Thoughts on the proposed regional government in Nigeria, By Bolutife Oluwadele

The Nigerian regional system was once a beautiful political structure that governed every facet of Nigerian life. This structure successfully held sway in the West, North, and East until 1966. It began to disintegrate after the coup that led to the assassination of its prime minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and other prominent Premiers and politicians. Today, this government falters even in the eastern part of the country, where it was most influential. I have my thoughts on the proposed regional government in Nigeria and lay out the advantages and disadvantages of changing the present system.

The proposed regional government would implement self-determination for constituent political regions and provide a voice for each state. This system would allow every region to elect its representative lawmaker. Everyone would have a right to vote as voters in their respective regions participate in decision-making. However, there would be a national leader who would supervise or oversee the activities of each state. These national leaders would work together in harmony and contribute to the country’s growth. But how will this structure function?

The three major regions, namely, Western, Eastern, and Northern regions, have long obeyed the government’s written constitution and enjoyed self-rule. The traditional institutions in each region would maintain their structures at a state level, but this would not negate the unity between the northern and southern elites. All government agencies in the regions would focus on developing the states they serve.

Since the federal government has invested in the state’s economic development, many jobs will be secured. Evidently, if elected officials in every region supported the ruling party, they would all work together to develop their respective states. Additionally, the issues affecting each state would be addressed at the state level rather than referred to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. These changes will enhance the judiciary\, constitutional and legal growth of the states if they heed the advice of their respective rulers. Each region would bring the best out of its culture, and this would contribute to the success of the Federated States of Nigeria.

However, a few risks might arise from this new arrangement.

 Nigeria’s current governance format has received much criticism, and box offices of proposed reforms are not as relevant as the current discussion about transforming to a regional government. A multi-ethnic and multi-religious country of more than 200 million people, over 250 ethnic groups and multitudinous different cultural identities, Nigeria’s configuration of governance is a scandal of the country’s diversity but also a curse to the challenges of its political and economic development. Despite its stated objectives of decentralisation of power and fostering unity, the present format of a federal government has been flared as a curse to efficiency, corruption and unequal/disparate development of states.

One response to these problems has been to advocate a return to decentralised regional forms of government. They think this would offer the positive qualities of more tailored governance and healthy competition between regions and so promise to reduce ethnic tensions. Opponents have countered that movement toward more facility-based regional administration would almost certainly lead to greater regional inequality, create onerous administrative burdens, and threaten national unity.

 However, the critical theoretical question that needs to be answered is: Would such a shift bring about the collapse or absorption of the 36-state structure into more homogenous short-of-federal regions, or would Nigeria transform her government structure into four-layers, made up of federal, regional, state and local?** For instance, the answer will provide the clue to whether state and local governments will be gobbled up by the new region or the Oodua region will comprise the south-west being taken out of the present six-state structure, as well as some other states, while representing an arm of the central or federal government; or how each of the three modern regions will align her strength on the floor of the House of Representatives and the senate; or will Osun, which is now a state, be absorbed by O’dua or a region considering all these factors?

 This article serves the purpose of assessing the feasibility of shifting Nigeria’s system of governance structure into a regional government system by investigating and comparing its positive and negative aspects equally. The article also examines the significant role of the current structure of the states in determining the inherent possibility of this shift in arrangement and the ease or otherwise the demographic groups find it to merge. In light of these, I will, in conclusion, examine the effects the existing arrangement is having on governance, development and national cohesion and argue that with luck, this regional government arrangement stands to offer more benefits than drawbacks but must be thought out carefully so not to consolidate the problems of the country.

The Impact of the Current State Structure on the Proposed Regional Government

 The introduction of the state structure, which was meant to expand the government to the population and reduce the influence of big regions, thereby reducing ethnic and regional marginalization and domination, introduced these problems at the cost of certain gains, some of which have a direct bearing on the possibility of a system of regional governments.

1. 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 reorganization, 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.

2. 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. 

3. 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 localized 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. 

4. 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 colonization 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 organization. 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

1. 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.

2. Reduction of Ethnic Tensions

 The ethnic diversity of Nigeria is indeed an asset and a challenge. People often feel marginalised by the overly centralised power of the system, particularly those who believe that their needs still need to be met on a federal level. A regional government system will help to reduce ethnic tensions by providing each region with its own set of affairs, which can be handled independently from the federal government. Each region can provide for its own cultural, religious and linguistic needs.

