Amid the recurrent and irritating clamor by disgruntled segments of the polity for a sovereign national conference, the decision by President Goodluck Jonathan to appoint an advisory committee to establish modalities for the exercise is a welcome and laudable development. The groundswell of opinion over the necessity or otherwise of a national conference to resolve issues that currently cause friction in the country, underscores the need for a fundamental change in Nigeria’s administrative and governance structure. Indeed, the debate for system change is a function of the disillusionment with the status quo. Whatever form the conference takes; and whether or not it is sovereign, any forum grouping Nigeria’s 389 ethnic nationalities obviously provides a platform for all component groups, to search for an ideal system for a country that has been stuck in political quagmire since independence from Britain in 1960.
The debate for a national conference underlined activities surrounding Nigeria’s 53rd independence anniversary, which provided the President a vent to reflect on the health of the nation. Against this backdrop, it may be useful to consider the following issues. First; the political system. In considering a way out of the quagmire of abuse of the political system, the national conference should not lose sight of the fact that the problem is not so much about the absence of prescriptions for overcoming the socio-economic and political inertia of the country, as the absence of political will by successive leaders to do what is right for Nigeria. It is clear that Nigeria’s problems center on the primary issue of co-existence among its component nationalities; the institutionalization of the political foundation of governance such as the federating units, the super-structural framework and system of government; democracy deficit within political parties, effective policing; high cost of governance; and the thorny issue of derivation and resource control.
To which end, any useful reform should begin with a review of the current presidential system of government because of its inherent financial burden and vulnerability to corruption. This necessarily engenders some questions: why did Nigeria adopt this system in 1979? Is ditching the system the solution to our many problems? Has Nigeria a constitutional problem or human integrity problem? In point of fact, the overriding objective for adopting the presidential system was the desire to build a strong center in order to avert the centrifugal strains that led to the civil war. An additional reason was to allow whoever would lead the country, the opportunity to solicit votes and win a measure of national legitimacy. This however, has not healed the many contradictions of the Nigerian state. Cries of marginalization have persisted along with hegemonic politicking. This then begs the question: does a parliamentary system as was practiced, during the First Republic, hold the magic wand? Some have argued that the problem is not with the system of government, insisting that Nigeria has a human integrity problem. The point is driven home that Nigerians are corrupt and the human deficits are transferred unto the political institutions to create an institutional integrity crisis for the country.
Equally, the structure of a government is a reflection of the structure of the economy and unless there is change in the relations of production which currently rewards indolence and allows for all forms of conspicuous consumption and primitive accumulation of state resources outside genuine production processes, whatever system adopted will fail. After independence, agriculture fuelled the venality of public officials. Today, petro-dollars have quadrupled that vice. In the 4th Republic, it has produced a bizarre practice in which the machineries of political parties are in the hands of state governors with an iron grip over state resources. Political parties, the engine room of modern democracy, have been emasculated by those who came to office under its platform. The national conference must address this anomaly, which is by far the most fundamental contradiction of the 4th Republic.
Next is the governance structure. There is near consensus that the current governance structure is doomed. The existing 36 states are not financially viable and constitute a drainpipe on national coffers as the nation continues to fund moribund and unproductive state bureaucracies. It is imperative that the cost of governance is whittled down to the barest minimum in order to unleash resources for priority development projects in the country. Therefore, there is no logic in creating more states. State creation, as it should by now be clear to all, has only accentuated ethnic and other primordial fault-lines across the country. Since state creation has become the obsession of rent-seeking elite, the right thing to do at this historical juncture is to merge the existing states into convenient and workable units by the engrossment of the six geopolitical zones as federating units. In addition, slashing the jumbo pay of lawmakers and even introducing part-time legislators as practiced in some countries will be invaluable to cutting the cost of governance.
A related issue on the front burner is the desirability or otherwise of state police. The increasing insecurity in the country has called into question the centralization of policing. Truth be told; the federal police is dysfunctional and not working. The national conference should outline a program for the creation of state police. First, the existing methodology of deploying the bulk of the police to their indigenous states should be constitutionalized. Second, both state and federal laws should be enforced. Third, structures of checks and balances, which insulate the police from partisan politics and control by political office holders, should be established. Above all, the current skewed federal arrangement should be restructured with power, resources and responsibilities duly devolved to the state and local levels.
The conference must also, as a matter of urgency address the worrisome democracy deficit within existing political parties. Their affairs are underlined by arbitrariness and imposition of candidates qualified as “consensus.” Nigeria is replete with instances of contempt and absolute disregard for the rule of law by politicians, which accounts a great deal for the poor governance output and do-or-die politics. Internal democracy bothers on legitimacy, which inheres in the principle of consent. Therefore, it should be operationalized and consolidated to create space for free political competition within legitimate rules and institutions.
The national conference must also address the vexing issue of revenue allocation which has been a source of tension in the country. The main contention is resource control. An unencumbered Nigerian federation should allow federating States to control their resources based on the principle of 100% derivation with taxes paid to the central government. Available statistics show that there is hardly any part of Nigeria without any natural endowment. States should have full control of whatever natural resources that they are endowed with by providence. This will obviate the overt no-man’s-land mentality with which the national patrimony is viewed and engender a new form of production relations in the country. Finally, the national conference must face the issue of corruption and the entrenched waywardness of politicians and public officials, who have conspired to bleed Nigeria into bankruptcy.
Lastly, it is simultaneously imperative that whatever new reforms emanate from the national conference be subjected to popular affirmation through a referendum. After many false starts, dashed hopes, and perennially low expectation, there is now need for Nigeria at 53, to seek a change of direction. The national conference must reset the agenda for the country to correct the contradictions in the polity; infuse hope and renewed sense of purpose in the citizens. Nigeria must come out of the conference a galvanized country, moving in a totally new direction, with emphasis on the interest of the Nigerian people, not the temporary occupants of high offices.
