"You cannot conquer what you do not
confront". Anon
What
is Restructuring?
Restructuring
is the generic term applied to complex and varying demands by Nigerian elites
for changes in the manner the Nigerian state is designed, governed and shares
its resources among groups, communities and individuals. It is a term which
represents the expression of grievances by elites largely outside the
mainstream political process, and is invariably presented as a fundamental
panacea to most of the failings and weaknesses of the Nigerian state.
Is
this a new issue in Nigerian politics?
The
complaints that the Nigerian federal state is imperfect, or is structured
around basic injustices, inequalities and unfair distribution of power and
resources is as old as the Nigerian nation itself. From colonial times, the
manner a large and complex country like Nigeria should be structured and
governed has been a major source of political quarrel. Demands for restructuring
have notably been more pronounced at moments of acute political crises and
tensions. Causes and sources of localized generation of large economic
resources and poverty have also provided major reasons behind periodic
resurgence of debates and demands for restructuring of the Nigerian state.
Why
has this remained an unresolved problem?
Many
political problems are never entirely resolved to the satisfaction of most
interests. Dominant perspectives on the manner restructuring should proceed all
had in-built potentials to create new grounds for emergence of demands for
further restructuring. The most pronounced alterations in the federal
structure of the Nigerian state were made by the military, and were informed
primarily by the imperatives of national security and management of plural
interests that had access to the narrow political base of military governments.
Democratically-elected governments have been prime beneficiaries of the
post-military restructuring processes, and their attempts to engineer elite consensus
around the essentials of restructuring the federation were half-hearted and
duplicitous. Elite that champion restructuring as key national challenges have
remained outside the political mainstream, unable to influence formal political
structures to genuinely respond to demands for restructuring.
Is
there national consensus around structuring?
The
most common roots for the clamour for restructuring are grievances
expressed as marginalization or unfair distribution of resources. Virtually
every group or community in Nigeria can find good reasons why the nature of the
Nigerian state violates its rights to justice and fairness. In this respect,
there is consensus. Beyond this point, however, there is little agreement over
process and outcome of restructuring. Federal and state governments disagree
over sharing of responsibilities and resources. Elites that speak for ethnic
groups disagree on all key elements put forward by each other. Demands for
restructuring tend to be put across in combative and largely alienating
manners, which tend to push others championing different perspectives to harden
their positions.
What
are the basic outlines of these demands?
One
is the demand for a federal structure with fewer but stronger federating units
that will generate and retain larger portions of economic resources, and a
center with less powers and less resources. This is often expressed in the case
for six or eight federating units, involving the collapse of states into the
larger units. The case against this position comes from minority ethnic groups,
many of which will lose defining political characters and economic clouts.
There is also suspicion that this option will bestow parity to the
"south" against a "north "which had enjoyed historical
superiority in population and numbers of federating units. Another is the
demand for a federal structure that allows federating units to retain, almost
exclusively, the benefits of all resources located within them. This is a
variant of the "fiscal federalism" case, often expressed as resource
control. The case against this position is that it ignores the historical roots
of the modern Nigerian economy which pooled resources from all Nigerians and
sections to build today's sources of wealth. More significantly, it jeopardizes
the future of a nation which fails to establish a minimum, flexible threshold
on sharing national resources, and allowing unequal distribution of resources
and wealth in a stable federal system with varied and bountiful resources. A
third is predicated on addressing grievances of specific groups, such as
additional state in the South East, additional states to relieve tensions
between ethnic groups currently lumped together in "artificial"
units, additional states to reflect population and geographical sizes, and
states to be created to accord recognition to ethnic groups as federating
units. A forth makes the case for a fully-operational third tier of government,
or a system that allows federating units to choose how or if they want to
create sub-unit structures. Then there are others which make the case for a
return to pre-1966 federal structure, a confederation that will leave a
very weak center and largely autonomous units, and a federal system that
contains provisions for any part or parts to leave the nation entirely. Some
demands combine elements of many of these outlines.
Which
one of these is true federalism?
Every
federal system is true or false depending on the perspectives and interests of
those who support it, or oppose it. Federal systems are imperfect, man-made
compromises that should contain dynamic elements for adjustment, and operate on
the basic assumption that relationships between and among federating units must
be constantly policed to address rigidity and loss of the underlying philosophy
that the best federal system is one where the whole is only as important as the
parts decide, and that decisions on its nature and operation are products of
consensus and compromise.
Is
any section of the country benefitting from the status quo?
Some
fractions of the Nigerian elite appear to champion the cause for restructuring
more than others, and cultivate impressions that other elite are specifically
against restructuring. The clamour for restructuring has been a major victim of
the substance and character of the Nigerian political system. Elite competition
for power and economic resources have had little to do with interests of the
poor or the weak in all parts of the nation. Poverty can be addressed under any
arrangement, but elites do gain or lose on the basis of their relationships
with sources of power and wealth, which is substantially the state. All elite
will oppose or support versions of restructuring that best suits their
interests, in the same manner most non-elite will kick against virtually all
restructuring proposals if the details are made known to them.
Can
we ever agree on the best federal system for Nigeria?
A
federal system that is the product of continuous discussions and negotiations
involving elites, communities and governments as interested parties can improve
the operations of our federal system. Violence and threats over restructuring
have tendencies to emasculate dispositions to discuss grievances. Government
platforms tend to reinforce elitist competition over power and economic
resources rather than address popular grievances, and have been historically
vehicles for the actualization of incumbent political goals. The best prospects
for reviews in the manner the Nigerian state is structured lie in elites and
community leaders directly engaging each other in discussions and negotiations.
What
can be done to improve the way we live without restructuring?
Sustained
improvements in the quality of governance at all levels as well as rapid and
even development are essential. Elite cohesion and respect for the complex
nature of the nation will build bridges that can create positive dispositions
to look for solutions that give everyone something. Constitutional amendments
can be made to make changes in the federal structure less cumbersome, and
ensure that irrespective of geographical locations, ethnic origin or other
defining characteristics, no Nigerian suffers disadvantages arising from the
operations of our federal structure.
No comments:
Post a Comment