3. Economic Development and Competition

Another essential benefit of regional government is that it could drive economic development based on competition between regions. Under a regionalised system, each government controls resources, competes to attract investments, and sets policies to encourage local economies. It could spur healthy competition between the regions to best each other on issues such as industrialisation, education and infrastructure development. 

4. Better Governance and Accountability

 A responsive government can be closer to the people when it is geographically decentralized, which makes it easier to be accountable. A system of regional governments could take some of the ‘big power’ out of the central state and give local leaders more leeway to respond to local constituents’ priorities. It also means those local leaders might be personally accountable to the people they oversee. Just as local governments are less likely to steal money from their constituents through election-rigging schemes, they can also be held to account for how their budgets are spent.

5. Preservation of Cultural Identity

 The cultural heterogeneity of Nigeria provides another reason to adopt a regional mode of government: having an organized regional governance system can help conserve and promote the different cultural heritages of a country. This is partly because regions can act as a buffer against tendencies for homogenization that centralisation of government encourages. Jeopardising regionally specific norms and practices discourages efforts at cultural self-expression and self-development (examples include the conservation of such virtues as piety towards the aging, respect for the dead and reviewing one’s mortality by regularly visiting grave sites, and interest in traditional music). At the same time, they could focus more on tourism and cultural pride. This would mean more opportunity for regions to cultivate diverse profiles, for one seldom celebrates what one fails to preserve.

 Demerits of Regional Government

1. Risk of Disintegration

While shifting to regional government might foster autonomy, one of the principal dangers would be disintegration. Nigeria’s tenuous unity has been evident since independence, and regional differences have often provoked agitations for secession or greater autonomy. A move to regional government might encourage separatist sentiments and foster an even greater risk of Nigeria’s fracturing. 

2. Uneven Development

A major concern with regional governments is the possibility of uneven development. Places rich in natural resources or cabling themselves into a sector that generates high tax revenues, such as industry, can thrive on this basis while others are left behind. The role of the federal system today is to flatten out resource differences between states, where an even distribution between citizens is the goal. The regional government could make inequality worse.

3. Increased Administrative Costs

 The shift to regional government could boost administration expenses, largely because separate regional governments with respective legislatures, executive branches, and judiciaries are needed because Nigeria is heavily challenged economically.

4. Potential for Corruption

 Although decentralisation may, in principle, increase accountability, it could also provide fresh opportunities for corruption: regional leaders could use their new prerogatives for private gain, especially in resource-rich regions. The ‘new money’ can create powerful incentives.

5. Weakening of National Unity

 A move towards regional government could also corrode the national solidarity that Nigeria has sought to foster since independence. A unitary system, even dysfunctional, promotes a common national identity and an ethos of interstate collaboration. A regional government system could lead regions to pursue parochial agendas at the expense of national ones.

Conclusion

To sum up, the regional government issue in Nigeria is now topical and crucial to the nation, which has a tough political landscape and needs an effective governance system. While the regional government can have several advantages – including greater regional autonomy, reduced ethnic tensions, economic competition and improved accountability – it can also initiate the beginning of Nigeria’s disintegration. Other risks could be uneven economic development, higher bureaucratic costs and massive corruption.

The big question is whether the regional government will see the collapse of the existing structure of Nigerian states into regions or a four-tier government structure with federal, regional, state and local tiers. If states are merged into regions, Nigerian governance would be more streamlined and less cumbersome – and more susceptible to political explosion, as those in political power and patronage at the state level don’t want to see that compromised. Or the structure of the states could be kept while regions are also introduced. This would be bureaucratically more complicated and require a drain of resources but might be more politically palatable.

The success of any emergent political restructuring in Nigeria lies in its ability to navigate this transition and find a middle ground between regional autonomy and national unity. It requires bricolage: planning amid natural, human, financial, and other constraints, constitutional amendments, and clear demarcation between levels of government is necessary to build robust institutions and ensure that administrative services are not split between regions and levels of governance.

 Whether regional government – not one-size-fits-all – can succeed in Nigeria remains an open question. It depends on whether Nigerian leaders and the populace can overcome the challenge of improving the well-being of the country’s thousands of ‘strangers’ and continue to prioritize the common good over regional or ethnic interests. Nigeria must find a path to development and unity and foster a future in which all the regions and all the states truly benefit from living together.

Bolutife Oluwadele is an author, chartered accountant and public policy scholar based in Canada. Email: bolutife.oluwadele@gmail.com