President Jonathan’s Political Agenda
By Obed Awowede   Newsdiaryonline Wed Aug 10,2011

In the last few weeks since presidential spokesman Dr. Reuben Abati announced the president’s desire for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing just one term for the president, his deputy, governors and their deputies as part of a constitutional reform process, there has been an uproar of sorts, coming from all corners: Labour, civil society organizations and of course, politicians. Opposition parties have seen in the President Goodluck Jonathan proposal a fresh angle to malign the president and the ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP). They say that the proposals coming just two months after the commencement of the new administration is indicative of the inordinate agenda of the president and the ruling PDP. The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) calls the idea “tenure elongation by subterfuge”, while the Congress for Progressive Change says it is “mendacious and delusory!” Osita Okechukwu of the amorphous Conference of Nigeria Political Parties tries to fathom the motive behind the idea, especially given that former President Obasanjo failed to achieve a similar amendment, and concluded perhaps rather outlandishly since President Jonathan has excused himself from the beneficiaries, as follows: “After a careful assessment of the body language, mannerisms and antecedents of President Jonathan, it has come to the inevitable conclusion that he is an emerging dictator like some presidents in Africa.”.

The respondents seem angry at what they see as the administration’s lack of focus, arguing that in the midst of Nigeria’s rot a government that lays claim to a transformation agenda should focus on economic and infrastructural matters and not on tinkering with term limits. There are legitimate reasons to think this way: the national economy is not looking good, roads and other infrastructure are broken down and even in states where these are seen as being addressed, Lagos for instance, it appears like a drop in the ocean of needs: many inner city roads are riddled with gullies. So, logically, why should term limits and other constitutional matters concern anyone?

This argument as logical as it may seem is illogical because it assumes that both issues – addressing the economic problems and addressing constitutional matters - are mutually disruptive. They are not and I think that point was well made by Dr. Abati when he explained further the government’s position days later. A reappraisal of the polity can and must be done even as we strive to tackle our economic problems because they are not independent and I dare say that the polity as currently configured cannot guarantee sustainable economic transformation. Last week Governor Fashola of Lagos lamented that resources are limited amidst a mountain of needs. Now it could be asked that what have term limits got to do with generating resources to meet these needs. The point is not in the term limits per se,  because as part of what the presidency is planning are legislations to address competition and industry within and among states. One such proposal is the amendment of the Railway Act of 1955 which vests the running of railways in the federal government, a law that has effectively shut out states and the private sector from running rail transport. When amended this should spur economic integration between states, the kind the South West states have long mooted and which the South States are also considering. States in the north and elsewhere can begin to look at how they can invest in integrating their farm centres, their industrial markets and consumer markets using rail without confronting such obnoxious legislation. These decadent laws such as federal management of the prisons are also on the cards for reformation, according to Abati. I hope that when that bill gets to the legislature those who argue for state police will find the courage to raise their voices and argue for that piece of legislation and others that will deepen our federalism. They are the vestiges of the unitary laws of the colonial and the military eras that mock our federation and make this unity we all mouth so tenuous.

There is a fact in this country acknowledged by the likes of The Patriots which has as members the chartered accountant and politician Chief David Dafinone and constitutional lawyer Professor Ben Nwabueze among others, former Justice minister Richard Akinjide, civil rights groups and several progressive-minded individuals, politicians inclusive, like Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, that this federation is unworkable. It is easy to say that the problem is the leadership and corruption and those who say this are right in their own way;yet they ignore the structural foundations of the leadership and corruption problems. They also ignore the complex nature of the Nigerian state which makes it imperative that power must rotate among the constituent parts of every political unit. The ‘best-man’ argument that posits that people can elect whomsoever is best suited for the job assumes that good materials cannot be found all over the country. I disagree. It is my view that good people are all over and the zones as currently constituted must have a fair chance of producing the leadership at the centre, so that rather than a PDP zoning formula we have a constitutionally-guaranteed zoning arrangement. A single term of six fits in nicely here, giving the zones the certainty of producing the president in 36 years, roughly a generation.

