Continued from last week; read part I here.
Concluding two paragraphs from part I:
The determining factor in identifying who is really justified in claiming the rights of the nations to self-determination is that group(s) that is (are) at the receiving end of exploitation, oppression and marginalisation. This position is anchored on the fact that the working masses and the poor across Africa are the most marginalised and they need more support in their struggle against the oppressors and exploiters more than anybody else. Such position could be extended to the oppressed nations in struggle fighting for their emancipation and not as the case we are having it in Nigeria where people are fighting in order to duplicate oppression and exploitation in their own separated enclave.
It is only through socialism that the issue of national oppression can be fully addressed as it would be difficult under capitalism that in no little way inflamed nationalism as a result of injustice thrown up by the system of exploitation and oppression that it superintend. So secession if allowed under capitalist regime will not amount to anything good as the poor working people that found themselves in such new geopolitical formations will still suffer as they did in the past. Nevertheless, this could assuage the psychological appetite of the agitators and other peoples of the new states or nations.
THE irony of the situation is such that the people of Igbo descent used to rank among the most progressive groups in the country some decades past (up to early 1960s) and they were responsible for not allowing Nigeria being divided up to independence when other ethnic groups (majority) were for it and wanted the right of secession to be enshrined in the 1954 constitution of Nigeria. Unfortunately, degeneration in pursuance of such noble cause of the past by the Igbos is taking its toll on them as the most conservative group presently in Nigeria. Their petty-bourgeois orientation as a result of their being circumscribed into business rather than the working class they were in the past would have been responsible for this. This is a typical background of the present state of their agitation.
This degeneration is not starting from now but since the Civil War of 1967-70 as they were stampeded by an Oxford trained historian and military officer in person of Odumegwu Ojukwu with a conservative family bourgeois background noted for business. The young Ojukwu later became an institution with conservative orientation in politics. He was part of the military officers that betrayed the efforts of the radical military force that staged the first military coup that wanted to salvage Nigeria from corruption and misrule of the 1st Republic politicians. The coup was led by Majors Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna; both were of Igbo extraction. Ojukwu was also used by Sani Abacha military junta to fight against the cause of June 12 movement in Nigeria in 1993.
The argument of the advocates of restructuring includes, among other things, the devolution of power and actualisation of resource control to be handled by the state governments. This might look plausible if the therapy is to be taken in isolation from the sequence of events taking place in the various states of the federation whereby the state governors exhibited more indiscipline in political life as they were brazenly opposed to economic frugality on matters of public finance. These are the governors that convert resources of the local governments to that of theirs, yet nothing on ground to signal iota of development.
The agitation in the present dispensation for regionalism or true federalism usually championed by the youths could be traced to the failure of capitalism in the era of neoliberalism. This is why the agitation would have been more fulfilling if posed in the direction of fighting against unemployment, unpaid outstanding salaries/allowances of workers, opposed to charging school fees beyond the means of the working people at both lower level and tertiary educational institutions; demand for scholarship and bursary awards, agitation against dearth of social infrastructures in schools, agitation against corruption, and against the policy of privatisation and commercialisation of social infrastructures, against the government for not providing water, electricity and non-payment of pension to the pensioners as at when due, etc.
They failed to pay workers’ salaries for upward of six to nine months at a time and yet not bothered. This includes the oil-producing states earning two or three fold over some other states. Not a few of the states are in a better financial position than some countries. If their complaint is about not being granted enough finance to meet their responsibilities to the people, the question may be asked: what have they done with what were given. The issue of devolution of power and resources is already covered within the system, even if not expressly in the constitution but by implication. It is left for the government at the centre to effect this as it deems fit to achieve the required result in consonance with meeting the very purpose of why there is the need for the central government.
In the 2nd Republic, for instance, President Shehu Shagari-led federal government, as conservative as it was, instituted presidential liaison officers in each of the states that make up the country in order to carry out its programme to the grassroots level. This was criticised by the parties in opposition that regarded this as illegal and unconstitutional structure put in place to compete with the other state governments. The fact remains that this was an attempt to bridge the gap between the centre and the local communities.
