To expect that the inability of states to function (like their counterparts in other federal systems) as centres of growth and development will be over if more money is released to states from the federation account is to look at the small picture and to take a short-term view of the solution.
Today’s essay had appeared in large parts on this page before. It is being re-published to add to the discourse of state creation, beyond Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s premising of support for creation of Ijebu State on siting the capital in Ikenne, on account of the town being the birthplace of Chief Obafemi Awolowo. Re-presenting this piece has also been influenced by President Buhari’s observable concern in his recent media chat about the fact that there are 36 states in 2015, in contrast to just 19 states when he exited as military dictator.
Future studies, the discipline that is involved in rigorous analytics with a view to predict the future of things, was already in existence by the time succession of military dictators created Nigeria’s states from the four regions in existence in 1966. But this discipline was not available in Nigerian universities. Even if it were, there is no evidence that the military rulers who came to power to redesign Nigeria in the interest of their godfathers, sponsors, or civilian collaborators would have countenanced any group trying to predict the future of the policies and decrees created by soldiers in power. It now appears that the chicken has come home to roost. Using existing data to predict what may or can happen has found a home in the nation’s political conversation.
Senator Adetunbi’s recent revelations on the floor of Senate that most of the nation’s states are prone to bankruptcy or insolvency would not have surprised futurists if they were available in the Nigeria of military dictatorship. The results of the meeting of Nigeria Governors’ Forum cited by Senator Adetunbi should not even amaze ordinary students of public affairs today. What should astound citizens is the solution being proffered for the problem of a basket of unviable states in a nation that depends largely on exportation of non-renewable fossil energy. The solution being offered by members of Nigeria Governors’ Forum is similar in imagination to the one that led to creation of 36 states: throwing available but unsustainable funds at problems or creating irrational solutions and finding problems for and from such solutions later.
States are, justifiably, asking for more allocations from the federation account. It is subnational governments that are closer to the people and are in a better position than the central government to embark on pro-growth and development projects. It is also state governors that receive directly the effects of citizens’ frustration from lack of social services and employment. With allocation of over 70% of federal government’s budget to recurrent items, the chances that states can do any better than they are doing at present are slim, unless the basis of revenue allocation is reviewed in favour of the states, regardless of the fortune of oil in the international market.
But giving more money to the states, though very necessary, is not a long-term solution to the problem of a profusion of mini states. Even if the trustees of the federal government agree (an uphill task) to bring down its own share of national resources to 42% from 52%, the solution to financial weakness in most of the states of the federation would not have been solved. It is important for all involved to note that the trustees of the federal government are as much about power as their counterparts in the states are. For them to release more than 10% of what accrues to the federal government is to commit political suicide. What is needed for long-term solution is to re-think the way the government is governed and restructure the country’s federal system.
The legacy handed over to civilians in 1999 by the military is not sustainable, regardless of whether the price of petroleum bounces back to $106 per barrel. The states are too many and too fragmented to be able to generate substantial internal revenue of their own. It is instructive that in the days of just four regions (four states, if you will), none of the states was insolvent, even when only 50% of revenue from oil accrued to the federation account. To expect that the inability of states to function (like their counterparts in other federal systems) as centres of growth and development will be over if more money is released to states from the federation account is to look at the small picture and to take a short-term view of the solution.
It is the philosophy of basing creation of states on the manna from non-renewable petroleum that needs to be looked at critically by both federal and state governments. Several communities are clamouring for states and they are likely to continue to do so, even if they are confronted with the hard facts of gradual decline of the age of petroleum. The imagination that easy money from oil should serve as rationale for creation of states is also at work in the demand by governors for more funds from the federation account: that more money from non-renewable fossil energy will automatically stop insolvency.
At present, most of the states, apart from Lagos and a few of those that receive special allocations for being oil producers, are basically centres of administration rather than development. Most states cannot provide potable water for their citizens; they cannot provide safe roads; they cannot promote healthful living for their citizens; they cannot create jobs for their youths; they dare not for lack of resources challenge federal monopoly of ineffectual security of life and limb; they cannot provide functional education for their youths and functional literacy for their teeming illiterate adults; they cannot provide support for non-state agencies interested in providing food security; etc. If all of these activities were to be added (as they should) to the menu of programmes that states should provide, the risk of bankruptcy or insolvency would have quintupled, even if trustees of federal power release 10% or more of what they currently hold to 36 state bureaucracies.
While it may serve the purpose of not further demoralising an already demoralised citizenry, the claims by any state that it is not bankrupt or insolvent must not be used beyond that purpose. The financial problem of most of the states is not primarily the fault of most governors (apart from those that have turned corruption into a vocation or engaged in using the funds transferred to them for ostentatious projects). Governors have inherited states that came into being, not because they were considered economically viable by their creators, but simply because state creators believed that creating states that live on handouts from the central government is the most assured way to keep the country united. In other words, today’s civilian governors have inherited states that were created to live on subsidy. It is not the demand of workers for a minimum wage of 18,000 naira per month that is the cause of insolvency; it is only an illustration of financial anaemia of the states that have been created as administrative zones.
What is needed most at present is not for communities to be putting pressure on the government for creation of new states. As the Yoruba often say: “There are moments when there is time for discussing new ideas just as there are moments when there is no idea to discuss, just as there are moments when there is time for both ideas and time to push them.” A season in which Nigeria is poised to borrow up to 33% of its annual budget is not an appropriate time to ask for or endorse calls for further proliferation of states in the country. If anything, this is a good time to call for right-sizing of states through redesigning of the country’s architecture of governance.
NATION
END
Be the first to comment