Letter to Obasanjo on Council Reform and Other Matters

d. comparative tenures of elected and appointed local authority officials; e. status of local authority officials - independence or surrogacy; f. relatedly, stability of local authorities as permitted by both the central and respective state governments, and assessed impact on performance levels; g. to what extent, if any, have the central and state governments, especially the latter, offered technical assistance to, or interchanged with, the local authorities in order to help build capacity, as originally envisaged?

h. to what extent, if any, and under what plan frames, have the central and state governments implemented policies or strategies to spur performance by local authorities in priority areas in accord with national objectives, and what is the feedback of experience?

In result, it can be rightly argued that - in the post civil war period, but particularly in the past decade - not only is the observed poor performance of the local authorities not peculiar to that tier of governance, but, even more importantly, that failure can be attributed to a combination of factors outside their competence, key amongst which are the direct and indirect preemptions, interference and obstructionism of the central and state authorities as well as the adverse impacts of the instabilities generated by those two tiers. From a planning perspective, federal and state leadership in the design, implementation and monitoring of development programmes has been singularly lacking; not surprisingly, this policy failure coincides with the downgrading of the planning agency at all levels. In the circumstances, at best government machinery at all levels can only enjoy drift and eventual decay.

On the high cost of governments, Mr President has well noted that the number of local authorities has more than doubled from 310 in 1976 to the 774 listed in the 1999 Constitution, "yet the clamour for the creation of more LGAs has not abated," with "over 500 new LGAs" "in the process of being created by various State Governments." Accordingly, Mr President is concerned that the available resources "which otherwise should be used for development programmes at the grassroots are being used to service bloated elected officials and unproductive bureaucracies."

I fully share Mr President's concern. Besides, the wisdom of specification and embedding of the local authorities in a constitutional document is debatable, given the need for flexibility, regional variation and growth orientation. But then that Constitution is a military specification foisted on Nigerians. More to the point, it is not only at the third tier that the number of distinct authorities with their bureaucracies has increased. As Mr President observed, "the number of states has tripled from 12 to 36 without addition of land area to Nigeria." The elevation of the former provinces into glorified states as the second tier of government, and the consequent fractionalization of the former four regional governments - on the basis of a false theorem, as must now be evident, and significantly in the context of relatively large oil revenues - was a game of political football played by the sequence of military regimes in which you, Mr President, were a major figure. You may also recall that the military's political football with state creation found a natural extension in the creation of more local authorities - all "in response to the legitimate demands and aspirations of the people". Civilian governors and financial and political entrepreneurs, feeling empowered and oblivious of development objectives, can hardly be expected to resist playing their football league.

The key point, however, is that by 1980 it was clear to any rational observer that, not only was the state creation formula deficient of sound basis and in fairness, but, even more importantly, states as a tier of government had become essentially irrelevant to the lives of our people and in the development process. If anything, states had become veritable drainpipes on the public purse and helped to launch the country into unprogrammed foreign borrowing: as at July 1987, out of an outstanding debt stock of $US19.69 billion, states accounted for 16.22 per cent ; if we exclude trade arrears, this share rises to 28 per cent. As is well known, most of the referent projects were of doubtful utility, viability and even of existence - a matter on which Mr President has had cause to comment.

At all events, the high cost of governments is not peculiar to local authorities: the central and state governments have greater guilt burdens. Indeed, considering their predominant shares from the Federation Account, and their attested difficulties in generating adequate recurrent surpluses for transfer to capital account, these two tiers, especially the central government, should be castigated for wasting "resources available which otherwise should be used for (financing) development programmes."

The effort to correct this sad state of affairs provided a major impetus for the project on Monetization of Fringe Benefits and the proposals to limit the numbers of ministries and also for rationalization (load shedding) of the bureaucracy, notably at the first and second tiers. For example, on monetization, with regard to accommodation, it was proposed that:

* At the federal level, accommodation should only be provided for the President, Vice-President and ten other senior officials whom the President needs for the day-to-day running of government and may so designate;

* At the state level, official accommodation should be provided for only the Governor and Deputy Governor.

As Mr President is aware, the runaway growth of recurrent expenditure has sharply accelerated, largely on account of escalation in the number of ministers, advisory corps, legislators, supporting bureaucracies and overheads, petty hangers-on and thugs - all maintained by the public treasury - particularly at the federal and state levels. At the federal level, at the last count, there were some 39 ministers and 76 special advisers and assistants for the President and the Vice-President. Half those numbers, in my view, would still be excessive, particularly in our dire circumstances. Instructive comparisons may be made with other countries. No requisite load-shedding or sensible redeployment policy had been implemented. Admittedly, it may be considered politically difficult to implement such policies in a democratic setting, especially from a short-run strategy. But then it is precisely in such matters that political acumen and sound economic management can be tested. The pointers are contrary to expectations and disquieting: explosion of recurrent expenditure at the first and second tiers of government and further preemption of local authority funds howsoever contrived.

