Federalism is the principle, some would say a conceptual or institutional framework, which defines “the division of authority among national and sub-national governments” in a given country (Rozell and Wilcox 2019). Such a country is referred to as a federation, or as operating a federal system. Regardless of whether the sub-national governments were priorly independent and came voluntarily to form/create a federation, or federal system, or they were compelled by historical circumstances and forced into such a union, the sub-national governments have, by legal, constitutional arrangement, become the ‘federating units”, which have coordinate, or shared, responsibilities with the national government.
A major objective of a federal system is the non-conflictual management of diversity and sharing of power and resources for stable societal progress and socioeconomic development. Both in law and in practice, most federations strive, and take care, to ensure equity and justice in the division of authority and resources among the federating units and in compliance with the rule of law, because doing this nurtures a conducive environment for peaceful coexistence, proactively blocks irredentist tendencies, and facilitates stable socioeconomic development, especially in the context of good, democratic, governance.
Thus, technically and substantively, Nigeria is a federation, and operates a federal system, with the states as the federating units. However, among the federations that currently exist in the world (according to Forum of Federations, about 25 countries, representing about 40 per cent of the world population), Nigeria is one of the worst models of political accommodation of diversity, as well as power and resources sharing.
Of course, there are no perfect federations or for that matter “true federalism”. Every federation is a product of the dynamics of its historical evolution and inter-group (ethnic, religious, linguistic, cultural, etc.) relations. However, the better the framework/structure for management of diversity, power and resources sharing is in a federation, the more stable, peaceful and socioeconomically developed it would be. What accounts for the difference, the intervening variables, are: (1) elite consensus; and (2) good, democratic, governance. Without these, it can be said, a la Horowitz, that federalism would exacerbate, rather than mitigate ethnic and religious conflicts. (1985, 603).
Therefore, for its stability, progress and development as a modern nation-state, Nigeria’s current federal structure needs refinement and improvement, or some form of what can be called restructuring. We need elite consensus to bring this about, and we need good democratic governance to nurture and entrench the political accommodation of diversity, as well as equitable power and resources sharing. The near absence of the two intervening variables has obstructed the attainment of the aforementioned desirable objective of a federal system.
Unlike most, relatively stable, federations, the efficacy of Nigeria’s federal system has been undermined, essentially by an imbalance, as well as inequities in the distribution of power and resources between the national and sub-national units. This imbalance is a product of Nigeria’s colonial experience, subsequent post-colonial authoritarian military rule, and series of reckless, bad and essentially undemocratic governance, especially in the 21 years of civil ‘democratic’ rule.
Although there is a general recognition among the elite that existing imbalance and inequities, which have characterised the operation of our federal system, are destructive of the essence of the Nigerian federation because, among other things, they provide the canon-fodder for heightened ethno-religious mobilisation and violence, the faction of the elite that has been dominant in politics and governance has, basically, refused to be receptive to the vociferous demands for reforms. This is essentially because being in power and controlling governance institutions has been primarily for self-serving objectives and personal aggrandisement, rather than serving the people and the nation selflessly; or at least with an enlightened self-interest. Paradoxically, this faction of the elite has a stranglehold on political power, by projecting their access to power as group (ethnic and religious) representation.
In the Nigerian Fourth Republic, that is, since 1999, there have been two major undertakings to generate elite, if not national, consensus on how to address outstanding, burning, national issues, including, primarily, the “national question” and the undesirable structure of the federation. For example, there was the “Political Reform Conference” (2006) under the Obasanjo government; and there was the “National Conference” (2014) under the Jonathan government. The Report of each contained many good, rich recommendations for addressing persistent national challenges. Regrettably, both have remained unconsidered/unimplemented by the dominant faction of the elite in governance.
As governance increasingly becomes poor and bad, as Nigerian politics slides backward from the “democratic” to undemocratic authoritarian modes of governance, and consequently as the country is plunged into uncontrolled ethno-religious violence and other forms of criminality, the demands for restructuring have become vociferous, with even extremist, irredentist demands for the dismemberment of what is now known as Nigeria.
The way things are going, Nigerians in general and the elite in particular, need to engage with the issue of restructuring more seriously and purposefully and begin to address it. I say ‘begin to address it’ because, regrettably, we have allowed things to be so bad for so long that it would require concerted, systematic effort over a carefully defined time frame, to be able to successfully, permanently, solve the challenges which bedevil Nigeria, especially those that have given rise to the intense demands and agitations for ‘restructuring’.
