, capable of competently managing its own affairs. Even in the states comprising different nationalities, respect for the integrity and culture of each nationality was to be the way of life, politics and governance.

    The commission then dealt with the very important issue of the sharing of power and resource control in the Union. Most of the powers and resource control that had belonged to the central government were taken away from it and given to the state governments. In any sharing of funds between the Union Government and the State Governments, the State Governments (plus their Local Governments) were to receive a much larger percentage than the Union Government. (Now, the proportion is 85% for the states and 15% for the Union).  Indian scholars call these changes a copious exercise in power devolution.

    As a result of these changes, India quickly settled down and became a progressively stable country. For such a large country with so many ethnic or linguistic nationalities, India is doing very well indeed. Gradually, the various nationalities became contented to be part of India, and India is widely recognized as the world’s largest democracy today. Also, the states of India became progressively powerful and dynamic centres and agencies of socio-economic development. Up to the early 1950s, India was a frightfully poor country, and garish pictures of countless beggars in the streets of Indian towns regularly shocked the world. Today, all of that has changed. India is becoming one of the world’s economic super powers.

    Nigeria is by no means naturally less endowed than India. In fact, in some respects, Nigeria is naturally more endowed than India. The imposition of a unitary structure on Nigeria, Nigeria’s rigid system of central control, the consequent impunity, corruption and confusion characteristic of Nigeria’s system of governance, the inevitable hostilities characteristic of Nigeria’s inter-ethnic relations and the input of tenacious religious pressure by some nations on others – all these not only make Nigeria’s leadership strangely primitive, they make Nigeria’s image grossly incompatible with the image of countries in the modern world. As long as these last, Nigeria will not only continue to fail to make serious progress in the world, she is very likely to continue to generate more and more poverty, more and more deprivation, and more and more conflicts for her citizens, and she is very likely to continue to stumble until she disintegrates. President Muhammadu Buhari holds the decisive key today. I do not insist that he should take Nigeria through exactly the process that Pandit Nehru took India in 1953. All I ask as a Nigerian is that he should take some dutiful action as Nehru did in 1953 to guide his country out of a dark night of impending implosion to the light of survival and revival. He can do it. Will he do it?

     

  • The true restructuring we need

    SIR: What are we restructuring?  Are we restructuring the failure of grand projects such as Federal Superphosphate Fertiliser Company, Kaduna, Delta Steel Company, Warri, Machine Tools Company, Osogbo, as well as the Warri, Port Harcourt and Kaduna refineries?  We cannot reinvent the past, but we can at least learn from the costly failures that defaced it. We need innovations to remedy the crisis of infrastructure, reducing information deficiencies in our planning process, depoliticising, and de-ethnicising important economic decisions, as well as picking up the balls of agricultural and industrial revolutions. It is only technology not restructuring that can bring down the prices of food now.

    Nigeria missed out of the First Industrial Revolution which is widely taken to be the shift from our reliance on animals, human effort and biomass as primary sources of energy to the use of fossil fuels and the mechanical power. Nigeria missed out of the Second Industrial Revolution which occurred between the end of the 19th century and the first two decades of the 20th century, and brought major breakthroughs in the form of electricity distribution, both wireless and wired communication, the synthesis of ammonia and new forms of power generation. Nigeria missed out of the Third Industrial Revolution which begun in the 1950s with the development of digital systems, communication and rapid advances in computing power, which have enabled new ways of generating, processing and sharing information.

    Nigeria is about to miss out of the Fourth Industrial Revolution which can be described as the advent of “cyber-physical systems” involving entirely new capabilities for people and machines because those who are agitating for restructuring are focusing on the components of first industrial revolution. While these capabilities are reliant on the technologies and infrastructure of the Third Industrial Revolution, the Fourth Industrial Revolution represents entirely new ways in which technology becomes embedded within societies and even our human bodies. Examples include genome editing, new forms of machine intelligence, breakthrough materials and approaches to governance that rely on cryptographic methods such as the block chain. The agitators of restructuring in Nigeria have lost focus on 4th industrial revolution because they are focusing on the 36 states and 774 local governments and their natural resources without paying attention to the fourth industrial revolution.

    Nigeria needs innovations in rapidly changing times where the definition of schools and learning has shifted radically; where brick and mortar schools are being challenged by borderless learning, and educational curricula must change rapidly in response to the current dynamics. The Internet has become the world’s number one classroom, without walls and boundaries; an internet enabled device is a school of incomparable value. Today, we live amongst people who carry degrees and certificates from schools and institutions in geographies they are yet to step on.

