It is undeniable that there is a deafening clash of ideas regarding the fundamentals of nation-building in Nigeria. While one group insists on true federalism and demands restructuring of the country toward that end, another sees unitarism as the answer, as a former senator boldly argued some years ago. And though a third group rejects unitarism, it sees nothing wrong with the constitution. For this group, what is needed is strong and visionary leadership.
One voice advocates resource control and fiscal federalism. Another argues that the centre needs to corner the most resources. The pattern we have seen thus far suggests that whichever party controls the centre would see itself as the protector of the nation’s unity, and cannot be expected to give an inch, even when that inch can gain a mile in the journey to lasting unity.
We have held four constitutional conferences including at least one national dialogue in the last 25 years with nothing tangible to show. The last confab was no exception with its decision to refer the crucial issues to a technical committee. Year after year, it appears that we are drifting further apart at the seam of national unity, with groups seeking new regional or zonal alliances which have never succeeded beyond the euphoria of the moment. The aftermath of a brutal dictatorship failed to teach us the most important lessons of democratic governance.
The first of those lessons is that sovereign power resides with the people and that their desires expressly canvassed must be the basis of political wisdom and public policy. The second is that in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural system, respect for democratic norms also requires respect for the diversity and complexity of the polity.
Just as the establishment of a legitimate political authority is the answer to potential anarchy in situation of absolute individual freedom, so federalism is the panacea against potential chaos where ethnic nationalities cohabit and each has an abiding interest in the protection of its inherited values and ideals of life, and feels compelled to repel perceived encroachments on such values. This is what advocates of true federalism understand clearly.
True federalism does not espouse national disintegration as its adversaries wrongly contend. A pseudo-federal structure however fuels resentment and thus political crises of the kind that we have witnessed in our recent history. For even when there is no intention to impose values or to marginalise, “mind-readers” are pretty much in the business of psycho-analysing and drawing conclusions, right or wrong. Whether it be in the matter of animal grazing, or in the issue of revenue sharing, or in national cultural policy, there is plenty of room for diversity of positions and thus of mischief getting in the way of rational adjudication.
Consider the case of animal grazing. Is this a state matter or a federal affair? To the extent that the federal government has an interest per its constitutional mandate, it is by no means an overriding interest, especially since the same constitution vests ownership and allocation of land in the states. Since land matters are cultural, one would expect that states are in the best position to oversee such issues. That is what a true federal system mandates.
In the matter of revenue sharing, the central government has its obligations just as do the states. And while the nation has to determine the matter of what accrues to the centre and what to the states, it is not a matter of conjecture that states, being closer to the theatre of action regarding the welfare of the people, have a huge responsibility to bear. Therefore, states must explore all available sources of revenue and generate as much as possible for the discharge of their obligations.
But what sources are available to states? They could tax their citizens. Yet, beside the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) system and Value Added Tax (VAT), there’s hardly any other fruitful source of taxation for states. Many of these states do not have big businesses or industrial complexes to tax. Taxable landed properties are a rarity; and self-employed citizens hardly pay tax because they don’t make much. The states surely have to do more. But we sometimes ask for the impossible, and miracles don’t come often these days.
Which leads us to potential sources of wealth which, no thanks to over-centralisation, have been practically made inaccessible to states. Many of these states are sitting on enormous amounts of natural resources, including solid minerals, fossil fuel, and forms of renewable energy. States could attract private investors or incorporate public companies to explore these natural resources for direct benefit to their constituents. The federal government could then impose taxes on state earnings.
That approach would not only enable the states to fulfil their obligations to their citizens, it would also make them less dependent on the federal government. And since almost every state has some such source of potential revenue, only a few without, if any, will continue to need the intervention of the central government for financial assistance. Would this threaten the unity of the country any more than inaccessibility of funds now does? Hardly. The present dire situation is more prone to chaos as we have witnessed thus far.
The issue of policing and security has been on the radar screen of the public, especially since the beginning of the present republic. There is no denying the fact that the Nigeria Police is overwhelmed and overstretched. Some state governments, despite their own fiscal challenges, have had to raise funds for their police divisions. Yet crime is on the rise.
The constitution provides for one police force for a diverse population of over 170 million. The reason for this, as every unitarist has argued ad nauseam, is to eliminate abuse and oppression of opposition by states. While there is a point to this argument, it is obviously one-sided, failing to see the log in the eyes of the supporter of the status quo. The federal government has also used the Nigeria Police for political ends as the last dispensation copiously demonstrated.
In a federal system where governors are supposedly the Chief Security Officers of their states, they have no authority to control the Commissioner of Police whose boss is the IGP whose boss is the Minister of Police Affairs who works for the President. The charge of abuse of the police can go round. But if city police functions without abuse in other jurisdictions, we can certainly have state police without abuse. Surely, in an era of limited resources to states, this could be an additional burden. But if their responsibilities increase, so must the resources that accrue to them.
I have identified a number of areas where we could make corrections and amend our constitution toward a more perfect union: cultural sensitivity to land use, resource generation and allocation, and policing and security. I do not think that advocates of true federalism and restructuring are asking for much more. Perhaps some may consider doing all at once as revolutionary and potentially destabilising. We must at least start somewhere.
The present administration received the support and goodwill of a solid majority of Nigerians on the basis of its manifesto of common sense revolution and promise of change. Admittedly, APC shies away from a direct pronouncement on “restructuring” as a centrepiece of its manifesto; nonetheless its explicit insistence on change commits the party to sensible action on behalf of the people.
First, APC can start by fulfilling its promise to “develop state-level Community Policing” and to “devolve the oversight of local policing, including the nomination of the State Police Commissioner and management of the prison service to the State.”
Second, APC can revisit its promise to “revise Nigerian mining legislation to end its ambiguity, providing for a transparent tendering process for mining rights”, and to “provide a fixed percentage of revenues in guaranteed benefits schemes to local communities.”
Third, APC promised to “amend the constitution and Land Use Act to create freehold/leasehold interests in land…”
Spearheading these changes can start moving us closer to restructuring and toward a more perfect union. Let’s do it.
