In the last 100 years, Nigeria has undergone
several phases of restructuring but none of these efforts achieved national
cohesion, reduced inequality or eliminated exclusion. By all standards, Nigeria
appears more divided and sectionalized. Restructuring has been a struggle of
the elite, led by the elite to serve the interest of the elite. Through all its
years of existence down to this present fourth Republic, Nigeria has operated
several forms of government, operated nine constitutions and created more states.
While as a nation, we can lay claim to some marginal gains, we’ve also recorded
monumental theft of public resources, ethnic fragmentation and rise of ethnic
militancy.
In recent times, the concept ‘Restructuring’
has gained prominence in national and international discourse on Nigeria. It is
not surprising because as a state exogenously built, there are bound to be
intractable implications for the unity and development of the state. Before the
advent of British colonialism, Nigeria existed as disparate entities, with
differing levels of socio-economic, cultural and political consciousness,
leadership and development.[1]The
amalgamation of 1914 ushered a new regime of structurally deformities that has
remained unaddressed till date. It is therefore not surprising that virtually
all sections and regions of the Nigerian State have one time or the other
expressed their dissatisfaction with the Nigerian State project as presently
constituted. Two of Nigeria’s post-independence leaders (late Chief Obafemi
Awolowo and Sir Ahmadu Bello) in various discussions on Nigeria pejoratively
asserted that the country is a “mere geographical expression” and that the
“mistake of 1914 has come to light” respectively?[2] However,
it is important that the agitation for restructuring will persist as long as
issues of marginalization, inequality and exclusion remain unaddressed.
Restructuring and the
Conceptual gap
The debate on restructuring predates this
current agitation. It is a very important contemporary Nigeria discourse
because it borders on the future of a great country – Nigeria. What is more
interesting with the debate is the divergent views on the conceptual meaning
and its implication for Nigeria. There are three predominant challenges with
the debate on restructuring Nigeria. First is the challenge of definition,
scope and methodology. Perhaps, the numerous definitions advanced by different
sections of society simply suggests that restructuring isn’t a monolithic concept.Several
meanings have emerged on what restructuring means. These include but not
limited to devolution of power, regionalism, fiscal federalism, form of
government, state creation, local governance etc. Therefore, any discourse on
restructuring must evolve from a broad conceptual understanding of the concept.
Secondly, the form or process of restructuring is another challenge. There is
lack of consensus on how Nigeria should be restructured. Systematic and
periodic constitutional review; sovereign national conferences, referendum or
dissolution of government with the institution of an interim government are
some of the modalities highlighted for a proper restructuring of the country.
The most feasible amongst all the processes is the systematic constitutional
amendment process. I subscribe to the normative argumentthat in a country where
the dissolution of the exogenous and forcefully formed or built state is not a
favored option, the legitimization of such a state and the amelioration of its
perceived anomalies and shortcomings could be achieved through building a
gradual process of periodic constitutional transformation.
Whose interest does
restructuring serve?
The debate on restructuring has seen the
emergence of three categories of people; protagonists, antagonist and the
fencists. Each has legitimate reasons for holding their views. What has
remained absent is the fact that the debate isn’t between citizens and
government but a class struggle between the ruling elite from different
geographical extraction. This debate is in no way rooted in the wishes of the
Nigerian people. Or how do we classify a debate about the future of the
country, where the over 100 million of the country’ population that is “the
youth” who are the present and future of this country, are not involved in this
conversation. Africa’s population reached a record high of 1.2 billion in
2015 and will increase to 1.7 billion by 2030[3].
By 2050, Africa’s population will more than double. The largest concentration
of youth in Africa are in Nigeria and more importantly, Nigeria is projected as
one of country expected to have the concentration of these population growth
between 2015 – 2050. This explain why the British council in a recent study
stated that youth, not oil will be Nigeria’s most valuable resource in the 21st century.
This social category is critical to the growth and development of the Nigerian
state and it is this category that Nigerian elite has not reflected in the
discussion on restructuring.