To my mind, there is no doubt that, understood properly, without grandstanding and brinkmanship, restructuring is necessary and the time to begin to concretely commence it is NOW. But there should be no doubt, also, that although restructuring is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition for stability, progress and socioeconomic development in Nigeria. It would have to be combined with good democratic governance predicated on justice, equity and equality of opportunity for all citizens, for it to yield dividends in meeting the needs and aspirations of Nigerians. The other dimensions of national challenges, such as insecurity; poverty; poor access to, and poor quality of, education; unemployment; and denial of equality of opportunity to women, the physically challenged and so-called settlers; all these cannot be effectively and urgently addressed, without good democratic governance, driven by selfless, focused and patriotic leaders.
Nigeria had in the past (e.g. under the 1954 Lyttleton Constitution; as well as subsequently the Independence and Republican Constitutions of 1960 and 1963) practiced a better federal arrangement than what we have now. The experience of the First Republic in 1960s is being celebrated now as the period of “true federalism”, to which some would want to drag Nigeria back to. Better as that period may be perceived to be in comparison to what obtains now, we cannot move into the future by going back to the past. What the past offers are lessons on how to avoid its pitfalls, as we move into the future. Rather than going back in time to the past, we should move into the future by reforming/restructuring Nigeria’s federal system, drawing upon not only lessons from the past, but also and especially current good practices from other federal systems globally, in terms of how to infuse a fair distribution of power and resources between the national and sub-national units, predicated on justice and equity; and how to protect and defend citizenship rights guaranteed by the constitution.
As I observed some years back, the challenge of restructuring in Nigeria is on how to address the issue of restructuring the Nigerian federal system without upsetting the apple-chart; that is, “how to add value to the structure and systemic efficacy of the federal arrangement, without unleashing instability occasioned by the mobilization of ethnic, regional and religious sentiments and identities” (Jega, 2017:1).
Given the preceding introduction and contextual analysis, how are we to proceed with restructuring: Why restructuring? What should restructuring entail? How do we restructure? And when? I now turn these pertinent questions.
Why Demands for Restructuring?
There are continuous and vociferous demands for restructuring because of the following:
1. Heightened mobilisation and politicisation of ethnic, regional and religious identities by politicians, generally, and so-called opinion leaders, especially;
2. Actual cases and illustrations, as well as deep rooted perceptions, of marginalisation and inequities in the management of the affairs of the country by successive governments/regimes at the federal level;
3. Bad governance: Driven by incompetent, inept, inefficient and self-serving leadership, at both federal, state and local government levels;
4. Failure of governance to satisfy the needs and aspirations of citizens;
5. Increasing devastating poverty and deteriorating socioeconomic conditions of the citizens;
6. Political brinksmanship by some elite, especially politicians and/or ethno-religious ‘war lords’.
What Restructuring Should Entail
A review of the debates, discourses and advocacy on the subject matter suggests that to many, restructuring may mean any, a combination, or all of the following:
1. A return to “true federalism”; described as re-establishing the regional structure of the 1960-1966, with the division of powers and allocation of resources, as defined in the independence and republican constitutions of that period;
2. Creation of six regions, akin to the so-called six geo-political zones, to replace the current 36-State structure;
3. A return to the 12-State structure of 1967 – 1976;
4. ‘Resources control’, whether in a new regional structure or under the current state structure, granting the subnational units the absolute control of all resources under or above their geographical territorials or territorial waters;
5. Equitable redistribution of power and resources from the federal government to the subnational governments/units (i.e. from federal government to State governments, to LGAs);
6. Opportunity to replace the federal system with a confederation;
7. Opportunity for any subnational unit, or groupings of subnational units, to withdraw from the Nigerian federation and assert their sovereignty on the basis of an (essentially fabricated) ethnic identity.
After a critical evaluation of the benefits versus the costs of each of these notions of restructuring, I believe that the starting point of a desirable and serious, even realistic, restructuring, is no.5, namely, equitable redistribution of power and resources from the federal government to the sub-national governments/units (i.e. from federal government to State governments, and from states to LGAs).