Chief Obafemi Awolowo, in an interview granted New Nigeria newspaper on the same subject matter, had sometime during the 2nd Republic, pointed out how he would implement his free education programme across the country. This, he planned to carry out through the state governments despite the fact that some of the state governments did not share with him the same party platform and philosophy. According to him (Awo), if he gave out money to the states with specification of what to do with the money but if found out that the money was not utilised for the purpose it was meant for, such particular governor(s) would have to pay for it as he would institute legal action against such and made to give account in the court of law. Awo’s position in this regard is another practical way of devolution of power and resources to the states that was to make the later to be accountable.
There is no doubt that the central government is far from the local communities across the country and would need the states or intermediary agencies in carrying out its activities; the Shagari and Awo ideas on this ought to be followed by the subsequent civilian governments led by Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, Jonathan and Buhari. Instead of doing this, the government of Obasanjo was on record to have held on to the resources meant for local governments in Lagos State for whatever reason and taking the governments in Niger Delta to court in order to deny it their rights to resources from littoral states.
Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, who served as Obasanjo’s vice president and is now propagating restructuring, was the one in charge of the whole process of privatisation of the government assets and he abused the process as the government caused the vibrant and profitable extant government’s corporations to be sold in defiance of the rule in favour of selling only the unprofitable and crippled corporations. Above all, such corporations were bought through personal companies of those in power and their accomplices.
We have to go back to history in understanding how the present state formation as a federating unit emerged. This has been associated with the military government of General Yakubu Gowon by nearly all known public commentators. This truism to a certain extent cannot be disputed as the military was responsible for giving such idea a flesh of its own but definitely they did not originate such idea. Such idea belonged to the most far-sighted nationalist-socialist group, Zikist movement and other socialists, as far back as 1940s.
While the debate was on, some succumbed to the idea that secession should be enshrined in the constitution to show that federalist arrangement was not sacrosanct as it could be dissolved if any of the federating units decided to follow this path. As far back as 1954, a compromise was reached in accepting federalist principle of sharing power between the regional government that were three in number then and the central government; and the question of secession in the future period was overruled and Nigeria was made to adopt in principle, on the issue of structure, the American federal system, which meant that the country, using the actual words of Dr Nnamdi Azikwe, is to be “perpetual, indivisible and indissoluble.”
They refused to share the idea of constituting the new federation of states/regions on the basis of the extant ethnic groups because this would empower ethnic politics over building a nation that is not along ethnic lines as Awolowo canvassed for but by making the centre stronger. In this way, the state is to serve the purpose of development centres. This was also followed up by the socialist-oriented West African Students in UK and in Nigeria in 1958. This position was jettisoned by the emergent ruling elite that subscribed to ethnic politics and came to power after independence (or self-rule government before it).
As the stone which builders rejected becoming the cornerstone of the building, it came to pass as aftermath of the political instability of the 1st Republic when ethnic politics was raised to the climax; the military that came thereafter stumbled on this earlier idea which they caused to implement. The constitutional arrangement thereafter that made up the 1979 constitution rationalised this as the best way to go.
The argument by the ethnic gladiators to restructure the state on ethnic basis is mistaken as this in a way is to put in place what they are arguing against in respect of the central government. This is in the direction of having empire states constituted by the majority ethnic groups while some other states will be like a local government of the former.
One important reason we cannot afford to go backward into the past to organise governance is because a lot has changed in comparison with the past. For instance, the Sokoto Caliphate that became the overriding force over the rest of Hausa communities emerged as a result of the activities of the Fulani immigrants in the 19th century while Hausa people who have been in existence many centuries before then.
The same story is also applicable in Yoruba where Ibadan that was the latest imperial force over the rest of Yoruba was a creation of the 19th century while other kingdoms as small as they might be, emerged as far back as in the 15th century. More changes have been experienced thereafter in various parts of the country since the colonial rule in one way or the other. This is to show how these societies prior to colonial state evolved and dynamic rather than being static.
We must remind ourselves how the political instability in the 1st Republic that emanated from the West came about. This was the West that was monolithic for reason of being composed of people of the same ethnic group especially after 1963 when Mid-West Region was carved out of the hitherto Western Region. Apart from this, both Awo and Akintola, the two gladiators of the crisis, were Christians and practiced the same profession of law. They also shared the same political platform, Action Group (AG) as Yoruba people did out of the lots. What could be more uniting force than these? Yet the crisis emerged. So the failure of the system could not be for reason of our not being organised solely along ethnic lines. The best explanation for the crisis was by way of competitive rivalry associated with capitalist system among the political players that took place within and beyond Western Region. This was made possible as the system is one out to encourage individualism in serving the interest of few people in society.