    Nigeria needs innovations  because the top 10 in-demand jobs of 2010 did not exist at all in 2004; that the United States was currently preparing students for jobs that yet don’t exist, using technologies that haven’t yet been invented in order to solve problems they don’t know yet are problems. Nigeria needs innovations because the information age we live in today requires us to prepare our children more effectively to compete against others from all corners of the planet. We owe them that duty.

    Nigeria needs innovations because global boundaries are shrinking and the world is now a truly global village. In business, we no longer compete against our neighbours and countrymen but against unknown entities in some remote parts of the globe. The hunt for skills and talents traverses national boundaries. Our children will have to compete against other children from China, India, Ghana, the United States, South Africa and a whole lot of others for jobs and opportunities.

    Nigeria needs innovations because we need to revamp our schools to create a new learning culture, increase our investments in education, review our curriculum and equip our children with real world problem-solving capacities.

    Oil has served us but it is on its way out. The next wave of growth will be fuelled by 4th industrial revolution with higher mental capacity of our people; what they can see; what they can create and what they can give to the world. That is why we must invest aggressively in 21st century education. A computer is not a toy; every child in school today should have access to one. The Internet is not just for Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Snapchat; it is the platform for exponential knowledge and information that will help our young people to develop real world problem-solving skills.

    We must teach our children to code and write programmes from a very early age so that they can develop technology solutions for the challenges that are specific to our environment and beyond. This means emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, First, if technology is the core resource of the information age, programming and coding literacy becomes the currency of trade in that world.

     

    • Inwalomhe Donald,

    Benin City.

  • Championing restructuring

    Championing restructuring

    IN his broadcast two Mondays ago, President Muhammadu Buhari suggested to self-determination agitators that both the National Assembly and National Council of State were the “legitimate and appropriate bodies for national discourse”. He was careful not to commit the two bodies to the task of restructuring, having limited them to a one-stop roundtable for apparently palliative discourses. Restructuring would presumably be among the topics for that discourse, not the only or major one. Said the president: “The National Assembly and the National Council of State are the legitimate and appropriate bodies for national discourse.” In the preceding paragraph, however, the president had given a small concession, to wit, “This is not to deny that there are legitimate concerns. Every group has a grievance. But the beauty and attraction of a federation is that it allows different groups to air their grievances and work out a mode of co-existence.”

    If the president truly believes that legitimate concerns exist and every group has a grievance, it is striking that he still takes a rather detached view of the anomalies that buffet the republic. Given the severity of the concerns and grievances, which neither he nor his advisers, nor yet any Nigerian, no matter how conservative, can pretend to be unaware of, it is doubtful that redressing those problems could be done satisfactorily and expertly within a consistent, coherent and expansive visional framework of the two bodies he referenced. Over the years, the National Council of State, apart from being simply and often ineffectually advisory, has no backward or forward linkage with Nigerians. Yes, the constitution provides for it; but it is in fact absolutely nugatory in the face of Nigeria’s imperial presidency that has rendered virtually all institutions, if not every official, both elected and appointed, impotent.

    But, as the president puts it, there is appropriately the more legitimate and active National Assembly to moderate discourses and sometimes, too, mediate political disagreements through consensus building and disingenuous compromises. The parliament may be a great forum to ventilate opinions and dissect issues, and has sometimes produced political palliatives of exemplary strength and finesse, but the president may have been hyperbolic to argue that it enables the country to work out a mode of co-existence. Beyond helping to display and direct his fierce but misplaced and misdirected anger, the broadcast incorrectly assumes that Nigeria operates a federation, which he theoretically describes as a beauty.

    Last week, this column dismissed the speech as full of bombast and rage. There is nothing to suggest that an even more careful reading would not lead a cautious reader and writer to come to the same, if not worse, conclusion. What is, however, more troubling is the fact that the president obviously assumes in his broadcast that the agitation for restructuring is at bottom a needless rabble-rousing that really does not require his involvement and leadership. He further assumes that the legislature could produce the searing vision, altruism and breathtaking ideals necessary to rework the Nigerian system to make it an enduring one. He is terribly mistaken. Few parliaments anywhere in the world are capable of undertaking that kind of ennobling assignment. So far, the Nigerian legislature has proved absolutely and spectacularly incompetent to do such a job. Perhaps on a fortuitous tomorrow, they might acquire the capacity.