Regrettably, Nigeria is moving slower than its
potential. Despite its ranking as one of the fastest growing economies in the
world, poverty and inequality are on the rise. In 2016, OXFAM reported that the
total wealth owned by the five richest Nigerians can lift Nigerians living
below the poverty line at$1.90 out of poverty for one year. This degree of
extreme poverty coupled with rising unemployment creates opportunities for
social disharmony and instability. Nigeria’s unemployment rate is fixed at 14%
with youths making up 68% of country’s total unemployed and underemployed
population (NBS,2016). According to a recent report released by the
Bureau of Public Service Reforms, this figure is bound to rise as to maintain
the current unemployment rate of 14%, Nigeria needs to create 3 million jobs
per annum.[4] However,
the view being espoused by the champions of restructuring tend to suggest that
Nigeria’s developmental challenges, poor economic growth, social discontent
will be addressed once the country is politically and economically restructured
to devolve power as well as vest control of natural resources in subnational
entities. While this sound plausible, the current realities negates this school
of thought. The cumulative federal allocation to the South-south is around 30%
of the national budget with Akwa Ibom and Bayelsa receiving the largest share.
The prodigious lifestyle of our elected government officials calls to question
such a benefit. For instance, how do we reconcile state executives who elect to
embark on bogus projects as a conduit for siphoning public funds rather than
investing same in ventures that will improve the livelihood of its citizens and
lift young people out of poverty. We are all in this Nigeria, where state
governors are owning workers’ salaries despite receiving interventionist funds
from the federal government. The recently distributed Paris club palliative by
the federal government, have been misappropriated by several state governors
without addressing the salaries owed workers. The Nigeria story is showing that
poverty and inequality are not driven by lack of resources but ill-use,
misallocation and misappropriation of public resources[5].
It is safe to say that theongoing debate
onrestructuring is focused on moving some items on the exclusive legislative
list to the concurrent list in the constitution. Yet, this same people who are
clamoring for devolution of power are in the same way advocating for
centralization of power. How do we explain the proposed abolition of State
Independent Electoral Commissions (SIEC) from the constitution and vesting the
independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with powers to conduct local
government elections. Or how do we reconcile the constitution review process
and the agitation for restructuring. Obviously, the ongoing constitution
amendment process presents a unique opportunity to restructure Nigeria.
However, the National Assembly in July 2017 voted against several amendments,
that could have doused the tension created by the restructuring debate. For
instance, the outcome of the votes on devolution of power is a testament that
the restructuring debate is a class struggle between the elite and not for the
interest of the people. The constitution is not just the grundnorm of a country
but is also a mechanism for addressing all forms of inequality and exclusion
but the present constitution of Nigeria seems skewed to addressing the interest
of a few.
While I am not campaigning against the
restructuring of the country, but restructuring must serve the interest of all
citizens and in particular young people and women. In reality, this means not
just inclusion in governance process but importantly investment in health,
education, political and economic empowerment. It is only then that as a
country we can think of harnessing the democratic dividend and opportunity
presented us.
For the average youth, the Nigeria of our
dream is country that is not built on ethnic, regional or religious pacts; not
a country where livelihood is contingent on geographical extraction; not a
country where political participation is limited and access to governance is
determined by your age, sex and language and ethnicity, nor a country where we
don’t have to spend over 50% of our budget on recurrent expenditure; and in
particular a country where there’s no celebration with pomp and pageantry
to launch the construction of a borehole, primary health care center etc.
In conclusion, restructuring makes no meaning
to Nigeria if doesn’t guarantee good governance, accountability and service to
the people.
Being excerpts from a presentation on Next Generation Nigeria:
Youth, Opportunity and Governance for the future by Samson Itodo at the Chatham
House, London on October 25, 2017
Itodo is an elections and constitution building enthusiast. He is the
executive director of the Youth Initiative for Advocacy, Growth &
Advancement (YIAGA). Send comments and feedback to sitodo@yiaga.org
He tweets @DSamsonItodo
References
[2] A
Adeniran, Nigeria: The Case for Peaceful and Friendly Dissolution (Lagos:
Unitype Enterprises, 2002).
Source: The Cable
No comments: