Ironically, just about every region or cluster of states in former regions is now meeting openly to celebrate the idea of regional development.
Some aspects of a popular Yoruba proverb: Eni eegun n le ko maa roju, bo se n re ara aye nii re ara orun (Whoever is being pursued by a spirit should endure, since runners from the world of mortals and those from the spirit world equally get tired) are showing in what looks like beginning of post-petroleum economy in Nigeria. A political vocabulary that several military dictators believed they had obliterated from the country’s political dictionary seems to be creeping back to circulation, in particular in the Southwest and the North, and without being considered dangerous even by those who see themselves as the police of unitary governance.
When Nigeria started as three regions: East, North, and West, ordinary Nigerians from the three regions felt sufficiently united by the economic bonds engendered by colonialism and were ready to make the country work and grow on the federal constitutional arrangement bequeathed by departing colonialists. After the regions became four with the splitting of Western Region into two, peace and stability in intra- and inter-regional relations did not suffer, until attempts were made by the ruling party at the centre to change the political orientation of the Western Region.
In particular, it was when the number of states ballooned further that traces of regional governance and development began to be forced out of the country’s political dictionary: assets owned together by new states while they were in the same region were sold, shared in what was called assets sharing, or assets transfer to corporations or private companies. Just as politicians were ordered by military dictators not to meet under any guise, so were states warned to desist from doing anything together as a region, as doing so was full of risk for the national unity that the military was installing across the country. This order to states became pronounced once abundant flow of oil from the Niger Delta made it possible to keep each of the 36 mini-states afloat through allocation of funds to 36 states and later to 774 local governments from the Federation Account, a code for funds made from sale of petroleum.
But since the emergence of Development Agenda for Western Nigeria (DAWN) a few years ago when fracking or shale-gas revolution increased substantially supply of fossil fuel in the world, other regions including those that had been mortally opposed to regionalism have been holding meetings on crafting strategies for Integrated Regional Development. Even individuals who would not listen to anyone utter the word Regionalism at the 2014 National Conference under President Jonathan are now advocates for regionalist approach to development. Even at a conference in which the North presented a position paper titled: The North, the Strength and Pillar of Nigeria and the Southwest offered one on Regionalism, many delegates still cried foul at any move to re-introduce regionalism to the country, which such delegates believed to be a harbinger of disintegration or erosion of ‘national unity. ‘
Ironically, just about every region or cluster of states in former regions is now meeting openly to celebrate the idea of regional development. The enthusiasm displayed at the last meeting of Northern governors, emirs, and elders amounted to a declaration of another governance philosophy in the country, just as several meetings of Yoruba governors have dramatised the birth of a new economic and cultural renewal in the Southwest. Even the South-south that used to meet religiously as a region since announcement of the Jonathan National Conference has not discontinued doing so, almost two years after the exit of Jonathan, just as several organisations and pundits in the South-East are calling for Igbo regional development initiative.
For the avoidance of doubt, advocates for regionalism are distinct from those calling for restoration of federalism. While the former may not believe in migrating from a constricting unitary system to a freedom-promoting governance structure, the latter may not necessarily believe that there is any gain from groups of states working together to improve the chances of each member of the group. For example, Professor Ango Abdullahi celebrates oneness of the states of the old North while casting those who ask for loosening of the current unitary structure as enemies of one Nigeria. Similarly, there is no evidence that the governors of the Southwest from two diametrically opposed political parties would have been able to tolerate each other if DAWN had asked them to endorse a document on imperative of re-federalisation of the country, for fear of offending their political patrons. This is despite the fact that the PDP has no space for restructuring in its manifesto and APC that does in its manifesto has looked away from its promise, on the excuse of devoting political energy presumably to ‘more serious’ problems: corruption and recession.
In effect, revival of regionalism is an innocuous attempt to respond to unitary governance without upsetting it. It may not bring smiles to advocates for federalism or autonomy, but it may be a useful move to avoid the implications of a pseudo-federal system for the lives of millions of citizens left behind in most of the mini-states made possible by petrodollars. In addition, the connotation of contemporary calls for regionalism does not include any attempt to reduce the power of the central government as determined by the 1999 Constitution. If anything, the return to regional planning and development is to reduce the damage done to individual states by fragmentation of the country into 36 states sustained by proceeds from oil revenue, now dwindling because of what happens in other countries. It is logical that politicians with insight are not ignoring implications of the imperative of a new economy in the country.
One good thing about the resurgence of regionalism is that just about every region now believes there is benefit in it as a strategy to improve the life chances of its citizens, now that petroleum seems more endangered than before. Something that may be missed easily about new emphasis on regionalism is the growing popularity of the notion of unity of purpose among states and even between regions, as demonstrated at the recent meeting of 19 states in the North. It is remarkable that political and cultural leaders hitherto glued to politics of the size of allocation from the federation account to states and local governments are seeing the handwriting on the wall in respect of sustainable development. While states are recognising the advantage of economy of scale in physical and social infrastructure development with neighbouring states, those obsessed with keeping the states apart or isolated for purpose of easy domination by agencies in control of the central government are also aware that the pie is getting too small to sustain parasitic governance systems made possible during the era of military dictatorship and abundant revenue from petroleum. All over the country, political and cultural leaders are responding appropriately to external stimuli that they cannot afford to ignore.
Governors of the Southwest deserve to be commended for their readiness to take risk on the side of consultative and cooperative governance of states joined by history and culture. By agreeing to share ideas, methods, and resources among the six states, irrespective of ideological or political party affiliations, they deserve to be congratulated for agreeing to think out of the box. It is reassuring that the governors have accepted to work with DAWN on joint projects that can save cost and enhance efficiency in each of the states in the region. This is a recognition of the fact that there is nothing mystical about unity among human beings, as most human beings with common or similar interests are generally likely to work together for self-improvement. It is commendable that the region’s governors are also ready to re-invent Odu’a Investment to meet the demands of the time. Mobilisation of citizens to buy into the ideology of integrated regional development stands a good chance to benefit from the enthusiasm of their governors, demonstrated visibly at Ibadan, Ekiti, and most recently at the Abeokuta Governance Innovation Conference.
There are so many projects for the six states to do together: transportation, education, vocational training, energy, agriculture, industrialisation, cultural tourism, physical and social infrastructure, health care, comprehensive health insurance for citizens, public service delivery, and environmental management, to name a few. This column congratulates the governors for a good idea waiting to become a laudable action.
END
Be the first to comment