Yesterday 11th October, 2016, I stumbled on a piece written by Rotimi Fawole. It was a delightful read. He aptly captured and brilliantly delivered a piece on Nigeria, how we got here and where we should be headed. It was so beautiful that I spent a bulk of the day reading it all over.
Besides the fact that I already expressed the thoughts he articulated in the piece before now, the brilliance of his delivery is such that those who cannot see the truth of it are either pretentious or consciously unwilling to change.
For too long, I've been meaning to write a piece just like that on the subject but often find some decent reasons to procrastinate. It is only natural that I feel this good when someone else has done the job and done it excellently.
Here are some excerpts: This regional-central anomaly is the big argument for federal character and quotas, which place an emphasis on regional balance, rather than competence. In fact, the evidence suggests that it has promoted mediocrity. The centre is so powerful that being there, or connected to it, takes priority over regional advancement. The anomaly means that the federal government has negotiated a uniform minimum wage to apply across all states, in spite of the difference in their earning power and cost of living. The anomaly also means a state can build a Tinapa but see all its investment go to waste because ports fall under the purview of a federal agency (headed by someone from a different region) and he refuses to issue the required permit.
We are the product of our history. And here we are, diverse people with conflicting interests, bound by colonialist design and military force, generally not trusting of each other, mostly subject to the whims and caprices of a central government that’s now broke because its major source of income (from a small part of the country) is not worth what it once was. The states, addicted to the easy money, atrophied over the years, with many producing nothing and virtually none capable of remaining viable without federal support. Where do our history and our present predicament suggest we are headed?
It seems fairly evident that the current arrangement is not sustainable and is unlikely to last much longer. Our geopolitical structure and common sense suggest that the states should be self-sufficient and contribute to the maintenance of the federal government, and not vice-versa. However, this will mean that they must have full control of the resources within their domain. Reverting to this arrangement has always been fiercely resisted but given the crisis at hand, it may well be the federal government pushing this agenda shortly.
It will also mean that the federal government relinquishes control of quite a few more things, in addition to natural resources. Fishing and inland waterways, labour/industrial matters, electricity, policing, the establishment and regulation of companies, railways, income taxes; to name a few, should not be matters under the exclusive preserve of the federal government. States need to be able to give real incentives for businesses to be drawn to them.
How much of this is feasible? Very little, I suspect. Our big-man political system will probably need to self-implode before it contemplates the reversion of that heady power from the Federal Government to the states. I suspect as well that there are several states whose leaders are happy to be mere conduits for the federal largesse to their states, who have no interest in the intellectual rigour the change of the status quo would require. More than that, given how stuck our ruling elite are in ideas that have mostly been discredited both locally and internationally, it’s scary, thinking about what could happen in some states. We need a brave, new, enlightened cadre to step forward to fix this contraption.
Identifying our problem is the first thing to do. Next is finding a good course or plan of action and this has also been well stated by Rotimi above. The action part is where the work actually starts. Before now, there were calls for a national conference and calls for a new constitution. There later was a conference. However, that is story for a different time. There is a national assembly presently seated in our capital. They are the ones who must get this plan to work. They are for all intents and purposes our representatives not our lords. We dutifully exercised our rights of franchise made choices to send them to the capital.
It is also mandatory that we start now to practise enforcing our collective will through our elected representatives in the national parliament. We must call them and demand that they begin to insist that the present scheme of things cannot continue. The way forward is for the states to be granted greater autonomy to generate revenue, manage it and contribute some for the servicing of our federal institutions. Of course, we can anticipate and expect resistance from their ranks. We also will retain the right to recall and re-elect new lawmakers when the time comes.
Besides the fact that I already expressed the thoughts he articulated in the piece before now, the brilliance of his delivery is such that those who cannot see the truth of it are either pretentious or consciously unwilling to change.
For too long, I've been meaning to write a piece just like that on the subject but often find some decent reasons to procrastinate. It is only natural that I feel this good when someone else has done the job and done it excellently.
Here are some excerpts: This regional-central anomaly is the big argument for federal character and quotas, which place an emphasis on regional balance, rather than competence. In fact, the evidence suggests that it has promoted mediocrity. The centre is so powerful that being there, or connected to it, takes priority over regional advancement. The anomaly means that the federal government has negotiated a uniform minimum wage to apply across all states, in spite of the difference in their earning power and cost of living. The anomaly also means a state can build a Tinapa but see all its investment go to waste because ports fall under the purview of a federal agency (headed by someone from a different region) and he refuses to issue the required permit.
We are the product of our history. And here we are, diverse people with conflicting interests, bound by colonialist design and military force, generally not trusting of each other, mostly subject to the whims and caprices of a central government that’s now broke because its major source of income (from a small part of the country) is not worth what it once was. The states, addicted to the easy money, atrophied over the years, with many producing nothing and virtually none capable of remaining viable without federal support. Where do our history and our present predicament suggest we are headed?
It seems fairly evident that the current arrangement is not sustainable and is unlikely to last much longer. Our geopolitical structure and common sense suggest that the states should be self-sufficient and contribute to the maintenance of the federal government, and not vice-versa. However, this will mean that they must have full control of the resources within their domain. Reverting to this arrangement has always been fiercely resisted but given the crisis at hand, it may well be the federal government pushing this agenda shortly.
It will also mean that the federal government relinquishes control of quite a few more things, in addition to natural resources. Fishing and inland waterways, labour/industrial matters, electricity, policing, the establishment and regulation of companies, railways, income taxes; to name a few, should not be matters under the exclusive preserve of the federal government. States need to be able to give real incentives for businesses to be drawn to them.
How much of this is feasible? Very little, I suspect. Our big-man political system will probably need to self-implode before it contemplates the reversion of that heady power from the Federal Government to the states. I suspect as well that there are several states whose leaders are happy to be mere conduits for the federal largesse to their states, who have no interest in the intellectual rigour the change of the status quo would require. More than that, given how stuck our ruling elite are in ideas that have mostly been discredited both locally and internationally, it’s scary, thinking about what could happen in some states. We need a brave, new, enlightened cadre to step forward to fix this contraption.
Identifying our problem is the first thing to do. Next is finding a good course or plan of action and this has also been well stated by Rotimi above. The action part is where the work actually starts. Before now, there were calls for a national conference and calls for a new constitution. There later was a conference. However, that is story for a different time. There is a national assembly presently seated in our capital. They are the ones who must get this plan to work. They are for all intents and purposes our representatives not our lords. We dutifully exercised our rights of franchise made choices to send them to the capital.
It is also mandatory that we start now to practise enforcing our collective will through our elected representatives in the national parliament. We must call them and demand that they begin to insist that the present scheme of things cannot continue. The way forward is for the states to be granted greater autonomy to generate revenue, manage it and contribute some for the servicing of our federal institutions. Of course, we can anticipate and expect resistance from their ranks. We also will retain the right to recall and re-elect new lawmakers when the time comes.
Comments