Dismantling the current States structure, and reconfiguring the states into the pre-1966 regions, or into six geo-political regions, or even into 12 States of 1976/7, is at worst an unrealistic, romantic, pipe-dream; and at best easier said than done. The social and political costs of such an undertaking would by far out-weigh the benefits. In many fundamental respects, the creation of states has gone a long way to mitigate the real and imagined/perceived marginalisation of minorities; although given Nigeria’s complex diversity, the more states created, the more their economic viability is threatened; and the more new ‘majorities’ and ‘minorities’ emerge, with fresh demands by the ‘new minorities’ for their own states.
The challenges and tensions that would unfold in any attempt to regroup states into regions or into mega 12 states, given that their people have tasted relative autonomy, could only best be imagined. Relative autonomy once gained, is difficult, if not near impossible, to voluntarily surrender. If the major argument against the current 36-state structure is that many seem economically unviable, there are other better ways of addressing this and making them more viable. Improved, (or good democratic) governance, with efficient allocation and utilisation of resources, with curtailed corruption, and with greater effort at internal revenue generation, would make virtually all the seemingly unviable states, viable and sustainable.
If, in addition to improved governance, more powers are taken from the Federal Government, by sanitising items on the Federal Legislative List and the Concurrent List, in line with global best practices, and given to the states, with commensurate additional allocation of resources, the states would not only be viable but would move in the desirable direction of competitive federalism, in which they would try to out-do each other in the design and execution of beneficial, people-oriented programmes and projects for the benefits of their residents.
The potential benefits of restructuring as conceptualised in this presentation, i.e. as de-concentration and redistribution of power and resources from the national to the subordinate units, are enormous and can be summarised as follows:
1. To bring about stability in the Nigerian nation, and make the environment amenable to accelerated socioeconomic development;
2. To expand the scope, as well as strengthen unity in diversity;
3. To ensure peaceful co-existence, with equity, justice and equality of opportunity for all citizens throughout the Nigerian nation;
4. To make existing states and local governments more functional and more viable as governance entities;
5. To protect and defend the rights of all citizens throughout Nigeria, by giving primacy to citizenship and residency over and above so-called indigeneity;
6. To create a sense of national belonging to all, as Nigerian citizens, regardless of communal and ethno-religious identities;
7. To eliminate or at least drastically reduce deep-seated mutual suspicions and fears, and perceptions of marginalisation amongst Nigerians, which have undermined national cohesion, unity and integration;
If and when Nigeria is ‘restructured’ and managed well, along the lines as suggested, the benefits to the citizens of remaining together in one united country would by far out-weigh the costs of separation into smaller ethno-religious entities.
How To Restructure
The best way to restructure the Nigerian federation is to pursue systematic, incremental, positive changes and avoid “once for all” wholesale undertakings, because they are time consuming, energy sapping, and constraining. The National Assembly’s efforts to do constitutional amendments since 1999, “all at a go!”, consequently with little value addition, has lessons for us to draw from.
Specifically, the best way to go about it would be to:
1. Reduce powers and resources of the Federal Government specified in the Federal and Concurrent Legislative Lists;
2. Increase powers and resources of the state governments on the State Legislative List;
3. Devolve powers and resources from the states to the local governments;
4. Require the states to create “Development Areas”, as the lower level tier of governance at the grassroots level, below the LGAs;
5. Accordingly, review the resources allocation/revenue sharing formula between federal, states (and local governments), taking into consideration the new sharing of power and responsibilities.
For example, what could be termed as the global best practices in federal systems is that, unlike what obtains in Nigeria, healthcare provisioning, education provisioning, agriculture, housing and urban development, are all state responsibilities, with the role of the Federal Government in these matters limited to setting standards, regulatory framework, and incentive structures in the form of grants-in-aid and so on, to ensure balanced and even development throughout the country. In this context, there would be no need for behemoth federal ministries of Education, Health, Housing and Urban Development, Rural Development, etc., controlling resources, which ordinarily should go to the states. Even the role of the Federal Government in roads and transportation could be limited to highways, which promote inter-state commerce in the federation, while many of the so called “Trunk A” roads that are within states urban areas, or that link towns within states, should be made the responsibility of the States.
The major duties of the Federal Government should be limited to inter-state commerce, national banking, currencies, foreign relations, communications, aviation, seaports, foreign loans, armed forces and security services, postal services and telecommunications, mining and such. States should have a role in policing, which should be on the Concurrent Legislative List.
Given issues relating to capacity and competence, the handing over of these powers and responsibilities should be phased, in accordance with the imperatives of systematic, incremental positive changes.