The new advocates of true federalism or secession wish to point out that the old system (in the 1st Republic) enhanced the economic viability and wellbeing of the people in the respective stronger federating units of the regional governments as against what is in operation today in respect of the states of the federation. But those raising this rosy past belonged to the tendency that was critical of the structural imbalance of the period. It was their contention that the Northern Region of Nigeria, composed 70 per cent of the territorial land mass of the country and over 50 per cent of the country’s population, was in stronger position than other federating units put together. This, they disclaimed as not good enough to avoid structural imbalance of any federalist system.
The agitation in the present dispensation for regionalism or true federalism usually championed by the youths could be traced to the failure of capitalism in the era of neoliberalism. This is why the agitation would have been more fulfilling if posed in the direction of fighting against unemployment, unpaid outstanding salaries/allowances of workers, opposed to charging school fees beyond the means of the working people at both lower level and tertiary educational institutions; demand for scholarship and bursary awards, agitation against dearth of social infrastructures in schools, agitation against corruption, and against the policy of privatisation and commercialisation of social infrastructures, against the government for not providing water, electricity and non-payment of pension to the pensioners as at when due, etc. The cause of these problems could be traced to the immediate problem of neoliberalism that include such economic policies as privatisation, liberalisation, commercialisation, devaluation, a variant of the overall capitalist system that have been in favour of the few rich.
Such agitation, combined with practical efforts to network with other groups in organising political platform in opposition to the existing paradigm, is the best way out in the direction of providing alternative that will be able to get to power government led by the working people, a way by which hitherto ways of exploitation and oppression can be terminated and the needs of the poor can be better addressed.
One question that would need to be determined is the issue of what is to be the purpose of the central government? But before going to this, there is the need to discuss what a state is. As this is the premise upon which other political systems as federalism and confederacy are to be based.
As a matter of fact, Marxist school of thought led by Karl Marx was the first to conceptualise the class nature of the state and refute its pretence to neutrality. State is defined according to this school as ‘a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie’ with the aim of exploiting and oppressing other classes. In stretching this definition further, he stated that state is ‘nothing more than the form of organization which the bourgeoisie necessarily adopt both for internal and external purposes, for the mutual guarantee of their property and interest’ (Bottomore T, 1979:134).
In refuting the notion that the state is responsible for holding together the civil society, Marx’s contention is that the fact in reality contradicts this position. “He stated that it is not the state that holds the civil society together, only political superstition imagines that social life must be held together by the state, whereas in reality the state is held together by civil life.” What held together civil society, according to Karl Marx, therefore is the natural necessity, essential human properties and interest, i.e. the economic and social relationship that women and men engage in.
Not a few African communities had in existence what could be called centralised state prior to colonial rule, while in some others this had not matured to be so characterised. But with the arrival of colonialism, such state(less) formations were coalesced together under colonial rule and administered first through indirect rule using kings, emirs and chiefs to rule in their respective domains. At this stage colonial administration was informal as it was being handled by the commercial corporation chartered by the imperial power for both purposes of direct commercial interest and political administration. In most African countries this started in the mid-19th century.
Full scale colonial rule emerged formally in Nigeria in 1900, while this was also the case in many other African countries around the same time. At this time, the colonial rulers introduced political structures as a new form of administration that was meant to earn legitimacy and authority. Such structures as legislative houses, civil service, judiciary, executive arm were charged with such responsibilities. The practice was also restricted within the confines of the colonial officials but later extended to the natives at the level of appointing them in advisory capacity to the legislative house(s).
More concessions were made to this latter category of people up to surrendering of power necessitated by the pressure mounted by the people organised under different political groups of the nationalists, workers and trade unions. The role of the press was also vital in this regard. Virtually all the nationalist and labour oriented groups had a press of their own to carry out their campaigns, agitations and promote their political interests in respect of what they stood for.
It was for reason of looking for the best way to govern a country as vast as Nigeria with huge population of about 50 million at independence (1960), for instance, that federalist principle was to be adopted. This was against the background that indirect rule or provincial way of administration did not live up to expectation after the amalgamation of the three hitherto protectorates that made up Nigeria in 1914.
