By CHUNG GYANG RAHWOL
NIGERIA’S political landscape has been marred by instability, corruption and ethnic tensions, despite its rich cultural heritage and vast natural resources. The current federal/presidential system has failed to address the country’s diverse needs, perpetuating a cycle of underdevelopment and discontent.
Progressive political analysts and Nigerians, most of whom have been at the receiving end of the current arrangement, strongly believe that the panacea for Nigeria’s political woes are the promotion of regional autonomy and a return to parliamentary democracy. These would not only enhance the country’s progress but ensure justice and equity in the national development process.
Nigeria’s political journey began with a parliamentary system at independence in 1960, but a military coup in 1966 led to a switch to a presidential system in 1979. The current federal/presidential system has been in place since 1999, with a centralized federal government and 36 states. However, this system has perpetuated ethnic and religious tensions, corruption and economic stagnation.
Indeed, the current system has been bedeviled by the over concentration of power at the federal level, leaving states and regions with limited autonomy. That is why the struggle for the control of the enormous powers at the centre is always fierce. This is because Nigerians know that any part of the country that controls the central government has at its disposal immense resources and power, most of which, sadly, ends up being controlled by very few individuals and interests.
For the above and many more reasons that the constraint of space would not permit us to marshal out, the current system has brought about ethnic and religious tensions between the country’s diverse nationalities. This is because it has not been able to address the problems of these different ethnic groups as they engage each other in the struggle to gain prominence and dominance in the contention for power and resources. These tensions have often led to frequent conflicts.
Even as Nigeria continues to struggle with economic development, despite its vast natural resources, corruption has become endemic, with the federal government often accused of mismanaging resources. Things at the sub-national levels are not much different. The results have been quite devastating for the overall progress of the country.
Consequently, citizens feel disconnected from their leaders, who are often more accountable to the federal government than to their constituents. One other major drawback of the current skewed federal structure is that regions that produce the largest chunks of the nation’s resources are denied the right to maximally control or even enjoy them.
In most cases, because these same regions rarely have access to political power at the centre, they seldom have control of those resources. As a result, other parts of the country that control little to nothing to the country’s Gross Domestic Product have more control over our commonwealth.
Devolution of power to the regions or outright adoption of the regional form of government would lead to the decentralization of power from the centre, thus giving regions more autonomy to manage their own affairs. One of the most positive concomitants of this is these constituent units or regions would have more control over their resources, allowing for more effective management and allocation. Additionally, these regions could develop their own economies independently, without relying on the federal government. This will give room for them to focus on areas in which they have comparative advantage which would greatly boost the country’s overall economic development.
Political representation and inclusion would be enhanced because regional governments would be relatively closer to their peoples compared with the current practice. As a result, decision-making would be faster and more effective because regions could address their unique challenges.
How would the regional system be implemented? The country could still turn the present six geo-political zones into regions with each having its own government, elected leader (who would be given an appropriate nomenclature) and a cabinet. Each of the six regions would have its own parliament made up of elected members.
The Federal Government would be mainly concerned with national issues such as defence, foreign affairs and running issues that have to do with the national economy. The regions would get a larger share of the revenues accruing to the national coffers or they could have total control of the revenues that come from their regions and pay a percentage to the central government.
This will allow them to fund their own development projects and, most significantly, give them a sense of belonging as they can have a say over the control and use of their own natural resources. As a result, these constituent units can create their own development plans, tailored to meet their unique needs.
Rahwol, a public affairs analyst, writes from Bukuru, Jos South LGA, Plateau State