When To Restructure
In accordance with the principle of “incremental positive changes,” a three-phased restructuring agenda, is proposed as follows:
1. Short term – 2021 to 2023
1.1 The Federal Government should set up a compact but broadly representative technical committee to review the reports of the Political Reform Conference and the National Conference and synthesise and prioritise their recommendations for implementation in accordance with the three phases of short-, medium- and long term;
1.2 Review the Federal Legislative List and begin the process of constitutional review, together with the National Assembly, to hand over power and resources to states in the following subject matters: Basic education; primary and secondary healthcare; agriculture and rural development; Police; housing and urban development; and appropriately adjusting the revenue sharing formula between federal and state governments;
1.3 The Federal Government should set up a department of or agency for intergovernmental relations, which should facilitate, coordinate, nurture and strengthen state federal inter-relations;
1.4 The federal and state governments should introduce governance reforms to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governance at all levels, as well as drastically reduce the cost of governance. A lot can be done in this regard, within the extant legal framework, using executive orders and without the necessity of constitutional reforms. For example, frivolous foreign trips should be curtailed, our relatively liberal/generous estacodes and DTAs for legislatures and high public officials should be drastically reduced, “security votes” for chief executives should be reduced and accountability made more transparent. Also, entertainment and meeting expenditures should be drastically reduced. Executives at both federal and state levels should pay for their own upkeep, thereby reducing the costs of running the Villa and governors’ lodges, or those of heads of legislative organs of government. The unethical humongous pensions of governors should be stopped, the number of personal assistants (PAs), special assistants (SAs), senior special assistants (SSAs), etc., as well as the number of vehicles in conveys of public officials should be reduced;
1.5 Other saving measures to reduce the cost of governance should include either reducing the size and composition of legislative bodies;
1.6 All governments should introduce and/or strengthen checks and balances that would curtail unrestrained use, misuse and abuse of power and resources in all the three arms of government. In this regard, in addition to internal audit departments, ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) of government at both federal and state levels should establish relatively autonomous inspectorate units, with inspectors-general to be saddled with audits for administrative transparency and accountability, and the monitoring of compliance with constitutional provisions, parliamentary Acts and extant rules and regulations;
1.7 Reposition the anti-corruption agencies and intensify the anti-corruption campaigns, especially at the states and local government levels;
1.8 All governments should comply with, and ensure respect for, the rule of law.
2. Medium term – 2023 to 2027
Implement the prioritised recommendations of the technical committee, and hand over more responsibilities and resources to the states, which by then would have developed greater capacity and competence to shoulder these. Such powers relating to sea and airports; the judiciary, pensions, postal services and telecommunications, etc., can be handed over to the states.
3. Long Term – Beyond 2027
This involves other pertinent constitutional and administrative reforms, as may become necessary, in order to keep improving the efficacy of the Nigerian federal system and governance processes.
If by this time the redistribution of power and responsibilities to the states has not made them viable, or efficient and effective in the delivery of public goods to the citizens, then other measures should be contemplated.
Effort and energies need to be devoted to generating an elite, if not a national, consensus on the necessity of restructuring, defined as the redistribution of power and resources from the federal to the state governments, to be embarked upon before 2023. The embedded imbalance, inequities and perceived injustices in the current federal system in Nigeria have to be addressed as soon as possible to enable Nigeria and Nigerians to acquire the requisite stability and peaceful coexistence amenable to accelerated, sustainable socioeconomic development. The best strategy for success is the pursuit of systematic, incremental positive changes through constitutional amendments, in phases, commencing with a review and sanitising of the Federal and Concurrent Legislative lists, giving more powers and resources to the states, complemented by other reform measures to nurture and entrench good, democratic governance at all levels, from the federal to states and local governments. The necessity of redressing the imbalance and inequities embedded in the current federal system in Nigeria has been ignored for too long, and any further neglect may irreparably imperil the efficacy and viability of the Nigerian federation.
Horowitz, D. L. (1999). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jega, A. M. (2017). “Towards Restructuring of the Nigerian Federal System: Contribution to a Discussion”. Unpublished.
Rozell, M. J. and C. Wilcox (2019). Federalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Attahiru M. Jega, OFR, is a professor in the Department of Political Science, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria. This is the text of a presentation made at the 18th Daily Trust Dialogue held on Thursday, January 21, at the NAF Conference Centre and Suites, Gwarimpa Express Way, Kado, Abuja
Copyright © Attahiru M. Jega, Premium Times