The argument of near prohibitive cost of electioneering campaigns will be considered further below. For now, it suffices to observe that local council elections have not yet held. Thus it would not be fair to blame this level for the observed prohibitive cost of campaigns, although it must be admitted that they bear their due share in consideration of the preparations which were underway.

I agree with Mr President on the deleterious consequences of fractionalization of local authority areas, and I have elsewhere commented on this sad development. The present fragmentation contributes in no small measure to the blight and suffocation everywhere of our village communities, towns, and growth centres, and to the degradation of the environment in both town and country. Certainly, there is need to stem and reverse this noxious development, to encourage the formulation and implementation of integrated development plans while allowing for diversity, coherent system management rather than the present fragmentation, and for system managers to engage in emulous competition, to take pride in their accomplishments and to seek mayoralty status. But the correct solution is not to be found in targeting this tier for reform.

For example, the central and state governments have grossly and continually interfered in (what should be properly) the competency areas of local authorities by their direct roles (whether in the provision of water boreholes, clinics, housing, markets/shopping plazas, elementary schools, traffic policemen/wardens) or indirectly by their preemptions. These preemptions would need to cease and the direct roles should be firmly reduced. At the same time, municipal and local authorities should have their roles increased so as to enhance the social relevance of government at the local/community level where the problems are felt, chiefly in:

(a) formulation and enforcement of sound guidelines in the planning, zoning and management of human settlements; (b) provision of requisite infrastructure prior to, and in, any human settlement of a certain minimum size; (c) broadening their resource base by patronizing the domestic capital market (not by levying a multiplicity of unwarranted oppressive taxes); and (d) certain institutional reforms.

At the same time it is necessary that, while solving today's environmental and developmental problems, we should identify and provide for future demands, including subsystems impact analyses, achievement of balance, optimal utilization of resources, future oriented strategies, development of depressed areas - all within a regional development context. This urgent endeavour would require the marshalling of the efforts of all tiers of government and all our various communities. Accordingly, we have at least to determine the optimal distribution of constitutional functions between the three tiers of government and its realignment with resource distribution. Obviously, the constitutional revisit cannot be accomplished as a partial analysis.

High Cost of Electioneering Campaigns

Mr President has well observed that the "cost of electioneering campaigns had attained disturbing proportions, judging from our recent experiences during the last general elections". It is important, therefore, to sensibly limit the cost of election campaigns to both individuals and political parties. An alternative system of funding election campaigns could conceivably produce this result. But the main objective must be a robust monitorable, enforceable law. Such a law should effectively limit contributions to political parties by individuals, organizations and groups, and election campaign expenditures by candidates, political parties and affiliated organizations, and be backstopped with the necessary political will and institutional enablements to guarantee compliance, notwithstanding the artifices and skirtings devised by politicians.

However, such an alternative system does not necessitate "an arrangement where the political parties, rather than individuals, canvass for votes in elections." The novel arrangement, which I take it is under consideration, will clearly not have the benefits claimed for it. The "predatory pressures of the electorate", although deplorable, is not the problem in the present context. The real problem here is the predatory pressures of the union of chieftains, puppeteers, buccaneers, social parasites, so-called godfathers, fixers, goons, the coercive forces of the state - the "pressure groups," in Mr President's euphemism - "within and between political parties" to which individuals (not restricted to declared candidates) would become fully exposed. Such powerful pressure groups, incorporating legitimation, "would make the administration of the guidelines for the control and monitoring of campaign funds" not "easier" but a nullity. That is also the lesson of experience. Any doubt in this regard will be dispelled by reflection on our national experience, in particular, Election 2003 and the unfolding drama.

Worse still, the proposed novel arrangement would strike down the very foundations of democracy and representative government and constitute a retrograde step. For even under the colonial master we had our Houses of Representatives and Assembly comprising members who canvassed for our votes and whom we elected. In a democracy the people are entitled to know those individuals seeking to be their future representatives/delegates, to have those individuals present themselves to the public and canvass their ideas and programmes with the people, and thus (definitionally) seek the vote (mandate) of the people to represent them. Otherwise, a monstrosity could develop: the people may find themselves presumably represented by an idiot, a monkey or a box. If present experience is a pointer, then under the proposed scheme at best full-blown gangsterism and instability would become the characteristics of political-social life.

Let me now comment briefly on the Terms of Reference (TOR).

TOR (i): Examine the problem of inefficiency and high cost of governance with a view to reducing costs and wastages at the three tiers of government.