Now will it curb corruption? I have my doubts that alone it can achieve this. Curbing corruption will take more than strengthening the EFCC and ICPC; it will take personal leadership on the part of those who lead and it will take a political restructuring that leaves less free money for sharing at the centre and going into the black holes of the countless federal commissions and funds, for instance Ecological Fund, Education Trust Fund, Petroleum Equalisation Fund, etc. I am not by any means saying that allowing the states to develop using their own resources will curb corruption but it will give less wiggle room for lazy leaders who find a convenient excuse in the state of the federation account; it will encourage competition among states and ennoble nobler goals for those who will lead, knowing that when they campaign for office they cannot do so on the basis of a federation account whose source is outside their control; we can now begin to ask pertinent questions of how they would generate the money to fund their promises. Then they too as leaders can begin to ask questions whether the political units are viable as stand-alone units or they need to merge to cut running costs. We can also expect them to be more accountable. Why was Shell able to do what it did in Ogoniland and elsewhere in the Niger Delta and get away with? It was because to the national leaders of the time the Niger Delta was so distant and irrelevant in their estimation to merit addressing their complaints; this would not happen if the Niger Delta states controlled the industry! The same thing is playing out in the communities around the Tin mines of Jos and the gold mines of Zamfara.

It is my view that while no constitution can ultimately guarantee good behavior, a loophole for corruption in this country today is the 1999 constitution, which guarantees a culture of sharing revenue that is unrealistic and encourages a rent mentality. No one is arguing that there must not be revenue sharing at the centre but the fiscal policy must be so designed to further limit what goes to the centre for sharing among the tiers of government so that states can be more creative in growing their economies and generating revenue. For now because of the nature of the constitution which centralizes most sectors of the national economy, states are left to engage in the multiple taxation of the few struggling businesses and workers in their domains, and this is bound to raise problems for workers and the companies, as is the case in Edo State where workers are protesting the high taxes imposed by the state government. To get round the revenue problem, debating the allocation formula has become a critical activity for government executives, with all tiers seeking more money. It is because of this that national wealth between states and the centre becomes a zero-sum game, where some tier of government must cede something for the others to get something and it is the reason why we are clamouring for more states; it is why India with a population of 1.4 billion people has just nine states and Nigeria with 150 million people has 36 states and promises to have more, expanding the bureaucracy in destructive ways. Just last week Ms Jumoke Akinjide, the minister of state for the FCT and an Ibadan indigene assured the Olubadan on the creation of Ibadan state out of the present Oyo State, saying she will work at the federal level to get this done! In her words, “Ibadan State, when created will be one of the most viable states in the country. The reason, as you know, is because we have the Ibadan metropolis and the rural Ibadan. We also have strong economic potentials in view of the large number of people in Ibadan”. I do not know by what criteria Ibadan State will be viable if not based on the expectation of a national revenue sharing, when the government of Oyo State as at now complains that it is not generating enough to pay its bills. The Benue State government says it will have a hard time paying the new minimum wage of N18,000 a month to its workers, yet the movement for Apa State to be created out of Benue is growing with the same spurious argument that the state is viable. Several such agitations abound.

Indeed, the national sharing argument is the prime motivating force for the state creation agitation across the country; take that out of the equation, the whole argument is hubristic. There is little doubt that state creation has enabled the growth of more urban conurbations but do we need more states to do that? Cities should grow around their economic potentials rather than products of administrative creations. This argument holds true for several cities across the world. I do not think anyone will quarrel with the desire of a people to have their own state but an agitation built on an expectation to depend almost exclusively on federal allocation is dubious and can only engender further agitations from other constituent units.

Amending the constitution to reflect the desire for true federalism cannot be done by the president alone as various groups have tended to portray, neither should he as national leader put forward a motion in this direction knowing full well his origin from the oil-rich Niger Delta. Also, there is no constitutional basis for the president to convoke a constitutional conference to address such issues; the only way we can begin to address these structural errors is for political groups to reach out and build consensus. It is here that the ACN which has campaigned on the basis of true federalism and progressive politics must begin to walk the talk. When House Speaker Aminu Tambuwal was elected, he got the overwhelming support of the opposition parties, chief of which is the ACN. The party said it had struck a pact with the speaker to address these issues. They should now get Speaker Tambuwal to respect this agreement, else their honour is at stake that they only played the support card to work against giving the PDP in the South West a prime place at the top of the nation’s leadership, a springboard from which to corral resources to challenge the ACN’s dominance in the South West. These opposition parties can criticize the president’s political transformation agenda but they must add value to the debate to restructure the polity rather throw away the baby with the bath water as it were. My suggestion is that they develop their positions as we wait for the president’s bill, which also promises some other reform items and solidify the agenda so that we can begin to talk of a sustainable federal system.

Mr Awowede is a Lagos-based journalist

Advertising