My thoughts on the proposed regional government in Nigeria – Part 2

Increased bureaucracy and redundancy
By creating a 36-state structure, it spawned an unwieldy bureaucracy in which hundreds of state governments rely on federal allocations to survive. Many are not economically viable on their own and need annual subsidies from the federal government to pay salaries or run basic utilities and infrastructure. Setting up regional governments would involve a massive reorganisation, as some states would be absorbed, and many would have to forfeit whatever autonomy they currently enjoy.

This would also create considerable resistance from state governments with long-standing vested interests in existing arrangements. Secondly, states would themselves be absorbed into larger regional blocs, with many state-level agencies and institutions becoming redundant or merged into wider regional bodies.

Economic dependencies and imbalances
The existing state structure has also fuelled a system in which states often rely on federal allocations, especially oil revenues, to fund their budgets.
Many states still need to develop alternative revenue streams that depend on federal disbursements from the central government. The shift to regional government would probably make this task one for the regions that need more self-funding.

For instance, under this, some northern states (which do not have any natural resources or have little or no industrial base) will depend on federal allocations. When the federal source of funding is weakened, these states will suffer while the rich regions (like the Niger Delta area) will yield fast economic growth. So, the new arrangement will create more economic disparities if no deliberate policies are implemented to check the situation.

Legacy of ethnic and political tensions
The state structure in Nigeria was created, in part, to cope with ethnic conflicts by dividing regions and ethnic groups into smaller geographies, even as ethnic and political pressures continue to dominate the governance landscape. In some places, the creation of the states further entrenched the localised ethnic fervour that political elites continue to use to maintain control over their ethnic constituencies.

The shift to regional governance consumes states that do not want to be combined and have often fiercely defended their interests against one another. Merging Nigerian states with different political interests – ethnic, religious and ideological – could require reigniting those differences. Suppose the federal north was to be merged with the six states of the North Central region, where the Hausa-Fulani-dominated north is situated. In that case, the region’s minority groups, particularly in Benue, Plateau, Kogi, Kwara, Nassarawa and Niger states, have ‘good reason to suspect that they risk giving up their individuality if squeezed into the leviathan that Hausa-Fulani-dominated (northern) politics represents,’ as former Nigerian senator and government minister Isah Gaita argues.

Loss of local representation and identity
Consolidation means there is less distance between governors and the governed. Overall power is vested in state governments, with local assemblies and institutions that represent different groups—ethnic and political—who identify with their state government and its structures and with other citizens. People are accustomed to and attached not just to land but to the state.

Once local government has been replaced by regional government, the sense of local identity will be replaced. States are merged into much larger organisations. The loss of local identity may cause feelings of marginalisation and, for smaller ethnic groups, the loss of political representation. This loss of local identity might be the most significant risk for this form of regional government.

Theoretical consideration: Will States Collapse or Coexist with Regional Government?
One of the main issues facing the conversation on regional government, and how we discuss this, is the constitutional status of our current states in a new regional structure. Will the states remain? Or will they be part of the new regional units? The answer matters as it will shape the landscape of governance in Nigeria.

Option 1: The collapse or absorption of states
But this should be clear: if regional government leads to either the breakdown or the internal colonisation of the existing states through the federation by larger regional political structures, then what you have is a major reconfiguration of Nigeria’s political economy and organisation. In this case, the new base states will be the old regions.

The states will cease to exist as a political tier and administrative entity and will, at best, exist in a shadow form as little more than figureheads. The question is how, under the new regional political economy, the revenues and responsibilities of states will be allocated, as well as the locus of power and political representation.

Though this could cut down on bureaucratic redundancy and welcome administrative streamlining, it would also face serious resistance from the states being gobbled up. Many of Nigeria’s states have cultivated significant political power and leverage, and the leaders of the polities would likely not abandon these claws readily. The sudden dissolution of Nigeria’s 36-state system would also likely face legal challenges, protests and political instability as local elites react against the encroachment on their turfs.

Option 2: The creation of a four-tier government
On the other hand, Nigeria could preserve its 36 states while adding regions as a second layer of government, creating a four-tier system: federal, regional, state and local government. In this scenario, the regions would bridge the federal and state tiers, coordinating economic development, security and policy among several states. The states themselves would remain as they are while local government areas continue to serve as the base of government at the grassroots level.

Indeed, would such a system – including the inevitable fourth tier – increase administrative complexity and costs? Creating a two-tier system of regions that stopped short of the abolition of states would risk higher-level bureaucratic overlaps, with unclear division of responsibilities between the regional and state governments. The constitution would have to be amended, as well as a great deal of federal and state laws and administrative procedures to spell out the allocations of powers and jurisdictions of each of the three levels of government. The financial burden of maintaining a new fourth tier of government might strain the already-stretched lean resources of the federation.

Both create significant issues for the future course of rule in Nigeria, and whatever path is taken must begin to grapple with questions of efficacy, representation and unity.

Merits of regional government
Enhanced regional autonomy
One of the most apparent benefits of regional government would be increased autonomy for the five regions of Nigeria. With more control over their affairs, regional governments could make policies and strategies based on their local people’s actual needs and characteristics to best serve their populations. In this way, the presence of regional government could give regional leaders more ownership over the challenges they choose to confront and more responsibility for making decisions about education, infrastructure, and social services.
To be continued tomorrow.
Dr Oluwadele is an Author, Chartered Accountant and Public Policy Scholar based in Canada. He can be reached via: [email protected]