Revisiting governance incentives in Nigeria – Part 2

At the heart of this problem is the huge corruption or better still the impunity and lopsided justice that pervades this political architecture. Centralisation has only made it easier for individuals to siphon huge sums of money from the national treasury and in many instances take them abroad.

If the system was more decentralised the opportunity and incentive to still so much at a time and also to take these outside the country would have been severely reduced. It has validated over time the tendency for impunity with the country facing the prospect of elite capture. Corruption actually fuels the political system and makes the structure redundant as election malpractices become unstoppable as the judiciary last its independence to address challenges to the electoral malpractices. Even in the most established democracies it is difficult but in an emergent structure like ours in which impunity and corruption prevail it is like an hopeless case.

Unfortunately, it would seem that the many promises made by politicians who are outside of power to decentralise and seek for a more suitable structure are rarely implemented once they find themselves in power.

In essence, one way to correct the present political structure is to restore the federal arrangements that existed at independence called the Republican constitution. This would mean re-consolidating the state units into the country’s six regional zones and restoring the vibrant fiscal federalist arrangements, security autonomy and also further devolving power to units below the regions to states, localities and communities.

Needless to say the responsibilities in the exclusive list would return to the republican constitution with states/regions having wider powers to exploit opportunities and chart their social and economic development plans as they once did successfully before the 1966 coup brought that republic to an end.

A good understanding of governance incentives suggest that the changes being discussed in the Nigerian public space summarised above would certainly not come through the present political actors. Infact, 16 of the nation’s 36 states have gone to the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of the key organ of the federal government in the fight against corruption, the EFCC—the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

Rather the pressure for change would come through those outside the present political structure and system. It would require the recognition by the civil society actors to appreciate the significance of the need to engage the political system as a united front using the platform of the need to create a legacy for the rising numbers of young people many of whom have decided to leave the country that does not provide them with any hopes for a brighter future. This is why they are desperate to leave the country and some also go into crimes with their knowledge skills. This may be the only way to avert the most terrible anomalies.

The alternative would be for the governing authorities across the board to sense the danger and reach out these youths at this time. This could be the greatest ray of hope in the present dispensation as the President proposed a month long dialogue with youths.

It remains to be seen whether this would not be bungled by the system that continues to operate like a unitary system or whether it would be decentralised and synchronised with minimal corruption. This would be a miracle if it can be pulled off but we have many reasons to be sceptical.

The alternative would be for civil actors —including the faith based organs to unite with secular ones to mobilise and unify to focus on the need for a referendum on the nation’s federal arrangements, long ahead of the next election cycle.

Concluded.

Prof. Olowu wrote from the Netherlands.