Nnaoke Ufere, PhD
Nigeria’s diverse heritage, often hailed as a source of strength, has paradoxically hindered socio-political and economic advancement. The profound cultural, religious, and ethnic disparities, combined with the nation’s underwhelming performance over the past 64 years, raise pressing questions about the efficacy of our federal governance structure, which I discussed in a previous essay.
This brings up a crucial dilemma: Does the governance structure drive good leaders to behave poorly, or do poor leaders exploit the system? In other words, does the system shape the leader, or does the leader shape the system? Understanding this dynamic is key to addressing our governance challenges.
A qualitative analysis of Nigerian presidential tenure from 1960 to the present, conducted with 12 expert political scientists and historians, reveals that both effective and ineffective leaders have governed, yet outcomes remain poor. Experts attribute this to structural governance issues, institutional voids, and corruption fueled by the current federal system based on ethnic-religious lines.
The centralized governance structure creates incentives for harmful behaviors, concentrating power at the center and creating an environment ripe for exploitation. This perpetuates a cycle of poor governance, undermining progress, and exacerbating disparities.
The 36 states, dependent on a dysfunctional federal system, are trapped in a state of dependency, burdened by a bloated federal bureaucracy. This overcentralized system stifles innovation, impedes economic development, and hinders states’ potential to manage resources, ensure public safety, provide quality education, and promote cultural heritage.
To break this cycle, Nigeria needs a more decentralized approach, granting states autonomy to manage their affairs while a slimmed-down federal government focuses on national security, infrastructure, educational and administrative standards, the military, the Supreme Court, and other essential functions.
This underscores the need for a more functional and inclusive restructuring strategy, harnessing diversity as a strength, fostering shared citizenship, and addressing complex challenges. Various ethno-political groups, including the Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa/Fulani, have proposed restructuring frameworks or new governance models to address these issues.
What We Must Avoid
The recently proposed models, such as Dr. Akin Fapohunda’s 2024 “New Governance Model” and the 2018 “Ekwueme Square Declaration” by Ohanaeze Ndigbo, which advocate for restructuring, have several fatal flaws.
Firstly, they fail to clearly define the specific problems they aim to address, a crucial precursor to any meaningful solution.
Secondly, they prioritize structural reorganization over a well-defined strategy, which is a recipe for chaos. Thirdly, they are painfully convoluted, and their complexity entails a radical overhaul of the nation, making implementation and effectiveness uncertain.
Lastly, by forcing disparate tribes into artificial self-serving regions (e.g., Fapohunda’s model assigns three of the top oil-producing states to the Yoruba region), they risk institutionalizing and incubating the dangerous forces of ethno-fragmentation, potentially exacerbating the very divisions they seek to bridge.
Therefore, implementing the Fapohunda model, which President Tinubu is allegedly interested in, or the Ohanaeze Ndigbo declaration, would likely lead to chaos and uncertainty, destabilizing the country rather than providing a coherent and targeted solution to our nation’s challenges.
As I have consistently argued, the terms “restructuring” and “new governance model” are vague and nebulous, resembling a search for a problem to fit a preconceived solution—much like Panadol in search of a headache.
To achieve true unity, stability, security, and prosperity, Nigeria should consider a strategically constructed system with power-sharing arrangements. This system should grant greater autonomy to our 36 states within a constitutionally sanctioned three-tier government of federal, state and local levels.
This approach can help address the unique needs of each state while maintaining national cohesion and fostering a more inclusive and effective governance structure.
A Viable Path Forward: Competitive Federalism
To address Nigeria’s socio-political and economic challenges, I propose a comprehensive national reconstruction agenda termed “Competitive Federalism.” This model empowers each state to autonomously shape its economy, political structure, societal development, and institutional framework.
In this system, states will compete to attract resources and benefits, such as foreign investment, productive economies, quality educational systems, and safety, while avoiding costs like high unemployment and corruption.
Capital, businesses, and professionals will “vote with their feet” by moving to states or localities that best meet their interests. This competition will pressure state and local governments to retain and attract investment, residents, and businesses. For instance, Abia state might enhance its business attractiveness by reducing regulations and taxes and improving electricity supply and transportation infrastructure.