The various constitutional conferences (1950, 1954, and others) that involved Nigerian nationalists towards independence had robust debates on which way the federalist arrangement was to be constituted. There are various forms of federalism that include one that tend to concentrate power at its federating units with a weakened central government. Another is such that is to concentrate power at the centre with weakened federating units. There is also confederacy that is to emphasise on governance by the federating units while the role of the central government is to be performed by the extant federating units. This is why confederacy is being regarded by some as synonymous with non-existence of a central government as it does not have separate life of its own.
While the debate was on, some succumbed to the idea that secession should be enshrined in the constitution to show that federalist arrangement was not sacrosanct as it could be dissolved if any of the federating units decided to follow this path. As far back as 1954, a compromise was reached in accepting federalist principle of sharing power between the regional government that were three in number then and the central government; and the question of secession in the future period was overruled and Nigeria was made to adopt in principle, on the issue of structure, the American federal system, which meant that the country, using the actual words of Dr Nnamdi Azikwe, is to be “perpetual, indivisible and indissoluble.”
It is important to discuss the operation of the federal system of government as it was being operated then as some people wish us to go back to that period despite the failure of the system that made the military to take over power in 1966. This category of analysts are also mistaken to have said that the coming together of all the components that later composed Nigeria never discussed their coming together claiming that this was done by a fiat of the colonial regime. This could not be true as the post-colonial arrangements in various parts of Africa were preceded by the activities of the nationalists and the working people in their agitations, street protests, and conferences held to reach a consensus. The only argument that can suffice in opposing such consensus would have probably been that this was done under duress. But this has also been followed up with conferences in the post-independence period.
The new advocates of true federalism or secession wish to point out that the old system (in the 1st Republic) enhanced the economic viability and wellbeing of the people in the respective stronger federating units of the regional governments as against what is in operation today in respect of the states of the federation. But those raising this rosy past belonged to the tendency that was critical of the structural imbalance of the period. It was their contention that the Northern Region of Nigeria, composed 70 per cent of the territorial land mass of the country and over 50 per cent of the country’s population, was in stronger position than other federating units put together. This, they disclaimed as not good enough to avoid structural imbalance of any federalist system.
This criticism was well founded as it would be a contradiction of a federalist system to have a component unit of it stronger than the rest as such advantaged unit would likely be in a position to control the central government together with the government of the Northern Region for reason of having larger number of representatives in the national parliament. This was more so that the central government was to be filled by the process of indirect electoral process rather than through direct general elections as we know it today. This could be more aggravated with the practice of regional parties in vogue at the period.
Federalism as conceived by Wheare, a notable pioneer theoretician of the principle of federalism, is seen as a system whereby: “The central government can exploit the richer areas for the benefit of the poorer. What wealth there is, they can seek out. Whereas the government of a depressed region, with great demands for social services, and correspondingly small resources to meet them, is confined within the area of its own territory for the resources it may tap, the general government can rage over the whole field. One function which the general government of a federation is coming increasingly to perform …is the redistribution of the wealth of the whole country, taking it from the more prosperous regions and giving it to the poorer. (See Solomom Ukhwegbe, “How not to approach federalism like scripture”.
The military led government that came later to address such obvious lacuna in the system did so by effecting breaking the region to seven states in 1967. Over the years, state creation increased as thus: twelve (12) in 1967, nineteen (19) in 1976, twenty-one (21) in 1987, thirty (30) in 1991 and thirty-six (36) in 1996. This could not be defended as being perfect. But if further errors were later detected or observed in the system it is suffice to say that this could be taken up. This would only show how imperfect the system of federalism is and the best could be achieved from it in the course of practice whereby its imperfections are to be remitted from time to time.
The assumption of the present day agitators of restructuring that see federalism from the perspective of the states to develop at their own pace is antithetical to the spirit of federalism. Federalism as conceived by Wheare, a notable pioneer theoretician of the principle of federalism, is seen as a system whereby: “The central government can exploit the richer areas for the benefit of the poorer. What wealth there is, they can seek out. Whereas the government of a depressed region, with great demands for social services, and correspondingly small resources to meet them, is confined within the area of its own territory for the resources it may tap, the general government can rage over the whole field. One function which the general government of a federation is coming increasingly to perform …is the redistribution of the wealth of the whole country, taking it from the more prosperous regions and giving it to the poorer. (See Solomom Ukhwegbe, “How not to approach federalism like scripture”, The Guardian, Tuesday October 24, 2017).