Comment: This clearly is a global issue since it concerns all three tiers. Besides, with due respect to the eminent panelists, there is no natural enablement, save chance, permitting "experts on local government affairs drawn from all the geographical zones of the country" to advise competently on this issue.

TOR (ii): Review the performance of local governments within the last four years and consider the desirability or otherwise of retaining the local government as the third tier of government. In that regard consider, among other options, the adoption of a modified version of the pre-1976 local government system of government.

Comment: a) The range of experience within which they are supposed to review performance may be too short for any useful insight.

b) As has been indicated, a correct solution can only be obtained in a global context by determining the optimal distribution of functions, aligned with the optimal allocation of resources between the three tiers, with the non-retention of any tier as a type of extreme case.

c) Mentioning "among other options, the adoption of a modified version of the pre-1976 local government system of government" is too suggestive to the Technical Committee and hints at pre-determination of output.

d) Why look back and selectively to pre-1976? Should we not be more creative and devise an enduring optimally adaptive system that will serve us well through the early current twenty-first century and considerably beyond through the next? That is a challenge for us.

e) Is it not odd that while a military administration nurtured local authorities, and another constitutionally guaranteed "the system of local governments by democratically elected local government councils," today presumably democratically elected central and state governments have not only blocked the operation of democratically elected local councils but are now querying the necessity for their very existence?

TOR (iii): Examine the high cost of electioneering campaign in the country and consider among other options, the desirability of whether political parties, rather than individual office seekers, should canvass for votes in elections.

Comment: I have already commented on this above. Again, the two issues entailed are global or macro in nature. At any rate, they go well beyond the competence of experts in local government. As with the previous item, the reform proposed on political parties, rather than individuals, canvassing for votes is too suggestive to the committee. Would it not have been better to allow the committee to attempt its optimal determination and thus output options? Or has the matter been foreclosed?

Comment: Although this is of the usual catch-all variety appended to terms of reference, some remarks are in order. The contextual "goal of efficient structure of governance in Nigeria" is explicitly stated, rather than the more limited goal of "efficient system of local government in Nigeria." This specification confirms that the objective context is global.

This is endorsed by Mr President's earlier stipulation that the "Technical Committee would review the structure of governance in Nigeria and make appropriate recommendations for the review of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999".

The task before the committee needs to be spelled out more carefully, otherwise the committee may suffer drift.

I note that twice in his broadcast Mr President made mention of the concurrence of the Council of State. May I respectfully submit that the Council of State has no locus in the matter - the amendment of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. They may, of course, be misdirected to believe the contrary. The Constitution, whatever its defects, is the supreme law of the land and must guide the President and the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary. Mr President may of course initiate national discussions or a bill in the National Assembly in consonance with Section 9, Chapter 1, Part 11. But, to my mind, prudence would dictate that alongside any such proposed step there must be set, as a companion, estimates of the probable gains in view, the costs direct and indirect, and judgements regarding the aptness of the timing and the modality - all in the context of an exigency ordering of national priorities.

In concluding his broadcast, Mr President said, among other things: "These are moments of tough and uneasy decisions. They are moments of fundamental reforms and changes necessary to facilitate our march to greatness and we must have the courage and firmness to initiate them and follow through..." I could not agree more. The question, however, has to be asked: Is local council reform, or even the broader set of reforms hinted at by Mr President, so fundamental and such that its absence would preclude our march to greatness? Frankly, I think not.

Structurally, the preponderant mass of our citizenry, who are rural dwellers, account for Nigeria's resiliency. Accordingly, political stability, social peace and material progress would be better guaranteed in Nigeria if the central and state governments, while soundly managing their own subsystems, ensure that there is installed a stable local government system that meets the needs and aspirations of the people.

As regards the observed corruption at the grassroots, it can be rightly argued that this degeneracy in fact percolated from the top of the national social tree down to the roots - clearly, as regards its level and intensity as well as the power distribution and provenance of elements. Indeed, local government officials are the nominees and surrogates of state and federal puppeteers, so-called godfathers, who position them in the local councils for the express purpose of pre-empting funds and manipulating institutional processes. It follows on the developing cynicism of the people and the manifest corruption, indeed brigandage, of the poor sequence of leadership at the first and second tiers of governance and their agents in society who have demonstrably lived and implemented policies that inculcate the lesson: productive endeavour does not pay; money, stupendous amounts of money, can be made without productive endeavour. This novel but false theorem is today operative at an all-time high and society-wide. However, the simple truth, Mr President, is that until this lesson is firmly reversed there can be no progress. Progress can only be realized when the complex of rules point clearly, for all citizens without exception, to the objective fact (and law of socio-economic progress) that productive endeavour does pay, money should not and must not be made without working, and stimulates them to engage in such productive endeavours in socio-economic transformation and to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills.