    President Buhari, it seems, knows quite clearly that neither the somnolent Council of State nor the constantly scheming and complacent legislature is up to the task. What is even much clearer is that, from the broadcast, the president snickered at the concept of restructuring. He thinks, as indeed many others do, particularly across the Niger, that what is required is slow and long-term tinkering. If that were to be the case, the president is right to insinuate that the legislature could carry out that responsibility, for that slothful pace is suited to their inexpert and off-putting style. Overall, the president’s speech has given the country a final indication of his unusual preferences. He is not interested in restructuring, and he sees everyone who agitates for it with a gravity and urgency that discomfit the polity to be a rabble-rouser deserving of the government’s strong-arm tactics.

    If the country would downplay the confusion over the definition of restructuring, as they really should, the question will boil down to who between the legislature or executive can best champion the great task. Since it is indisputable that the question of restructuring involves the country’s superstructure, the foundation upon which the country must be built so that no political or economic tremor, no matter how high on the Richter scale, could bring it down, it seems also settled that the Nigerian legislature cannot perform that task. Consequently, the country needs a visionary with a depth enriched by history to find the right tectonic plates and soil structure upon which to build a vibrant Nigeria. The visionary can of course not do it alone; but he must produce the skeleton, drive the debate and find the right compromises.

    President Buhari seems inappropriate for the task, given his well-known limitations, but it does not diminish the task, nor does it rule him out as a man of noble conviction with the gift of seeing into the future. If he can manage to see into the future, and if he can finally be persuaded to accept that the present structure is inadequate for both the present and the future, he will appreciate the urgency and onerousness of the task. More, he will realize how inadequate the institutional bodies he thought could carry out the task, are. It is only then he will place in the proper perspective the agitations in the Southeast against which he is needlessly emotionally wrought-up, and the cries of restructuring in the Southwest against which he stands ungainly immovable.

    But whether he agrees or not, and whether his aides and advisers coax him or not, the unshakable fact is that, at the moment, it is only the executive that can drive the restructuring effort. If the president fails to drive it peacefully, he must be prepared to stand against it militarily. The first option holds immense benefits for his image, legacy and the polity. Unfortunately, he cannot hope to win should he embrace the second option. The future is against both his perception of restructuring and any military effort should he try one. No one must fool himself to think that that Nigeria is a federation, let alone a beautiful one. It is not. Indeed, it runs an ugly and asphyxiating form of unitary government.

    The problem with restructuring is not its definition. Definitional confusion is simply a ploy by political jesters to defeat the purpose of restructuring. The first step is to agree that the present structure is both inadequate and inoperable in Nigeria, given the country’s rich and variegated history. Should it then not worry the country’s leaders that the search for a fitting and workable structure has continued since the First Republic? Has Nigeria not tried two systems of government and at least three constitutions, some of them so reworked that they became excessive and futile? Has the country not witnessed a civil war, sailed near the wind of many violent upheavals on countless occasions, one of which even metamorphosed into a full-scale Boko Haram rebellion? Just what total breakdown of law and order must it take for Nigerian leaders to reach deep into their spirits to find justification for a new structure?

    Both France and Italy were, just before and after World War II, battling serious constitutional gridlocks. France produced the far-sighted Charles de Gaulle who recognised the weakness of the Fourth Republic constitution and fought tooth and nail to produce a new, workable one, even once relinquishing power to drive home the point that if France did not restructure and produce a new constitution, it could not hope to grow strong and confident into the future. Because of its success, France has remained a stable democracy; while Italy has continued to run a game of thrones. Admittedly, de Gaulle was a deep thinker, author and military theorist, and he could engender both the discipline and intellect needed to rework the French system and produce the Fifth Republic constitution. So far, President Buhari has been unable to find the patience and open-mindedness these times call for.

    No Nigerian president at this historic juncture should fail to study other constitutions and acquaint himself with other nation-building efforts. The stability of a country and the progress it makes depend on its structure and grundnorm. President Buhari and his aides, apart from familiarising themselves with the French experience, must also find time to study the politics and efforts that underpinned Japan’s post-war constitution. The president would like to recall that just as Gen. de Gaulle virtually authored the French Fifth Republic constitution, another general, Douglas MacArthur, virtually drew up the skeletal framework of the Japanese post-war constitution, which, once fleshed out, has remained remarkably prescient. It takes brilliance, discipline, vision, altruism and far-sightedness to judge the moment, recognise the problem, and produce the confidence and boldness needed to redirect a country. If President Buhari declines the job, and equates the cult-like following he receives in some parts of the country with approval of his policies and methods, he will soon find that the country will move on without him. For the issues confronting the country are urgent and deep-seated.