This is equally in conformity with the socialist principle of people making contribution to the common pool in accordance with their effort (or strength) but distribution is to be made in accordance with need. Associated with this principle in practice is the reason that beyond the issue of national currency, foreign relations, customs and security that the restructuring advocates want the central government to be restricted to, it is to intervene in other respects such as health, education and other social services in order to make sure that this is equalised to everybody across national boundaries; so as not to make the effect of the poor states realisable on these vital social services.
This principle is not limited to Nigeria’s federalism but a common phenomenon of others such as that of India, Australia, Austria, Germany, Canada and Russia. From all indications, politics have no doubt been introduced to the debate. Though this is not unexpected as the issue at stake itself is political, but certain measure of decorum would be necessary in getting the best out of the debate rather than reducing it to an emotional exercise.
For instance, the issue of federation account has been rebuffed as the restructuring advocates want this to stop whereas this system is a common phenomenon associated with some other federalist states across the world; and this has been with us since 1958 as adopted by the 1960/63 constitutions. In the erstwhile constitution, the federation account was not a federal government account but account meant for the federating units and the central government. In line with universal best practices in federalist states, the constitution placed on the federal government the role of the collection of taxes such as petroleum rents, customs revenue, and company income tax on behalf of the federation and these are to be shared by all the components of the federation. Value Added Tax (VAT) was only added recently in 1996.
One other important issue to underscore here is on how the revenues accumulated are to be shared among the component members that make up the federation. The process has also been in the constitution since the 1st Republic. Such task is to be handled by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission that is to review the revenue allocation formula from time to time. The only difference in the way of practice between how this was being operated in the 1st Republic and now under parliamentary and presidential systems respectively, is in that in the former, the sharing formula is expressly stated in the constitution.
Some, in defending the government, have come to say the reason for changing the practice as against what operated in the past is because of the new practice of separation of powers between the three arms of government – legislative, executive and judiciary – that are expected to provide checks and balances over the activities of each other; and political parties especially that of the ruling government has no role to play in governance in the latter case unlike in the past. This is a lame excuse that provides centrifugal forces opportunity to exercise their penchant for division of the country. The constitution should be installed to still such role, the role of checks and balances by way of separation of powers could not be inhibited by such constitutional provision and direction. The composition of the membership of the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission should be carried out in consonance with other states being involved.
Much outcry has been made over the issue of the legislative list taking over by the central government. Without much ado, let us look at the changes that had taken place in this regard against the background of the 1960/63 constitutions. The facts remain that the 1963 constitution’s concurrent legislative list moved to the exclusive legislative list of the 1999 constitution, including the issue of arms and ammunition, bankruptcy and insolvency, census, commercial and industrial monopolies, combines and trusts, drugs and poisons, fingerprints, identification and criminal records, labour and trade unions, prison and other institutions for the treatment of offenders, promotion of tourist traffic, quarantine, registration of business names and evidence.
It is observed that none of these items is contentious as these have been effected in the constitution of 1979 before 1999. The only amendment made in respect of 1999 constitution include: additional number of states from 19 in 1979 to 36 in 1999; the Federal Character, including the creation of Federal Character Commission and Matters related to increase in population among other issues.
Beyond subterfuge, it is difficult to fathom how the constitution could help the cause of these agitators to bring about a better Nigeria. This seems like a fluke on the part of the ruling elites especially in the states looking for a cover for their negligence and irresponsibility toward the working people in their care.
In the 1st Republic that references are being made to, no region was in control of the police, the local government police in place was manipulated by the regional governments for their own political interests before this was dissolved in the West and North where it existed.
The argument made by some state governments to establish their own police could hardly add up beyond politics as this requires huge capital outlay for the government that have found it difficult to meet their basic responsibilities to their citizens in their respective states; and such services that include education, health, roads, recreation that were noted to have been vibrant before now.
One important issue in this regard is the negligence on the part of the state governments to take control of the Nigerian Police together with the federal government as provided for in the constitution. So they should have themselves to blame in not claiming their constitutional rights on this important matter of security of their various states and the country at large.
As Richard Sklar asserted in his study (see Adigun Agbaje, Diamond and Onwudiwe (eds.), Nigeria’s Struggle for Democracy and Good Governance) on this subject matter, Nigeria has made some contributions towards federalism both in theory and practice. This is the case especially in the area of federal character, and introduction of local government as a third tier of government.
Concluded.
Comrade Olamosu, National Secretary of Socialist Labour, made this presentation at a meeting of the Oyo State branch of ASCAB recently.