Mr. President, the socio-economic predicament of the country and its citizens, amidst unprecedented oil revenues particularly, is very parlous. I have had occasion to comment on this sad development elsewhere, and will not here go over the ground. As Mr President is doubtless aware, we have now arrived at the point where a proposal to stem immiseration, and improve the welfare and growth of Nigeria and her citizens by distributing petroleum revenues directly and equally to the citizens, thus bypassing the government and eliminating fiscal linkage with the Treasury and the corrosive influence of rents and corruption, has been tabled, as a working paper, for discussion at the IMF. The relevant point here is not the practicality of the proposal as much as the sad commentary on the government, the leadership and public officials.

I believe that there are more pressing urgent reform areas than the local authority system, and these should command the attention of Mr President and the intellect, enterprise and abundant energies of all our diverse peoples, which should be rekindled. Without presuming to set an agenda for your administration, purely for illustrative purposes, I attach separately two pages on a suggested internal reorganization enterprise. Successful completion of the entailed work programme would positively transform Nigeria and firmly set our dear country on a path of rapid self-development, as your experts can confirm. Besides, Mr President, I believe that the timing and setting are inauspicious. For it would merely overheat the already overcharged political-social environment, expressly in the light of the doubtful legitimacy of the administration, the unfolding political drama, the aborting of preparations underway by the grassroots elements for local council elections and the counterforce of pent-up frustrations.

Mr. President, this is a time for healing, for the urgent creation of a new amity and for prudence in system management, so that Nigeria can find her true internal dynamic and re-embark on a stable adjustment process. There will of course be the temptation and pressures to strive to "create Nigeria in one's image," and some vested interests will no doubt exert influence in this direction. But given the present fragility of society and the intensifying state of hyperpreatorian disorderliness, I see no utility in this direction.

Let me now try to pool the main trends. Little blame, if any, can be laid at the doorstep of the local authority system as such for the real and perceived ills of society. The central and state governments are fully to blame for their meddlesomeness and preemptions of resources and activity areas, for the instabilities they generate directly and indirectly in the local authority system, for the sustenance of unbridled rent-seeking and corruption in society, for their lack of vision, leadership and technical assistance to the local authorities. As regards the reform being arranged, the process which the President has broached of limited constitutional amendment itself is too cumbersome, and it will probably generate much unnecessary political heat and consume precious resources of at least time and energy. Moreover, it is likely to prove illusory despite the overwhelming majority of the ruling party, the PDP; indeed, that party may well fragment in the process.

Warranted reform of the local authority system should flow, not from a partial or shambolic analysis, but more appropriately from a coherent determination of the optimal structure of governance in the country, including optimal allocation of tier functions and fiscalization. As I see it, this is a task for a wholesale constitutional review with delegates specifically deputed for the purpose. Perhaps, I should clarify further, particularly in view of the current state.

Mr. President, I sincerely believe that after thirty years of military superintendence and trains of constitutional flaws, Nigerians are entitled to draw up a constitution for themselves without directives, specifications or alterations by the military and their associates or any overlordship. All matters that have generated much unfortunate heat and or are likely to do so - including but not limited to issues of the extent and structure of federalism, the economic framework, the structure of defence and security, revenue derivation and allocation principle, religion and the state, bases and entitlements of citizenship and residency status, monetary organization and management, marginalization - must be brought to a National Conference of all Nigerians with full constituent powers. Delegates should be freely and democratically chosen by their people and specifically deputed to the Conference. The President, or the National Assembly or the Governors or the State Assemblies, contrary to some views, would not appoint them. Where the current legislators, Governors, President and any other elected officials feel that they want to be conference delegates they can resign their seats and seek the support of their people. Obviously, any attempt to prove a false theorem by tampering with the democratic process to produce a pre-cast slate of delegates will vitiate the process, as with the last general elections.

Perhaps, it may be helpful if I explicitly note the rather obvious. Federalism, as a name for what now exists and what we have been practising since 1970, is a misnomer. More to the point, as I have elsewhere elaborated for over two decades, over-centralization, such as we have, is a source of destabilization: too much power, too much money in the hands of the central government and relatively too little power and scant resources in the hands of the other tiers of governance, where the problems are felt, is a source of destabilization. Particularly in the context of significant petroleum resources, the enormous rents they generate, and the failure of macroeconomic policy to banish the instrumentality of economic rents, this shock is more intense. For then there would be at least the combination of turbulence from direct inflows to the treasury, the pure corrosive effects of rents and corruption, and shocks from interminable struggles for control of the state by ubiquitous rent-seeking economic agents.