    In 2015, this column campaigned for the then aspirant and candidate Buhari. It went on to foretell his victory, for it was inconceivable that the undisciplined Goodluck Jonathan should win a second term to pilot the affairs of Nigeria with the reckless abandon that became his trademark. This column will hazard another informed guess: If President Buhari should continue to set himself against the effort to remake the country, the country will move on without him, remake itself, and find a formula or formulae by which the peoples and religions of this country can co-exist. No one should indulge in the fantasy of thinking that Nigeria is a federation, or that the equally undisciplined National Assembly can inspire and author that noble future of the country’s dream. It won’t happen, despite the many constitutional amendments on stream.

  • Anglican Women Guild backs restructuring

    The Women Organisation of the Diocese of Lagos West Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has thrown its weights behind calls for restructuring of the nation.

    It called on the ruling class to restructure the nation in a way that will give room for equitable distribution of national resources and political power among the diverse geo-political formations and social strata.

    President of the organisation, Mrs. Lydia Odedeji, lamented the nation has been struggling to exist as a nation years after amalgamation and independence.

    She spoke at the 18th annual women’s conference at the weekend.

    Speaking on the conference theme, “One thing is needful,’ Odedeji, said: “Hundred years after amalgamation, our existence as a nation still lacks the essential ingredients of nationhood which should ultimately manifest in unity.”

    According to her, the unrelenting agitation for political formation restructuring across a wide spectrum of social strata and geo-political formations testifies eloquently to the need for review of the subject of Nigerian nationhood through political restructuring.

    The wife of the Bishop of the Diocese, The Rt Rev Dr. James Olusola Odedeji, emphasised that political restructuring decisions based on wide consultation and all-inclusive approach will guarantee Nigeria’s much needed peaceful coexistence.

    “All these killer groups suddenly emerged with unthinkable audacity, at least publicly, just about the time we were heaving a sigh of relief from senseless killing of women and children by Boko Haram Terrorists who even mindlessly use innocent  children for suicide bombing,” she said.

    She pleaded with the government to effectively deplore and reinforce existing legal instruments and policies that seek the protection of this vulnerable class of citizens.

    Mrs. Odedeji called on all womenfolk to take charge of their naturally divine role both at home and in the society.

    “Women are naturally disposed, by divine purpose and plan, to be of great and primal influence to her immediate family members who, of course, aggregate the larger society.”

    According to her, this divine configuration comes with divine expectation, “God wants us to be an agent of positive change to our immediate community and the world at large.”

    Patron of the Women’s Guild and Bishop of Lagos West Diocese, Rt. Rev. Dr. James Odedeji, said people need to avoid a life filled with distractive activities and figure out what is most needful and determine to go after it.

    He argued involvement in many activities does not necessarily result in accomplishments but mostly mere distractions.

  • Restructuring: of the polity or the mind?

    Given the political history of Nigeria, it is conceivable that many of its leaders, especially those of military background would find problems of underdevelopment of the country in people’s mindset

    Recently, General Olusegun Obasanjo added his voice to the ongoing debate on restructuring by calling for restructuring of the mind of the Nigerian persona, rather than of the polity and economy of the country. Characteristically, whatever utterance the former president makes is bound to attract attention, not necessarily for his profundity but mostly with regards to the former president’s unique participation in the governance of the country in two capacities: military dictator and elected president. His latest contribution to the debate has, justifiably, been a topic for discussion, especially on the social media. While it is surprising that newspaper interviewers have not gone back to the former president to make him elaborate on his diagnosis of the country’s problems, the former president seems to have said enough to engender further discussions of his new theory of poor or ineffective governance in the country.

    Whatever nuances may have inhered in President Obasanjo’s theory of mental restructuring, it, in its denotative form, calls for major change of mindset of the country’s citizens, from top to bottom. In any community where there are problems, it is not unusual for perceptive leaders to attribute such problems to the mindset of citizens. Such buck passing is common, particularly on the part of leaders who want to shift the failings of their performance on followers. Only few leaders in history like to accept their own share of blame for consequences that arise from legacies bequeathed by them, particularly when citizens complain about such projects or visions.

    Given the political history of Nigeria, it is conceivable that many of its leaders, especially those of military background would find problems of underdevelopment of the country in people’s mindset. It is thus not surprising that of all the military generals that have had opportunity to participate in the governance of the country, only an infinitesimal minority had shown understanding of the role of political structure on the ineffective governance of the country. Such leaders cannot be up to ten percent of the hundreds of military men who had served as head of state, governors, ministers, and leaders of government agencies. The reason for this may be that just a few of such former military officers in political power had the opportunity to restructure their minds, to the extent that they are able to recognise the role of the architecture of governance between 1966 and now on peace and progress in the country. The change in the consciousness of former military leaders, such as retired Admiral Kanu, Lt-General Akinrinade, and even General Babangida and a few others who recently got converted to the imperative of restructuring of the polity shows that mental restructuring being promoted by General Obasanjo is not as exotic as it may sound.

    The mindset that re-designed Nigeria away from its federal system in 1960 is incontrovertibly that of the military. Many commenters have argued that whatever mistakes military rulers made between the end of the civil war and 1999 was more likely to have been of the head rather than of the heart. In other words, those involved in military rule must have meant well for the country when they made policies and decrees that degraded the country’s federal system or that they could only give what they had as professionals trained to live by command. Today’s column is not about apportioning blame as much as it is about showing how mindsets can create problems and how restructured mindsets can identify solutions to such problems. Increase in the volume of revenue garnered from petroleum export during the years in which military leaders enjoyed chorusing that “the problem of Nigeria was not money but how to spend it” must have convinced military minders of the country that creating a unitary system of mini states funded principally with revenue from oil was the most creative intervention any group of patriotic leaders like them could make. That mindset stimulated the philosophy of ‘Even Development’, not in terms of what is done for citizens across the country but in terms of allocation of funds to governments of a total of 36 states and 774 local governments.

    Of course, such intervention created opportunities for many bureaucrats and professionals in the 36 states to become governors, commissioners, and contractors made possible by revenue from petroleum and reduction of the percentage of such revenue reserved for regions of origin of petroleum and other resources at independence. Even traditional rulers got their own share of the soft cake, as more crown-wearing Obas, Emirs, Obis, and Obongs were created by fiat at the instance of state governors. What the military rulers and new designers of Nigeria overlooked was that anything unsavoury could happen to revenue from oil. Many civilians benefiting from creation of 12 to 36 states did not notice if the promise of stimulating development by bringing governments closer to the people ever materialised. The kind of fragmentation of governance units in vogue under military dictators is now back among lawmakers who are bent on giving autonomy to 774 local governments enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. Those waiting in the wings to become chairmen and supervising councillors, as well as village heads aspiring to become crowned traditional rulers are not likely to see anything wrong with creating and maintaining 774 governance units in a country less than twice the size of Texas, one of 50 states in the United States. Not many civilians are likely to take time to understand evolution in the history and culture of fossil oil and the possible impact gradual or sudden changes in the petroleum market is likely to have on the polity and economy of the not so distant future. Former President Obasanjo thus deserves kudos for bringing up the importance of restructuring of the mind.

    Certainly, a mindset that created a political and economic structure that has lost its relevance over time certainly requires that the problems created by the original mindset be changed before changing the mindset itself, more so if such mindset has become so ingrained that it might be resistant to change.  It is the need to control damage that has been created by a specific mode of thinking that now drives patriots to call for restructuring of the country’s polity. This demand in no way suggests that mental restructuring is unnecessary. To proponents of restructuring, it is more logical to first do away with a structure that is counterproductive before reforming the minds of those who created such flawed design, more so that such design diminishes the quality of the lives of majority of the population.  It is not accidental that most of the military men who contributed to de-federalisation of the country believe that everything about the structure of governance in the country is already cast in stone or iron. It is human for those who created the flawed design to see their ego as being bruised by people with a different mindset about how to nurture a multiethnic nation-state into a truly federal democracy. It is realistic for those who contributed to the current quasi-federal system to believe that some parts of them and of their valued legacy projects are likely to be jettisoned in the event of restructuring or re-federalisation.

    There is no evidence that those calling for political restructuring are averse to restructuring of the mind of individuals—rulers and the ruled. If anything, restructuring of the country’s political and economic system is likely to be more efficient for exercise in mental restructuring. Just as many citizens have become inured over time to the parasitic economic model created to power a parasitic political system that people now perceive to be unsustainable, so are they likely to be incentivised to cultivate a new mindset to respond to a political and economic structure that fuels achievement orientation in individuals; productivity on the part of communities; and more freedom of thought and action with which restructuring is bound to endow all communities and citizens. Without doubt, the country will benefit tremendously from political and mental restructuring, more so if the former takes place before the latter. It should not be hard for those advocates for political restructuring and those calling for mental restructuring to collaborate, as doing so can accelerate the process of creating sustainable unity, democracy, and economic development.

