The debate about the political restructuring of Nigeria has hardly been constructive. Those opposed to restructuring often outrightly dismiss the idea, taunting its proponents with the cynical question: “What do they mean by restructuring?” President Muhammadu Buhari, who once described advocates of restructuring as “ignorant and naïve”, is the chief scoffer. He has asked such scornful questions many times.
For instance, in his recent Channels Television interview, President Buhari said: “Those who talk of restructuring, I want them to define what they mean.” In June last year, he said: “If you ask many Nigerians what they are going to restructure, you will find that they have nothing to talk about.” And in November 2018, he said in France: “There are too many people talking lazily about restructuring in Nigeria; they couldn’t define what they meant”.
Instead of strong and economically viable regions, we now have weak and dependent states that are mere appendages of an over-powerful Federal Government
But Buhari is engaging in a kind of fallacy known as “argumentum ad ignorantiam”. It’s an appeal to ignorance whereby opponents of restructuring argue that the concept is meaningless because its proponents haven’t defined it. But restructuring defines itself! Literally, it means that an entity’s structure is flawed, and needs to be “re”-structured.
In the book ‘Political Restructuring in Europe’, Professor Chris Brown of the London School of Economics argues that any political structure that’s not working must be open to reconstruction. A political system exists to serve a functional purpose, to meet needs, and if it can’t do so, then it lacks the ethical or moral basis to exist. This is why countries worldwide change or reform their governance systems.
Take France. In 2002, the presidential term was reduced from seven years to five years. Why? Because, according to (then) President Jacques Chirac, the popular views were that “seven years is too long” and “five years is more modern”. Later, in 2008, the constitution imposed a two-term limit on the president. That’s political restructuring.
In the UK, before 1997, powers were centralised in Westminster. But full-fledged devolved governments were later established in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and powerful mayoralties were created in the English regions. Last week, the UK government published ambitious plans for deeper devolution to give significantly more powers to the nations, regions and local governments. Again, that is political restructuring, and several such examples abound all over the world.
Read also: Nigeria’s search for next president and the allegory of the bramble
Coming to Nigeria, the truth is that this country is not a stranger to political restructuring. The current debate on restructuring sometimes suggests that Nigeria has never previously been restructured. But, in truth, throughout its history, Nigeria has had several “restructurings”; some good, some bad.
In 1951, the British introduced the Macpherson Unitary Constitution, which overcentralised powers. But the constitution was so unpopular that it was replaced three years later with the Lyttleton Federal Constitution of 1954, which established three autonomous regions.
The 1960 Independence Constitution mirrored the Lyttleton Constitution and was based on a Federation of three regions, “with each region self-governing in its own concerns,” as Iain Macleod, Britain’s Secretary of State for the Colonies, put it. Similarly, the 1963 Republican Constitution was based on a Federation of autonomous regions, each self-governing in its own concerns.
As we know, the above restructurings were led by Nigeria’s founding fathers and leaders of Nigeria’s ethnic groups. The complex but inclusive negotiations culminated in great political and constitutional settlements under which various interests were reconciled to ensure peaceful coexistence, and relationships between the regions and the federal entity were properly defined and balanced in the true spirit of federalism.
Unfortunately, political intolerance and military adventurism led to the coup of 1966 that torpedoed the 1963 Constitution and, with it, the system of strong, autonomous regions within a Federation. In other words, the death of regional autonomy and federalism.
From 1966 to 1999, “political restructurings” in Nigeria were orchestrated and imposed by the military. First, General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi imposed a unitary system following the January 1966 coup. In 1967, General Yakubu Gowon introduced the 12-state structure.
In his speech in May 1967, General Gowon said that the main obstacle to the country’s stability was “the present structural imbalance in the Nigerian Federation”, and that he split Nigeria into twelve states, from four regions, “as a basis for stability … to remove the fear of domination.” In truth, as the civil war loomed, General Gowon created the 12 states to weaken Colonel Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s powerbase in the old Eastern region, which was split into three states.
But if, as General Gowon said, splintering Nigeria into several states was the solution to instability, fear of domination and structural imbalance, why then is Nigeria not united and not stable today despite having 36 states? From Gowon’s 12 states, successive military regimes created new states, adding up to the present 36 states. Yet, the fear of domination has not disappeared, deep concerns about structural imbalance remain, and Nigeria is more disunited and more unstable today than it was before 1966.
What’s more, the state structure over-centralised the government of Nigeria rather than decentralised it. Instead of strong and economically viable regions, we now have weak and dependent states that are mere appendages of an over-powerful Federal Government.
Last week, Rochas Okorocha said he was richer than Imo State as its governor, and Bola Tinubu reportedly said he was richer than Osun State. Yet, some think that having glorified local governments called “states” would develop Nigeria. No, it won’t!
The state structure doesn’t tackle poverty; it just produces extensive and expensive administrative structures across the country and creates jobs for politicians as governors, commissioners, heads of parastatals, members of boards, and political aides.
So, where am I going with this? Well, two points. The first is that Nigeria has always had political restructurings, good and bad. The founding fathers negotiated the good ones under the 1954, 1960 and 1963 Constitutions. But the military imposed the bad ones, namely: the deeply-flawed, quasi-federal 1979 and 1999 Constitutions; the state structure that creates a powerful centre and weak, dependent states; and a presidential system that creates a very powerful executive president, which makes the office too attractive that the race to be president becomes a major source of corruption, disunity and tension in this country.
All of which leads to my second point, namely, that we now need a good restructuring. In a brilliant article entitled “What is Nigeria’s government good for?”, published in the Financial Times last week, David Pilling, the newspaper’s Africa editor, wrote: “The problem (of Nigeria) is not so much who leads the government as the nature of the government itself.” That chimes with the point that I have long made in this column that the nature of Nigeria’s politico-governance structure matters. This is why Nigeria now needs a good, nation-transforming restructuring.
The starting point for such restructuring is to replace the current state structure with a zonal structure, based on the six geopolitical zones. Today, virtually all federal political offices and appointments are based on the six zones. Indeed, section 5(1) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018 explicitly states: “All Board Members … shall be appointed … from the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria.”
Now, isn’t it strange that an Act of parliament recognises the zonal structure while the Constitution doesn’t? There’s currently nothing like “the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria” in the Constitution. Or, is there? Of course not!
But there should be! The Constitution should recognise the six zones as Nigeria’s federating units and devolve significant powers, resources and responsibilities to them. The regions should have their own constitutions and organise themselves administratively to achieve economies of scale, prioritising internal security, economic growth and the prosperity of their people.
Nigeria’s future lies in having regional powerhouses, not over-powerful centre and vassal states. That’s why the zonal structure should replace the state structure!
