It was with a grand flourish and spectacular élan that the brand new Ibadan School of Government and Public Policy (IGPP) held its inaugural conference in Ibadan on Monday, February 1. If the morning is an indication of what the future will look like, then one can confidently say that the IGPP is set to become one of the country’s foremost Think Tanks with great potential of contributing productively to the quality of public policy conceptualisation and implementation in Nigeria through rigorous research and advocacy. The quality of attendance at the conference was no doubt a function, largely, of the high esteem in which the Executive Vice Chairman of the school, Dr Tunji Olaopa until recently a federal Permanent Secretary, who is also the brain behind the project, is held in diverse quarters.
In his thought-provoking keynote address at the event, former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, made a valiant case for a retreat from the current 36 states structure of the federation to one in which the existing six geo-political zones will become the federating units of the policy. Arguing that the current 36 states are mostly economically unviable, he believes that six strong regions will be more feasible and sustainable. In Chief Anyaoku’s words: “Instead of the present structure of 36 economically unviable states with concentrated power at the centre, the National Assembly should convert the existing six geo-political zones, which are being used for a number of political decisions and actions, into the more viable federating units of a truly Federal Republic of Nigeria. The 36 states can be retained as development zones within the region but without full administrative paraphernalia. And it would be up to the six federating units to consider and meet any demands for the creation of new development zones within them”.
Chief Anyaoku is of the view that the six zones as the country’s federating units will be more viable for planning, attracting investments for large scale projects as well as shifting emphasis from sharing of the national cake to production based on the Internally Generated Revenues of the six proposed zones. He also proposes a revenue allocation formula of 40% to the Federal Government with the balance of 60% to be shared by the six geo-political zones. This is in contrast to the existing arrangement in which the Federal Government receives 56% of national revenues while the states and local governments receive 24 and 20 per cent respectively. Underpinning Anyaoku’s advocacy for a polity of six federating units is the belief that the regional governments of the First Republic promoted accelerated development in their respective spheres of jurisdiction especially because there was a healthy competition among the regions in this regard.
Of course, much of what Chief Anyaoku says is true. However, it appears to me that his argument is largely non sequitor. The conclusions he reaches do not flow necessarily and logically from his premises. Yes, the current arrangement, as he rightly says, cannot be regarded as genuinely federal. At best, it is a unitary-federal structure if there is any such thing. The centre is too powerful. The states are too weak and their potentials suffocated by an over centralized and overbearing federal government. But the solution to this problem cannot, as is implicit in Chief Anyaoku’s submission, be the creation at regional level of the kind of choking centralism that subsists under the current admittedly defective federal arrangement. This advocacy for the replacement of the current Abuja-dominated centralism with another form of centralism based on the six geopolitical regions is what I call ‘decentralized despotism’ to borrow the evocative phrase of Professor Mahmood Mamdani in his book ‘Citizen and Subject’.
It appears that Chief Anyaoku and other advocates of a regression to regionalism do not take into proper account the historical reasons for the country’s evolution from a federation of four regions to the current polity of 36 states. Professor Eghosa Osaghae’s classic, ‘Nigeria since Independence: Crippled Giant’ gives useful information and informed analysis in this regard. In the aftermath of the January and July 1966 coup and counter coup, respectively, the Eastern and Western delegations to the Ad Hoc Constitutional Conference convened by General Yakubu Gowon in September 1966 supported a confederal constitutional arrangement in which the regions would for all practical purposes be autonomous with the centre absolutely dependent on the federating units. The Western and Lagos delegations proposed an 18-state federal structure with the states controlling the armed forces. In the alternative, the West and Lagos wanted a commonwealth of Nigeria based on the then existing regions, with each region being ‘completely sovereign in all matters except the few delegated to the central authority’.
Contrary to these proposals of the majority ethnic group’s delegations to the conference, which would most probably have culminated in the break-up of the country, the Mid-West delegation advocated the creation of more states and a federation in which the centre would be strong, injustices of the past corrected and one in which no state would be allowed to secede. As Professor Osaghae explains “As the only minorities’ region and representatives at the conference, the Mid-West was influenced in its position by the historical experience which continually led minorities in Nigeria to favour a strong centre as a guarantee against majority oppression in the regions. Such preferences provided the middle ground which saved the country from breaking up as the majority groups demanded (it probably also helped that Gowon himself was a minority Angas and not from one of the major groups”.
Having tasted autonomy, it is unlikely that any of the existing states will ever allow themselves to be subordinated to the authority of any regional government. It is inconceivable, for instance, that Lagos will be willing to subject itself to some mythical western regional entity with its headquarters in Ibadan. Indeed, the trend is more likely to be in the direction of demand for the creation of more states rather than the fusion of existing states into six geo-political regions. It is an impractical and romantic proposition. In any case, there is absolutely no reason why the decentralization of powers, resources and responsibilities advocated by Chief Anyaoku cannot be carried out within the framework of the existing 36 states structure. Again, the introduction of a regional level of administration will only needlessly increase the cost of governance in a country already widely perceived as being excessively administered. This is particularly so as Chief Anyaoku is silent on what will be the fate of the existing 774 local government areas in his proposed new arrangement.
Chief Anyaoku assumes that the four regional structure of the First Republic was responsible for the impressive developmental strides taken by the regions in that dispensation. This is not entirely true. The existence of a genuine federal arrangement, particularly adherence to the principles of fiscal federalism, as well as competent and visionary leadership in the regions was responsible for accelerated development in the regions. In the same way, it is not particularly accurate to assume that the current 36 states are inherently unviable because of their sizes. The states can be made more viable if greater powers, responsibilities and resources are devolved to them as advocated by Anyaoku for the regions. There is indeed absolutely no reason why there can be no healthy developmental competition among the states as was the case between the regions in the First Republic. Indeed, we already have such healthy competition at work in the South West with Ogun, Oyo and Osun states, for example, doing their utmost best within the limits of available resources to rival Lagos in the sphere particularly of infrastructure renewal, expansion and modernization.
Like most advocates of restructuring of the polity, Chief Anyaoku is preoccupied with formal structures. Yet, equally pertinent and perhaps even more crucial is the question of the values, which under-gird and ought to support the viable functioning of any political structure. Without a fundamental transformation in our political and social values, not even the adoption of a six regional federal structure will result in any meaningful development. I think former President Olusegun Obasanjo was quite on target when in his speech on the occasion, he posed a number of critical questions: “Have we embraced the principles and values of the presidential system of government such as to enable us to realize our vision of a great country?…When are we going to be able to practice federalism in a way that promotes healthy competition among the states for the benefit of citizens?…Why is it that every model that has worked elsewhere never seem to work sustainably in Nigeria?”. I congratulate Dr Olaopa and all those associated with the IGPP on its successful debut on the terrain of academic research and public intellectual discourse in Nigeria. I pray that the institution will fulfil its purpose of contributing productively towards enriching the public policy process in the country.
NATION
END
Be the first to comment