    Roposek@msn.com

  • The challenge of restructuring

    The challenge of restructuring

    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

     

     

  • Restructuring the answer

    We all believe that historical and geographical factors determined the constitutional evolution in Nigeria, but these factors, it must be emphasised, do not determine the shape and form of our federal system.  Section 34 of Unification Decrees of 1966 provided a situation where we feel fear of domination by central government because of how powerful it may become, especially if it is mostly led by a particular class of persons.

    Unity is the bedrock of every society. The weak become strong when united. We are a nation of diverse cultures and languages. Our differences shouldn’t make us weak. They must be the sources of our strength. A country as diversified as Nigeria is beautiful. We have come this far despite war. We are a country united by diversity. It is a manifestation of true nationhood.

    Attaining our development goals should not have been as difficult as it seems presently. The topical discussions in the country now are agitations for secession and restructuring. The unity of this great country is under a great threat. It is upon us to ensure the threads holding the different parts of the nation’s fabric are knitted together. We are making what can lead us to irreversible development to be a problem.

    For more than a century, we have been together despite ruinous wars, blood-spattered coups and internecine wrangling. It shows we are bigger and stronger than what we think. Indeed, the call for restructuring is genuine. Restructuring should not be about redistributing the powers of the government, it must also include reshaping our minds and actions as citizens of Nigeria. That is, there is need for individual restructuring.

    We need to rebuild our individual’s visions and missions for positive actions. We must rebrand our characters as we make agitation for country’s reorganisation. We can’t change Nigeria without a recreation of our characters and behaviours. The unity of Nigeria must not be toyed with, just as the welfare of the citizens.

    Restructuring has become a national debate. We all seem to forget that after all, restructuring also demands for character reformation. We cannot claim to have restructured with negative beliefs and mindsets. Democracy, being a system of government where the views and opinion of every citizen should count, plays a big role in nation’s development. If we must restructure, Nigeria must remain a united nation and our diversity must be upheld. This is a sure step to our growth.

    The primary reason for the call for secession is injustice and lopsided distribution of political power. A section of the country is feeling that another section has personalised power and made it its exclusive preserve. Another factor is lack of religious freedom. Rather than merit, political offices are occupied based on favoritism. Some sections of the country feel marginalised, while poverty rate increases.

    A section feels it is superior in economic and political power, thereby disorganising social order. Restructuring is simply a call for the restoration of federalism, which allows the division of sovereignty between the central government and the federating units. The history of Nigeria’s federalism is traced to 1914 amalgamation and the Richard Constitution of 1946 where the country was divided into three regions.

    Then Macpherson Constitution of 1951 appointed Lieutenant Governors to head these three regions and granted legislative power to the legislative and executive councils that were established. The Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 shared powers between the central and the regional governments and the creation of the Supreme Court to solve issues between regions and central government.

    The extant 1999 Constitution in Chapter One also restates the nation’s federalist status, describing it as indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state.

    Restructuring Nigeria has a lot of good values. Nigeria is not a federal state in the real sense of the word. Nigeria is federalism by name and not by laws or duties of the various regions of government. The state exists as cover-ups to the federal government looking at the allocation formula where the Federal Government takes 52.8per cent, while states and local governments share only 47.2 per cent.

    The restructuring we seek is to rebuild our political environment in practice and not on constitutional theories. It is important we know that restructuring of Nigeria is a step in the right direction which should be embraced by all Nigerians. The theme of restructuring is to create opportunities by bringing Nigerians into productive activities. Would restructuring solve the problems our economy is facing? Yes, I believe because the country would be more united and peaceful. Economic activities thrive in peaceful environment.

    There are no problems we cannot solve together, and very few that we can solve by ourselves. Restructuring would certainly not provide all the answers to our numerous challenges, but it is a big and bold step to lay concrete foundation to building a prosperous nation.

    We must also not take our unity for granted. We need not issue threats in calling for restructuring. This is not a time to blame and drum the beat of war. It is time we go forward and together. This is a time to call for unity, peace, reforms and focus. We should have a nation with self-sustaining units. The unity of Nigeria should not be compromised in the process. There can be hope for a society which acts as one big family, not as many separate ones. The unity of Nigeria should not be questioned. It is time we stand strong. We should not be separated in interest or divided in purpose. We should stand together until the end.

     

    • Ugonna is a Law student, University of Nigeria, Nsukka