Restructuring or Good Governance? — Analysis of a Debate between Atiku and Osinbajo
The debate on restructuring has become a political selling point for politicians who are seeking to hold ground. It is the most discussed issue in the tabernacle of Nigerian politics. Yet, the battle for a common treatment for the national structural ailment continues. The latest conversation between a former Vice President of Nigeria and a sitting Vice President appears to be a war of words between the two political leaders. Interesting!
It could be recalled that Osinbajo stated while fielding questions from a cross-section of Nigerians at a town hall meeting with Nigerians in Minnesota, USA, that, “prudent management of national resources and providing for the people properly, are better ideas for Nigeria’s development challenges, than geographic restructuring.” This did not go well with Alhaji Atiku who opined that “the federal structure is so complex with a very strong centre that it has succeeded in accumulating many responsibilities, and along with these, huge resources, which belong to the other levels of government.” The question that keeps punching the heart of many Nigerians is why Atiku was silent on the issue of restructuring throughout his eight years as Vice President. Restructuring is the latest lyrics on the lips of Atiku to gain the support of some political merchants to support his presidential ambition.
Restructuring is way bigger than the condensed points Atiku made about it. The issue is surrounded with a number of national questions. These questions must be adequately answered before another structure could be adopted for the country. If not, the problem Nigeria is experiencing today will persist even if we adopt another system or form of government. Many do not know that this issue about structural change goes beyond mere pronouncement — it is not lips service, it must incur dedication, patriotism and commitment to nation building.
The political future of the country as one indivisible nation is not negotiable. But, the incessant disputes about Nigerian Federalism calls for attention. The questions over Federal Character and Fiscal Federalism ought to be addressed. Granting more powers to States and Local Governments may not be adequate to address the gymnastics of current issues. Restructuring of the nation’s political structure shouldn’t form part of cheap political points. Osinbajo was right when he said restructuring “is about managing resources properly and providing for the people properly.” If nothing guarantees that devolution of powers will ensure accountability, prudent management of resources and proper care for the people, then, it is too early to restructure the political arrangement of the country.
Minding the fact that there is a broad consensus amongst Nigerians that our federation has been dysfunctional, more centrist, and not delivering public goods to the generality of people, the problem emanated from mismanagement of our significant natural resource endowments — human and mineral resources. If we should rewrite the 1999 Constitution to change the current structure and all the institutions of governance at the Federal, State and Local levels, it will still remain impossible to change the people that will control and manage the resources at the regional levels. The people will not be replaced by Americans or Chinese. Some political leaders are corrupt, not the institutions or structures of government. We have weird leaders. This makes the issue of corruption the first to tackle while thinking of restructuring. Our mindset must first be restructured.
The GDP annual growth rate in Nigeria averaged 3.87 percent from 1982 until it reached an all-time high of 19.17 percent in the fourth quarter of 2004, during Atiku’s second term as Vice President. That provided an opportunity for Atiku and his government to sustain the economy and make other sectors of the economy efficient and viable, but we are all aware how his government squandered the opportunity for self-reasons. For Atiku to call for restructuring of the economy towards a more diversified structure means he has not been following events and happenings in the polity. The diversification of Nigerian economy remains one of the priorities of Buhari-led administration. Nigerian economy can be classified broadly into the oil and non-oil sectors. Broadly speaking, growth in Q2 2018 was driven by developments in the non-oil sector as Services sector recorded its strongest positive growth. In fact, going by the latest details released by the National Bureau of Statistics, the Nigerian non-oil sector grew by 2.05% in the second quarter of 2018 while the oil sector shrank 4.0 percent. This indicates that the call by Atiku is late considering the fact that the economic diversification of the economy is already detailed in the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan of the current Government. After the nation exited recession, the non-oil sector contributed 92.83 percent to the growth of GDP as opposed to the oil sector, which contributed 7.10 percent. The former Vice President should be reminded that the growth wouldn’t have been possible if the government of President Muhammadu Buhari is not following the path of full economy diversification.
Every economic and socio-political situation during Atiku’s regime has its beneficiaries and victims. Atiku’s stance on privatization is the highest expression of hypocrisy, he gave his idea about economic restructuring as “privatisation of unviable federal Government-owned assets and a free market economy driven by the laws of demand and supply.” The structural reform of the Nigerian economy that Atiku is asking for is to promote deregulation and liberalization. If adequate caution is not taken, it may become another version of the failed Structural Adjustment Programme which was lured on Nigeria in the 1980s. The obvious effect that may not be revealed to many about privatization and economic deregulation is the danger it poses against the majority and more vulnerable segments of the Nigerian society. Free and open market is good, but we shouldn’t forget that the transitioning stage will witness retrenchment of public-service workers, reduction on social service spending (health, education, and public housing) and removal of subsidies on farm inputs etc.
Atiku’s administration spent $10bn on NIPP with no results in terms of increase in power generation. $13.278,937,409.94 was also expended on the power sector in eight years while he was in office. His government then budgeted a whopping N16bn for various reforms (2003 to 2007) which went down the drains as it failed to generate the needed amount of electricity or meet the set goals. Beyond promises, the issue of restructuring (economic or political) is not something someone can rush, any one that is attempting it must establish credibility, fairness, and social trust.
In Atiku’s campaign for restructuring, he says if elected he will provide “matching grants from the Federal Government to the States to help them grow their internally generated revenue position.” This contradicts the position of a former Vice President who is asking for a breakaway from the current feeding bottle style of Federalism, i.e. vesting more powers in the States and granting Local Governments autonomy. If he’s planning to do that then it’s also an extension of the current strong-centered Federal structure that shares out monthly allocation to States. I strongly agree with Professor Yemi Osinbajo that what we require now is not restructuring but good governance, honest management of public resources, deeper fiscal federalism, and a clear vision for development. These are the four corners of good governance. The quest for restructuring will become silent if the government continues to invest in all lives and all sections of the society. Above all, the hallmark of good governance is prudence in handling public treasury.
Ojooluwa Ibiloye, a Political Analyst writes from Abuja.
