Since Nigeria gained her independence in 1960, the consensus opinion of most people has been that “Nigeria has failed to be the African utopia that the founders and the people expected”.
There is hardly a decade in Nigeria’s short existence that has not been plagued with some kind of political turmoil; Nigeria has experienced coups, attempted secessions, fought a bloody civil war, endured corrupt and often brutal military dictatorships, given the false hope of democracy while been subjected to corrupt civilian dictatorships, insurgencies, ethnic clashes, and so on.
Many solutions have been offered to solve the ever-growing Nigerian cancer. Once, we were prescribed democracy but that seemed to do little to remit Nigerian cancer. In 2015, Nigerians looked to a savior in the Muhammadu Buhari-led APC to be the solution. Two years later, the APC experiment – according to consensus opinion – seems to be having a carcinogenic effect on Nigerian cancer as there is threat of secession in some part of the country, alleged ethnic cleansing of some groups, depreciating economy and a general lack of direction in the country.
With the threat of secession in the southern part of the country agitating for independence, some have recommended another medicine to combat this stage four cancer. This solution is the devolution of power to the states.
According to Oxford dictionary, “Devolution is the delegation by central government to local or regional administration; a descent or passing on through a series of stages”
These “oncologists” propose that the federal government has too much power. They say that the corruption, bureaucracy, negligence and other symptoms of Nigerian cancer would be solved if the federal government would relinquish some if not most of its power to the states. Therefore, this entails the transfer of political authority to make decisions in some sphere of public policy from the central government to local level.
Read this up: Nigeria can’t move forward without devolution of power —Sen Ohuabunwa
No one suggests that the federal government be made useless as some think. It is proposed that the Presidency, the National Assembly, and the Federal courts will still have the final say and determine the overall direction of the nation’s affairs. However, here are some potentials of devolution to Nigeria;
1) States will have the right to determine their socioeconomic and political destinies.
2) States will determine how resources are owned and allocated
3) States will be responsible for production and can choose whatever economic system they deem is best for their people and then a portion of the state's proceeds will be remitted to the federal government as opposed to the federal government claiming all the state generated revenue and distributing to states as they see fit.
4) States will have their own police forces but not their own military. States will have their own educational system which of course will not be too far from the federal standard.
Although, some works of literature on the devolution of power have argued for reverse thrust organization, where the initiative, drive, and energy come mostly from the local units and the center takes a relatively low profile.
Switzerland is a good example of this principle at work; a country both peaceful and prosperous. Like the analogy of the inverted doughnut, to have a large doughnut the center must be made smaller. Therefore, the devolved unit has core requirements spelled out and have a lot of discretion in activities of the unit they lead.
Nigeria is a multicultural state with diverse ethnicities and religions and as such should be welcome to the idea of true federalism in order to accommodate these diversities. It is proposed that this will increase commitment and trust in the political system and a sense that the system is fair and inclusive. One of the arguments is that certain groups in the country are marginalized and neglected at the federal level.
It is believed that if power is given to the states then the fate of the people in that state is not largely determined by some person from another state who neither shares nor understands their struggles but would be in the hands of their kin. The proposers of this devolution solution have put the following as some of the benefits:
1) Devolution of power brings the government closer to the people which increase the chances of keeping their leaders accountable
2) Devolution will promote competition between states which will lead to economic growth.
3) The people of the states when left to determine their economic destiny will feel less marginalized.
4) Devolution will reduce the burden of governance on the federal government.
5) States that are known for low economic activity will be forced to awaken from their slumber and get to work as they can no longer depend on the federal government of allocations.
6) Interstate trade can be achieved as states will specialize in what they are best at producing and then trade with other states. This will also lead to mutual respect among states as everyone will have something to bring to the table.
In a federal decentralized system, they are other benefits for democracy. Lower levels of elective office can constitute an arena for training and recruit new political leaders, including women and young people who have not previously had a role in political life. And these lower levels of democracy provide a more accessible means for citizens to become active in public affairs: to question their local officials, monitor what they do, present their interests and concerns, and learn the skills and values of democratic citizenship.
Typically, it is difficult for most citizens and organizations to get access to the National Assembly or the federal ministries but in a decentralized system, access to leaders will be a less strenuous exercise.
Every adopted system has its merits and its demerits. Therefore, I do not suggest that federalism, or even decentralization of power, is without risks and dangers in a democratic setting. History has shown that they can be an abuse of power, where the local governments can become local lords, political bosses who do not care about the rights of the citizens. As local politicians become powerful, to rig elections and intimidate opposition, creating a one-party system at the local level, even if the national system remains politically competitive.
To prevent this problem the following must take place;
1) The constitution must be upheld to the letter and the national judicial system has to be superior to local authorities.
2) The federal security agents have the authority to investigate abuse of power, violations of rights, and charges of corruption in local government.
3) Violators must be held accountable in the national courts if they cannot be tried at the lower level.
4) All level of government below the central government shouldn’t be allowed to maintain their own arm force or be a concern with the matters of defense. That should be a national function.
Have a look what others Think about devolution in Nigeria
It is, therefore, necessary to create political institutions and to restructure government ensuring that those who are affected by a decision get a fair chance to participate in the decision-making process. Experience in Asia, Africa, former USSR and Yugoslavia teaches us that the failure of democracy was as a result of policies of inclusion and exclusion along ethnic lines where the minority are excluded from the decision-making process.
The proposal for devolution of power is of utmost importance to replace an outdated political system to suit the contemporary political and social constraints of a country. In the genuine attempt at national building, at this juncture, all Nigerians have to shed ethnicity and religion and think as Nigerians. The rights and privileges of all ethnic and religious groups have to be safeguarded.
As we clamor for restructuring, devolution of power among the communities, living in the country could be considered as enhancing our nationhood.
Closing up
As a Nigerian, with common concerns and aspiration; permit me a final reflection. There is a strong consensus that Nigeria should be unidentified and a democratic state, and that federalism or devolution of power in some important ways will provide an important means towards achieving our common goals. Remember that we have fought a civil war to hold our country together around basic principles of democracy, equality, and fairness. And, we have achieved this at a great cost.
Idongesit Udom is a freelance writer who studied International Relations in Wellspring University, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria. She studied Basic Conflict Management and Protection of Civilians (BCMC) at Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution National Academy, and also underwent Protection of Civilians (POC) at Martin Luther Agwai International Leadership and Peacekeeping Centre. She loves traveling, meeting new people and sharing ideas also love sprint
Connect via;
LinkedIn: Esit Udom
Follow us on
Twitter: @Majorpane1
Facebook: Newton Paul's Blog
Instagram: @Major4pane
Twitter: @Majorpane1
Facebook: Newton Paul's Blog
Instagram: @Major4pane
Got a suggestion for us?
E-mail: majorpanedmajorfactor@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment
Your comment can save a life...don't be selfish with it *winks*