While there are concerns about potential drawbacks, such as wasteful tax incentives and reduced welfare spending, the advantages of competitive federalism outweigh these issues.
Benefits include greater fiscal discipline, high economic growth, high employment, lower poverty rates, safer communities, improved quality of life, better public service efficiency, more innovation, and positive competition as governments seek to attract and retain residents and businesses.
Several countries have successfully implement competitive federalism:
- United States: States manage their affairs autonomously, allowing them to govern independently from the federal government except when federal law or authority is involved. This autonomy enables states to compete on tax policies, capital formation, public safety, educational quality, infrastructure, housing, regulatory environments, and business incentives to attract companies and residents. This level of independence fosters innovation and allows states to tailor their policies to better suit their unique economic and social landscapes.
- Germany: The Länder (federal states) have significant autonomy and compete in areas like education, business incentives, and infrastructure development.
- Switzerland: Cantons have a high degree of autonomy and compete on tax rates and regulatory frameworks, promoting economic competitiveness.
- Australia: States and territories have significant powers and compete in areas such as education, health, and economic policies to attract residents and businesses.
- Canada: Provinces compete in areas like healthcare, education, and tax policies to attract residents and businesses.
- India: States have significant powers and compete for investment, industrial development, and infrastructure projects to promote economic growth.
- Brazil: States enjoy substantial autonomy and actively compete to attract foreign investment, promote tourism, and improve public services, fostering a dynamic competitive environment.
- Mexico: States compete for businesses and investment through tax incentives, regulatory reforms, and infrastructure projects, creating a vibrant economic landscape where regional advantages are leveraged.
These countries leverage the competitive nature of their federal units (states) to drive innovation, economic growth, and improved governance.
Our existing federal governance structure is flawed and unsustainable, fostering a system where individuals and groups exploit and rely on others for their benefit. This dysfunctional framework stifles innovation, individual creativity, entrepreneurial spirit, competitiveness, economic growth, and social unity.
What We Must Do
To implement this new agenda, we must amend the existing constitution to:
- Grant full autonomy to the 36 states and the federal capital territory. Empower states by law to manage their affairs without federal interference, unless specifically defined.
- Grant states significant authority over the natural resources within its boundaries, extending up to 5 miles offshore. This includes resources such as oil and gas, metals, minerals, and water. States rich in natural resources will remit a resource value tax to the federal government to support national initiatives. Beyond the 5-mile limit, the federal government will control and manage extractive resources.
- Grant states the primary responsibility for local criminal issues by establishing their own policing bodies, such as state police or highway patrol units. State-specific law enforcement will enforce the distinct laws of each state. States will have the power to legislate on a wide range of issues that are not specifically reserved to the federal government by the Constitution, including public safety and most criminal laws. The federal government will be responsible for enforcing national laws and managing issues that cross state boundaries or impact the entire country. This includes areas such as terrorism, interstate crime, and constitutional law matters.
- Establish a slimmed-down federal government responsible for:
- National security
- Federal infrastructure
- Common legal standards
- Upper courts (federal appeals and supreme courts)
- Settlement of boundary disputes
- Military
- Coordinating and Standards agencies and ministries to ensure compliance to federal standards across all states.
- Privatize all federal government-owned enterprises and educational institutions, including federal universities, colleges, and polytechnics, through a competitive and transparent market-based process.
- Establish a 5-year transition period to implement this new national restructuring in a new constitution.
- Provide technical and administrative support to states where capacity is inadequate.
- Designate certain states for grandfather rights, exempting them from immediate implementation. These states include Enugu, Kano, Plateau, Katsina, Bauchi, Yobe, Borno, Zamfara, Jigawa, and Kebbi, granting them a 5-year transitional period to adjust to the new autonomy.
This exemption acknowledges their current capacity limitations (human capital index measure) and economic conditions (GDP per capita measure), enabling them to strengthen their institutions and gradually take on the responsibilities and benefits of autonomy, ensuring a smoother transition and sustainable development.
Conclusion
By acknowledging our differences and leveraging our similarities, we can unite Nigeria by dividing it. This restructuring framework offers a path forward for a more autonomous, peaceful, and prosperous Nigeria. We must embrace this new vision for Nigeria, one that celebrates our diversity and promotes unity in diversity.
