Featured, Opinion
By Emeka Omeihe
WHAT’s there in a name? That is the rhetorical question brought to the fore by a recent advocacy by the President of African Development Bank AFDB, Adewunmi Adesina.
He had at a lecture as the recipient of the 2024 Obafemi Awolowo Prize for Leadership, called for a change of name from the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the ‘United States of Nigeria’. This change in nomenclature in his view “would change the relational mindset between the states and Abuja: the fulcrum would be the states, while the centre would support them, not lord over them”.
Adesina further contended that with good governance, better accountability systems and zero tolerance for corruption, more economically stronger constituent states would emerge.
It is hazy how a mere change in nomenclature would elicit concomitant change in relational mindset between the states and Abuja to obviate the control and dominance of the centre over the constituent units. Equally uncertain is how good governance, more accountability and zero tolerance for corruption will ensue through renaming Nigeria.
So what point was Adesina really driving at? What is there in the suggested new Nigerian name that is lacking in the old one that has the magic wand for these envisaged fundamental relational and mindset changes? Or, are we being fed with the notion that once we rename the Nigerian federation in the fashion of the United States of America USA, our brand of federalism will begin to deliver public goods and services optimally? Is a belief that the hood makes the monk?
These are the immediate posers that confront the suggestion that renaming Nigeria will bring about a change in relational mindset between the states and the central authority. That association or linkage is hard to fathom. So what is the hidden message of the AFDB boss?
The thesis of his presentation appeared clearer when he said, “the achievement of economically viable entities and the viability of the national entity requires constitutional changes to devolve more economic and fiscal powers to the states or regions. The stronger the states or regions, the stronger the federal units”.
His further intervention to the effect that for Nigeria to get out of economic quagmire, there is the compelling need for restructuring driven, not by political expediency but economic and financial viability says it all.
Herein lies the message. So it is not just a case of mere renaming of Nigeria in the mould he advocated eliciting attitudinal and relational mindset changes between the states and the federal government. Neither does the level of economic and political development that give allure to the American federal system lie in the order in which that country’s name is arranged. No!
The strength of that country’s federal system is in its strong institutions and processes entrenched in constitutional provisions that devolve powers between the federal authority and states such that does not give room for an omnipotent and omnipresent centre. It is hallmarked by fiscal federalism and independence that allows the constituent units control their affairs without undue interference from the centre.
Their system operates along the principles of federalism characterised by K.C. Wheare as the “method of dividing powers so that the general and regional governments are each within a sphere coordinate and independent”. A.V. Dicey gave further fillip to this by identifying three leading characteristics of ‘completely developed federalism’ to include the distribution of powers among governmental bodies (each with limited and coordinate powers) along with the supremacy of the constitution and the authority of the courts as interpreters of the constitution.
These are the principles that give allure to that governance framework. They have nothing to do with the order in which that country’s name is arranged. So changing the Federal Government of Nigeria to the ‘United States of Nigeria’ as Adesina suggested is practically of no values in addressing the glaring imperfections of our federal contraption.
It has no solution to the disproportionate control and disbursement of the national revenue by the centre. It has no remedy for the deadly political competition our convoluted federal system engenders. Neither is it a therapeutic response to our brand of politics identified by Richard Joseph as prebendalism- the bitter competition to capture political power for the benefit of one’s ethnic group and family members.
Renaming Nigeria is of questionable value in addressing the national questions; the aberrant form and structure of the federation and the intense competition between the centre and the constituent units for the loyalty of the citizens.
The ‘United States of Nigeria’ as a concept, can only draw relevance as a metaphor for true federalism. It strikes as a figurative representation for power devolution, fiscal federalism and restructuring through fundamental constitutional changes. It is a call for federalism in its pristine form.
Perhaps, that was the link Adesina sought to establish when he called for devolution of powers and restructuring that is guided by economic and fiscal considerations. But he could have gone ahead to marshal his thoughts along these lines rather than hide under a nebulous advocacy for renaming Nigeria. It is not certain why he chose to hide under the call for a change of name for such fundamental change issues.
One’s guess however, is that he aimed at getting at the same objective through an entirely different channel. His target was to draw attention to the imperfections of our federal order by giving the impression that there is something in that name that works against the spirits and principles of true federalism.
There is also the possibility that his proposition may have been a subtle way of avoiding controversy. This should not be surprising given the vested interests that easily get jittery each time restructuring, power devolution or fiscal federalism are mentioned.
But then, how far can we possibly stretch the concept of a United States of Nigeria in the face of the multidimensional challenges that constantly assail the authority of the federal government? That concept would seem a misnomer given the current siege by non-state actors and the ensuing competition for the loyalty of the citizens between the central government and cleavages of primordial, religious and sectional hue?
Despite his manner of intervention, Adesina did not disappoint in charting the path the country needed to toe, if our federal system of government will not continue to operate in its current aberrant form. He has added his weight to the necessary and sufficient constitutional changes this country must undertake to extricate itself from the debilitating challenges assailing its progress, economic development and political stability.
But, the issues he raised are not entirely new. They have been recurring decimals on the country’s political chessboard. They were the national questions that led to the 2014 National Conference set up by the Jonathan regime, the National Political Reforms Conference of the Obasanjo regime and the Constitutional Conference of the late Abacha administration.
Each of these conferences made far-reaching recommendations on the necessary constitutional and administrative reforms the country needed to undertake to position itself on the path to steady progress and even development. Sadly, despite the huge resources and energy injected into these conferences, their recommendations (futuristic as many of them were) have not gone beyond the papers in which they were written.
That is why agitations have resonated with seeming ferocity. We now have the President Tinubu administration that has been taking hard and painful decisions for the overall public good. These have been evident in the removal of fuel subsidy and the floating of the Naira in the foreign exchange market among others.
The gains from these sectors can only endure in a politically stable environment. President Tinubu should consolidate the gains of his reforms by mustering the necessary political will to get the Nigerian federalism function in its true spirits. It is time to confront and realistically address the national questions headlong.
***This article was first published in The Nation Newspaper
A.
-April 08, 2024 @ 15:56 GMT|
Tags: Adewunmi Adesina. Bank AFDB Emeka Omeihe Renaming Nigeria
